Re: work times & accommodation @tokyo, WAS: Re: [tlug] Embedded linux dev wanting to find work in Tokyo.. Seeking advice.

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:
 > On 2008-07-21 17:26 +0900 (Mon), jim grisanzio wrote:
 > 
 > > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > >
 > >> True in a sense, but I don't think you understand Japan or the
 > >> Japanese very well yet; it's not a matter of stupidity, here.
 > >
 > > ...
 > > Fortunately, I'm much smarter now and can rationally and proudly
 > > reject the systems that lead such horrible experiences. Not fully
 > > understanding Japan is a completely separate issue.
 > 
 > Actually, that you can imply that Japanese should "proudly reject the
 > systems that lead [to] such horrible experiences" just shows how you
 > don't understand Japan. The implication of doing that here is to face
 > the risk of never making enough money to start a family, get married, or
 > even move out into your own apartment.

Another problem is that you'll have to socialize yourself around
something other than work, and for men in Japan, there are few
honorable role models for that.

 > Japan has no lack of people who do reject the ridiculous work ethic, but
 > I encourage you to look up the "freeters" entry on Wikipedia to see what
 > they're really facing.

+1

 > > Personally, I'm interested finding more efficient ways to work so
 > > I can increase the value of my work while reducing the hours I
 > > work. To me this is basic engineering and project management. Why
 > > would you produce a system any other way? Why would you build an
 > > engine that is so inefficient that it has to work so hard that it
 > > eventually kills itself?

As Bones used to say, "He's dead, Jim."  Ie, you don't intentionally
build one, you find out it kills after you've been there for a while.

 > Learn more about the people side of management, particularly managing
 > non-engineers, and you'll figure it out easily enough.

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

 > On 2008-07-21 17:40 +0900 (Mon), jim grisanzio wrote:
 > 
 > > The Innovator's Dilemma (still scariest book around) demonstrates
 > > clearly that a product can be too good and therefor cause the direct
 > > collapse of a company from competitors whose products are just good
 > > enough and manages miss this consistently.
 > 
 > Actually, that rather misses the key point of that very good book.
 > 
 > Stephen may correct me on it, but my take was that the products lose not
 > because they're too good, but because they're not good enough. They may
 > exceed the desired specifications in many areas; but they fail in at
 > least one other.

Specifically, in performance/price.  A disruptive innovation is
basically a discontinuity in best practice generated by a minimum
absolute performance constraint.  That constraint leads to customers
picking the best P/P among the incumbents.  When a challenger breaks
through the min abs performance barrier, the customers will switch en
masse to the challenger because of its superior P/P.

The innovator's dilemma arises because of organizational/incentive
constraints on marketing, and I think that's what Jim was referring
to.  Said constraint is that until the disruption occurs, a successful
incumbent cannot convince its best customers to buy a product based on
the new technology, so its sales people won't sell it, which means
that managers can't see revenue in quantities to compare with the
existing market from it, so they don't assign engineers to develop
more products based on it.

In other words, "this product has been too good *for our profits* for
us to turn our backs on it."  But the company fails to understand that
while *which* variant of the innovation is going to be better for the
customers is uncertain, that *some* variant of the innovation is going
to be better is in a class with death and taxes.

The innovator's solution, then, is to turn the old adage on its head,
and act on the premise that "Two birds in the bush are worth one in
the hand."