I have seen as many cases as large companies I have worked in. In some places, there is a strictly standardized technology stack, while in others tools and platforms are selected ad hoc by each dev team and project. And of course anything is possible between these two extremes. I don't think there is any "typical" case.
My current employer has small developer teams in several countries, who have been working separately from each other up to now - so much so that some projects have been duplicated over several countries with close to the same business goals and content. We have just started the first steps toward standardization and selecting common dev tools. The solutions will be built pragmatically, based on the current choices, unifying gradually over a longer period of time.
In another place several years ago, we had a strictly standardized dev environment and an extensive proprietary GUI framework to build everything upon. All has been decided and designed in advance, top-down. Even for refactoring ideas, we had to get permission from the boss of the boss of our boss - who then in the end said "no" :-/
Large organizations that I've dealt with are always dynamic ecosystems that are evolving all the time. They tend to oscillate between "dispersion is better" and "centralization is better" with a period that is somewhere between 1-5 years.
If the organization is on its "centralization is better" cycle, there's an enterprise architecture group that will claim tool selection and standardization as their responsibility. They'll have a committee of wise men/women that dictate selections from on high. They're usually conservative, as all large organizations tend to be. They like mainstream, proven technologies that are produced by other large organizations that have deep enough pockets to be sued if anything goes wrong.
This enterprise architecture group will usually have the final say. They own the production servers, and nothing unapproved can appear on production servers.
But there's always a guerrilla war going on in the lines of business. Depending on their appetite for innovation and risk, each group can be searching for unapproved technologies to give them an edge. They'll prototype things to see if they can persuade the enterprise group to allow them to continue.
This continues until the "dispersion cycle" begins and someone, usually a new incoming CIO, decides to break with the past and try "new ideas".
发布评论
评论（2）
我见过的案例和我工作过的大公司一样多。在一些地方，有严格标准化的技术堆栈，而在另一些地方，工具和平台是由每个开发团队和项目临时选择的。当然，在这两个极端之间一切皆有可能。我认为不存在什么“典型”案例。
我现在的雇主在多个国家/地区拥有小型开发团队，到目前为止，他们一直彼此分开工作 - 以至于一些项目已在多个国家/地区重复，具有接近相同的业务目标和内容。我们刚刚开始迈向标准化和选择通用开发工具的第一步。解决方案将根据当前的选择务实地构建，并在较长时间内逐渐统一。
几年前，在另一个地方，我们拥有严格标准化的开发环境和广泛的专有 GUI 框架来构建一切。一切都是自上而下提前决定和设计的。即使对于重构想法，我们也必须获得我们老板的老板的老板的许可 - 然后他最终说“不”:-/
I have seen as many cases as large companies I have worked in. In some places, there is a strictly standardized technology stack, while in others tools and platforms are selected ad hoc by each dev team and project. And of course anything is possible between these two extremes. I don't think there is any "typical" case.
My current employer has small developer teams in several countries, who have been working separately from each other up to now - so much so that some projects have been duplicated over several countries with close to the same business goals and content. We have just started the first steps toward standardization and selecting common dev tools. The solutions will be built pragmatically, based on the current choices, unifying gradually over a longer period of time.
In another place several years ago, we had a strictly standardized dev environment and an extensive proprietary GUI framework to build everything upon. All has been decided and designed in advance, top-down. Even for refactoring ideas, we had to get permission from the boss of the boss of our boss - who then in the end said "no" :-/
我接触过的大型组织总是动态的生态系统，一直在发展。它们往往在“分散较好”和“集中较好”之间摇摆，周期在 1-5 年之间。
如果组织处于“集中化更好”的循环中，就会有一个企业架构小组声称工具选择和标准化是他们的责任。他们将有一个由智者组成的委员会来决定高层的选择。他们通常是保守的，就像所有大型组织一样。他们喜欢主流的、经过验证的技术，这些技术是由其他大型组织生产的，这些组织有足够的财力，一旦出现问题就会被起诉。
这个企业架构小组通常会有最终决定权。他们拥有生产服务器，任何未经批准的内容都不能出现在生产服务器上。
但商业领域总是存在游击战。根据他们对创新和风险的兴趣，每个团队都可以寻找未经批准的技术来赋予他们优势。他们将制作原型，看看是否可以说服企业集团允许他们继续下去。
这种情况一直持续到“分散周期”开始，有人（通常是新上任的首席信息官）决定与过去决裂并尝试“新想法”。
生命的循环还在继续。
Large organizations that I've dealt with are always dynamic ecosystems that are evolving all the time. They tend to oscillate between "dispersion is better" and "centralization is better" with a period that is somewhere between 1-5 years.
If the organization is on its "centralization is better" cycle, there's an enterprise architecture group that will claim tool selection and standardization as their responsibility. They'll have a committee of wise men/women that dictate selections from on high. They're usually conservative, as all large organizations tend to be. They like mainstream, proven technologies that are produced by other large organizations that have deep enough pockets to be sued if anything goes wrong.
This enterprise architecture group will usually have the final say. They own the production servers, and nothing unapproved can appear on production servers.
But there's always a guerrilla war going on in the lines of business. Depending on their appetite for innovation and risk, each group can be searching for unapproved technologies to give them an edge. They'll prototype things to see if they can persuade the enterprise group to allow them to continue.
This continues until the "dispersion cycle" begins and someone, usually a new incoming CIO, decides to break with the past and try "new ideas".
And the circle of life continues.