Awesome! I discussed this "methodology" in the previous post on Cairo. By and large this was rarely an intentional strategy in the sense that teams were chartered with the same mission at the same time. There was always something at the core that had two teams pursuing the same goal (a new portable 32-bit kernel). More frequently teams t…
Awesome! I discussed this "methodology" in the previous post on Cairo. By and large this was rarely an intentional strategy in the sense that teams were chartered with the same mission at the same time. There was always something at the core that had two teams pursuing the same goal (a new portable 32-bit kernel). More frequently teams thought they were doing different products and then gradually converged (like everyone did email, photo editing, messaging, etc.)
By the early 1990's this seems related to the admission that LanMan, while not yet absorbed, was not really working :-)
IBM using the multiple teams approach (often unknown to each other) would seem enough reason not to emulate that methodology.
Awesome! I discussed this "methodology" in the previous post on Cairo. By and large this was rarely an intentional strategy in the sense that teams were chartered with the same mission at the same time. There was always something at the core that had two teams pursuing the same goal (a new portable 32-bit kernel). More frequently teams thought they were doing different products and then gradually converged (like everyone did email, photo editing, messaging, etc.)
By the early 1990's this seems related to the admission that LanMan, while not yet absorbed, was not really working :-)
IBM using the multiple teams approach (often unknown to each other) would seem enough reason not to emulate that methodology.