evolution of enterprise software development
Post on 01-Nov-2014
1.429 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Mitch DennyPrincipal Consultanthttp://notgartner.wordpress.commitch.denny@readify.net
yes, that Readify!
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case withempirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, butstill not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.5Such differences persist over time, revealing thepotent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though theopinions expressed by experts from every corner are very strong. As is frequently the case with
empirical research, we are better at saying what is false than what is true. For example, in a highlyquantified analysis of 1,529 consumer cases in Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (all filed in 1981),
Sullivan et al. tested chapter choice against a range of potential causes of the choice. They concludedthat many of the plausible and intentional determinants of choice (e.g. ability to pay, assets to protect,unsecured debt levels, state exemption levels) had little if any causal effect. What mattered more, but
still not a lot, were such factors as a recent move within the state or choice of a specialist attorney.4
The authors noted that the district of filing is far and away the most powerful predictor ofchapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 therewere 22,840 non-business filings in the Western District of Tennessee, of which 74% were chapter 13
filings. During that period there were 25,011 non-business filings in the Western District ofWashington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings.
5Such differences persist over time, revealing the
potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that willcompletely account for the large variations in chapter choice–or at least no one has found them yet.
What follows is a brief description of a promising lead.
disclaimerdisclaimer
sorry.
why?
change
change > opportunity
change > opportunity > profit!
forces
forcesconsequences
forcesconsequencesstrategies
Aaarchitect classification scheme
forcesforcesfundamental, but subtle changes over timefundamental, but subtle changes over time
mobility(and by extension, connectivity)
mobility(and by extension, connectivity)
€‚ƒwork life balance
€‚ƒwork life balance
€‚ƒwork life blending
question:
is Facebook a personal or work tool?
‚ƒ
‚ƒ
‚ƒnew users = new expectations
video: video: little britainlittle britain
‚ƒif the computer says no,I’ll find another computerthat says yes.
other forces
‚ƒ(empowered users)
computing power computing power
the thing about forces . . .
consequencesconsequencesknock on effects from forcesknock on effects from forces
computerscientist
computerscientist
computerscientist
computeruser
computerscientist
computeruser
computerscientist
computeruser
vendor
computerscientist
computeruser
vendor
systemadministrator
computeruser
vendor
softwaredeveloper
systemadministrator
computeruser
vendor
softwaredeveloper
what next?
tip: who works for who?
computerscientist
computerscientist
computeruser
computerscientist
computeruser
vendor
systemadministrator
computeruser
vendor
softwaredeveloper
systemadministrator
computeruser
vendor
softwaredeveloper
question:
what about my special requirements?
systemadministrator
computeruser
vendor
softwaredeveloper
video: video: yahoo pipesyahoo pipes
see also:Microsoft PopflyGoogle App Engine?Apple Automator
implications implications implications implications
firew
all
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
Exchange, CRM,SharePoint . . .
Yahoo! Pipes,Facebook,
SalesForce . . .
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
Exchange, CRM,SharePoint . . .
Yahoo! Pipes,Facebook,
SalesForce . . .
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
Exchange, CRM,SharePoint . . .
Yahoo! Pipes,Facebook,
SalesForce . . .
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
firew
all
value onthe inside
value onthe outside
consider:Microsoft Online (Exchange/CRM)*Windows Live MeshOracle on EC2Saasu*GoGridSaaSGrid
question:
what does my techology stack look like?
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
platform vendors(provide operting systems, virtualisation)
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
platform vendors(provide operting systems, virtualisation)
framework vendors(provide identity, database, general APIs)
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
platform vendors(provide operting systems, virtualisation)
framework vendors(provide identity, database, general APIs)
applications(provide user functionality)
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
platform vendors(provide operting systems, virtualisation)
framework vendors(provide identity, database, general APIs)
applications(provide user functionality)
major data centers(provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
platform vendors(provide operting systems, virtualisation)
framework vendors(provide identity, database, general APIs)
tier #1 applications(provide user functionality)
tier #2 applications(provide user functionality and mashups)
strategiesstrategiesconscious decisions made to cope with or conscious decisions made to cope with or
take advantage of changetake advantage of change
get out before you’re homeless . . .
Windows Live ID & CardSpace, Yahoo!,Google, Open ID + millions more?
question:
what about Active Directory?
tip: let users control identity
User Table:UserID...
User Table:UserID...
Identity Table:UserIDIdentityTypeIDIdentityReference
Identity Table:UserIDIdentityTypeIDIdentityReference
UserRight Table:UserIDRightIDUserRightReference
UserRight Table:UserIDRightIDUserRightReference
Identity Table:UserIDIdentityTypeIDIdentityReference
Identity Table:UserIDIdentityTypeIDIdentityReference
tip: grant and revoke is key
tip: expect a platform
demo: demo: EC2 provisioningEC2 provisioning
question:
great, but what about my users?
businessmodel?
discussion points
limit your liability
rich vs. reach
the role of developers?
the role of sysadmins?
do I run a data center?
CIO vs. CTO
Thank-you!Mitch DennyPrincipal Consultant, Readifyhttp://notgartner.wordpress.commitch.denny@readify.net
top related