I don't think we are short of technology people with technological ideas.  The
problem is that management has structured the company in such a way as to
inhibit technology ideas from surfacing.  There currently is no way to start and
carry through these technologically exciting projects.  If management is serious
about technology they would set up a structure to channel these ideas.  Since
there is no channel, they must not be too serious.  It is management's
responsibility to make the best of what they have sitting in front of them.


Please send all responses to @SYS$MAIL:JUNK

- brad -
[a manager]

I think a big part of the problem is that the project review process
holds all projects against the same standard, and because of this,
games with new technology, or game which try to exploit new ideas are
judged as slow or risky.  They are essentially penalized for trying something
new and creative.  I think it is time for an overhaul.  Reviews are more 
adversarial than they need to be.  They provide a poor level of access to the
knowledge base of the people doing the reviewing.  

                                        Bonnie Smithson
                                        ( One of Atari's project leaders )

well, new technology usually IS slow and risky....  we DO have a problem with
manpower especially hardware guys plus i don't like the current setup with
an 'advanced technology' group dominating the new stuff.  If i was to start
my next project using some new technology, for example a new 3-d or a CDRom
hardware, i'm sure that i'd have trouble convincing the review committee to
approve it.
  But i think it would be because there aren't enough products coming out of
engineering so i think i'd get resistance on a long-term project as long as they
need something to fill a slot within the next 18 months.  If not me, how many
other programmers do they have to produce a short-term product who will be
available soon?  Plus who's going to design a new hardware? How many available
engineers do we have?  And if i'm not willing to use the 3-d hardware from
the -Driving series, i bet that i'd have a hard time convincing the review
committee that our limited engineering resources should be used to create what
in their mind might be a hardware that is essentially redundant since we already
have a "3-D polygon hardware".

  My point is that I doubt that it's a lack of vision so much as it's a need
to weigh short-term problems that impacts our ability to use new technologies.
Also it's not easy to justify new technology sometimes; it's not realistic to
expect that we'd build expensive new stuff with no reason to think its earnings
will be much better than 'conventional' product.
  Since we DO need to gain expertise in new technologies if we want to be able
to compete in the future, we need to do two things.  We need to have enough
people to keep the products coming out even if a few teams work on longterm
projects, without being in a position where any failed project creates a hole
in the manufacturing cycle.  And we need to create new products where the
spin-offs are likely to be spread throughout the company.  We need to have
broad participation in any projects using advanced technologies or all we will
do is create pockets of expertise in the company that may or may not be easily
used in new generations.  We need to learn from the problems encountered by
teams trying to use the last several hardwares that have been introduced so
that new technology is more accessible to any new team that wants to use it.

I think it's interesting that in today's Merc there is an article about an
alliance between Time Warner, and IBM.  Guess what it's about?  NEW IDEAS.
NEW TECHNOLOGY (imagine that).  It's about combining TW's "vast" software
library and cable TV systems with IBM's computer technology.  "...In addition,
the two companies are seeking to create a generation of smart television that
would allow viewers to interact with services on their TV screens, using a
remote control or computer.  New services could include anything from 
entertainment to educational material and commercial transactions."  

Doesn't this sound like something we do here?  Don't we have connections
with Time Warner?

The article goes on to say that TW is not new to the idea of joint ventures.
Last October the company announced a joint venture with Electronic Arts (who?)
to "explore unspecified new projects in multimedia technology.  This is another
indication that Time Warner intends to be a leader in interactive media and
entertainment" said Bing Gordon, a vp at EA.

What's going on here.  Where were we?  Wouldn't this have been a golden
opportunity to justify hiring those people Lipson mentions?  Is there still
an avenue to pursue here?  Perhaps we think too much in terms of video 'games'.
Maybe we should start internalizing some of those popular buzzwords:
		Multimedia
		Interactive
		Interface
		Educational
		Learning Curve
		...etc.  
Are we not full of creative experts regarding these areas?

...just a thought

dd