IT jobs are without a doubt some of the highest paying jobs with information architects, data-security analysts and UX designers taking home $100,000 or more a year. But then again, these are high demand; high expertise jobs so don’t jump with joy as yet. But like every job and IT industry to be specific, not everyone commands such higher salaries. There are a large number of IT professionals who at some point of their career feel that their salaries have hit a standstill. Even if you are an IT professional and a great one at that, your technical expertise alone may not help you exceed the IT earning barrier. To continuously exceed your salaries, you need to work hard and smart. Here is how you can exceed the earning barrier in IT.

·         Gain Business Knowledge and Move Up The Management Ladder: IT departments for the most part are considered a part of “back office” operations. What this means is that despite being a core part of the business, IT professionals do not often get enough say in revenue generating components of the business and as a result seldom have a chance to take up senior management roles.  So if you do not want to stay content with a project manager or senior project management salary, invest time and money in gaining business knowledge. It could be through a formal business degree, online training courses or just by keeping your eyes and ears open while in the organization. Having the technical experience with business knowledge will instantly make you stand apart and open the doors for you to draw senior management salaries. For example, a survey conducted highlighted that CIOs were the biggest salary winners which clearly demonstrates the value of technical and business knowledge

·         Gain expertise on the “Hot” Technologies and Keep Learning: Say you are an expert in Java and draw a respectable salary in the industry. However, someone with less years of experience than you joins the organization and draws a higher salary than you! Why you ask. It could very well be because he/she is an expert in say big data technology such as Hadoop. Information Technology is one of the most dynamic industries with new technologies and languages coming up every now and then. When a new technology comes to the foray and gains traction, there is an instant demand-supply gap created which means that those with the specific skill sets are in a position to demand high salaries. If you have to break the IT earning barrier, always be ready to reinvent yourself by learning new technologies and this way you will be well positioned to jump on the high paying opportunities in the IT industry

·         Work On Your Own Side Projects: This one might seem controversial but let me clarify that I do not mean doing freelance work because even though your organization may never find out, it is ethically in breach of contract with your contract. If you have been lucky enough to be trained in some web based technologies such as Java, .NET or even HTML etc. spare sometime after office to build your own side projects. They could be very small projects tackling some problem that only you might have but there are multiple benefits of developing side projects. Worst case scenario, you will improve your technical skills. On the up side, you might end up creating your own business. A lot of technology start-ups were actually side projects the founders tinkered on with while they were employed full-time. You may not always succeed but there is no downside to the same

A business rule is the basic unit of rule processing in a Business Rule Management System (BRMS) and, as such, requires a fundamental understanding. Rules consist of a set of actions and a set of conditions whereby actions are the consequences of each condition statement being satisfied or true. With rare exception, conditions test the property values of objects taken from an object model which itself is gleaned from a Data Dictionary and UML diagrams. See my article on Data Dictionaries for a better understanding on this subject matter.

A simple rule takes the form:

if condition(s)

then actions.

An alternative form includes an else statement where alternate actions are executed in the event that the conditions in the if statement are not satisfied:

if condition(s)

then actions

else alternate_actions

It is not considered a best prectice to write rules via nested if-then-else statements as they tend to be difficult to understand, hard to maintain and even harder to extend as the depth of these statements increases; in other words, adding if statements within a then clause makes it especially hard to determine which if statement was executed when looking at a bucket of rules. Moreoever, how can we determine whether the if or the else statement was satisfied without having to read the rule itself. Rules such as these are often organized into simple rule statements and provided with a name so that when reviewing rule execution logs one can determine which rule fired and not worry about whether the if or else statement was satisfied. Another limitation of this type of rule processing is that it does not take full advantage of rule inferencing and may have a negative performance impact on the Rete engine execution. Take a class with HSG and find out why.

Rule Conditions

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

Another blanket article about the pros and cons of Direct to Consumer (D2C) isn’t needed, I know. By now, we all know the rules for how this model enters a market: its disruption fights any given sector’s established sales model, a fuzzy compromise is temporarily met, and the lean innovator always wins out in the end.

That’s exactly how it played out in the music industry when Apple and record companies created a digital storefront in iTunes to usher music sales into the online era. What now appears to have been a stopgap compromise, iTunes was the standard model for 5-6 years until consumers realized there was no point in purchasing and owning digital media when internet speeds increased and they could listen to it for free through a music streaming service.  In 2013, streaming models are the new music consumption standard. Netflix is nearly parallel in the film and TV world, though they’ve done a better job keeping it all under one roof. Apple mastered retail sales so well that the majority of Apple products, when bought in-person, are bought at an Apple store. That’s even more impressive when you consider how few Apple stores there are in the U.S. (253) compared to big box electronics stores that sell Apple products like Best Buy (1,100) Yet while some industries have implemented a D2C approach to great success, others haven’t even dipped a toe in the D2C pool, most notably the auto industry.

What got me thinking about this topic is the recent flurry of attention Tesla Motors has received for its D2C model. It all came to a head at the beginning of July when a petition on whitehouse.gov to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states reached the 100,000 signatures required for administration comment. As you might imagine, many powerful car dealership owners armed with lobbyists have made a big stink about Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and Product Architect, choosing to sidestep the traditional supply chain and instead opting to sell directly to their customers through their website. These dealership owners say that they’re against the idea because they want to protect consumers, but the real motive is that they want to defend their right to exist (and who wouldn’t?). They essentially have a monopoly at their position in the sales process, and they want to keep it that way. More frightening for the dealerships is the possibility that once Tesla starts selling directly to consumers, so will the big three automakers, and they fear that would be the end of the road for their business. Interestingly enough, the big three flirted with the idea of D2C in the early 90’s before they were met with fierce backlash from dealerships. I’m sure the dealership community has no interest in mounting a fight like that again. 

To say that the laws preventing Tesla from selling online are peripherally relevant would be a compliment. By and large, the laws the dealerships point to fall under the umbrella of “Franchise Laws” that were put in place at the dawn of car sales to protect franchisees against manufacturers opening their own stores and undercutting the franchise that had invested so much to sell the manufacturer’s cars.  There’s certainly a need for those laws to exist, because no owner of a dealership selling Jeeps wants Chrysler to open their own dealership next door and sell them for substantially less. However, because Tesla is independently owned and isn’t currently selling their cars through any third party dealership, this law doesn’t really apply to them. Until their cars are sold through independent dealerships, they’re incapable of undercutting anyone by implementing D2C structure.