SlideShare a Scribd company logo
 
Mitch Denny Principal Consultant http://notgartner.wordpress.com [email_address]
 
yes,  that  Readify!
 
disclaimer choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions   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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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.
 
sorry.
 
why?
 
change
change > opportunity
change > opportunity > profit!
 
forces
forces consequences
forces consequences strategies
 
 
 
 
Aa architect classification scheme
forces fundamental, but subtle changes over time
mobility (and by extension, connectivity)
mobility (and by extension, connectivity)
work life balance €  ‚ ƒ
work life balance €  ‚ ƒ
work life blending €  ‚ ƒ
question: is Facebook a  personal  or  work  tool?
‚ ƒ
‚ ƒ
new users = new expectations ‚ ƒ
video:  little britain
if the computer says no, I’ll find another computer that says yes. ‚ ƒ
other forces
(empowered users) computing power ‚ ƒ
 
 
 
the thing about forces . . .
consequences knock on effects from forces
 
computer scientist
computer scientist
computer scientist computer user
computer scientist computer user
computer scientist computer user vendor
computer scientist computer user vendor
system administrator computer user vendor software developer
system administrator computer user vendor software developer
what next?
tip:  who works for who?
computer scientist
computer scientist computer user
computer scientist computer user vendor
system administrator computer user vendor software developer
system administrator computer user vendor software developer
question: what about my special requirements?
system administrator computer user vendor software developer
video:  yahoo pipes
see also: Microsoft Popfly Google App Engine? Apple Automator
implications
firewall
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange, CRM, SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce . . .
firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange,  CRM , SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce  . . .
firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange,  CRM , SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce  . . .
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
firewall value on the inside value on the outside
 
consider: Microsoft Online (Exchange/CRM)* Windows Live Mesh Oracle on EC2 Saasu* GoGrid SaaSGrid
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)
 
strategies conscious decisions made to cope with or take 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 ... Identity Table: UserID IdentityTypeID IdentityReference UserRight Table: UserID RightID UserRightReference
Identity Table: UserID IdentityTypeID IdentityReference
tip:  grant and revoke is key
 
tip:  expect a platform
demo:  EC2 provisioning
question: great, but what about my users?
business model?
 
 
 
 
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 Denny Principal Consultant, Readify http://notgartner.wordpress.com [email_address]

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
Alejandro Ribó Labastida
 
Apversk Sarasa
Apversk SarasaApversk Sarasa
Apversk Sarasa141
 
Pucha Kucha
Pucha KuchaPucha Kucha
Pucha Kucha
justinkloppers
 
Our Deepest Fear
Our Deepest FearOur Deepest Fear
Our Deepest Fear
Billen
 
EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013
Eric Reiss
 
Vietnam Web Services Portal
Vietnam Web Services PortalVietnam Web Services Portal
Vietnam Web Services PortalChip Huyen
 
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordi
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordiáLbum de fotografías. sant jordi
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordiIrene Calvo
 
0644169 CELLPHONIZED
0644169 CELLPHONIZED0644169 CELLPHONIZED
0644169 CELLPHONIZED
Ali G
 
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music PreferencesUniversity of Central Lancashire
 
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
Ronald Kleverlaan
 
The monetization hexagon
The monetization hexagonThe monetization hexagon
The monetization hexagon
Eric Reiss
 
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerkenCrowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Ronald Kleverlaan
 
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
Eric Reiss
 
Christmas Lights Up
Christmas Lights UpChristmas Lights Up
Christmas Lights Up
Billen
 
Immigration
ImmigrationImmigration
Immigrationawltech
 
Educational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEANEducational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Dr Poonsri Vate-U-Lan
 
Dengue
DengueDengue

Viewers also liked (20)

EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
EU negotiations in practice - feedback, 23 November 2010
 
Tutorial quiró
Tutorial quiróTutorial quiró
Tutorial quiró
 
Apversk Sarasa
Apversk SarasaApversk Sarasa
Apversk Sarasa
 
Spanish omelette
Spanish omeletteSpanish omelette
Spanish omelette
 
Pucha Kucha
Pucha KuchaPucha Kucha
Pucha Kucha
 
Our Deepest Fear
Our Deepest FearOur Deepest Fear
Our Deepest Fear
 
EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013
 
Vietnam Web Services Portal
Vietnam Web Services PortalVietnam Web Services Portal
Vietnam Web Services Portal
 
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordi
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordiáLbum de fotografías. sant jordi
áLbum de fotografías. sant jordi
 
0644169 CELLPHONIZED
0644169 CELLPHONIZED0644169 CELLPHONIZED
0644169 CELLPHONIZED
 
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences
“CheckinDJ” Using Check-Ins to Crowdsource Music Preferences
 
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
Rabobank - Crowdfunding: De bank buitenspel?
 
The monetization hexagon
The monetization hexagonThe monetization hexagon
The monetization hexagon
 
Do 16 35
Do 16 35Do 16 35
Do 16 35
 
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerkenCrowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
 
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
Dogmaty Webu (Polski)
 
Christmas Lights Up
Christmas Lights UpChristmas Lights Up
Christmas Lights Up
 
Immigration
ImmigrationImmigration
Immigration
 
Educational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEANEducational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEAN
 
Dengue
DengueDengue
Dengue
 

Similar to Evolution of Enterprise Software Development

Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
Lisa Riley
 
1. You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
1.  You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx1.  You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
1. You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
jeremylockett77
 
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled bSupplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
cherry686017
 
Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
 Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this  Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
MoseStaton39
 
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paperEdu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
hornphounicol1983
 
Compulsory Voting Essay
Compulsory Voting EssayCompulsory Voting Essay
Compulsory Voting Essay
Sheila Espinoza
 
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
 blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
Anthony Duenas
 
Claim Of Fact Essay Examples
Claim Of Fact Essay ExamplesClaim Of Fact Essay Examples
Claim Of Fact Essay Examples
Custom Paper Services
 
Write Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using InternetWrite Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using Internet
Alyssa Ingoldsby
 
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptxLawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
Stephen Ware
 
Crj 301 entire course
Crj 301 entire courseCrj 301 entire course
Crj 301 entire course
flexcasoten1984
 
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
Misty Harris
 
Propaganda techniques overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
Propaganda techniques  overgeneralizing lesson by Dean BerryPropaganda techniques  overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
Propaganda techniques overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
Riverside County Office of Education
 
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76ACTL_Journal_Issue_76
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76Eliza Gano
 
discovery and judicial efficiency.docx
discovery and judicial efficiency.docxdiscovery and judicial efficiency.docx
discovery and judicial efficiency.docx
write31
 
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docxA Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
evonnehoggarth79783
 
Civil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroadsCivil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroads
sdlawjohnnyz
 
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdfEssay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Tamika Morris
 

Similar to Evolution of Enterprise Software Development (20)

Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
Free Printable Floral Stationery Paper. Online assignment writing service.
 
is anybody listening_DBHedit (1)
is anybody listening_DBHedit (1)is anybody listening_DBHedit (1)
is anybody listening_DBHedit (1)
 
1. You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
1.  You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx1.  You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
1. You are considering purchasing a consol that promises annual p.docx
 
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled bSupplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
 
Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
 Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this  Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
Report #3 Changing Public Opinion Before beginning this
 
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paperEdu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
Edu 301 week 5 trend in education paper
 
Compulsory Voting Essay
Compulsory Voting EssayCompulsory Voting Essay
Compulsory Voting Essay
 
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
 blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
blind justice a case for judiciary impartiality in the philippine supreme court
 
Claim Of Fact Essay Examples
Claim Of Fact Essay ExamplesClaim Of Fact Essay Examples
Claim Of Fact Essay Examples
 
Write Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using InternetWrite Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using Internet
 
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptxLawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
Lawmaking Judges Government and Private presented 2023 April 7.pptx
 
Crj 301 entire course
Crj 301 entire courseCrj 301 entire course
Crj 301 entire course
 
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
Worst College Application Essay Ever. Online assignment writing service.
 
Propaganda techniques overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
Propaganda techniques  overgeneralizing lesson by Dean BerryPropaganda techniques  overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
Propaganda techniques overgeneralizing lesson by Dean Berry
 
ACTL_76Journal_FINALONLINE
ACTL_76Journal_FINALONLINEACTL_76Journal_FINALONLINE
ACTL_76Journal_FINALONLINE
 
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76ACTL_Journal_Issue_76
ACTL_Journal_Issue_76
 
discovery and judicial efficiency.docx
discovery and judicial efficiency.docxdiscovery and judicial efficiency.docx
discovery and judicial efficiency.docx
 
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docxA Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
A Policy Review of Operation Fast & Furious Applying Lesson.docx
 
Civil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroadsCivil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroads
 
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdfEssay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
 

Recently uploaded

Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to ProductionGenerative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
Aggregage
 
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
Neo4j
 
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practicesNational Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
Quotidiano Piemontese
 
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
Neo4j
 
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
SOFTTECHHUB
 
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 202420240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
Matthew Sinclair
 
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR EventsMonitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
Ana-Maria Mihalceanu
 
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
DianaGray10
 
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptxHow to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
danishmna97
 
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesThe Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
Laura Byrne
 
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
名前 です男
 
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfObservability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
Paige Cruz
 
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
KatiaHIMEUR1
 
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMEEssentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
Safe Software
 
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 202420240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
Matthew Sinclair
 
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
DanBrown980551
 
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 daysPushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
Adtran
 
Introduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
Introduction to CHERI technology - CybersecurityIntroduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
Introduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
mikeeftimakis1
 
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
ThomasParaiso2
 
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptxSecstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
nkrafacyberclub
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to ProductionGenerative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
Generative AI Deep Dive: Advancing from Proof of Concept to Production
 
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
GraphSummit Singapore | The Future of Agility: Supercharging Digital Transfor...
 
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practicesNational Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
National Security Agency - NSA mobile device best practices
 
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
GraphSummit Singapore | Enhancing Changi Airport Group's Passenger Experience...
 
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!
 
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 202420240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
20240607 QFM018 Elixir Reading List May 2024
 
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR EventsMonitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
Monitoring Java Application Security with JDK Tools and JFR Events
 
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5
 
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptxHow to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptx
 
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and SalesThe Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
The Art of the Pitch: WordPress Relationships and Sales
 
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
みなさんこんにちはこれ何文字まで入るの?40文字以下不可とか本当に意味わからないけどこれ限界文字数書いてないからマジでやばい文字数いけるんじゃないの?えこ...
 
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfObservability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdf
 
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !
 
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMEEssentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FME
 
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 202420240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
20240609 QFM020 Irresponsible AI Reading List May 2024
 
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...
 
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 daysPushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
Pushing the limits of ePRTC: 100ns holdover for 100 days
 
Introduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
Introduction to CHERI technology - CybersecurityIntroduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
Introduction to CHERI technology - Cybersecurity
 
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...
 
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptxSecstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
Secstrike : Reverse Engineering & Pwnable tools for CTF.pptx
 

Evolution of Enterprise Software Development

  • 1.  
  • 2. Mitch Denny Principal Consultant http://notgartner.wordpress.com [email_address]
  • 3.  
  • 4. yes, that Readify!
  • 5.  
  • 6. disclaimer choice. Our systematic understanding of the causes of chapter choice is weak, even though the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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 the opinions 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 highly quantified 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 concluded that 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 of chapter choice, which is as true today as it was in 1981. Consider, for example, that during 1998 there were 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 of Washington, of which 17% were chapter 13 filings. 5 Such differences persist over time, revealing the potent but amorphous factor of “local legal culture.” There are no simple ideas or models that will completely 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.
  • 7.  
  • 9.  
  • 10. why?
  • 11.  
  • 14. change > opportunity > profit!
  • 15.  
  • 19.  
  • 20.  
  • 21.  
  • 22.  
  • 24. forces fundamental, but subtle changes over time
  • 25. mobility (and by extension, connectivity)
  • 26. mobility (and by extension, connectivity)
  • 27. work life balance €  ‚ ƒ
  • 28. work life balance €  ‚ ƒ
  • 29. work life blending €  ‚ ƒ
  • 30. question: is Facebook a personal or work tool?
  • 33. new users = new expectations ‚ ƒ
  • 34. video: little britain
  • 35. if the computer says no, I’ll find another computer that says yes. ‚ ƒ
  • 38.  
  • 39.  
  • 40.  
  • 41. the thing about forces . . .
  • 42. consequences knock on effects from forces
  • 43.  
  • 50. system administrator computer user vendor software developer
  • 51. system administrator computer user vendor software developer
  • 53. tip: who works for who?
  • 57. system administrator computer user vendor software developer
  • 58. system administrator computer user vendor software developer
  • 59. question: what about my special requirements?
  • 60. system administrator computer user vendor software developer
  • 61. video: yahoo pipes
  • 62. see also: Microsoft Popfly Google App Engine? Apple Automator
  • 65. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 66. firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange, CRM, SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce . . .
  • 67. firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange, CRM , SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce . . .
  • 68. firewall value on the inside value on the outside Exchange, CRM , SharePoint . . . Yahoo! Pipes, Facebook, SalesForce . . .
  • 69. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 70. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 71. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 72. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 73. firewall value on the inside value on the outside
  • 74.  
  • 75. consider: Microsoft Online (Exchange/CRM)* Windows Live Mesh Oracle on EC2 Saasu* GoGrid SaaSGrid
  • 76. question: what does my techology stack look like?
  • 77.  
  • 78. major data centers (provides network, power, cooling, redundancy)
  • 79. major data centers (provides network, power, cooling, redundancy) platform vendors (provide operting systems, virtualisation)
  • 80. major data centers (provides network, power, cooling, redundancy) platform vendors (provide operting systems, virtualisation) framework vendors (provide identity, database, general APIs)
  • 81. 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)
  • 82. 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)
  • 83. 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)
  • 84.  
  • 85. strategies conscious decisions made to cope with or take advantage of change
  • 86. get out before you’re homeless . . .
  • 87.  
  • 88.  
  • 89.  
  • 90.  
  • 91. Windows Live ID & CardSpace, Yahoo!, Google, Open ID + millions more?
  • 92. question: what about Active Directory?
  • 93. tip: let users control identity
  • 94. User Table: UserID ... Identity Table: UserID IdentityTypeID IdentityReference UserRight Table: UserID RightID UserRightReference
  • 95. Identity Table: UserID IdentityTypeID IdentityReference
  • 96. tip: grant and revoke is key
  • 97.  
  • 98. tip: expect a platform
  • 99. demo: EC2 provisioning
  • 100. question: great, but what about my users?
  • 102.  
  • 103.  
  • 104.  
  • 105.  
  • 107. limit your liability
  • 108. rich vs. reach
  • 109. the role of developers ?
  • 110. the role of sysadmins ?
  • 111. do I run a data center ?
  • 112. CIO vs. CTO
  • 113. Thank-you! Mitch Denny Principal Consultant, Readify http://notgartner.wordpress.com [email_address]