SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 113
 
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]

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

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 2010Alejandro Ribó Labastida
 
Apversk Sarasa
Apversk SarasaApversk Sarasa
Apversk Sarasa141
 
Our Deepest Fear
Our Deepest FearOur Deepest Fear
Our Deepest FearBillen
 
EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013EPiServer Update October 2013
EPiServer Update October 2013Eric 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 CELLPHONIZEDAli 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 hexagonEric Reiss
 
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerkenCrowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerken
Crowdfunding voor religieus erfgoed - kerkenRonald 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 UpBillen
 
Immigration
ImmigrationImmigration
Immigrationawltech
 
Educational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEANEducational Technology Trend for ASEAN
Educational Technology Trend for ASEANDr Poonsri Vate-U-Lan
 

Destacado (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 a 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.docxjeremylockett77
 
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled bSupplementary data slides american governmentcompiled b
Supplementary data slides american governmentcompiled bcherry686017
 
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 paperhornphounicol1983
 
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 courtAnthony Duenas
 
Write Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using InternetWrite Essay About Using Internet
Write Essay About Using InternetAlyssa 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.pptxStephen Ware
 
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
 
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.docxwrite31
 
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.docxevonnehoggarth79783
 
Civil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroadsCivil justice at_the_crossroads
Civil justice at_the_crossroadssdlawjohnnyz
 
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdfEssay On Personal Responsibility.pdf
Essay On Personal Responsibility.pdfTamika Morris
 

Similar a 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
 

Último

Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...
Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...
Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...shyamraj55
 
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivity
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivityBoost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivity
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivityPrincipled Technologies
 
GenCyber Cyber Security Day Presentation
GenCyber Cyber Security Day PresentationGenCyber Cyber Security Day Presentation
GenCyber Cyber Security Day PresentationMichael W. Hawkins
 
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptxHampshireHUG
 
Slack Application Development 101 Slides
Slack Application Development 101 SlidesSlack Application Development 101 Slides
Slack Application Development 101 Slidespraypatel2
 
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time AutomationFrom Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time AutomationSafe Software
 
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAG
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAGGoogle AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAG
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAGSujit Pal
 
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 3652toLead Limited
 
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path MountBreaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path MountPuma Security, LLC
 
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024BookNet Canada
 
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...Igalia
 
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organization
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organizationScaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organization
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organizationRadu Cotescu
 
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdfhans926745
 
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024Results
 
🐬 The future of MySQL is Postgres 🐘
🐬  The future of MySQL is Postgres   🐘🐬  The future of MySQL is Postgres   🐘
🐬 The future of MySQL is Postgres 🐘RTylerCroy
 
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101Paola De la Torre
 
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024BookNet Canada
 
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...gurkirankumar98700
 
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024The Digital Insurer
 
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen Frames
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen FramesUnblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen Frames
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen FramesSinan KOZAK
 

Último (20)

Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...
Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...
Automating Business Process via MuleSoft Composer | Bangalore MuleSoft Meetup...
 
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivity
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivityBoost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivity
Boost PC performance: How more available memory can improve productivity
 
GenCyber Cyber Security Day Presentation
GenCyber Cyber Security Day PresentationGenCyber Cyber Security Day Presentation
GenCyber Cyber Security Day Presentation
 
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
 
Slack Application Development 101 Slides
Slack Application Development 101 SlidesSlack Application Development 101 Slides
Slack Application Development 101 Slides
 
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time AutomationFrom Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
 
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAG
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAGGoogle AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAG
Google AI Hackathon: LLM based Evaluator for RAG
 
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
Tech-Forward - Achieving Business Readiness For Copilot in Microsoft 365
 
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path MountBreaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
 
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
Transcript: #StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
 
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...
Raspberry Pi 5: Challenges and Solutions in Bringing up an OpenGL/Vulkan Driv...
 
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organization
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organizationScaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organization
Scaling API-first – The story of a global engineering organization
 
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf
[2024]Digital Global Overview Report 2024 Meltwater.pdf
 
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024
A Call to Action for Generative AI in 2024
 
🐬 The future of MySQL is Postgres 🐘
🐬  The future of MySQL is Postgres   🐘🐬  The future of MySQL is Postgres   🐘
🐬 The future of MySQL is Postgres 🐘
 
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101
Salesforce Community Group Quito, Salesforce 101
 
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
#StandardsGoals for 2024: What’s new for BISAC - Tech Forum 2024
 
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...
Kalyanpur ) Call Girls in Lucknow Finest Escorts Service 🍸 8923113531 🎰 Avail...
 
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
 
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen Frames
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen FramesUnblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen Frames
Unblocking The Main Thread Solving ANRs and Frozen Frames
 

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]