Michael J. Stattelman is an experienced web application developer with years of site design development and management experience.
Bringing to the table a computer science degree, masters degree in information systems and a masters in competitive intelligence(in-progress), as well as being CIW certified.
Over the years Mr. Stattelman has developed and maintained numerous web sites and applications with various content.
Published author and accredited university instructor.
Throughout his experience has learned the pitfalls and shortcuts of taking an idea from the conceptual to the real.
Best fit job and Description:
Director of Software Engineering
Responsible for all the software development within an organization. Directs the software engineering function in developing, releasing, and maintaining software applications/operating systems according to business needs.
Requires a bachelor's degree with at least 10 years of experience in the field. Familiar with a variety of the field's concepts, practices, and procedures.
Relies on extensive experience and judgment to plan and accomplish goals. Performs a variety of tasks. Leads and directs the work of others. A wide degree of creativity and latitude is expected. Typically reports to top management.
I am also an IT Career Coach:
4th Generation Competition:
The term 4GW, seems to be the topic of much debate, in order to
alleviate the distraction of concept title and return focus on the
methodology development, One has to propose a re-brand: to 4GC(4th
Generation Competition (as defined by Michael J. Stattelman)). The
extensive scope of this concept necessitates the removal of the word
"Warfare". The proposed designation could encompass the complete
fundamentals currently involved in the aforementioned 4GW. To include:
political, economic, social, military on a global as well as local
Continuing on, the progression of Warfare/Competition itself has taken
on a tree format as opposed to the linear description we are becoming
more and more familiar with. Instead of the 1) Manpower. 2) Firepower.
3) Strategy & Tactics. 4) Insurgency. stair-step format that is so
debated. All of these methods have been progressing simultaneously
across the various fundamentals of conflict/competition.
There have always been information operations, resource allocation
(man-power) in distributed form, strategic and tactical maneuvers,
Weaponry (Firepower) and the recognition of insurgency as the fourth
level would imply that it is a new facet of this paradigm. When in
fact all of these venues have been advancing in conjunction with human
kind and technology as well.
The central focus from the outset is in the form of an Effects-Based
platform, which only recently has come to lend itself to viable
studies and analysis. The advancement of knowledge and technology
which happen to be the primary drivers of civilization both lend
themselves to the very well understood concept of Information based
dominance, not only in the state(military/political) arena but the
private(business sector as well.). In essence, throughout history, the
one with the best and most accurate information in conjunction with a
clear cut objective and a strategy for achieving those objectives
exercising efficient use of resources will be dominant in whatever
competition they become involved.
Any actor that has the ability to allocate the resources necessary to
collaborate on all of these fronts and maintain a level of maximum
interoperability and minimal deficiency will initiate a quantum leap
in competitive advantage the likes of which the world has never
imagined. From intelligence gathering and precision COAA(course of
action analysis) for Strategic planning, to the employment of clearly
defined Effects-Based Operations methodologies, wrapped in a
continuous process optimization cycle. A formation of a guide as such
would be par-excellence in the overall scheme of competition and
In summary the re-branding of 4GW to 4GC is all inclusive of the
factors involved in not only kinetic conflict as the term "Warfare"
implies but non-kinetic as well, to include all operations composite
of state/actor survivability (local-stabilization) and
progression(global advancement, competitor destabilization) into the
future. This re-brand acknowledges that certain concepts are in fact
not new, but have been in the scope of competition from the beginning.
Whether or not actors and/or scholars chose to give them focus.
First, the "10x" programmer isn't one who does 10 times more grunt work, or writes 10 times as much ugly code.
A 10x (or 50x) programmer writes maintainable code, makes wise architectural decisions that result in high-quality infrastructure, communicates well in code and in writing, and knows what problems to
solve. An average programmer writes 2,500 lines of code per year.
A 10x programmer, depending on the needs of the problem, might write 25,000 or 250 (or, in rare cases, 250k or 25) lines in a year.
You can't put a 10x programmer on typical corporate grunt work and get 10x output. You're lucky if you get 1.0x. She gets bored.
To actually see that high- level potential, you have to put the
person on 10x work. Of course, if most of what you have is low-quality work (and that's quite common) then you might have no idea who your 10x programmers even are.
High-quality work is rare in corporate America. Very rare. It's so rare that being allocated to it is seen as a huge political favor.
Which means that managers trade it for loyalty rather than anything else. Well, asking for a 20% raise every year is not exactly loyal, is it?
So, essentially, it's market mechanics. You don't need to pay people (in the short term) more if you're blessing them with 10x work. In fact, you could probably give them the good project in lieu of a raise.
How many programmers out there wouldn't take a 10-20% pay cut for the
right to work on whatever they want?
Most programmers aren't pissed off that they only capture about 10-30% of the business value they generate-- that's normal, until you start working for yourself-- but about their lack of autonomy and
That also explains why the top software engineers tend to decelerate
in salary growth once they're very good: they negotiate for autonomy
and interesting work, attempting to get something like an R&D
atmosphere, rather than trying to make a lot of money.
Over time, the best programmers gravitate toward better companies and
that has more of an effect on their compensation than anything else.
Within companies, compensation seems only loosely correlated with
programming ability, which is impossible to measure anyway.
What creates the discrepancy is the tendency of good programmers to
move to better companies.
All that said, the best thing to do if you want to improve your
capture rate (what percent of the business value you produce you
actually get) you're best off leveling up on interview and negotiation
Not only can these skills improve your pay, but they can also get you
autonomy and respect which are worth more in the long term (because
they improve your performance and make you money over time).
While these skills are non-technical, they're critically important
and it will make you better in any job (even pure technology) to have
Reference: Quora Article
Applitosis is a software engineering construct pioneered by Michael Stattelman based on the nature of enterprise IT applications being in a reactionary state with regards to evolution, security and usability. Traditionally a new technology or IT methodology is developed by emerging or start-up entities, it is given time to mature before the Enterprise digests and implements it.
The flaw with this process is that consumers are given a chance to familiarize themselves with it and the bugs get worked out for the most part, but there in lies the caveat. During this time security flaws are exploited and expanded upon by hackers and those with
This leads to a need for a paradigm shift in the development and maintenance of enterprise class applications. One suggestion is to gear development strategies to mirror and mimic the evolution that nature seems to have a monopoly on. Consider the rapid reshaping and
adaptation to the environment that the common bacteria does daily. Even the human body does this granted at a much slower pace but our bodies do advance and try to strengthen itself against unknown infections through the generation of protein based anti-bodies.
Enter Apoptosis, simply put apoptosis is nothing more than pre-programmed cell death. This is done in a manner that the dead or dying cells are fragmented and consumed by phagocytic before they damage healthy cells around them.
How would this apply to the Enterprise class applications?
Initially, Applitosis will take a revolutionary view of IT from a business sense and not only a renewed perception of T.C.O. (Total Cost of Ownership) and IT Services R.O.I but also a forward thinking mentality for corporate governance. To realize that to begin developing applications with embedded components to disable and remove features and functions upon obsolescence, to have a dated decommissioning of certain interfaces and interoperability modules will move your organization light years forward, is paramount.
Understood is the increased costs with continued application development, testing and release. This probably will not sit well with the "bean counters", but the organization is not accountable to them, the organization is accountable to its consumers and shareholders.
Why this makes sense:
1) It minimizes software vulnerabilities by placing the life of an application in a specified window. This prevents system weakness from remaining in place for extended periods of time, open to terminated or negligent staff and external hackers.
2) It keeps your organization at the edge of new and emerging technologies to be leveraged and implemented in newer more effective ways than just placing band-aids and patches on old antiquated apps.
The two benefits above are just the major reasons to implement such an advanced strategy for services and software applications leveraging, there are numerous others. The "Because that's how it's always been done" mantra of old will become obsolete in it-self and forces the staff to grow and adapt with the organization keeping their knowledge current also. The injection of more and better U.I., analytics, and reporting
capabilities give the systems users an increased awareness and understanding of their impact on the performance of the organization and offers the opportunity to leverage their actions to a much greater extent than the stagnant or restrictive applications of today. In the end the benefits will ultimately out-weigh the initial cost. Search for application vulnerabilities in the news and you might be surprised at the growing number of incidents occurring every year, and these are only the ones that get reported.
I once read that system/application attacks in the Enterprise are a lot like S.T.D's everybody is at risk and no one likes to acknowledge when they have one.
Prevention will always be cheaper than the cure, just ask Sony!
Based on the reading of Ideas as Weapons: Influence and Perception in
Modern Warfare, I have come to the realization the latest master in
the theatre of asymmetric competition combined with strategic
communications is by far, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The supporting
rationale is through the use of 2 key criteria provided by the authors
of that particular text and are as follows:
1. The message of the group has to coincide with the actions of the
Everything Gandhi did reflected his message of non-violent protest,
from the burning of his papers, fasting and his demeanor and presence.
Everything about this person was consistent with his message and of
who he was assimilating to (Indias impoverished). In light of his
education and profession he dressed lived as a "commoner", he spoke
the language and embodied the soul of a single nation, regardless of
the glaring religious differences. This is a critical example of
Strategic Communication, both verbal and non-verbal; at all costs stay
2. The application of weakness as a power: Col. John Boyd described
the 3 levels of war and ranked them according to power. 1st and the
weakest was the physical level(killing and weaponry), 2nd and medium
was the mental level(strategic maneuvering), 3rd and the most powerful
was the moral. In the book it tells of the moral level gives its
"soldiers" honor by fighting an adversary that is far superior but
"we" are fighting for "US". Not only does this garner a decisive us-
versus-them paradigm but further provides motivation, recruits and
support(resources) from those not directly involved or want to help
anonymously. The combination of the aforementioned factors allows the
"weaker" force continued resistance and thus draining the resources of
the superior force. The dragging out of conflict with a smaller
opponent demoralizes the large force and forces tension from a
civilian population both at home and internationally which only feeds
the current process. Gandhi and the "weaker"(with regards to military
power) Indian population continued to exercise this process with
reinforcement of the non-violent resistance, while the British with
violence and imprisonment continued to weaken their own cause. Here
again the application of the message matching the actions. The British
were saying they were helping to stop an uprising with violence and
inhumane tactics, when the rest of the world saw the plight of the
Indian nation, and realized that it was a bully in the school yard
In summary with only 2 concepts(consistency between action and message
and the second being the power of weakness) Gandhi was able to
accomplish his agenda and in the process become the father of a
nation, without inflicting injury on a single person, holding any
position of political authority or having acquired and used large sums
of money. Talk the talk, walk the walk and let the cause work for you,
but have the determination to last!
Path to Expert:
If you read 30 minutes a day in 7 years you will be at the cutting
edge of your field.
1 hour a day will take you 4 years.
2 hours a day will take you 2.5 years.
3 hours a day will take
you less than 2 years.
Predictive Pharma Methodology:
Currently in development by Michael Stattelman is an efficient low cost, highly accurate methodology for the initial stages of drug design and development. The Pharma industry as a whole(globally) has missed the bus when it
comes to guiding the research and development of new more effective processes for drug design and development.
Look at the current costs and timelines to get legitimate candidates to market.
Our methodologies can reduce this at a rate of 80%! "Now there are new numbers.
Some health economists peg the current cost of drug development at US$1.3 billion, others at US$1.7 billion."
This is far from acceptable for the amount of money and resources they have at their disposal.
With an average timeline of 8 years!
It does not have to be the case, and we are the only ones at the leading edge of this paradigm.
TRUE PREDICTIVE PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY.
Outlined as follows:
3. Historical mapping.
4. Span analysis.
5. Result Set Generation and emergence identification.
This methodology is at present not in use anywhere in the industry and stands to revolutionize future drug development.