I am not good at talking people coming from nontechnical backgrounds, and I find it quite interesting. They have eyes wide open, no idea what you are talking about; the literature you use is coming from MARS, and to take their attention and talking about the problems is not the nice part. However, when you start to talk about solutions, generally, it is a resource issue and it is hard to convince your needs/problems are really important.

From business perspective, I am sure everyone is coming with important things. And they have [hopefully well-known] priorities. They will take action based on the importance and relevance of the items.
What I can’t understand [or do understand but find it illogical] is that some companies have no roadmaps for some years. I find it harder to talk in a technology driven business that technological investment is in the very last rows of the priority list. 

In IT department, everyone is slow, not because it is UK, but they have no standards [or everyone has one].  Even the more process you create, the more slow you do your job, the more appreciation you get. If you deliver a project just to update a row for two months with three people, yes I am frustrated.

The business believes that if they continue what they are doing, they will be ok. They can be more than ok, they can be create state of art projects, but fine stick with the one we have and accept that “updating a row should take three people two months, and all a hundred documents are useful.”  UML documents are a subject for another blog, I do believe in documentation, but not modelling each call that creates a constraint for the creativity for the developer. Then don’t call him a developer but a code monkey. And if the strategy is outsourcing the overseas code monkeys, my questions are still valid that “technology driven business” [not software house] should have a core team in-house…

or not?