Many organizations have limited awareness about modern software and technology, even though software is essential for them. Use the Clueful Index to separate the clueless organizations from the clueful.

Copyright © 2018-2021 Conflux - Licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0

The 'clueful indicators' relate to the public profile presented by the organization:

• engineering blog
• social media posts
• product documentation
• other public articles and writing
• public talks by staff
• internal tech conferences
• details of outages and incidents
• contributions to open source software
• use of open source software
• use of good practices
• senior tech leadership churn

The presence and quality of these public resources can often (although not always) give a good indication of the 'cluefulness' of the organization.

Use the Clueful Index to answer questions such as:

• Should I apply for a job at this organization? 💼
• Should I invest my money with this organization? 💵 (banks, investment companies, etc.)
• Should I use this organization as a supplier? 🚛

Why? If an organization has a poor grasp of technology and practices, do you really want to work there? If a bank has a poor grasp of technology and practices, do you really want to invest your money there? If an organization has a poor grasp of technology and practices, do you really want to rely on their services?

Modern software systems are complicated (even complex) and organizations that have little clue about the technology and practices needed risk data loss, outages, security breaches, and more.

Start with a score of 0 and then add or subtract points based on the indicators below in relation to the organization in question. You will need to use your judgement for some indicators, but that's fine - this is only a semi-objective appraisal.

• there is a public engineering blog +1
• the engineering blog is linked from the corporate website +1
• the engineering blog has detailed information on technologies and practices +1
• there are regular posts on the engineering blog (at least one per month) +1
• the engineering blog is written by marketing or HR/People -2
• the engineering blog has rants and/or inflammatory material -2

• there are social media posts from a brand account about engineering +1
• there is one or more dedicated engineering/technology social media accounts +1
• there are regular social media posts about engineering/technology (at least one per month) +1

• product documentation is public +1
• product documentation uses good language and grammar +1
• product documentation is up to date +1
• product documentation is more than 6 months or 1 full software version out of date -2

• articles by people from the organization are published on reputable news and information websites on a regular basis (at least one per quarter) +1

• public talks by people from the organization are given at reputable technology conferences on a regular basis (at least one per year) +1
• public talks by people from the organization are given at meetups and user groups on a regular basis (at least one per year) +1

• the organization runs some kind of internal tech conference (probably one per year) +1
• the organization publishes details online about its internal tech conference +1

• the organization publishes details online about its outages and incidents +1
• the organization publishes substantial details online about its outages and incidents - detailed write-ups with significant diagnostic information +1
• the organization tries to find a single root cause for its outages and incidents -2
• the organization tries to blame suppliers for its outages and incidents -3

• the organization contributes publicly to Open Source Software (OSS) +1
• the organization contributes an entire application, service, or codebase to the open source community +2
• the organization has simply 'dumped' some internal software to a public repository and does not maintain the software -2

• the organization uses Open Source Software (OSS) +0
• the organization prohibits the use of Open Source Software (OSS) internally -3

• the organization claims to use modern practices +1
• the organization writes/talks/shares significant details about how they use modern practices +1
• the organization uses 'buzzword bingo' lists of technologies in its job advertisements -3

• when an error occurs in online services, a useful error message is shown - including a unique error identifier (or trace ID) +1

• several senior tech leaders have recently left the organiation and have not been replaced with credible 'clueful' people -2

Add up the scores! 📋

• 20 or above: wow! This organization seems very clueful. 🎉
• 15 to 19: not bad. Probably a good choice.
• 10 to 14: reasonable. Investigate further?
• 5 to 9: maybe best avoided.
• 0 to 4: proceed with caution.
• less than 0: stay clear unless you have other indicators. ☣

Take the Clueful Index with a pinch of salt 🧂 (don't take it too seriously). Some organizations may exhibit all the Clueful Indicators but still be terrible at technology. Other organizations may be truly excellent at technology but have few public Clueful Indicators.

Note: none of the wording here represents investment advice.

• Internal Tech Conferences 📚 - book by Victoria Morgan-Smith and Matthew Skelton, published by Conflux Books
• Technical Writing 🎓 - training from Conflux