If someone was actively subverting an office it would rapidly kill a company.
Maybe this is the point, but to me all the comments and even article itself read more like a commertary on common issues than an subversive insider attack.
Maybe this is the point, but to me all the comments and even article itself read more like a commertary on common issues than an subversive insider attack.
Instead, a good sabotage will make the company extremely unproductive but still alive - which leads them to suck a lot more money in than they'd otherwise need, waste most of it, and then turn out subpar products being sold by the power of marketing itself, and otherwise a waste of energy, fuel, materials and man-hours...
... oh wait, we're talking about sabotage, and here I am describing most of the consumer electronics.
Instead that person is a hero, and the costs associated with the decision are initially small and don't show up until that person is long gone.
Repeated a few times the small hits to productivity/quality/etc will result significant lost ground. This is probably even more important long term in the technology industry than it is to a war effort. The sides would have to be close to evenly matched and the war would have to go on a long time for all the little bits of sabotage to add up.
This one bothers me. It's brought up all the time. And I completely agree that adding a new tool or feature adds risk and technical debt. But if there's no other way to do it... I work in a corporate VBA shop. 90 percent of our work in the last year was in VBA. But next year is looking like python, R and JS. How? Requirements changed. We got handed some projects in machine learning and we delivered, crudely but still. While in the technical sense we 'could' have coded it all in VBA it's not practical in the slightest to do so.