Hacker News Reader

Comment by ordinaryperson | Hacker News Reader

What’s that quote from Elon Musk - process is an excuse for large companies to keep mediocre talent?

Put enough smart people in a room and they’ll figure it out. Scrum isn’t any worse than Kanban or ‘pure’ Agile or Waterfall or Lean — every system has tradeoffs and smart people learn to adjust.

No company is perfect. Tell management how the process can be improved. If they ignore you, consider moving on.

View on HN

> What’s that quote from Elon Musk - process is an excuse for large companies to keep mediocre talent?

Isn’t he the same guy who’s been learning that more process is necessary to make cars safely and on-schedule? I’d be reluctant to draw any broad conclusion from one optimistic aphorism.

But the essential difference is that process applied to manufacturing is about repeatability, quality, reliability etc. where process in software is more about communication.

Eventually, maybe, a software process will be more like a manufacturing one but the variation in technologies, techniques and general fashion make that hard - even in limited areas such as CRUD web apps. I think you'd get the same outcomes with a manufacturing process as we currently get with software if every year you changed the engines, materials, electronics and transmissions.

Awesome software development process that is not about communication: testing by testers. Also code and documentation review. Also, keeping tasks in tracker and having version controll. Etc.

Code review definitely is about communication. That’s arguably it’s biggest benefit. The author could test something himself, but code review facilitates a conversation and keeps people on the same page.

My experience is that people often can't test what they've been doing by themselves. They've got blind spots and assumptions that they can't see. They have a mental model for how a feature is supposed to work, and they test that mental model, but they don't test outside of that model.

Yes, this. Programmers are supposed to test their own code. And write tests. You are not supposed to have bugs for what you thought to test.

Tester is for independent check you forgot about or did not knew about. Tester is so that you don't stop testing your code due to too much confidence.

Without testing, programmers tend to not have feedback on bugs, tend to think they don't have them and then tend to produce more bugs in the long term. Not because they are lazy or bad, but because they are normal humans.

Processes in software are also for quality, reliability and repeatability. Good communication is just one mean to support these goals.

Has he really been learning anything at all?

Maybe he has a problem in finding smart people in sufficient quantity, so he has backtracked to the "process".

You pretty much too the words out of my mouth - I was talking with someone about this just yesterday. I suspect that when interfacing with 3rd parties that are over-burdened with inefficient processes it means that he/they have to stoop to their level and dumb down their production line to work with said party.

I'm curious why you would think this? Surely every other auto manufacturer deals with the same suppliers? I can't imagine Toyota would be overly pleased with inefficient suppliers

I think it’s more that business owners love the idea of hiring half as many workers and paying them 40% more but that doesn’t make it realistic.

Larger teams and process are really about scalability and robustness, because even high achievers have bad days, can only focus on one thing at a time, etc. If you’re running that lean you have limited capacity to handle anything unusual. It’s the same reason why the only way a 10x developer exists is if you compare them to a really unqualified, poorly managed group – almost nobody works on a single well-defined problem in isolation.

> Put enough smart people in a room and they’ll figure it out.

Or start a religious war about something or other (which language, framework, architecture, etc). Efficient self-organisation is far from inevitable.

Elon Musk is allowed to be slightly arrogant, but most organizations work in the opposite way: process allows them to grow by making mediocre talent productive, instead of remaining small because they are limited by what a handful of very talented people can do without process.

And the non-mediocre talent pool is exceedingly limited, and fickle. They jump to the next opportunity faster than your business cycles.

They will figure that they need process if they want consistent quality. Really.

Besides, smart people still have egos, personal ambitions not lined up with project, biases, weaknesses, personal antipaties and make mistakes. Good process with accountability and responsibility makes wonder with all those.

All large organizations — including Tesla — are composed mostly of mediocre talent. This is mathematically inevitable. Furthermore "talent" is a myth anyway.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...

You might be thinking of Reed Hastings: "The more talent density you have, the less process you need."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com