Paranoia?
There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Has nothing to do with devs who are blocked by management.
Paranoia?
There are a lot of devs who don't really like what they develope so don't spend any time dogfooding it. Has nothing to do with devs who are blocked by management.
That said I have also encountered lazy engineers who are totally fine with implementing obviously broken software, those are a perfect match for the egotistical product manager.
Note that in my comment I wrote nothing about dogfooding - for a very good reason:
It is well-known that dogfooding leads to software that has rather few bugs, but also dogfooded software often shows a tendency to be "biased towards programmers and power users". So, there often exist very good reasons if the programmers actively don't dogfood their software, and rather trust someone else (who is very trusted by the programmers) that the workflow that the programmer should implement does make sense for the user, even though most programmers would implement this aspect very differently.
Lessons that you should be taking away are rather:
- Every tool that possibly might be good for improving the quality of the software is just a tool that can also cause harm if used in a wrong way.
- Deeply distrust keynote speakers and thought leaders who sell their method for improving the quality of the software or improving software development as a panacea. Every method is only useful under specific circumstances and is harmful of used wrongly. Keynote speakers and thought leaders who don't go into details when their methods are helpful and when they are harmful are simply scammers and snake oil salesmen and should be called this.