201 karma · joined May 8, 2019
You are responsible for your actions - no one else. "But I did it because...". No. You chose to do it. You are responsible.
Other people are responsible for their actions. Not you.
She was/is right.
What do they realize then instead?
Brilliantly articulated - thank you. I wonder if this is a generic pattern (like fallacies)?
Shame on you for twisting a well intended effort into a negative statement that suits your narrow identity political world view.
In your shoes I would make a decision to either fix/improve the situation or leave immediately.
If you decide for the former then make sure you have support from your management and own that decision. Be the one who turned the subpar division around. If it is as bad as you say you can hardly screw it up any worse. That's a privileged position to start from - difficult to fail.
I doubt your colleagues are really below average IQ - but perhaps their skills could be better. So teach them. Be the leader and mentor they likely never had. Have patience and build a team.
Fix the high impact, low effort problems first. Get some fast successes - they inspire and breed appetite for more. Don't exhaust your resources. Chip away one small problem at a time. It adds up faster than you think.
Create a vision for where you want to be in one year. Communicate that goal at every opportunity. Believe in it and other people will believe as well. It doesn't matter if you reach it within an arbitrary deadline - it matters that it exists in the first place.
Whatever you do, don't coast.
Let's agree that estimation is possible to a certain degree. We know this and accept the inherent uncertainty.
Modern project management is whole sale copied from industrial construction and manufacturing. It seems no one stopped to ask whether the same logic applies to software creation. And it doesn't.
The business side of IT is stuck in a mental model build on construction and manufacturing. Yet the process of creating software contains neither of those concepts with the exception of automated build and deploy (and costs for those are negligible).
It is also interesting that no distinct vocabulary for software exists. We build, deploy, construct, have factories and so forth. Again copied from disciplines which are complicated - but not complex.
It is not possible to obtain the information you refer to by analysis. That's a property of a complex system. Analysis of parts neglects the interaction between parts and in software more or less everything is connected.
This is one of the reasons why we cannot forecast weather and why we cannot reliably estimate software.
Now, if I start my explanation this way I'm also sure to lose their attention. So what do we do? Which intellectual approach will captivate these people, retain their attention and at least plant a seed of doubt in the established way of working?
Even if we were to try considering interactions we would fail. Like the weather, and other topics in the complex systems domain, software is sensitive to initial conditions. A small change in input (change in data or code) creates a large change in output.
We generally accept the upper bound on weather forecast to be 7 days and even then we might bring an umbrella just in case. Forecasting software many months into the future is futile - if taken at face value. Used as a general guideline it is usually ok.
A paradigm shift is needed. Both inside and outside the industry. Software is not industrial construction, hence the same logic (project management) do not apply.
Software is creation, conduction and orchestration. Not production or manufacturing. We are not teams of architect, builders and operators. We are musicians in a orchestra.
How long does it take to write a symphony?
I do not believe people must be protected from harm in that manner. Words can be hurtful but they do not directly kill of cause injury.
Suppose this very discussion was causing you harm, as you define it, would that make it illegal to even discuss the topic?
> Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence
If you define an insult to be violent in the same way as taking a life then I see why we are so far from each other. I make a clear distinction between the two. Do you really think an insult is an act of violence? I'm curious why you would think that
Inciting to violence and performing a violent act is not the same thing. If they were one could defer responsibility to the actor who incited one to be violent. That ends all personal responsibility for ones own actions.
> I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts.
Such derogatory remarks does not further any conversation. I'm here to debate - to learn - to expose myself to different worlds. I hope you are as well. Question - don't assume.
Harassment, regardless of motive, is illegal. Is there a need to make it more illegal?
> you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.
Restricting a collective right does in no way grant more rights to a minority. It may (superficially and short term) improve their lives but do you really thing people will be less hateful from being told they are hateful? I always found that conclusion odd
"Hate" is fuzzy. Some Jews believe hate is any kind of critique of Israel. "Racism" is fuzzy. Some black people believe it is racist to dance a certain way if you're not black. "Sexism" is fuzzy. Some women believe they have been violated by a compliment.
Definitions change. Most of the time irrationally. What was well-intentioned yesterday becomes hateful tomorrow.
This is a slippery slope my friend. Not many things in life are absolute but freedom to speak your mind must be one of them.
I disagree with both of those laws.
If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.
Hate does not go away by outlawing. It only makes martyrs of those impacted by the law.
The only way to fight bigotry is with information and enlightenment. It is a fight that will never stop and there are no short cuts.
One would have thought we, as a species, would have learned that by now.
I agree
"And your organization with 3 levels of technical management and all those divisions and departments will often get their lunch eaten by a very small group of people working in a startup, moving faster and accomplishing more in less time."
You misunderstand. It is not my org - it is the client orgs. And none of those are software companies. The speed with which you can move is irrelevant because you are constrained by the pace of the org you're working for.
It can be reluctance to understand why you're doing what you're doing. It can also be because no one cares to explain it to you. Most of the time it's probably between those two extremes.
And yes some times it's bloat. But rarely all of it. I don't have a solution to this.
"Shouldn't the creators and clients have a major, high impact role and the coordinators a supporting role in terms of decision making?"
No. The creators usually answer "how to do it". The more important question is "what to do". Both groups are important but doing the right thing is more important than how you do it.
To make a general statement saying managers are not needed is as silly as saying all developers are delusional
I do not believe in self organizing teams. I have not seem them work. Without direction the team will fumble until someone assumes control. I have also not seen many happy in such an environment.
The opposite is strict top-down control, such as what is often described and lamented on HN, is equally bad. No one wants to work under a dictator.
There's a balance to be struck between authority and autonomy.
"Developers aren't some special creatures with one dimensional fixed mindset. They can do whatever that needs to be done."
Yes, but it is ok to generalize in a broad discussion like this one. Otherwise we can have no meaningful conversation. In general managers do not understand developers. And in general developers do not understand management. Those that are good have been exposed to both sides.
I never diminish anyone but it is naive to think that everyone contributes equally.
Your run of the mile non-technical manager sure is not very good at understanding the intricate complexity of all the moving parts of creating software.
Developers on the other hand appears blind to the fact that they play only a minor role in the bigger picture. While technology is difficult it pales in comparison to orchestrating people across sales, strategy, business transformation, creative, development, QA, operations and infrastructure.
That's just the horizontal alignment. In a single entity. In a single timezone. With a single vendor. A scenario which never happens because in real life you have at least 3 levels of technical management, multiple divisions/departments involved, spread across continents and multiple vendors participating.
You need competent people to align, coordinate, communicate and pick up the stuff which falls through the cracks. Developers are not good at this work.
You need a manager. And of course they must be competent.
EDIT: I don't actually think developers are delusional. I worded the phrase to mirror the absolutism of the statement "I've come to the conclusion that software managers are not needed" which is just plain silly.