4 ms·
Here's the problem with tools and process: They're a cost center and not a revenue generator. When you've got a group that provides no measurable revenue they
by vvanders 11y ago
Here's the problem with tools and process:
They're a cost center and not a revenue generator.
When you've got a group that provides no measurable revenue they will always be at a disadvantage to the group that provides the money train. This is why you see a systematic de-valuing of tools and iteration improvement despite the massive gains they provide.
- falsedan 11y agoWe generate a huge amount of IP at work in a (similar to) engineering effectiveness role. Even the dumbest tools we come up with could be spun off into an ok-ish start-up. I guess it's a matter of mindset, if you think to make tools which address the issue at hand, you'll end up as a cost center; if you think of products to solve the class of problems the issue belongs to, then you'll be adding value to the company as well as improving effectiveness.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 11y agoJIRA costs $20k for an organization with 2000 programmers. How much custom development can you fund with that amount? If your programmers earn $100k/y (fully-loaded!), you can't even afford 3 man-months.
- bachmeier 11y agoI think the point is that JIRA won't do exactly what you need. Using a tool that's "good enough" is the best choice when you've got 5 developers but not when you've got 5000.
- icebraining 11y agoYeah, but when you buy a license, you get access to the full source, which you can adapt to your needs. I think that's a much better option than building a similar tool from scratch.
- leetbmc 11y agoGood point. It's a good thing that rewriting a commercial tool to adapt it to your needs is so free.
- gull 11y agoWhat if the tools support the money train to generate 100x more money?
- mwfunk 11y agoRegardless of the coefficient, it comes down to whether or not everyone else in the company realizes that the tools expertise is the secret sauce driving the money train. I think that's what the person you were replying to was getting at. It is unfortunate, but the reality of our profession is that tools/infrastructure work always has an uphill battle when it comes to justifying engineering time. It's something we all have to fight for when appropriate, and discussing why and how to do that can be super useful. Working on tools and infrastructure is by definition time spent making things that will help us make things to make money. The people paying us usually would much rather have us spend time making things to make money, rather than making things to make things to make money. If there's not enough trust between the engineer and the nontechnical manager/investor/whatever, it can be hard to get buy-in for time and money spent making something which is essentially an IOU for hypothetical returns later on. Build that trust and have great ideas and hopefully resources can be directed towards indirect (tools/infrastructure/whatever) engineering expenses. It is always an uphill battle though, I think it's just the nature of the industry, or at least most companies. :( I'm not bitter though, because it really is totally rational if you look at it from the perspective of the stakeholder who would have to approve it. Just part of the professional landscape to be aware of.
- rokhayakebe 11y agoCertainly there are people who can calculate the net impact such a group has on revenue or cost of operation?
- InclinedPlane 11y agoThis is why good management is so important. Tools aren't a money sink, they are a competitive advantage. Effort put into tools isn't a loss, it's an investment.
- Ankaios 11y agoThey may not be revenue generators, but they can be profit generators, by reducing costs.