3 ms·

Sure, except when your architect has some sort of contention, whether it's time, patience, or ego. Last time I had a decent idea to pitch, I pitched it to the a

by bpchaps 11y ago

Sure, except when your architect has some sort of contention, whether it's time, patience, or ego. Last time I had a decent idea to pitch, I pitched it to the architect twice - first time, it got completely thrown down. Second time, practically same pitch, except it was approved. I genuinely feel like a month was lost because of that. There's something to be said for "just doing it", and so so many times have architects completely gotten in the way of making good progress.

mikekchar 11y ago
It is both fortunate and unfortunate that there is a conflict of interest between entrepreneur and architect. As an entrepreneur, your job is to make money. The product is actually secondary. Risk is totally acceptable because you can start 20 companies and as long as 1 of them makes a huge payback, you are in the black. Architects, on the other hand make products. I once was interviewed by a firm that asked me a pointed question about what I did to stop a failed project from failing. My answer was that I gave the best information I could, but that I left it up to the business to decide whether to fail or not. I still think that's the right answer, but it lost me the job. As architects/programmers, we do not succeed by making money. We succeed by writing software. Several times in my career I have been hired to write shells of programs -- demos that will secure funding, knowing that the underlying software was essentially a lie. It just needed to be impressive and potentially disruptive. Probably the company who would shell out for it would cancel it the first chance they got anyway. Is it the type of software I would like to work on? No (though it did pay well ;-) ). In any case, that tension is bound to exist. As long as there is good communication and honesty, the tension can provide good results. One of the first questions I ask in a job interview at a start up is, "Do you intend to make a product?" The second question is, "Do you intend to make the product successful?" The questions about technical debt are only really relevant if the answers to those questions is "yes".
- bpchaps 11y ago
  Honestly, I feel you're making a much larger abstraction than what exists in reality (or maybe what SHOULD exist). Not to say that the abstraction doesn't exist, just that you're a bit too far in the othering-realm for my tastes. There's definitely a middle ground in there where the semantic difference between entrepreneur and architect doesn't exist - where good work and good ideas "are", regardless of how far you swing on that spectrum. I agree that the distinction between the two types of individual is necessary, but an over-use of it is an easy way to lose out in the long run. The question about what you did to stop a failing project is an odd one and probably completely ineffective. If that's the reason they didn't hire you, take it as a good thing. There's too much nuance for it to be considered useful without other considerations. My recent situation was that I pushed too hard to stop a failing project and was socially cast out. By the time the senior staff noticed that my suggestions actually made sense and weren't batshit extreme, the social dynamic was too much and I left. On your last point, I'm not sure that would be a useful question, either. It's so incredibly for a linux lead to say, "Our infrastructure security has no technical debt", for example. It's easy to say, but impossible to prove without being at the company for a while, even for an in-the-mud admin. Hell, that's what happened at the place I just left.

by bpchaps 11y ago

mikekchar 11y ago

It is both fortunate and unfortunate that there is a conflict of interest between entrepreneur and architect. As an entrepreneur, your job is to make money. The product is actually secondary. Risk is totally acceptable because you can start 20 companies and as long as 1 of them makes a huge payback, you are in the black. Architects, on the other hand make products. I once was interviewed by a firm that asked me a pointed question about what I did to stop a failed project from failing. My answer was that I gave the best information I could, but that I left it up to the business to decide whether to fail or not. I still think that's the right answer, but it lost me the job. As architects/programmers, we do not succeed by making money. We succeed by writing software. Several times in my career I have been hired to write shells of programs -- demos that will secure funding, knowing that the underlying software was essentially a lie. It just needed to be impressive and potentially disruptive. Probably the company who would shell out for it would cancel it the first chance they got anyway. Is it the type of software I would like to work on? No (though it did pay well ;-) ). In any case, that tension is bound to exist. As long as there is good communication and honesty, the tension can provide good results. One of the first questions I ask in a job interview at a start up is, "Do you intend to make a product?" The second question is, "Do you intend to make the product successful?" The questions about technical debt are only really relevant if the answers to those questions is "yes".

bpchaps 11y ago
Honestly, I feel you're making a much larger abstraction than what exists in reality (or maybe what SHOULD exist). Not to say that the abstraction doesn't exist, just that you're a bit too far in the othering-realm for my tastes. There's definitely a middle ground in there where the semantic difference between entrepreneur and architect doesn't exist - where good work and good ideas "are", regardless of how far you swing on that spectrum. I agree that the distinction between the two types of individual is necessary, but an over-use of it is an easy way to lose out in the long run. The question about what you did to stop a failing project is an odd one and probably completely ineffective. If that's the reason they didn't hire you, take it as a good thing. There's too much nuance for it to be considered useful without other considerations. My recent situation was that I pushed too hard to stop a failing project and was socially cast out. By the time the senior staff noticed that my suggestions actually made sense and weren't batshit extreme, the social dynamic was too much and I left. On your last point, I'm not sure that would be a useful question, either. It's so incredibly for a linux lead to say, "Our infrastructure security has no technical debt", for example. It's easy to say, but impossible to prove without being at the company for a while, even for an in-the-mud admin. Hell, that's what happened at the place I just left.