5 ms·

"Can that corner be cut?" "Well technically yes, but..." "Good, cut it" .. 2 years later .. "How could we possibly have been hacked! We had security right?!

"Can that corner be cut?" "Well technically yes, but..." "Good, cut it" .. 2 years later .. "How could we possibly have been hacked! We had security right?!" .. points behind at ten miles of cut corners ..

moron4hire 10y ago
The problem was that the corner could not actually be cut. If the answer is, "yes, but we won't hit our performance targets," then the answer should have been "no, we won't hit our performance targets." Your management can't help it that you said it was possible.
- 12931831 10y ago
  You should look up what "technically" means in that context.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  In my case, every meeting I had consisted of me saying "We need to know which features and performance goals we can sacrifice." Never got any answer. They wanted it all; they didn't want to pay for it.
  - lj3 10y ago
    Is it possible this was a communication failure not a technical one? I'm guessing your bosses couldn't tell the difference between the old performance level of your code and the new performance level of the off the shelf code. But, I'm betting they could tell the difference in communication styles. I'm guessing you said 'no' a lot and your replacements said 'yes' a lot?
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      >"They wanted it all; they didn't want to pay for it." The above happened on almost every project I have worked for over the years. Q: "Can we take feature x out of the plan?" A: "We can't release the product/project without it" Q: "Can we then add 2 more months to the release?" A: "Absolutely impossible, the client will not accept it" You are correct, the reason is severe (and systemic) lack of communication: Product-roadmap planning either does not involve technical personnel at all, or at least not until the very last minute, when you are brought in to essentially rubber-stamp the plan. Saying "no" takes a lot of courage at this stage, you are seen as incapable/negative. The underlying problem here is that we are seen as mere technicians/workers, not planners or strategists (we are partially to be blamed for this, but that's a separate topic).
      - jnbiche 10y ago
        I've also had exchanges very similar to the above. What I think happens is that managers think that we're negotiating. Negotiating for what? I have no idea, but for many managers, it's their default assumption. In fact, we're not negotiating. We're describing the situation to the best of our understanding. Indeed, when often these situations have started to feel like negotiations, I've stopped and emphasized that this is not a negotiation, this is my very best estimate as to what I need to get the job done, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes this gets through to them.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Oh I communicated the failings and expected drawbacks. The lag, the failures to connect, the features now missing. The whole different architecture that prevented doing anything like what we were already doing. But, its magical open-source! Which means anything can be fixed. Wave that wand and objections disappear. The new bosses made the mistake of thinking our app was the product. But it was the behaviors it facilitated that was the product. They dummied up a web app that looked like what we'd been doing. But it didn't perform or scale anything like what we'd had. Which will probably kill them in the end.
  - justinclift 10y ago
    As another commenter mentioned, this does sound like a communication (of priorities) problem. Mgr: "Joe, we need to get this new FrobNoz done. This week instead of next." You: "Sure Mgr, no worries." You: "Hey Frank, you're working overtime to make this happen. Or else you're fired." Frank tries, then quits. FrobNoz doesn't get done in time. You get fired. Your Mgr gets fired. Your company implodes. ;) Or alternatively: Mgr: "Joe, we need to get this new FrobNoz done. This week instead of next." You (gives cool, direct look to Mgr) You: "We can do that. But we need to pull resources from Alpha, Beta, or Gamma to make that happen. Which of these three is least important to you?" Mgr: "Beta can wait, get this done." Result: You have the people who can do it, (ideally) without excessive overtime. Hopefully the lack of Beta doesn't cause company implosion. Anyone who says their Mgr demands all of it and won't make resource decisions, has not developed their "cold, direct look" (thousand yard stare?) enough.
- imgabe 10y ago
  This is a common point of miscommunication between engineers and management. To an engineer, anything not strictly ruled out by the laws of physics is possible. The answer shouldn't be whether something is possible, but whether it's advisable, prudent, likely to continue being successful, within budget, etc, etc. Just about anything is possible if you're willing to throw enough money and time at it.
- candu 10y ago
  ...which would be true, if there weren't an obvious and palpable power distance between management and engineering in 99% of cases. It may be in vogue to pretend that this power distance doesn't exist, but it does, and it means in practice that engineers often don't feel at liberty to be candid in these situations. This problem is compounded when managers don't meet the minimum technical skill bar to rationally assess the tradeoffs presented to them by engineers. If anything, good managers help ensure that this communication channel remains as bullshit-free as possible. Excellent managers actively elicit honest feedback, listen to it carefully, evaluate the risk / benefit tradeoffs, and insulate their reports from political consequences. Unfortunately, very few managers are excellent, which is a big part of why many engineers imagine management as this useless floppy vestigial apparatus. (I say this from personal experience as a consultant: I learned really, really quickly exactly what managers do for you once I no longer had any.)
  - vvanders 10y ago
    It's hard to stress how accurate this is, once you've had a manager who's good at this it's very obvious what separates the wheat from the chaff. Same is true in the Program Manager/Tech Program Manager/Producer roles.

moron4hire 10y ago

The problem was that the corner could not actually be cut. If the answer is, "yes, but we won't hit our performance targets," then the answer should have been "no, we won't hit our performance targets." Your management can't help it that you said it was possible.

12931831 10y ago
You should look up what "technically" means in that context.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
In my case, every meeting I had consisted of me saying "We need to know which features and performance goals we can sacrifice." Never got any answer. They wanted it all; they didn't want to pay for it.
- lj3 10y ago
  Is it possible this was a communication failure not a technical one? I'm guessing your bosses couldn't tell the difference between the old performance level of your code and the new performance level of the off the shelf code. But, I'm betting they could tell the difference in communication styles. I'm guessing you said 'no' a lot and your replacements said 'yes' a lot?
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    >"They wanted it all; they didn't want to pay for it." The above happened on almost every project I have worked for over the years. Q: "Can we take feature x out of the plan?" A: "We can't release the product/project without it" Q: "Can we then add 2 more months to the release?" A: "Absolutely impossible, the client will not accept it" You are correct, the reason is severe (and systemic) lack of communication: Product-roadmap planning either does not involve technical personnel at all, or at least not until the very last minute, when you are brought in to essentially rubber-stamp the plan. Saying "no" takes a lot of courage at this stage, you are seen as incapable/negative. The underlying problem here is that we are seen as mere technicians/workers, not planners or strategists (we are partially to be blamed for this, but that's a separate topic).
    - jnbiche 10y ago
      I've also had exchanges very similar to the above. What I think happens is that managers think that we're negotiating. Negotiating for what? I have no idea, but for many managers, it's their default assumption. In fact, we're not negotiating. We're describing the situation to the best of our understanding. Indeed, when often these situations have started to feel like negotiations, I've stopped and emphasized that this is not a negotiation, this is my very best estimate as to what I need to get the job done, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes this gets through to them.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Oh I communicated the failings and expected drawbacks. The lag, the failures to connect, the features now missing. The whole different architecture that prevented doing anything like what we were already doing. But, its magical open-source! Which means anything can be fixed. Wave that wand and objections disappear. The new bosses made the mistake of thinking our app was the product. But it was the behaviors it facilitated that was the product. They dummied up a web app that looked like what we'd been doing. But it didn't perform or scale anything like what we'd had. Which will probably kill them in the end.
- justinclift 10y ago
  As another commenter mentioned, this does sound like a communication (of priorities) problem. Mgr: "Joe, we need to get this new FrobNoz done. This week instead of next." You: "Sure Mgr, no worries." You: "Hey Frank, you're working overtime to make this happen. Or else you're fired." Frank tries, then quits. FrobNoz doesn't get done in time. You get fired. Your Mgr gets fired. Your company implodes. ;) Or alternatively: Mgr: "Joe, we need to get this new FrobNoz done. This week instead of next." You (gives cool, direct look to Mgr) You: "We can do that. But we need to pull resources from Alpha, Beta, or Gamma to make that happen. Which of these three is least important to you?" Mgr: "Beta can wait, get this done." Result: You have the people who can do it, (ideally) without excessive overtime. Hopefully the lack of Beta doesn't cause company implosion. Anyone who says their Mgr demands all of it and won't make resource decisions, has not developed their "cold, direct look" (thousand yard stare?) enough.
imgabe 10y ago
This is a common point of miscommunication between engineers and management. To an engineer, anything not strictly ruled out by the laws of physics is possible. The answer shouldn't be whether something is possible, but whether it's advisable, prudent, likely to continue being successful, within budget, etc, etc. Just about anything is possible if you're willing to throw enough money and time at it.
candu 10y ago
...which would be true, if there weren't an obvious and palpable power distance between management and engineering in 99% of cases. It may be in vogue to pretend that this power distance doesn't exist, but it does, and it means in practice that engineers often don't feel at liberty to be candid in these situations. This problem is compounded when managers don't meet the minimum technical skill bar to rationally assess the tradeoffs presented to them by engineers. If anything, good managers help ensure that this communication channel remains as bullshit-free as possible. Excellent managers actively elicit honest feedback, listen to it carefully, evaluate the risk / benefit tradeoffs, and insulate their reports from political consequences. Unfortunately, very few managers are excellent, which is a big part of why many engineers imagine management as this useless floppy vestigial apparatus. (I say this from personal experience as a consultant: I learned really, really quickly exactly what managers do for you once I no longer had any.)
- vvanders 10y ago
  It's hard to stress how accurate this is, once you've had a manager who's good at this it's very obvious what separates the wheat from the chaff. Same is true in the Program Manager/Tech Program Manager/Producer roles.