4 ms·
I like the way Joel Spolsky describes managers taking this even further at Microsoft back in the day. They wanted to make sure the engineers knew that they wer
by jasonkester 10y ago
I like the way Joel Spolsky describes managers taking this even further at Microsoft back in the day.
They wanted to make sure the engineers knew that they were the ones designing the software, to the point where they would refuse to even step in and resolve a conflict between two engineers about the design. Even when those two engineers came up and asked for help resolving said conflict.
Now you've got three people in the room: a designer, a developer, and a manager. Who's the person who knows least about the problem?
Solve it yourself, guys. Perfect.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000072.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000072.html
- megablast 10y agoRight, but you have the engineer saying that is not important, and the designer saying this is the most important part of the software and we might as well not do it at all. This is where you need a decision from someone else.
- derefr 10y agoI don't know if you need arbitration, there, so much as a willingness to allow each party to "pull in" others to help make their point. Like expert witnesses in a trial, but just for the sake of convincing.
- ryandrake 10y agoNot necessarily. One of them may be right, or neither of them. Surely someone who says X is unimportant or that X the most important part of the software can prove it with data/measurement?
- manmal 10y agoThis is my favorite talk on that subject (NSConf 2014): https://vimeo.com/97507451 https://vimeo.com/97507451 TLDR: A project needs a dictator in order for the endresult to be well designed and directed (else, it can still be profitable according to speaker, but not excellent). Funny that parent mentioned it, (Ballmer-era) Microsoft gets an unhonorable mention towards the end, with their "meh" XBox concept.