4 ms·

I am not sure I understand the proposal, it seems that you’ve categorized managers into 2 buckets: 1) Managers who add little to no value. 2) Sr. Managers who

I am not sure I understand the proposal, it seems that you’ve categorized managers into 2 buckets: 1) Managers who add little to no value. 2) Sr. Managers who do add value (big picture roadmap, headcount balancing, etc. I don’t think you are suggesting (or even can) automate the tasks managers from bucket #2 are performing. As for bucket #1, if they aren’t adding value can’t you just eliminate this unnecessary layer from the company? Fire the manager and the team will presumably be just as well (or better) off? What is there to automate / produce tooling for? The non-value added tasks?

zpatel 9y ago
Correct, however, Companies will not fire #1 overnight or even understand if they can do that. Through some tooling, these will be rendered as not required (with data points to prove), just like "Architect" jobs have reduced as Sr. Engineers have taken up that part as well.
- Zombieball 9y ago
  What tooling are you referring to? I skimmed through other comments and didn’t notice any concrete examples? Do you envision something like project planning software? I think a key point of a good manager is also people development. But I imagine engineers could self-organize mentorships.
  - zpatel 9y ago
    This tool will basically deal with Product, Delivery and Team aspects: 1. Product Direction a. Source in Initiatives (road map) , Product stories managed by Product/Project manager, Sr. Manager and Director thus providing inputs on the business aspects and requirements. b. Tech Lead/Principal/Sr.Engineer provides feedback on 1a.) 2. Delivery Mgmt a. Stories will be mapped to Features for which the Architecture/Design (done by Sr.Engineers) would be reviewed/voted by team. Override of a technical approach (with justification) can be done by Principal/Sr.Engineer, however, this could be escalated to the Sr. Manager / Director by other team members (anonymously) . Sr.Mgr and Director would also chip in and provide their inputs if required and accordingly lead to a resolution based on data points, pros/cons etc. In this way, conflicts or ego issues can be minimized. b. Feature will be prioritized by Tech Lead / Sr. Engineer based on comments from team or directly proceed to c) c)Feature will be assigned to an Engineer for implementation d)Feature will be verified by QA as well as Business lead/user post deployment or software release e)Delivery feedback to be provided by the Product manager and Business user, this will be used to provide opportunity for improvement and/or appreciation of the effort (and hence motivation).
    - zpatel 9y ago
      One more thing, based on the votes for data points/issues, the tool would also provide recommendations.

zpatel 9y ago

Correct, however, Companies will not fire #1 overnight or even understand if they can do that. Through some tooling, these will be rendered as not required (with data points to prove), just like "Architect" jobs have reduced as Sr. Engineers have taken up that part as well.

Zombieball 9y ago
What tooling are you referring to? I skimmed through other comments and didn’t notice any concrete examples? Do you envision something like project planning software? I think a key point of a good manager is also people development. But I imagine engineers could self-organize mentorships.
- zpatel 9y ago
  This tool will basically deal with Product, Delivery and Team aspects: 1. Product Direction a. Source in Initiatives (road map) , Product stories managed by Product/Project manager, Sr. Manager and Director thus providing inputs on the business aspects and requirements. b. Tech Lead/Principal/Sr.Engineer provides feedback on 1a.) 2. Delivery Mgmt a. Stories will be mapped to Features for which the Architecture/Design (done by Sr.Engineers) would be reviewed/voted by team. Override of a technical approach (with justification) can be done by Principal/Sr.Engineer, however, this could be escalated to the Sr. Manager / Director by other team members (anonymously) . Sr.Mgr and Director would also chip in and provide their inputs if required and accordingly lead to a resolution based on data points, pros/cons etc. In this way, conflicts or ego issues can be minimized. b. Feature will be prioritized by Tech Lead / Sr. Engineer based on comments from team or directly proceed to c) c)Feature will be assigned to an Engineer for implementation d)Feature will be verified by QA as well as Business lead/user post deployment or software release e)Delivery feedback to be provided by the Product manager and Business user, this will be used to provide opportunity for improvement and/or appreciation of the effort (and hence motivation).
  - zpatel 9y ago
    One more thing, based on the votes for data points/issues, the tool would also provide recommendations.