4 ms·
riding people isn't the solution, the problem is usually structural. Take any product and there are 5 to 10 teams involved in it's development and they all push
by jshen 16y ago
riding people isn't the solution, the problem is usually structural. Take any product and there are 5 to 10 teams involved in it's development and they all push their own little pet ideas. Rarely is there ever a single leader with a single vision that is also involved in the day to day development and decision making. Instead the person that should do this does what you suggest, they swing in every once in a while, complain complain complain, then switch focus to some other project for a bit, while never taking to time to solve the real problem.
well, that's my sad experience from a couple of big companies.
- ultrasaurus 16y agoThat's true, not a lot of that is Movie Maker's fault, the website team (bad search, slow loads) and the windows update team (maybe, or maybe the teams submitting the updates) were 95% of the fault. That and none of this involved 'big ticket' teams, movie maker makes $0, so they get squeezed out at meetings.
- Jkeg 16y agoWell yes. Microsoft is often said to have problems with teams competing internally (pointlessly), or just not working together. However, that's a management choice that can come from the top. If there's one thing a "Chief Software Architect" should do, it's make sure all software teams are in the habit of communicating and collaborating whenever possible. It doesn't seam like that happened here.
- jshen 16y agoI think the right thing to do is recognize the extremely high cost of communication and collaboration and weigh that against the benefit. Almost every manager I've known assumes that the cost of communication or collaboration is near zero while the cost of development is extremely high. Often, the cost of duplication development effort is lower than the cost of adding another communication and collaboration channel.