3 ms·
It would have to be an extraordinarily bad engineer to actively remove revenue consistently. You can also hedge against this with disaster recovery.
by drb91 8y ago
It would have to be an extraordinarily bad engineer to actively remove revenue consistently. You can also hedge against this with disaster recovery.
- bacon_waffle 8y agoHow about the good engineer, employed to design the wrong thing? I feel like I've put good quality engineering work, in to projects that were completely wrong-headed in the bigger picture, and thereby lost the company money.
- drb91 8y agoThis seems more of an issue with where the company invests resources than to the engineer themselves.
- bacon_waffle 8y agoI agree; my point was just that the "goodness" of an engineer doesn't necessarily relate to their impact on revenue. In the particular situation I was thinking about above, it actually could've been better from a business perspective had I not been as "good" of an engineer. I took over a project that was simply not working at a technical level - it was a DSP-based thing, and the chosen DSP appeared not to have enough oomph. I managed to optimise the electronics and firmware enough to make it go, so it went on to production and AFAIK (I'm no longer at that company) has been a money pit ever since. The other possibility was a redesign with a burlier DSP, but I'd bet that the project would've been cancelled instead.
- hamandcheese 8y agoThere are a number of people I see consistently in the commit logs at work and I am quite confident that they have created more than a handful of new jobs each. So while they didn’t directly remove revenue, these people have an astonishingly bad ROI.
- drb91 8y agoThis is true. The performing engineers are underpaid; the underperforming ones should be trained or fired.