5 ms·

Waves hand, "We can always throw some more engineers at that part of the problem, what's really hard is figuring out what to do", said the project manager, and

Waves hand, "We can always throw some more engineers at that part of the problem, what's really hard is figuring out what to do", said the project manager, and the product manager, and the QA manager, and the manager-manager. Meanwhile, talking heads in also ran companies in Silicon Valley continued to sell off stock in the mantra, "Innovation is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration".

someguydave 8y ago
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization. https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
- riazrizvi 8y ago
  Personally, I wouldn't go that far, I've found a decent number of managers to be value-adding. I think it is more about the sloppy mindset that tends to underplay the contribution of other producers on a team, to instead heavily over-value their own contributions. Engineers can go too far in this way too, of course. Managers can produce strategy, operational efficiency, organizational support for ill-understood projects, elevate performers, eliminate underperformers etc.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    This. A good manager is a force multiplier.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    That doesn't contradict Pournelle's observation. The balance of power tends towards those who work for the organization in most firms. The bigger question in my mind: why firms at all? If individual PMs are so great, why bother with employees? Wouldn't you rather just contract all the elements of a technical project to other folks for a fixed fee? I do wonder what portion of good ol' boys and good ol' fashion nepotism tend to fill out the "PM" position on big firm's org charts.
    - slsii 8y ago
      There's a ~long history of people attempting to answer that question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm From the article, "Firms exist as an alternative system to the market-price mechanism when it is more efficient to produce in a non-market environment."
      - someguydave 8y ago
        If that "theory of the firm" is true, then engineering is much less commoditized than stated by the top-level commenter.
        xapata 8y ago
        I believe that was the evidence provided by the great outsourcing experiment of 1996-2006. Turns out programming can't easily be turned into a low-skill job.
        someguydave 8y ago
        I agree. So why have so many programmers in Silicon Valley? Why don’t they leave and demand independent contracts? Perhaps that kind of “unbundling” of technical talent is the future.
        xapata 8y ago
        It's the problem of being paid enough. My wife asked me the same question recently, "Why don't programmers unionize?" They could demand more through collective action, but they don't feel the need. Also, programmers are (often) worth more in teams. Two programmers who work well together are far more productive as a pair than the sum of what they'd do in isolation.
x220 8y ago
Figuring out what to do is the hardest part. Engineering is typically the least significant part of the success or failure of a company.
- riazrizvi 8y ago
  "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth", said Kennedy, and all the senators rushed the podium, slapped him on the back, and popped champagne, as they realized the hardest part was done.
  - dependsontheq 8y ago
    But it was the hardest part wasn’t it? Nobody since then managed to get that commitment for a space program.
    - riazrizvi 8y ago
      And if only Napolean or Hitler had managed to get enough 'commitment' for their plans to conquer Europe, they would be sitting pretty right now? Yeesh.
    - jcheng 8y ago
      The Soviets tried and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
  - gammarator 8y ago
    ... Yes? Kennedy got them to fund NASA at a level that's never been seen since: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/BudgetDISC%253B.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/BudgetD...
  - arbie 8y ago
    Not parent, but in every successful project I have been part of, the technical challenges were always a small slice (perhaps less than a quarter) of the main effort. Getting organizational approval (which usually boils down to acquiring buy-in from management) and picking the path to progress (with occasional course-correction) are the main contributors to success. This isn't to discount the hard work involved in completing the technical tasks, but commiting _to_ begin something along a certain development vector is, indeed, the hard part.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

someguydave 8y ago

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization. https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

riazrizvi 8y ago
Personally, I wouldn't go that far, I've found a decent number of managers to be value-adding. I think it is more about the sloppy mindset that tends to underplay the contribution of other producers on a team, to instead heavily over-value their own contributions. Engineers can go too far in this way too, of course. Managers can produce strategy, operational efficiency, organizational support for ill-understood projects, elevate performers, eliminate underperformers etc.
- Fomite 8y ago
  This. A good manager is a force multiplier.
- someguydave 8y ago
  That doesn't contradict Pournelle's observation. The balance of power tends towards those who work for the organization in most firms. The bigger question in my mind: why firms at all? If individual PMs are so great, why bother with employees? Wouldn't you rather just contract all the elements of a technical project to other folks for a fixed fee? I do wonder what portion of good ol' boys and good ol' fashion nepotism tend to fill out the "PM" position on big firm's org charts.
  - slsii 8y ago
    There's a ~long history of people attempting to answer that question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm From the article, "Firms exist as an alternative system to the market-price mechanism when it is more efficient to produce in a non-market environment."
    - someguydave 8y ago
      If that "theory of the firm" is true, then engineering is much less commoditized than stated by the top-level commenter.
      - xapata 8y ago
        I believe that was the evidence provided by the great outsourcing experiment of 1996-2006. Turns out programming can't easily be turned into a low-skill job.
        someguydave 8y ago
        I agree. So why have so many programmers in Silicon Valley? Why don’t they leave and demand independent contracts? Perhaps that kind of “unbundling” of technical talent is the future.
        xapata 8y ago
        It's the problem of being paid enough. My wife asked me the same question recently, "Why don't programmers unionize?" They could demand more through collective action, but they don't feel the need. Also, programmers are (often) worth more in teams. Two programmers who work well together are far more productive as a pair than the sum of what they'd do in isolation.

x220 8y ago

Figuring out what to do is the hardest part. Engineering is typically the least significant part of the success or failure of a company.

riazrizvi 8y ago
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth", said Kennedy, and all the senators rushed the podium, slapped him on the back, and popped champagne, as they realized the hardest part was done.
- dependsontheq 8y ago
  But it was the hardest part wasn’t it? Nobody since then managed to get that commitment for a space program.
  - riazrizvi 8y ago
    And if only Napolean or Hitler had managed to get enough 'commitment' for their plans to conquer Europe, they would be sitting pretty right now? Yeesh.
  - jcheng 8y ago
    The Soviets tried and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_crewed_lunar_programs
- gammarator 8y ago
  ... Yes? Kennedy got them to fund NASA at a level that's never been seen since: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/BudgetDISC%253B.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/BudgetD...
- arbie 8y ago
  Not parent, but in every successful project I have been part of, the technical challenges were always a small slice (perhaps less than a quarter) of the main effort. Getting organizational approval (which usually boils down to acquiring buy-in from management) and picking the path to progress (with occasional course-correction) are the main contributors to success. This isn't to discount the hard work involved in completing the technical tasks, but commiting _to_ begin something along a certain development vector is, indeed, the hard part.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]