5 ms·

And yet the people managing engineers are supposed to be those "smart business people" that "know things" that those nerdy engineers don't understand about busi

And yet the people managing engineers are supposed to be those "smart business people" that "know things" that those nerdy engineers don't understand about business. Somehow they completely cannot understand tech debt no matter how many times it's explained to them.

908B64B197 6y ago
You are hiring them wrong. If they can't code or aren't from a top N business school, they have no place managing engineers.
- dagw 6y ago
  What in your experience do the top N business schools teach that make managers form there able to manage engineers, that other business schools don't?
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    They are more selective. Most management classes are really glorified accounting. Staring at budget and spreadsheet trying to cut costs.
jrott 6y ago
Tech debt is a bad metaphor. Having lots of debt can be a smart business decision. The problem is usually engineers do a terrible job telling the story around why having lots of tech debt will cause problems. Usually if you've got non technical managers the best case is they've lived though it before and know.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Debt is a good metaphor. Carrying technical debt can be a smart business decision. Constantly taking out more loans and never making payments leads to bankruptcy. In my experience the problem is usually it's hard to quantify the costs. It's easy for managers to tell themselves engineers are just perfectionists. Someone's bonus might depend on not listening and they probably won't be held accountable when something goes wrong.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    And bankruptcy is just the extreme of debt. It's also possible to survive, but be slowed by the drag of debt. Financial debt reduces profit, which slows expansion and reinvestment. Technical debt does the same, but slows novel development or expansion of the system.
  - jrott 6y ago
    Actual debt has a few major differences with tech debt though. First it's easy to quantify the cost of. Second and more importantly where it's good and bad are almost the opposite of where tech debt is good and bad. You want to use debt for financing when you have a relatively stable mature business where as when things are still uncertain you want to use equity.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      Conversely both have the same basic effect: they magnify the consequences of decisions. Fiscal debt is essentially a multiplier on your sensitivity to revenue changes. Tech debt is a multiplier on delivery time for new features, or your sensitivity to changes in the platform's assumptions.

908B64B197 6y ago

You are hiring them wrong. If they can't code or aren't from a top N business school, they have no place managing engineers.

dagw 6y ago
What in your experience do the top N business schools teach that make managers form there able to manage engineers, that other business schools don't?
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  They are more selective. Most management classes are really glorified accounting. Staring at budget and spreadsheet trying to cut costs.

jrott 6y ago

Tech debt is a bad metaphor. Having lots of debt can be a smart business decision. The problem is usually engineers do a terrible job telling the story around why having lots of tech debt will cause problems. Usually if you've got non technical managers the best case is they've lived though it before and know.

pseudalopex 6y ago
Debt is a good metaphor. Carrying technical debt can be a smart business decision. Constantly taking out more loans and never making payments leads to bankruptcy. In my experience the problem is usually it's hard to quantify the costs. It's easy for managers to tell themselves engineers are just perfectionists. Someone's bonus might depend on not listening and they probably won't be held accountable when something goes wrong.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  And bankruptcy is just the extreme of debt. It's also possible to survive, but be slowed by the drag of debt. Financial debt reduces profit, which slows expansion and reinvestment. Technical debt does the same, but slows novel development or expansion of the system.
- jrott 6y ago
  Actual debt has a few major differences with tech debt though. First it's easy to quantify the cost of. Second and more importantly where it's good and bad are almost the opposite of where tech debt is good and bad. You want to use debt for financing when you have a relatively stable mature business where as when things are still uncertain you want to use equity.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Conversely both have the same basic effect: they magnify the consequences of decisions. Fiscal debt is essentially a multiplier on your sensitivity to revenue changes. Tech debt is a multiplier on delivery time for new features, or your sensitivity to changes in the platform's assumptions.