9 ms·

This is a good article but there is a causality problem. I know a lot of pure software companies in the EU that work like that. If software is your core busines

This is a good article but there is a causality problem. I know a lot of pure software companies in the EU that work like that. If software is your core business, developers are in the loop at every decision, if your core business is building power plants...they are not. Now the Marc Andressen argument might be that software eats the world and everybody should run their business like this, and that might actually be true or not. Beside this product/core relationship problem, I see one other issue and that are margins, many SV companies are comparatively young and are in new markets with high margins (or ridiculously high funding) these high margins change their way of doing business.

bennyelv 6y ago
I think funding and margins are the thing that are actually causal here: when you're swimming in funds, can afford to hire whoever you like to do whatever you like and you don't need to be turning a profit for at least 5 years, the organisation can be run very differently to one in which quarter to quarter cashflow really matters and there are margins to think about. Funnily enough I work at a software company which is bootstrapped and where cashflow matters, I'd love to run things like a fully funded SV startup but I can't. We just can't afford it.
koushikn 6y ago
Good point on having developers in loop in a software business. Tesla might be a counter example, where it is often touted to be run like a "tech" company. Are developers in loop in the design of non-software stuff? (is chassis design an example? or maybe not?) The other point on triangular communication with middle managers I think is known problem that Musk has publicly spoken about..
tsss 6y ago
My problem with non-software companies is that they don't treat programmers as equals. To them they will always be "code monkeys" and below the mechanical or electrical engineers. These companies are led by people who think all programmers are stereotypical "nerds" and try to create software departments according to the script of The Big Bang Theory. Just look at this crap I was sent by a recruiter: https://www.mercedes-benz.io/ https://www.mercedes-benz.io/ It's chock full of buzz words and infantilizing language. I don't want to "impact", "move the world" or whatever bullshit the marketing department can pull out its ass. I want good pay, good work-life balance and I want to be treated as a professional.
slavoingilizov 6y ago
This is an important comment. Would you put an engineer in charge of a bank product? What about a medical service? It's one thing to be consulted, it's another thing to be the decision-maker. I agree with the premise of the article that more engineers need to be in powerful positions, but some domains are just too complicated and require substantial domain knowledge to make "product" decisions. It's the collaboration between product and engineering that's important, not switching one for the other. The biggest problem I have with the article is that it presents the problem as too binary with only 2 possible outcomes - someone being in charge. Tech companies put engineers in charge because the engineers are the domain experts, not because they figured out some secret sauce.

bennyelv 6y ago

I think funding and margins are the thing that are actually causal here: when you're swimming in funds, can afford to hire whoever you like to do whatever you like and you don't need to be turning a profit for at least 5 years, the organisation can be run very differently to one in which quarter to quarter cashflow really matters and there are margins to think about. Funnily enough I work at a software company which is bootstrapped and where cashflow matters, I'd love to run things like a fully funded SV startup but I can't. We just can't afford it.

koushikn 6y ago

Good point on having developers in loop in a software business. Tesla might be a counter example, where it is often touted to be run like a "tech" company. Are developers in loop in the design of non-software stuff? (is chassis design an example? or maybe not?) The other point on triangular communication with middle managers I think is known problem that Musk has publicly spoken about..

tsss 6y ago

My problem with non-software companies is that they don't treat programmers as equals. To them they will always be "code monkeys" and below the mechanical or electrical engineers. These companies are led by people who think all programmers are stereotypical "nerds" and try to create software departments according to the script of The Big Bang Theory. Just look at this crap I was sent by a recruiter: https://www.mercedes-benz.io/ https://www.mercedes-benz.io/ It's chock full of buzz words and infantilizing language. I don't want to "impact", "move the world" or whatever bullshit the marketing department can pull out its ass. I want good pay, good work-life balance and I want to be treated as a professional.

slavoingilizov 6y ago

This is an important comment. Would you put an engineer in charge of a bank product? What about a medical service? It's one thing to be consulted, it's another thing to be the decision-maker. I agree with the premise of the article that more engineers need to be in powerful positions, but some domains are just too complicated and require substantial domain knowledge to make "product" decisions. It's the collaboration between product and engineering that's important, not switching one for the other. The biggest problem I have with the article is that it presents the problem as too binary with only 2 possible outcomes - someone being in charge. Tech companies put engineers in charge because the engineers are the domain experts, not because they figured out some secret sauce.