5 ms·
From what I recall of the training I received from a somewhat well-known Chief Quality Officer, you don't get things right more often by getting better people,
by rxhernandez 5y ago
From what I recall of the training I received from a somewhat well-known Chief Quality Officer, you don't get things right more often by getting better people, you get things right more often by making better processes for people to follow (the latter of which isn't as directly tied to better people as you may think).
Frankly, I don't get the hype. I've interviewed FAANG engineers and have given a thumbs down almost as often as I did for engineers from other companies.
- daniellarusso 5y agoYes, the McDonald’s philosophy. Having clearly articulated processes certainly help consistency.
- ByteJockey 5y agoThe problem with consistency is that if you're not already doing the right thing, you'll never do the right thing. Not even by accident.
- daniellarusso 5y agoI disagree. Even if you are doing the wrong thing consistently, one has a much greater chance of knowing what parameters can be tweaked to alter the outcome. Consistency is easier to monitor/log. It is easier to experiment. Without consistency, it is much more difficult to know which of your decisions changed the outcome, or was it just good or bad luck. Toyota and McDonald’s are successfully companies, but they are not perfect. Kaizen and consistency are not mutually exclusive.
- ByteJockey 5y agoPossible, and that does sound nice. But in my experience striving for consistency means that before improving something you have to go and change everywhere that pattern appears in 400 different code bases going back 20 years (and all of the documentation across however many platforms). As a result nobody ever improves things. As with all things YMMV.
- cmrdporcupine 5y agoAgree on the process points. Re: the hype .. what I would say is, as an employee of a FAANG, is that I work with really smart people. Some of the smartest and most competent people I've ever worked with. Most much smarter than myself. But after 9 years, I'm not convinced that their intelligence always yields results that exceed that of other companies I've worked at. In some ways, yes, but in other ways no. So, I dunno.
- Oddskar 5y agoI think it's because building software is a team endeavor. Just because individuals are smart doesn't mean that the end result will be great.