3 ms·
> I chose the one that either didn't involve us doing anything, or was easiest In my leadership experience, in the long run this is a recipe for disaster. If e
by kavalg 5y ago
> I chose the one that either didn't involve us doing anything, or was easiest
In my leadership experience, in the long run this is a recipe for disaster. If every team does this, in the end you get silos and a toxic culture, where it is really hard to steer architecture and product changes. At meetings with team leads all will seem fine, but then there will be some silent, elegant and even somewhat unintentional boycotting and delays, eventually grinding the organization to a halt. After years this leads to major changes in the management chain and then rinse and repeat :)
- choeger 5y agoIt's really a fine line, I think. You cannot do everything and you cannot discuss everything. Unfortunately, you also often cannot undo such a decision cheaply later. (One of the big fallacies of agile software development is that making changes has essentially constant cost of effort, whereas in reality changes get more costly over time.) So the only way out is some kind of agency/ownership. Every team should have a basic understanding of the goals of the stakeholders so they can make such decisions in good faith.