4 ms·
Not necessarily. In my current role I am the implementer, and I may have to explain the current behavior of systems to managers. But they ultimately make the de
by SamuelAdams 4y ago
Not necessarily. In my current role I am the implementer, and I may have to explain the current behavior of systems to managers. But they ultimately make the decision on what gets changed.
I present it as business impact / use cases, they decide what “policy” (non-tech) changes they want to make, and I decide how to technically best implement that considering the existing design and new changes.
- lifeisstillgood 4y agomeh. That's like "artists impression" view on a building and actually what gets built. What gets built matters. It's all that matters. And anyone who says "i built this building" when they were the one who pointed at a set of different artists impressions is frankly deluded. (I have my inner socialist rearing up inside !) more conciliatory, we all try to pay lip service to "business" in charge and "business decisions" that is less and less a reality - the policies are in code. Read the code, don't pretend the powerpoint based on the meeting based on the comments in the code will get you an understanding Edit: ok more conciliatory- there is always going to be politics, so there is always debate amoung voters (employees? stakeholders?) and there are always politicians holding a manifesto of changes - but that person (manager) should be able to read the code and understand the implications of the different changes which also nearly follows to my next great idea - vote for policies in a company which is same as vote for executives, Let's make annual baord elections binding and competitive :-)