3 ms·

Well I suppose that's the difference between thoughtful systems and process and zero systems and process, and also poor problem definition. There is some nuance

Well I suppose that's the difference between thoughtful systems and process and zero systems and process, and also poor problem definition. There is some nuance between "ship literally anything to end users" and "ship an improvement" or something else to end users, or to a beta that roles out to end users and isolates the possible regression to a smaller surface area. It also seems like those developers might either suck (possible, but uncharitable), or that the system rewards the wrong things. But much of the time, better or worse laters of bureaucracy in the system come about from these mistakes which will eventually happen, so it's a very valid point, and I do think a lot of the time it's companies building up scar tissue and not being capable of getting the necessary surgery to fix it.

cogman10 3y ago
> It also seems like those developers might either suck (possible, but uncharitable), or that the system rewards the wrong things. Yes, they do, but also it's an entire department problem and one that the upper bureaucracy doesn't see as an issue. I'm really not surprised this was the route that particular department took. Office politics are fun, though, so sucking at your job often doesn't mean anything if your managers are all buddies. But before the creation/evolution of that department we already had these sorts of problems. This may just be a "just my company" problem but I don't think it is. After all, from what I know of business management, this sort of "extra staff and rework is waste" mentality seems really pervasive.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Yep, that all sounds quite familiar, definitely not just your company, it's characteristic of trying to monkey-patch whatever management can point a finger at, because that's what they're rewarded for, and that's what their manager is rewarded for. No word of a lie, I ran into a colleague from the first company I saw this problem at (and was fired from) years later when I happened to revisit a restaurant I liked in the area. I asked him if he still worked there, and he laughed. Said that they eventually fired the entire department and he stayed on just as a consultant for a bit. Which is odd, because although I was a naive early-twenties kid at the time, I could tell everyone else in that department was quite good at their jobs.

cogman10 3y ago

> It also seems like those developers might either suck (possible, but uncharitable), or that the system rewards the wrong things. Yes, they do, but also it's an entire department problem and one that the upper bureaucracy doesn't see as an issue. I'm really not surprised this was the route that particular department took. Office politics are fun, though, so sucking at your job often doesn't mean anything if your managers are all buddies. But before the creation/evolution of that department we already had these sorts of problems. This may just be a "just my company" problem but I don't think it is. After all, from what I know of business management, this sort of "extra staff and rework is waste" mentality seems really pervasive.

brailsafe 3y ago
Yep, that all sounds quite familiar, definitely not just your company, it's characteristic of trying to monkey-patch whatever management can point a finger at, because that's what they're rewarded for, and that's what their manager is rewarded for. No word of a lie, I ran into a colleague from the first company I saw this problem at (and was fired from) years later when I happened to revisit a restaurant I liked in the area. I asked him if he still worked there, and he laughed. Said that they eventually fired the entire department and he stayed on just as a consultant for a bit. Which is odd, because although I was a naive early-twenties kid at the time, I could tell everyone else in that department was quite good at their jobs.