3 ms·
These rigid processes and ceremonies are the mcdonalds approach. You can get a group of unskilled randos and produce passable slop (e.g. MS Teams). The problem
by sirwhinesalot 2y ago
These rigid processes and ceremonies are the mcdonalds approach. You can get a group of unskilled randos and produce passable slop (e.g. MS Teams). The problem is that people with actual skill suffocate in such an environment.
If you have a crappy team and only light processes, you get garbage.
If you have a crappy team and heavy processes, you get barely passable results.
If you have a good team and only light processes, you get great results.
If you have a good team and heavy processes, you get barely passable results.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI was extremely fortunate, and managed a team of really experienced and good developers. Unfortunately, the company I worked for, worshipped Process, so, as their manager, I spent a great deal of time, shielding them from that overhead. This did not always win me praise from my managers. But we got pretty damn good work done. Sadly, it was "engine" code, and was often shipped in "passable" UX. Kind of like dropping an F1 engine into a beater Chevy Vega.
- kraftman 2y agoIt's worth bearing in mind that as much as we don't like it, a lot of the time the goal is passable slop. Mcdonalds is doing well, and they arent focussing on increasing the quality of their slop unless theres some public outcry.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoThis is true. I once read a comment, here, that said, "If the code quality on your MVP doesn't physically disgust you, you're probably focusing on code quality too much." I think that sort of sums up the zeitgeist. I'm also not a fan of the MVP Model. I don't think it results in good work.
- kraftman 2y agomaybe it should be prepended with 'if you work in the mcdonalds of software development companies'