3 ms·

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? Hardware technology jobs have some of these credentials and are part o

by groundzeros2015 2mo ago

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? Hardware technology jobs have some of these credentials and are part of that system.

Silhouette 2mo ago
What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? The same as in other regulated professions. It would give the people on the front line who can see the consequences of the corner cutting an effective right to say "No, we're not doing this user hostile thing". This would be a significant barrier because it wouldn't be legal to ship software without the required professional approval and the professionals would be heavily incentivised not to sign off any corner cutting because they would be personally and professionally responsible for any adverse consequences if they did.
- groundzeros2015 2mo ago
  That’s not how these systems work in reality. I’m actually an extreme pessimist. What actually happens is that you as an engineer become paid to frame the desired leadership goals in compliant terms. It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This skill among engineers is highly sought after in large companies with political organizations and greater encouraging it changes the composition of the workforce. Top civil engineers don’t design buildings.
  - Silhouette 2mo ago
    In the physical engineering teams I've worked with the culture you just described is not what happens at all. There are always some people who seemingly live to circumvent the intention of rules lurking around the edges of regulated industries. But my own experience has been that real engineers very much value real engineering - it's often why they got into the field in the first place - and will push back hard against and if necessary refuse to sign off anything they consider inappropriate for the job. They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients.
    - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
      > They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients. It really depends on the status of the profession in society and the company. I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach.
      - Silhouette 2mo ago
        I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach. No doubt. Imposing this kind of professional standards to regulate an industry as rich as tech would never work unless the penalties for cutting corners involved making the offending organisations significantly less rich very quickly. They would need to be taught a very clear lesson that hiring people pleasers had become an expensive mistake. As I commented elsewhere - the problem then becomes who gets to define what the proper path is. For example destroying companies because they chose not to follow the latest sage advice from anyone who once signed the Agile Manifesto does not seem like a good way to promote better quality software to me. And yet it seems highly likely that those are the kinds of people who would initially be engaged as "experts" by those seeking to establish the regulatory environment. I don't want people like them. I want the quiet, unassuming developer you've never heard of because they're the principal engineer of a team you've also never heard of that has been developing life saving medical equipment without a single significant failure in a live environment for the 15 years since their first device went into use at a local hospital. Get me those people to write the rules - starting with what is acceptable practice when developing software that really needs to work and letting the people who know how to achieve the most challenging results figure out how to tone everything down for applications where imperfections might be more acceptable - and then we can talk about whether regulating software development effectively is now a viable proposition.
        2mo ago
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    > It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This is true, and basically what tends to happen is that if the Head of some compliance function (e.g. internal audit) is causing problems for the business, then they are replaced with someone who won't cause such problems. It's still better than nothing. Like, software basically runs our society now, so either software professionals get together on this, or regulations will be imposed on us, and they will be much worse than what we'd get in the first option.
    - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
      > It's still better than nothing. Once again the alternative is not nothing. The most important factor is that they are stakeholders in a project with influence. That is the reality right now, even without credentials.
      - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
        > Once again the alternative is not nothing. Can you help me understand what the alternative is?
        groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        Yes the framing above is “business people don’t listen to engineers but if they had a credential they would legally be forced to”. And I think both are false. The top engineers on a project are collaborators with leaders in other areas like marketing, sales, IT, legal, etc. And all those have influence on a project. A business person who says “fuck what my engineer says” is not a good leader and won’t have that group’s trust or support. They all want to work together. So by that process engineering has a seat of influence. That exists without credentials, and credentials are not what gets you in that seat. Reputation and experience are. Business leaders don’t do everything engineering says. They also don’t do everything the lawyers say! And having an additional legal backing would change some of these engineering conversation, but not fundamentally.
toss1 2mo ago
More credentialing and requirements would do plenty to curtail leadership incentive problems. First, as the sibling points out, it gives the licensed engineer a solid ground to stand on when refusing a stupid leadership order — "I'm not going to lose my license for that stupid idea", and a serious incentive to do so, as well as solid job prospects if he does get canned for it (because there's a limited pool of credentialed engineers). You glibly say "More schooling does not mean more trustworthy or careful doctors.". Yet the schooling and credentialing clearly cuts off huge numbers of would-be doctors who never pass the exams, never graduate med school, or never even get into med school, or decide it is too difficult in the first place. In the software realm, those people just go to some boot camp and they're off to the races... Another huge aspect of credentialing is required ongoing education, which REQUIRES physicians and engineers to take updated continuing education just to maintain their license. This again continuously improves the talent pool. And, if your main concern is that they be "more trustworthy or careful", credentialing also helps that by finding the worst, least trustworthy and careful and cancelling their license, so they are NOT doctors anymore. The untrustworthy or careless SWE just gets a new job to ruin stuff elsewhere, probably taking one from the actual good engineer because their talent is not engineering, but bullshitting.
- groundzeros2015 2mo ago
  > it gives the licensed engineer a solid ground to stand on when refusing a stupid leadership order I disagree to the extent to which this is real leverage. It changes the language and approach, but not the outcome, Ask a civil engineer the degree to which they can fight their leadership on these grounds. > clearly cuts off huge numbers of would-be doctors who never pass the exams Yes the fallacy is that more exclusive is better. You don’t understand the traits you select for. > those people just go to some boot camp and they're off to the races I don’t see any kids who just got off a boot camp running large software projects. Does this happen at your workplace? Why not? > This again continuously improves the talent pool. I just disagree to the extent to which the talent actually increases. The people who excel already learn and study all time. This slightly raises the floor by forcing the least curious person to be exposed to some PowerPoints and videos. > The untrustworthy or careless SWE just gets a new job to ruin stuff elsewhere They can only ruin the extent of responsibility and scope given to a new hire with no reputation. > least trustworthy and careful and cancelling their license Once again you assume the system works as stated. I think it actually selects against those who are bad at avoiding responsibility and not legally savvy. The image that comes to mind is someone who made a mistake, cares a ton about medicine, and hates the organizational administration.

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? Hardware technology jobs have some of these credentials and are part of that system.

Silhouette 2mo ago

What would credentialing software engineers do to curtail leadership incentive problems? The same as in other regulated professions. It would give the people on the front line who can see the consequences of the corner cutting an effective right to say "No, we're not doing this user hostile thing". This would be a significant barrier because it wouldn't be legal to ship software without the required professional approval and the professionals would be heavily incentivised not to sign off any corner cutting because they would be personally and professionally responsible for any adverse consequences if they did.

groundzeros2015 2mo ago
That’s not how these systems work in reality. I’m actually an extreme pessimist. What actually happens is that you as an engineer become paid to frame the desired leadership goals in compliant terms. It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This skill among engineers is highly sought after in large companies with political organizations and greater encouraging it changes the composition of the workforce. Top civil engineers don’t design buildings.
- Silhouette 2mo ago
  In the physical engineering teams I've worked with the culture you just described is not what happens at all. There are always some people who seemingly live to circumvent the intention of rules lurking around the edges of regulated industries. But my own experience has been that real engineers very much value real engineering - it's often why they got into the field in the first place - and will push back hard against and if necessary refuse to sign off anything they consider inappropriate for the job. They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients.
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    > They won't be impressed at all by someone's big title and even bigger budget while they're exercising that professional judgement either. Some of these people have had pretty stellar careers so I think it's safe to say their professional conduct hasn't damaged them with their employers or clients. It really depends on the status of the profession in society and the company. I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach.
    - Silhouette 2mo ago
      I'd expect lots of software organisations to fire a bunch of people looking for people pleasers until this becomes an accepted part of the business approach. No doubt. Imposing this kind of professional standards to regulate an industry as rich as tech would never work unless the penalties for cutting corners involved making the offending organisations significantly less rich very quickly. They would need to be taught a very clear lesson that hiring people pleasers had become an expensive mistake. As I commented elsewhere - the problem then becomes who gets to define what the proper path is. For example destroying companies because they chose not to follow the latest sage advice from anyone who once signed the Agile Manifesto does not seem like a good way to promote better quality software to me. And yet it seems highly likely that those are the kinds of people who would initially be engaged as "experts" by those seeking to establish the regulatory environment. I don't want people like them. I want the quiet, unassuming developer you've never heard of because they're the principal engineer of a team you've also never heard of that has been developing life saving medical equipment without a single significant failure in a live environment for the 15 years since their first device went into use at a local hospital. Get me those people to write the rules - starting with what is acceptable practice when developing software that really needs to work and letting the people who know how to achieve the most challenging results figure out how to tone everything down for applications where imperfections might be more acceptable - and then we can talk about whether regulating software development effectively is now a viable proposition.
      - 2mo ago
- disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
  > It’s similar to how lawyers and regulatory compliance rarely change the product. They change how the product is talked about and framed for the purpose of regulation. This is true, and basically what tends to happen is that if the Head of some compliance function (e.g. internal audit) is causing problems for the business, then they are replaced with someone who won't cause such problems. It's still better than nothing. Like, software basically runs our society now, so either software professionals get together on this, or regulations will be imposed on us, and they will be much worse than what we'd get in the first option.
  - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
    > It's still better than nothing. Once again the alternative is not nothing. The most important factor is that they are stakeholders in a project with influence. That is the reality right now, even without credentials.
    - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
      > Once again the alternative is not nothing. Can you help me understand what the alternative is?
      - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        Yes the framing above is “business people don’t listen to engineers but if they had a credential they would legally be forced to”. And I think both are false. The top engineers on a project are collaborators with leaders in other areas like marketing, sales, IT, legal, etc. And all those have influence on a project. A business person who says “fuck what my engineer says” is not a good leader and won’t have that group’s trust or support. They all want to work together. So by that process engineering has a seat of influence. That exists without credentials, and credentials are not what gets you in that seat. Reputation and experience are. Business leaders don’t do everything engineering says. They also don’t do everything the lawyers say! And having an additional legal backing would change some of these engineering conversation, but not fundamentally.

toss1 2mo ago

More credentialing and requirements would do plenty to curtail leadership incentive problems. First, as the sibling points out, it gives the licensed engineer a solid ground to stand on when refusing a stupid leadership order — "I'm not going to lose my license for that stupid idea", and a serious incentive to do so, as well as solid job prospects if he does get canned for it (because there's a limited pool of credentialed engineers). You glibly say "More schooling does not mean more trustworthy or careful doctors.". Yet the schooling and credentialing clearly cuts off huge numbers of would-be doctors who never pass the exams, never graduate med school, or never even get into med school, or decide it is too difficult in the first place. In the software realm, those people just go to some boot camp and they're off to the races... Another huge aspect of credentialing is required ongoing education, which REQUIRES physicians and engineers to take updated continuing education just to maintain their license. This again continuously improves the talent pool. And, if your main concern is that they be "more trustworthy or careful", credentialing also helps that by finding the worst, least trustworthy and careful and cancelling their license, so they are NOT doctors anymore. The untrustworthy or careless SWE just gets a new job to ruin stuff elsewhere, probably taking one from the actual good engineer because their talent is not engineering, but bullshitting.

groundzeros2015 2mo ago
> it gives the licensed engineer a solid ground to stand on when refusing a stupid leadership order I disagree to the extent to which this is real leverage. It changes the language and approach, but not the outcome, Ask a civil engineer the degree to which they can fight their leadership on these grounds. > clearly cuts off huge numbers of would-be doctors who never pass the exams Yes the fallacy is that more exclusive is better. You don’t understand the traits you select for. > those people just go to some boot camp and they're off to the races I don’t see any kids who just got off a boot camp running large software projects. Does this happen at your workplace? Why not? > This again continuously improves the talent pool. I just disagree to the extent to which the talent actually increases. The people who excel already learn and study all time. This slightly raises the floor by forcing the least curious person to be exposed to some PowerPoints and videos. > The untrustworthy or careless SWE just gets a new job to ruin stuff elsewhere They can only ruin the extent of responsibility and scope given to a new hire with no reputation. > least trustworthy and careful and cancelling their license Once again you assume the system works as stated. I think it actually selects against those who are bad at avoiding responsibility and not legally savvy. The image that comes to mind is someone who made a mistake, cares a ton about medicine, and hates the organizational administration.