A couple years ago, when I was at a previous employer, I was lamenting the typical corporate frustrations to a friend. The executives seemed to have a new "strategy" every quarter. All our projects had unrealistically given deadlines. Even when we successfully released a new product, it was basically DOA, because they were never things we would use ourselves. It was basically impossible to pivot our aging flagship product, because it has grown so complex that it was impossible to get any more incremental gains without a huge commitment in resources. At least once a month I'd be asked, "Well can we make this change to the product quickly?" and I would always say, "No. There are no quick changes anymore. You can either commit the staff to getting the product back into a state where we can do quick changes again (ie. refactoring some of it), or you can just put the product in maintenance mode and have the staff do something else." And yet no matter how many times I explained why, using as many MBA-friendly concepts and analogies as possible, they never understood.
My friend asked if any of the executives and managers had an engineering background, and I literally laughed out loud. Of course they didn't. If they did, they would have understood concepts in this article. Instead they were exactly like that political douchebag in The Wire video.
One of my greatest hopes for the current proliferation of startups is that some of the technical talent there actually does end up as leaders corporate America. I see the fundamental problem of corporations led by execs with the classic MBA-educated, McKinsey/Bain-trained background is they've never created or produced a damn thing in their lives, and just fundamentally don't understand why their decisions are so dysfunctional.
If not understanding you is the worst that happens I'd say you're lucky, but watch out...
My buddy and I have been resisting "quick changes" on projects that have a lot of technical debt for a number of years, and what has happened is that managers have just gone to some other less experienced developers who have no scruples to get their changes done without the "fuss". Our reputations have taken a bit of a hit as well - we're "too careful" or don't see that the "perfect is the enemy of the good" etc. That's what they say in front of us, I'm sure they're more colorful when we aren't listening. I've learned to mitigate this by working with a couple of managers that aren't clueless but it's a danger when that isn't an option...
Technical debt is a major red flag especially in a savvy organization that realizes it's accumulating it. Especially if much of the early success relied on it.
I was talking with a prospective client that had spent the past three years rushing a SaaS solution to market. They even referenced the technical debt as an area they need help with overcoming as they move forward.
Second order change is difficult for any organization or established project, but remaining consistent with your message can drive the process in that direction. Sounds like a challenge for the two of you, but try to bring solutions / recommendations instead of minor resistance that might get misinterpreted. Not easy I know.
This company operates in the e-medical records space and works with hospitals, physicians, and other providers. It is more than just records management and deals with referrals for service along with analytical capabilities etc.
Hard space to penetrated but with a lot of federally funded initiatives the past few years. New regulations around EHR is driving the space.
I've reached the point where I refuse to enable such people, even if it means short term sacrifice for myself.
They need to die off, in a career sense. Any help I give them, even when well qualified and executed on my part (i.e. despite them / their attitude) is just adding to the problem.
Seriously. There are a lot of "morons" and "jerks" out there who need, simply if painfully, to be "disenabled".
(And, to some extent, if their/the customers suffer, well, those people voted with their feet in becoming customers. In our "free market" society (this is a U.S./"Western" perspective), it's somewhat akin to our politics: You can bitch all you want about the politicians and how they are screwing you over, but YOU elected them.)
My friend asked if any of the executives and managers had an engineering background, and I literally laughed out loud. Of course they didn't. If they did, they would have understood concepts in this article. Instead they were exactly like that political douchebag in The Wire video.
One of my greatest hopes for the current proliferation of startups is that some of the technical talent there actually does end up as leaders corporate America. I see the fundamental problem of corporations led by execs with the classic MBA-educated, McKinsey/Bain-trained background is they've never created or produced a damn thing in their lives, and just fundamentally don't understand why their decisions are so dysfunctional.