In my view, the listed items are one step away from tech debt. They may be the pressures that lead to tech debt, but it's the devs that wrote and shipped the tech debt. I personally have maintained the quality bar of projects so that they ship later than originally scheduled. I may not be popular at the time, but eventually people start to notice that projects that I tech lead do complete (eventually) and run well after they go live with much less follow-on maintenance and support. Performance being built into v1 is one of those things. I'm not talking about an MVP for a startup, but extensions to an already high scale platform.
The ideal is when a team's experience actually matches the project they're assigned. They need to be up to the task.
This requires management to be at least more experienced than the teams they manage and to make good hiring and placement decisions. This is not just number of years in the industry, but the average number of years spent at any single company. They need to have seen the long tail of maintenance in the development lifecycle on projects they were wholly responsible for.
Agreed. I've seen an org that essentially let the devs run the show for picking timelines, technologies, features. It was a disaster. Endless design by committee, no progress, too many abstractions, and on and on it went with developer created problems after being given free reign with only general direction. Of course, this is a management issue at the root, all problems are, aren't they? :)
Creating functional software engineering orgs is hard. Between dysfunctional management, lack of support from other business departments, or problems originating from the devs themselves.
It's pretty easy to feel when it's not working properly and know roughly where the problem lies. But solving it properly is hard stuff.
karmakaze|3 years ago
sublinear|3 years ago
The ideal is when a team's experience actually matches the project they're assigned. They need to be up to the task.
This requires management to be at least more experienced than the teams they manage and to make good hiring and placement decisions. This is not just number of years in the industry, but the average number of years spent at any single company. They need to have seen the long tail of maintenance in the development lifecycle on projects they were wholly responsible for.
BackBlast|3 years ago
Creating functional software engineering orgs is hard. Between dysfunctional management, lack of support from other business departments, or problems originating from the devs themselves.
It's pretty easy to feel when it's not working properly and know roughly where the problem lies. But solving it properly is hard stuff.