Definition of insanity
Listen to this article
Ever noticed how some organisations persist with processes/people/tools that, on reflection, fail every time yet continue to justify their use with the promise of success "the next time"?
Is it too much to ask for competant people? If they aren't, we need to find new ones. If they lack experience, we need to educate them. Process+Monkeys is NOT the answer. Sure process is important but allow process improvement to flow upwards from the experience of developers, not downwards from the ideals of Architects. Capability is developed through real projects. Abstract frameworks and overpriced development tools are not the solution. And I don't know about you but it seems to me that more often than not, simply sending developers on courses can often be like paying someone to take time off to read a manual!
Maybe they believe that people don't matter? That process and tools will ultimately replace people and, therefore, we should simply employ substandard people and continue to improve the process and tools until they achieve this goal?
Better the devil you know?
Certainly it's been my experience that large consulting firms and software vendors draw a (very) fine line between doing what's best for the customer and commercial imperitives such as expanding the account and selling more 'wares. Thankfully, I've never worked for a company that acted in this way but I am unfortunate enough to have beeen forced to work with them.
I've wondered recently if, in some perverse way, large organisations are ethically and morally obliged to employ substandard people. That way they can continue to make outrageous profits. I mean, imagine if they were actually efficient at doing business. Imagine how much money they'd make then. Hehehe.
All companies I've been doing work for recently definitely want to change. I just wonder how much inertia there is to overcome or if it's even possible.
Hopefully they'll realise they can't continue to repeat the same behaviour and somehow expect different results.
Comments
*smirk*
Posted by: Daniel B | December 4, 2003 02:44 AM
Interesting - I have found that probably 90+% of the time the most innovative solutions come in small packages from small groups of people.
It seems to me that fit-all solutions become unwieldy at a large scale, rapidly. Whether that be a large, costly software framework, or even a set of business processes for the IT staff to manage their lives by - it becomes time consuming and overwhelming; I've been there.
I think process can be a great thing; I also think that reusable software can be a great thing. However, it is not a suitible replacement for talent, ingenuity, and true team effort.
The business I am at now makes all of the common mistakes. Developers are referred to as resources, and are quantifiable units of work; 40 hours per week of coding effort. If a product is behind 240 hours on its schedule, they simply add 8 'resources' to get it done in a week (mythical man month, AHH!). The development process involves word document after word document, excel spreadsheet after excel spreadsheet, and enough online forms to obliterate an entire forest of digital trees. The ironic twist is, there are so many forms, word documents, and spreadsheets that nobody bothers to read the output on the other side. Therefore the developers plow through miles of TCP/IP tape for no good reason other than to meet their quarterly objectives; then they spend minutes a week actually coding - and no innovation ever occurs. I'm not bitter. Regards, R.J.
Posted by: R.J. | December 5, 2003 12:49 PM