Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 607 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#211

Post by steve_adams_86 »

davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

I’ve been on one of these teams and we accomplished pretty amazing stuff in a short time span. Keeping the team lean and senior, ensuring we each had a specialization yet broad enough skills to interact and collaborate well, and providing us with agency to make decisions was a magic recipe.

I’d love to do that again. It was by far the most fun I’ve had working on software. These days I do pretty boring work that’s significantly below my capabilities, but it pays the bills and there’s not much else to pick from at the moment.

As for if someone hypothetically did choose to build a new solution in this scenario, it would almost certainly make sense to build it in tandem with your existing process. Going totally greenfield and trying to port your business over in 6 months would be misery. I’d look at ways to incrementally build a new system which you adopt gradually, probably starting with replacing the no/low code pieces you’ve already built.

Any kind of monolithic approach to replacing an existing system gives me deep, deep tingly creeps due to past disasters.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#212

Post by dchftcs »

ozim wrote: post #206
kelnos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've found that the best programmers (and the ones you'd want) are more interested in the technical aspects of the problem and business and customer impact, rather than the sexiness of the business domain. Just want to heartily agree with this point here. Certainly many of us do get excited about particular business domains from time to time, but in my own experience, I get more excited about technical challenges,…

For me red flag is that for OP as a developer I will end up being a cost. Even with all the good words he wrote how company can improve by doing own dev - reality is that company makes money in logistics and as a software dev I would be second class citizen and cost center. That is why I much rather work in company that makes money on software, because here I am money making.

It's possible to treat software close to a first-class citizen even technically as a cost center. Probably the key is to have a lean team that is effective and management trusts, in a business whose profit margin or stability can be greatly enhanced by good software. If you're relatively lean then nobody sane would be looking to cut fat in your team. On top of that, the attitude of management and the culture is really important, and this CEO's attitude is at least a good start.

I hear Meta Ads has one of the more toxic environments for SWEs, even though Ads make money.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#213

Post by diavelguru »

One thing to remember is that some/most are not turned off by a non-glamorous industry like logistics but rather attracted to solving problems regardless of the industry. I’d hire someone who can actually do coding (so not a CTO, CIO level) that is also or has been a lead who can delve into your business and review existing products and can get you an 80% POC in under 3 months. It may not be pretty but it will help you better position to ask for more $$ for contractors or other employees. Start with 1 then scale from there. I’d give them 1 month to study the existing system with no deliverables other than documentation that will be used to replicate your product needs. I’d also be sure to hire a PO (Product Owner) if you don’t have one and have them also learn the product inside and out as they will be the gatekeeper between the coders and the users as to how the product functions and that the coders fulfill all the requirements.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#214

Post by alphazard »

davedx wrote: post #62

IME what works best getting new projects kick started is hiring a very small team of senior freelancers, making one of them lead, and letting them loose. I worked on such a team once and it was really excellent. The advantage of this strategy is if the experiment doesn't work out, terminating freelancers is much easier than permanent (I noted you're based in Europe). Contrary to what other people said, I wouldn't try…

> It's a hard role to hire for, especially at the start.

The approach of "I'm going to hire someone to build me a team" only works if you know someone excellent. It is a very low percentage strategy if hire #1 is from the market.

That doesn't mean you can't find excellent people through the market, but you'll have to see them work first, and it might take a few tries. You won't be able to spin up your own interview funnel and get good results. Hiring freelancers and seeing who gets it is probably the only way your organization can reliably detect talent (whereas a software company would have an interview funnel as a core competency). Once you have a freelancer who gets it, you can ask them if they want to join, or if they want to get paid to interview for you. Talent likes to work with talent, and the freelancer will be better at interviewing than you. Repeat this process until you have a team.

Eventually you may want management, but by the time you need management, you should have a pool of engineers large enough that one of them would be willing and able to manage the rest. They will be more competent than any manager you try to hire from the market by a mile.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#215

Post by neeleshs »

Bringing development in house also means managing the operational aspects of it. And QA as well.

You mentioned low code tools. Can you push that tool more, and potentially add an integration platform for EDI?

I would try that first, before committing to a large in-house footprint.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#216

Post by kstrauser »

trumbitta2 wrote: post #21

> Strategies for attracting and retaining tech talent in a non-tech industry Pay a decent amount + meaningful perks (yes insurance, no tennis table), be decent people, give them agency and let them see they're making an impact, allow them to use whatever hardware and software they think it's best to do their job, don't force them out of remote work if remote work is what they want, be decent people, be decent people,…

Nailed it.

Pay them well, treat them well, and let them do their jobs. If a company could only do 2 of those 3 for me, my expectations for those 2 would be through the roof:

- Pay sucks? I need to feel like the most wanted person in the world and have free rein.

- Management sucks? I better be getting rich from this, and I’m working on what I want to work on.

- I’m going to be micromanaged? Hey, let’s talk about contractor pay, and the CEO needs to name a kid after me.

If a company does all 3 things reasonably well, I’m your guy. 2 of 3, they’ll need to make up for the missing bit. Only have 1 of the 3? No way.

(Miss me with any “you sound like a prima donna” nonsense. I don’t have crazy high expectations of those things. I do have a reasonable baseline though. I don’t work for free, I don’t work for jerks, and I don’t work where I can’t have freedom to do my best job for the person paying me.)

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#217

Post by physhster »

I think if you put in charge a good visionary that truly understands your requirements (either a curious new hire or someone from within), you can drive development externally.

I wouldn't hire and staff for this, because it will be a hard sell for anyone with great SWE skills to work on internal software, while you can hire rockstar freelancers to build a good foundation, and evolve your own platform opportunistically with additional freelance work.

You can also leverage LCOL countries to set up your own dev shop, possibly Eastern Europe if you want good timezone overlap. Feel free to reach out if needed, this is my wheelhouse.

The only question you need to answer is supportability. If the platform is the cornerstone of your business, what happens if/when it goes down? What kind of SLO would you have internally? Who is on-call?

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#218

Post by abakker »

I know it's not popular, but it could also be a place where a 3rd party engineering / development / managed services firm could be useful. Your labor requirements in building and transition may be different than long-term run, and if it's relatively simple, maybe the long-term run/maintain will be different.

disclaimer: I work in the research org as part of a company that specifically advises the contracting and management of outsourcing relationships. This does work, but is not risk-less and effort-free. But, in logistics, you're probably used to managing critical 3rd parties.

Re: Ask HN: Should we bring software dev in-house?

#220

Post by jmarbert »

uticus wrote: post #6

> We're using a third-party product that functions, but barely. > Our business operates in a specific niche and there are no other providers who cater specifically to our industry. If you decide to do in-house, I’d recommend thinking about competing against existing as a new revenue stream, and spinning it off as a separate business unit as much as possible. I imagine this is implied in your question but it wasn’t sp…

People often ask me about potentially selling software I’ve built for our company (a similar situation to OP), but one important factor to remember is that part of what makes the software great for us is its focus. As soon as you start selling it, you have to add feature after feature to meet the various customer needs, which then makes it worse for us. This may be a worthwhile trade off if the potential revenue is large enough, but it’s important to consider in advance.
Post reply on HN