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

Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

programmers.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#131

Post by mgkimsal »

vorg wrote: post #120
mgkimsal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Programmers tend to think that programming is the most important part of making software. However, managers think that managing is the most important part of making software, and business analysts think that defining business requirements is the most important part of making software. Asking a room of programmers about the value of business analysts is going to result in feedback that is heavily biased. As you say,…

> Have you ever had a project fail because you didn't know how to write to a file, take data input or query a database? [...] 10 years ago I realized that ... almost without exception, I can get the tech stuff done. The examples of "tech stuff" you mentioned are very junior programming tasks. The "programming" the article talks about is all the non-PM/BA stuff: the overall technical design of the system, not just the…

"You write "Of course, I'd like to do it myself" so I guess you're one of them."

Umm.... no, not really. I'm a developer who's gradually moved in to more business-oriented consulting over the last several years. I still do a lot of development (> 50%, certainly), but I've realized that for the majority of the projects I work on, the difficulties are not programming or tech skills/knowledge, it's making sure we all know what is to be programmed, and dealing with any changes that come up.

Everyone thinks they're stuff is unique/cutting-edge/hard/impossible/ground-breaking tech marvels. In some cases it is, but I'm finding those instances to be more rare the older I get. Why? My own skills are getting better (slowly), there's far more tools and libraries to tackle much larger problems better, and my own network of people I can tap has grown to include some insanely talented people.

"the testing process from individual components to integration to customer involvement; the build and deployment processes, including impacts on existing systems and addressing security/privacy concerns, etc."

I would posit those are far more in the realm of "communication" issues I brought up. Yes, you need to have a technical background to do them correctly, but you don't do that stuff in a vacuum. You do those things in concert with other people (customer, team, etc).

For example - the basics of build and deployment are known problems. One might even class them as 'junior' problems. How many times have you had builds fail because someone didn't know how to schedule jenkins properly? Or because an alert wasn't set up to notify someone of an issue? The mechanics aren't very hard, but deciding what the specifics of the processes should be is hard, because you have to communicate ideas/deadlines/responsibilities/etc with multiple people or teams. That's what I'm getting at.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#132

Post by photon137 »

demian wrote: post #128
photon137 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll counter that - even not-so smart programmers with enormous egos would be able to ship something clunky, partly broken, not feature-perfect etc. (case in point: Linux - do you think they required full-time BAs to manage this very nicely working, feature-rich product? They did the BA/PM work themselves with Linus and others as anchors). A team of super-smart skilled BA/PMs will produce zero, zilch, nada if there a…

You are being kind of vague in your definition of "BA/PMs". Developing a business model is very different from doing customer support, planing and managing programming, and doing business inteligence/marketing.

You are confusing business analysts from management consultancies like McKinsey/BCG/Bain (or CEO-reporting groups like the SPG at American Express) with software BA/PMS (the people under discussion here).

Software BA/PMs have nothing to do with business models and strategic planning.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#133

Post by demian »

wtvanhest wrote: post #127
jrockway wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking a room of programmers about the value of business analysts is going to result in feedback that is heavily biased. We need not rely upon opinions here, we can be objective instead. Let's ask how many business analysts without programming skills have made working software. Similarly, let's ask the same of the managers. And finally, let's ask programmers without any managerial or business skills how many pieces o…

That's because programming is necessary to write software, whereas management and business analysis is only "nice to have". That is an interesting philosophy, but it has never been true in real life. Every major corporation in the world has added business analysts and PMs. Even the great technology companies you mention have many, many business analysts. I love finding exceptions to rules, but I can't find an excepti…

This is a cross-industry problem. As engineers, we are trained to find value in concrete products. We see it in software development, as well as in, for example, construction (ask any structural engineer about how architects are perceived)

We tend to forget that, not so long ago, "classical" engineers looked at programmers as lowly-technicians that only used their computers, which were the real valuable product.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#134

Post by flatline3 »

heretohelp wrote: post #126
flatline3 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Programmers tend to think that programming is the most important part of making software. However, managers think that managing is the most important part of making software, and business analysts think that defining business requirements is the most important part of making software. Asking a room of programmers about the value of business analysts is going to result in feedback that is heavily biased. As you say,…

commensurate To commiserate is to share in someone's kvetching.

Thanks.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#135

Post by jrockway »

demian wrote: post #130
jrockway wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking a room of programmers about the value of business analysts is going to result in feedback that is heavily biased. We need not rely upon opinions here, we can be objective instead. Let's ask how many business analysts without programming skills have made working software. Similarly, let's ask the same of the managers. And finally, let's ask programmers without any managerial or business skills how many pieces o…

But working software does not mean successful software. If it wasn't used, if it didn't helped people or solved a problem, how can it be considered successful?. ALL of those products/projects you list did required managment and business skills to be successful.

If it wasn't used, if it didn't help people or solve a problem, how can it be considered successful?.

The team got paid. I've written a lot of software that nobody has ever used. It was fun so I consider it a success. Similarly, many clients have commissioned many silly projects that they paid for and never used. (I was once tasked with writing a fourm system for an insurance company's customers, where they could discuss their experiences in having that company's insurance. Despite the software being up to their spec, the project was cancelled because it was a terrible idea. I got paid nonetheless, which could be considered a success.)

ALL of those products/projects you list did required managment and business skills to be successful.

Where's your proof? I'd say that projects like Emacs and Linux are successful in spite of their leadership's social skills.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#136

Post by jshen »

bricestacey wrote: post #124
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is the right answer - a dysfunctional organisation is the justification for PMs and BAs if the film crew \ theory x idea is right then an org aisation that is becoming dysfunctional hires more PMs I suspect that they are symptom initially and then cause.

I disagree. A PM is an excellent communicator between engineers and the rest of the organization. It's not a matter of dysfunction, but a way of filtering what is important and what isn't. I've been in both situations where a) I am in direct contact with the rest of the organization and b) where an intermediary is. I prefer B and that is what a PM is for. Some large organizations may be able to eliminate the middle m…

My large organization has the managers of engineers, who are engineers themselves, act as the intermediary.

I've met very few PMs who know enough to filter anything.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#138

Post by jbl »

bmj wrote: post #34

In my engineering group, we don't have project managers or analysts. We have product managers (who are responsible for much more than a project manager, and make more than the average PM, methinks). The lead engineer on each project does some PM-y tasks, but it's generally up to the product manager to produce the documentation/charts/spreadsheets. In our operations group, there are PMs, but they are responsible for m…

I just transitioned from an engineering role to a product management role. Product management means different things in different companies, but generally a product manager will interact directly with every other part of the company and "own" the product plan ---- what needs to get built and when. Engineering owns the how.

That said, I think project managers can really help things flow. If you've got a process you are sticking to, a project manager can help make sure things get done when they need to. This is especially important when lots of things are happening simultaneously (lots of clients and client requests, lots of business development effort, lots of growth, technical challenges).

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#139

Post by demian »

jrockway wrote: post #135
demian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But working software does not mean successful software. If it wasn't used, if it didn't helped people or solved a problem, how can it be considered successful?. ALL of those products/projects you list did required managment and business skills to be successful.

If it wasn't used, if it didn't help people or solve a problem, how can it be considered successful?. The team got paid. I've written a lot of software that nobody has ever used. It was fun so I consider it a success. Similarly, many clients have commissioned many silly projects that they paid for and never used. (I was once tasked with writing a fourm system for an insurance company's customers, where they could dis…

I got paid nonetheless, which could be considered a success.

Then that's the problem, we mean different things when we say "success". For me, and for a lot of people I believe, "successful software" does not equals to just "the team got paid".

Where's your proof? I'd say that projects like Emacs and Linux are successful in spite of their leadership's social skills.

So, are you implying that all the others were?

Business/Management != Social Skills. I'm not familiar with Emacs history as a product (and I'm not sure if it was "successful" under your criteria), but Linux did required incredible management skills, and a lot of business-savy people for spreading it in the comercial world.

Re: Why do business analysts and PMs get higher salaries than programmers?

#140

Post by PakG1 »

jrockway wrote: post #135
demian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But working software does not mean successful software. If it wasn't used, if it didn't helped people or solved a problem, how can it be considered successful?. ALL of those products/projects you list did required managment and business skills to be successful.

If it wasn't used, if it didn't help people or solve a problem, how can it be considered successful?. The team got paid. I've written a lot of software that nobody has ever used. It was fun so I consider it a success. Similarly, many clients have commissioned many silly projects that they paid for and never used. (I was once tasked with writing a fourm system for an insurance company's customers, where they could dis…

The team got paid. I've written a lot of software that nobody has ever used. It was fun so I consider it a success.

The question that must be asked here is whether your level of fun should be the best indicator of success. It would seem to me that the entity paying the money should be the one to define the criteria for success, and I think it's quite logical to presume that they would not accept the developer team's level of fun as success criteria for what I hope are self-evident reasons. I believe it would also be self-evident why the entity paying the money should be the one to define the success criteria also. In your case's case, they'd probably say the project was an unfortunate failure and waste of money, but maybe worth the try anyway, so oh well (i.e. we were aware that there were risks, too bad the risks became reality).

For open-source projects, nobody is paying the money usually (as they're usually staffed by volunteers), so of course the developers can define the success criteria in those cases.

Post reply on HN