Live data from Hacker News

Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

lalitm.com

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#131
This has some crossover with ageism. In the last years in my org all the senior staff has been put to pasture doing either nothing or confined strictly to whatever they were already doing.

Some part of it is that we are perceived as lazy obstructionist naysayer dinosaurs when we point out any flaws in new projects as the article warns. But the rest is that because some of the elders were effectively semi-retired and doing little, anyone over 40 has been uncritically dumped with them.

So we keep the lights on while all the new shiny stuff is given to fresh juniors that don't ever push back and are happy to say yes, but also can't do it alone, and are lost at sea.

So they don't get anything shipped while we keep polishing our legacy turds and wince every time we accidentally get a glimpse of what they are doing.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#132
As technical people we tend to have a technical outlook to this. However, after a certain threshold - say $1M - these projects become political things rather than a simple technical issue.

From a creator's standpoint, a software project exists to solve a problem - or at least make the lives of the software users easier. But the moment a company bigwig clique decides to make money out of company, "bad" projects pop up.

To my chance, I experienced this for three times. The signs are nearly the same. The company has a lot of workflows - usually handled by excel and/or internally developed apps that actually reflect those workflows. Then comes the buzzword team proclaiming miracles, snake oil and an app that will even cure the dandruff - just sign here. Of course, the clique has their cut - that's why they say yes or advice the board to say yes.

Then begins the grueling process of "analyzing workflows". Do they contact the actual users who are doing the work? Hell. No. What they do is, create a "Project Team" - usually hired anew, with no information about how the company does its work - and they try to "understand" the workflows. Then it becomes like that game, user says one thing, project team understands another and says a different thing and the outcome is a different product that solves a problem but not the user's problem.

Of course, this process burns money. You gotta do development, you gotta have a server to run the app, you have to book meeting rooms in hotels to train the users, you have to create fliers internally to promote the app - and create pdfs, many many pdfs to make the users understand how the app works. And no one asks "hey, if this app is reflecting our workflows... why are we getting this training?"

Because at the end of the day, this app only exists to make some people money. And after a certain point, no one dares to say anything because of all the money spent. An ambassador who says "the app we spent $10M does not work" will be get shot. People get retired with the f-you money they gained and the company tries to work with the app they "built" usually it ends up hiring an internal team and do it from the zero - and the expensive shit becomes a thing nobody talks about, a company omerta so to speak.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#133
Nice article. I like the influence bank account analogy. I have worked with a guy who would go into influence debt and I think it hurt his career. He would almost always be right; very sharp, but he would block people and get on their nerves very often, eventually moving to another team.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#134
I think this advice is pretty apt for small to medium sized companies. We're all invested in the company succeeding, but you don't want to become known as the person that always says "no".

At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI for being "right".

If you manage to kill the project before it starts, no one will ever know how bad of a disaster you prevented. If the project succeeds despite your objections, you look like an idiot. And if it fails - as the author notes, that doesn't get remembered either.

As a senior IC, the only real ROI I've found in these situations is when you can have a solution handy if things fail. People love a fixer. Even if you only manage to pull this off once or twice, your perception in the org/company gets a massive boost. "Wow, so-and-so is always thinking ahead."

A basic example I saw at my last company was automated E2E testing in production. My teammate had suggested this to improve our ability to detect regressions, but it was ultimately shot down as not being worth the investment over other features.

A few months later, we had seen multiple instances of users hitting significant issues before we could catch them. My teammate was able to whip out the test framework they had been building on the side, and was immediately showered with praise/organizational support (and I'm sure a great review as well).

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#135
One thing this blog probably misses is what happens when we suggest something to fix a project’s trajectory, they ignore it, but eventually they silently adopt the suggestion and improve the project.

This results in a net loss of ROI: we risk being seen as a negative person, while no one acknowledges our goodwill or instincts, because the project lead presents the improvement as their own win through a strategic change of plan.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#136
post #2

I disagree, and I think this advice can be actively harmful. You shouldn’t ignore a problem when you’re in a position to help. At the same time, you also shouldn’t take on the emotional burden of other people’s projects. If I see something heading toward failure, I let people know they may want to consider a different approach. That’s it. There’s no need to be harsh or belabor the point but it’s better to speak up th…

It depends.

If you have the power (as the post mentions - like a CEO) you can suggest, direct or butcher a project and no one would see you as a negative person.

But you can get butchered when you don't have the authority to poke around your concerns.

I would prefer to see the ship sink instead of shooting myself in the foot and risking my influence and credibility - as another comment on this thread said "Sometimes, you have to let people fail".

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#137
The bank account analogy (or "social capital") ignores distinctions between spending and investing, and how these depend on culture.

If you are simply the wrong person in a "toxic" culture, there is no action that can increase your social capital. In a well-functioning culture, constructive criticism would be investment, rather than spending.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#138

I think this advice is pretty apt for small to medium sized companies. We're all invested in the company succeeding, but you don't want to become known as the person that always says "no". At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI fo…

> At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project.

That's true. And it is currently one of the main reason why startups are so efficient compared to MegaCorps.

In small companies, it takes few engineers voicing out ' this is bullshit ' to stop a disaster.

In large corps, it takes 2y, 10M USD and a team in burnout to reach the same result.

And the main reason is the usual source of all sins: *Politics*.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#139

I think this advice is pretty apt for small to medium sized companies. We're all invested in the company succeeding, but you don't want to become known as the person that always says "no". At large companies, I've rarely found a reason to speak out on a project. Unless it has a considerable effect on my team/work (read: peace of mind), it just doesn't make sense to be the person casting doubt. There's not much ROI fo…

I've realized that climbing the corporate ladder doesn't make any sense. You put more effort, you take responsibility for stupid people's decisions, and then you get a disproportionately small reward. The smartest move is to find a bottom-tier position where they pay you enough to sustain your desired lifestyle, but where you cannot really be blamed for failures of the management.

Re: Why senior engineers let bad projects fail

#140
post #44
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds me of one of my managers who said, “Sometimes, you have to let people fail.” I often say "Sometimes, you have to let the manager fail." Some managers don't like being told their ideas won't work. If you refuse or argue, you are seen as the reason his idea failed. I've found what works best with them is to proceed with the work, but keep them informed very frequently, so they can see how things evolve, and w…

I can’t imagine holding a job where I had to do work that I expect will fail. Sounds absolutely depressing. What keeps you motivated?

I kept being motivated by frustration and anger. But also, once it starts to be visibly failing and everyone sees the situation, you can actually help and make a change.

That is the point where suddenly people listen.

Post reply on HN