Live data from Hacker News

Common misunderstandings about large software companies

philipotoole.com

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#41

The author talks about how software creation processes at large organizations are an artifact of how large organizations operate, but in all 3 of the 3 cases, I would ask “why does the large organization need to be that way?” Most obviously, why do executives need to be the proxy to customers? Why can’t development teams simply talk to real customers? This isn’t just an abstract idea in agile, it grew out of actual J…

Blog post author here, thanks for your thoughtful comment. You raise some interesting things to think about.

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#42
post #41

The author talks about how software creation processes at large organizations are an artifact of how large organizations operate, but in all 3 of the 3 cases, I would ask “why does the large organization need to be that way?” Most obviously, why do executives need to be the proxy to customers? Why can’t development teams simply talk to real customers? This isn’t just an abstract idea in agile, it grew out of actual J…

Blog post author here, thanks for your thoughtful comment. You raise some interesting things to think about.

>First of all, does anyone believe that highly scrutinized and bureaucratic functions are general high quality services?

This is the only part of your response that doesn't quite sit right with me. There could be many "highly scrutinized and bureaucratic functions" out there that are working very well, you just don't notice because they work so well. There could be a selection-effect here.

Quality is a big deal for me[1]. But I think you're defining "quality" too narrowly in this context. "Quality" could also mean "allows everyone, at scale, reliably, to do what they need to do." The US Tax Filing system (and its associated software) meets that goal.

[1] https://philipotoole.com/always-thinking-of-the-next-guy/

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#43

Many of the author's rebuttals hinge on the assumption that everyone in an organisation is acting in its interest first - and not their own, often conflicting, self-interest. As such, they are not particularly convincing. Large organisations absolutely do, as a function of their scale, produce pockets where slackers and incompetents can hide. They'll surround themselves with a web of process, pointless meetings, and…

Spot on. There are disproportionately few people who care for the product. Most people care for making that fat promotion package so they can move up. Both eng and non eng.

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#44

> “There are too many meetings” At very large software companies, programming ability, technical expertise, and raw resources are not the limiting factors. Coordination is. In my opinion there exist much more efficient ways for coordination: for example, write down some really good documentation and explanations that are then read by the other stakeholders, so that these, at the end, also have a very deep knowledge a…

Somehow large open source projects have figured this out.

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've ever worked at a company where slacking off was the problem. The vast majority of people want to do good work. What I _have_ seen is several companies afflicted by this really strange characteristic of the software development industry: We appear to be the only industry on the planet where it is common to pick leaders (executives) that know nothing about the product or how it's made. You can't run…

Knowing how your product works does not actually solve the problem of running a large company.

No, but how are you going to run a sausage factory when you haven’t the slightest how the sausage is made?

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#46
post #42
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blog post author here, thanks for your thoughtful comment. You raise some interesting things to think about.

>First of all, does anyone believe that highly scrutinized and bureaucratic functions are general high quality services? This is the only part of your response that doesn't quite sit right with me. There could be many "highly scrutinized and bureaucratic functions" out there that are working very well, you just don't notice because they work so well. There could be a selection-effect here. Quality is a big deal for m…

> The US Tax Filing system (and its associated software) meets that goal.

I disagree with the argument that the US Tax Filing system meets the goal of:

> "allows everyone, at scale, reliably, to do what they need to do."

It may do so for easy / common cases of W2 salaried employees but step a little outside of the norm (foreign sourced income, tax treaties etc.) and software gives up and shows you a PDF of relevant forms and requires you to become an expert in tax code and to keep your own multi year running calculation of carryovers and things to proceed. I'm glossing over all of the detail about how complex this really is but wouldn't expect the average, even very intelligent person to succeed in filing a correct return without a professional's help.

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing how your product works does not actually solve the problem of running a large company.

No, but how are you going to run a sausage factory when you haven’t the slightest how the sausage is made?

Hire someone who does?

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#48
Meetings aren’t a scale problem, they’re a clarity problem dressed up as collaboration.

When execs dominate decisions, it’s usually because the org failed to make customer truth unavoidable.

Most process exists to protect careers, not outcomes.

Understanding why something exists doesn’t make it justified or effective.

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#49

> “There are too many meetings” At very large software companies, programming ability, technical expertise, and raw resources are not the limiting factors. Coordination is. In my opinion there exist much more efficient ways for coordination: for example, write down some really good documentation and explanations that are then read by the other stakeholders, so that these, at the end, also have a very deep knowledge a…

> Nearly all employees have studied at a university, so the people are very used to writing texts (papers, seminar papers, lecture notes, thesis, ...). I wish. Most people I've known in universities seem to read and write the absolute minimum to get by. But I tend to agree that writing is preferable to meetings in most cases. I want to try out a policy that all meetings of more than two people must produce a written…

Insanely easy to game

Re: Common misunderstandings about large software companies

#50
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly all employees have studied at a university, so the people are very used to writing texts (papers, seminar papers, lecture notes, thesis, ...). I wish. Most people I've known in universities seem to read and write the absolute minimum to get by. But I tend to agree that writing is preferable to meetings in most cases. I want to try out a policy that all meetings of more than two people must produce a written…

Insanely easy to game

What, the writing requirement? Yeah, you couldn't expect it to be airtight, more a nudge in the right direction.
Post reply on HN