Live data from Hacker News

Collaboration sucks

newsletter.posthog.com

61–70 of 262 posts

Re: Collaboration sucks

#61
post #18

Taking the article's analogy of the "collaboration while driving", the F1 sport is quite insanely collaborative. For example, the drivers literally do have someone in their ear by radio being their coach and spotter for the entire trip. I've never heard of the equivalent in software. Does anyone know of anything like this?

Github Copilot

This is like playing both sides of the board in chess and claiming you had an opponent.

Re: Collaboration sucks

#62
> A discussion about building a specific feature can devolve into reevaluating the entire product roadmap if you let it.

Well, if the product roadmap doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it _should_ be reevaluated. Too often people commit to something, and then continue building it, despite the market realities having shifted underneath them. I see most teams not asking themselves often enough "should we still be doing what we're doing", than the opposite. The sunk cost fallacy is real.

Re: Collaboration sucks

#64

> Every time you see collaboration happening, speak up and destroy it. Say “there are too many people involved. X, you are the driver, you decide.” (This is a great way to make friends btw). Corollary for managers: Do not say "it's your call", then once the decision has been made (and you skipped all the meetings pertaining to that decision), comment about how you would have done it differently and then retroactively…

The equivalent of "I told you so". Yeah, you should never do that in any situation.

Re: Collaboration sucks

#66
It helps to go to the classics.

...

Expected Benefits of Modular Programming

The benefits expected of modular programming are: (1) managerial--development time should be shortened because separate groups would work on each module with little need for communication: ...

On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules, D. L. Parnas, 1972, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/361598.361623

Re: Collaboration sucks

#67
post #46

> Every time you see collaboration happening, speak up and destroy it. Say “there are too many people involved. X, you are the driver, you decide.” (This is a great way to make friends btw). Corollary for managers: Do not say "it's your call", then once the decision has been made (and you skipped all the meetings pertaining to that decision), comment about how you would have done it differently and then retroactively…

There are worse outcomes than that. Software devs are clever people. Not all of us can be confrontational, and confrontation is not the only tool available to those who can. If you as a boss find yourself to be very busy all of a sudden, it is likely because you have pissed off and alienated your reports by questioning and overriding their judgment too many times. Suddenly the team needs your “help” to make every dec…

Software devs also all think they're smart and they talk that way and take pride in it. The reality is many software devs are dumb af.

Re: Collaboration sucks

#69
post #62

> A discussion about building a specific feature can devolve into reevaluating the entire product roadmap if you let it. Well, if the product roadmap doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it _should_ be reevaluated. Too often people commit to something, and then continue building it, despite the market realities having shifted underneath them. I see most teams not asking themselves often enough "should we still be doing what…

It's called "thinking from the principle" for a reason.

You will have to re-invent the whole product from the start...

Re: Collaboration sucks

#70

Praising people for saying "it's your call" and in the same article boasting about "extraordinarily high ownership" is simply laughable. The two are literal polar opposite.

You seem to view them as opposites because you expect ownership to mean that all employees are motivated to have a sense of ownership over the whole process. There’s some benefit to that, sure.

The meaning the article is using is that there’s an owner, and they own the project without dilution. There’s not death by committee. One person or one team is given something to do, and they go do it without interference from the rest of the company. Whether what’s delivered at the end is fit for purpose is open to other people’s opinions and input. How it gets implemented and reaches delivery is the exclusive concern of one person or a very small group.

Post reply on HN