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

Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

bellmar.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#71

Post by danjac »

Spivak wrote: post #65
rendall wrote: post #9

In most organizations that has one, the sales department has an outsized influence on every other department including tech.

I personally don't really mind this since at the end of the day the entire org exists to support sales, marketing, and retention. Within reason, if those groups say they need something to bring in revenue then they get it.

Yes of course, but if you don't do it right you might get the sales (and the sales people get their bonuses) but the retention will be abysmal. For example, a salesperson who promises features or deadlines without consulting the tech team about what's doable will cause unnecessary crunch, poor quality releases and angry customers.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#72

Post by chadcmulligan »

jodrellblank wrote: post #22
jcadam wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current job market is punishing poorly run companies. It's too easy to pick up the phone and get a new job quick these days if you're unhappy, contributing to churn.

How is everyone moving and also moving somewhere better? Is it not the case that the majority of open job opportunities are ones other people have recently left from unhappiness?

I just ask if they do daily standups, and see what they say. It's a pretty good indicator. The more clueless the more religious they are about them (imho)

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#73

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

idiocrat wrote: post #63
siliconc0w wrote: post #57

Lots of re-orgs is also a pretty big indicator. A lot of VPs/directors need a reason to exist and they create that reason with reorganizations. This is basically the enterprise equivalent of pushing the food around the plate to make it seem eaten. With a re-org you can shed or minimize expensive to operate systems that don't generate a lot of clear value(i.e most tech-debt).

For that I always remember the fable, where animals have bought all those expensive shiny musical instruments, but nobody knows how to play. They are trying to emulate an orchestra, by rearranging the seats, in the hope that the right seating will make make them sound good. But the orchestra cannot play for the lack of individual skills and lack of the leadership. I saw in enterprises, they are buying all possible so…

I think most technology professionals refer to the concept of Cargo Cult [1] to describe the same phenomenon as the fable.

[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#74

Post by grey-area »

jimnotgym wrote: post #40
grey-area wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Board directors are not usually employees.

1) not necessarily true at all. The board is usually split exec/non exec 2) not true in this case. Two of the people on my list are execs

I said usually, there are sometimes one or two but the board is there to supervise and thus is outside the normal corporate structure.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#75

Post by lordnacho »

xapata wrote: post #62
late2part wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what I think he means. If you look at trends over an arbitrary period, they may look useful. If you look at the similar trends over a larger period, they look different. Therefore, the smaller periods are just random variations relative to the larger periods.

Close. It's more a comment on the structure of those random variations, and whether it's appropriate to describe the system as periodic at all. For example, sometimes it rains, and sometimes the sun shines. Is the weather cyclical? Depends on the place, time, and time-scale you're considering. Maybe a better example is roulette. If you watch the "cycles" of red and black, you might imagine you could make predictions.…

This is a good observation that I upvoted because it's very relevant. A lot of things look like cycles but have no oscillating dynamic, it's true.

But you could suppose that business cycles are caused by a build-up of bad debt. Things to well, debts can be paid, collateral gets worth more, more investment, etc. This can't go on forever and the reverse cycle then occurs, often as rates come up. Soros store about this and called it reflexivity.

Of course I'm not saying business cycles are definitely caused by this, there's probably more to it than that. But it's a common explanation.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#76

Post by fhd2 »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #69

Tech debt isn’t a thing. I mean it is because it’s a thing that engineers worry about mainly because of ego and pride. I know that’s triggering but let me explain… As humans we all have ego and want our work to be important which is why tech debt is important to engineers who have a myopic view of their value and what businesses can actually bear. - I have seen companies with loads of tech debt lose 60% of their engi…

The problem with technical debt is, in my experience anyway, that decisions have such a delayed impact that it's difficult for a group of people to understand cost and benefit. To work with the example you gave: You can tell that losing 60% of engineering staff didn't have a negative short term impact. How about 5-10 years later? How fast can the org move at that time vs if they had more staffing and less technical debt?

The whole idea behind the concept is that it _can_ be a good business decision to reduce spending (i.e. new features) and focus on paying off your (technical) debt for a while. It might as well be more important to make progress in the short term, no matter the cost. But the important point is that it's not a technical decision, it's a business decision. And the whole metaphor of technical debt is just one way of moving the conversation to that level.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#77

Post by lifeisstillgood »

xapata wrote: post #61
jmercouris wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean? Can you please rephrase?

Many people look at a chart that goes up and down and imagine they see cycles. It's popular to speak of business cycles, for example. Unfortunately, it is not clear that anything in the economy oscillates such that it's appropriate to describe the system as having cycles. You might have heard of Fourier transforms. Any time-series can be transformed into its sinusoidal components, even if a composition of waves is no…

I mean, this is pretty much the explanation for share price movements, so, yeah it should be for everything else.

Consider my mind blown - thank you !

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#78

Post by hef19898 »

Spivak wrote: post #65
rendall wrote: post #9

In most organizations that has one, the sales department has an outsized influence on every other department including tech.

I personally don't really mind this since at the end of the day the entire org exists to support sales, marketing, and retention. Within reason, if those groups say they need something to bring in revenue then they get it.

If you replace sales & marketing with actual customers, I'm all in.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#79

Post by Cederfjard »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #69

Tech debt isn’t a thing. I mean it is because it’s a thing that engineers worry about mainly because of ego and pride. I know that’s triggering but let me explain… As humans we all have ego and want our work to be important which is why tech debt is important to engineers who have a myopic view of their value and what businesses can actually bear. - I have seen companies with loads of tech debt lose 60% of their engi…

If you had said ”tech debt typically isn’t as big a deal as engineers think it is” I would’ve agreed with you, but ”tech debt isn’t a thing” is hyperbole to such a degree that it stops being helpful, never mind true. I realize that the former is not as pithy. And I think you agree, given your last paragraph.

For example, I’ve seen companies where tech debt has made them unable to meet the moment and fail, whereas if they could’ve delivered something better, quicker, they might have had a lot of success.

Re: Hunting Tech Debt via Org Charts

#80

Post by jimnotgym »

grey-area wrote: post #74
jimnotgym wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) not necessarily true at all. The board is usually split exec/non exec 2) not true in this case. Two of the people on my list are execs

I said usually, there are sometimes one or two but the board is there to supervise and thus is outside the normal corporate structure.

In the UK corporate governance code it is quite clear that a board should have an exec CEO and a non exec chair. The chair runs the board the CEO runs the company. The board oversees the CEO. It would be extraordinary (and pointless) not to have some execs on the board.
Post reply on HN