zlacker

>>vimes6+(OP)
Which is more likely: Businesses invent truly arbitrary deadlines for the hell of it, or the “engineers” don’t want to pay attention to business requirements and competitive pressures?

When so-called engineers stop spending half the development schedule choosing a framework and the other half trying to make their dev setup work on everyone’s personalized laptop they will have some credibility complaining about “arbitrary” business goals and requirements.

>>gregjo+N8
From anecdotal evidence, a) is more likely than b). The deadlines are arbitrary because most companies are slow bureaucratic oil tankers that are difficult to steer and will mow down everything in their path once a course is set. Management's job should to be to work on this, to improve the system as a whole and making it more nimble, not on myopic deadlines that fulfil some checkbox and are tied to your EOY bonus. This is outlined by people like Deming and others in the systems thinking space.

From experience, in their career, engineers not only need to excel technically, but are also forced to pick up everything from UX, methodological BS (from Scrum to Itil) to domain specific know-how in multiple fields or areas. Since many managers do not know what they're doing, senior engineers often times end up being de facto management consultants as well. If you are working in a business environment (as opposed to writing low-level drivers or whatever) it's almost impossible to not pick up on what's going on around you.

How many banking managers know how to code? How many engineers working in banking know at least something about the processes, compliance issues, how the org is structured, what the competitors are?

The stereotype of the autistic programmer who is only interested in shiny gadgets and tech needs to die.

>>kitsun+Rb
I think every case is individual. One of my recent gigs had management failures and engineering failures.

Management failed to communicate the limitations of the investment by investors to finish a project. In this case 4 months window of having an additional small team to build it. I had to pay very close attention to extract that information, my inquiries into it were rebuffed. My contract held the most clues.

Engineers didn't bother to listen to the clues and started a design by committee loop that was going to take a year+ to finish. They were much more interested in new shiney things than the financial business restrictions and this attitude was enabled by management.

We managed to finish something within the investment period only because I pushed and prodded at every turn trying to finalize decisions and cut out scope, without managements help, to do so. The manager who tried to shield engineering from deadlines didn't help this despite the train wreck I tried to communicate. At the end of the investment period all the extra engineering hired for the task were let go and the regulars were left to finish the demo we managed while maintaining their normal work load. It is now almost a year later it still isn't released.

While there are places where tone deaf management creates death matches for no good reason. There are apparently also places where management let's engineering walk all over them like a spoiled child with no grounding in financial realities.