Slashdot Mirror
Coders, Your Days Are Numbered
snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister argues that communication skills, not coding skills, are a developer's greatest asset in a bear economy. 'Too many software development teams are still staffed like secretarial pools. Ideas are generated at the top and then passed downward through general managers, product managers, technical leads, and team leads. Objectives are carved up into deliverables, which are parceled off to coders, often overseas,' McAllister writes. 'The idea that this structure can be sustainable, when the US private sector shed three-quarters of a million jobs in March 2009 alone, is simple foolishness.' Instead, companies should emulate the open source model of development, shifting decision-making power to the few developers with the deepest architectural understanding of, and closest interaction with, the code. And this shift will require managers to look beyond résumés 'choked with acronyms and lists of technologies' to find those who 'can understand, influence, and guide development efforts, rather than simply taking dictation.'" Update: 04/04 19:52 GMT by T : InfoWorld's link to the archived version of the story on open source development no longer works; updated with Google's cached version.
So, I might do well if:
1) I can actually communicate with the people that are paying me.
2) I can write code that doesn't suck.
3) I actually understand the business needs for the code I'm writing.
Wow. I'll be much more effective now. Thanks.
What he argues is either trivial or bullshit. I don't understand what he says, to be honest, so there are 3 possibilities:
1. He says that everybody needs to learn communicate. That's trivial. Everybody, even manual workers, need to communicate. You can excel, but if you cannot cooperate, you cannot work in modern society.
2. He says that communication, not other skills, is where real money/power is. This is also trivial. To scale beyond the abilities of a single person, you have to control other humans, and for that, you need people skills more than other specific skills.
3. He says that the U.S. economy in the future won't need any people with technical skills, only managers, as technical skills can be outsourced. This is bullshit, as the U.S. is going to experience the hard way in the upcoming years.
I think the anti-pattern I see in most companies that are weak in the technology area is the guy at the top is great at landing deals, public speaking, and sales but he can't figure out what those damned pesky nerds are doing and why they need to get paid so much money.
As a general rule, most successful tech companies are started and run by people with engineering and/or cs backgrounds (Google, Paypal, Ebay, Microsoft to name a few). Many companies these days, which are in the information handling business (finance, etc), have little competitive advantage over their competition except for their technology platform and are thus essentially tech companies, even though they might not know it yet. Now with the down economy they actually have to be better than the competition and can't just survive by endlessly rolling over credit lines. Hence, the greater need for engineers who can create a technological vision for the company instead of just doing what they are told to do by clueless bosses.
I'm always amused when I read stories like this about how X or Y is the only possible future of development.
What works for one application or company doesn't necessarily work for the next. This isn't a one-size-fits-all industry. If it were every company would be using the same languages with the same methodologies.
Meh.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Leaving development decisions to core programmers can lead to chaos in development priorities. A hard core coder may spend large amounts of time chasing down just that little bit of latency in the process scheduler; but what the business needs is a rewrite in order to simplify processes.
This is why the OS model has a hard time living in the corporate environment. Many times what needs to be done for the business is tedious programming driven by idiots (== users). No one wants to do that. So a core group of programmers ends up adding a plethora of new features that are elegant in implementation, advanced in design, and useless for users.
The other major factor in corporate America (can't speak for the other 96% of the world) is the vast armies of "business analysts". These people allegedly have communication skills with both users and coders. In reality, however, they are incented to drag out projects in requirements and testing phases in order to make their own functions seem more useful. Many projects I've worked on have burned upwards of 3/4 of the hours billed to business analysts.
The remedy? Coders who can speak Business, are WILLING to speak Business, are willing to let the needs of the users drive their projects, and the ability to code. In that order. These people are far and few between, sadly.
I've seen my share of products fail miserably because nobody brought in the business analysts or consultants to gather functional and end-user requirements and spec out the system, and, generally, drive the project. Consequently, the engineers are left with an incomplete or incorrect idea of what to build or of what the acceptance criteria should actually be.
Lawyers can charge what they do and sell themselves as highly skilled practitioners because they passed the Bar exam, which acts as both a hurdle to keep everyone and their uncle out, and as an indicator of some standard level of performance.
"Coders" have no such yard stick. Anyone and their uncle can call themselves "coders" or, even more outrageously, call themselves software engineers. There's really no certification, standardized exam, or prestigious private college out there whereby one can stand out as highly skilled. So, the field is flooded with tons of mediocre and unskilled coders, punctuated by the rare skilled programmer. This drives salaries down. Everyone in the field is forced to undersell themselves lest they be underbid by one of the many who are all talk and no skill.
What software engineers need are credible and selective certification programs so that the few very talented professionals who pass can authoritatively show themselves to be skilled. This would definitely help weed the field of posers and amateurs and bring salaries up to where they should be.
Open source development is not Agile. One of the critical activities in Agile development is paying some attention to the users.
Actually, open source developers do. Sometimes, it's just that the users are themselves.
Besides, Agile isn't about paying attention to the users per se... it's paying attention to the people who the payer wants to enable. Again, in the open source world, that might well be the developer himself (paying in time, not money).
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.