Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software quality
Summary: This is not the army.
Message-ID: <1989Oct24.060132.1660@ico.isc.com>
Date: 24 Oct 89 06:01:32 GMT
References: <1989Oct19.042903.7809@ico.isc.com> <6847@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation
Lines: 80

Bill Wolfe again...

(>  [I have removed comp.sw.components from the newsgroup list, since
>   this thread ceased to be relevant to that newsgroup some time ago] 
No, somehow you didn't.  I hope I have!)

> > As for the "management decides, engineers comply" - in some sense that's
> > what happens, but it's an incredibly poor choice of words...
>... No, it in fact shows that the organization IS healthy.  Engineers
>    are not, and should not be in the business of trying to be, responsible
>    for setting cost and schedule constraints...

My argument is with the obvious connotations of control.  The schedule,
budget, specifications, and other constraints are an *agreement* between
the management and technical staff.  Management makes the decision of
go/no-go on the project.  But the engineers' attitude is NOT one of compli-
ance...it is one of agreement.  You MUST understand the difference...if the
engineers don't agree, they won't really comply.  (The problem may stay
below the surface for a bit, but it WILL surface.)

>    If engineers were responsible for setting cost and schedule constraints,
>    they would tend to disregard economic factors and the organization would
>    quickly find itself out of business.  Projects would be technical works
>    of genius, with complete formal specifications for each subprogram or
>    data abstraction, 3-D images illustrating the design, etc., at a cost 
>    which would result in fatal financial illness for the company. 

Well, I've reached the limit of my patience with this bullshit.  I've
worked as an engineer for quite a few years, and I've played my part in
setting cost and schedule constraints.  None of the crap that Wolfe tosses
off (as if he knew how it works) has befallen the projects I've worked on.
Engineers do NOT disregard economic factors, for the simple reason that
they want to eat too.

None of the companies I've been involved with has quickly found itself out
of business as a result of deeply involving the engineers.  Quite the
contrary; I've found engineers more than willing to work in understanding
the totality of the project in order to make their contributions more
valuable.  They find that they can help the project by letting their
involvement exceed the boundaries of technical expertise and lap over
into other considerations.  This is often reciprocated by management taking
an interest in the technical issues, creating a more cohesive approach to
the project, reducing "cultural" misunderstandings, and building a sense
of teamwork instead of us/them-ness.

Or maybe I'm just used to working with real engineers.

[some comments establishing proper context deleted - see parent]
> > ...If engineers are to
> > be involved, you don't involve them as "subordinates".

>    Sure you do.  Who says superiors and subordinates can't participate
>    in the same meeting?  Who says superiors and subordinates can't have
>    free and open discussions?  I don't, and I hope you aren't implying
>    this either.

I am implying...nay, asserting...something much more fundamental:

    An engineer is NOT subordinate to a manager.

    A manager is NOT superior to an engineer.

    An engineering organization is NOT a caste system.

    Organizations frequently have hierarchical structures for reasons
    related to communication, accounting, reflection of project structural
    hierarchy, etc.  It is critically important to the success of a tech-
    nical organization that this hierarchy carry as little connotation as
    possible of increasing value, power, or importance as one moves up the
    hierarchy, because contributions must be valued by their worth rather
    than their origin.

    A manager is NOT a superior, but merely a person serving a qualitatively
    different purpose.  Management 101: A manager is an assistant to the
    people who report to the manager.

    This is NOT the army.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...No DOS.  UNIX.