The curse of the babble

We talk. We, as developers, software engineers - whatever you call us - we talk. We talk about imple

We talk. We, as developers, software engineers - whatever you call us - we talk. We talk about implementation details, we talk about our toolset, we talk about performance issues. This this a part of our job - if you don't talk about your code, ideas or problems - you have a problem. To be honest, people are just designed like that - you can talk before you can write. However, there is a one specific "talk", which I believe is a curse and hits whole IT really hard.

Have you ever tried to introduce a new tool for your team? It can be a build server, a source control system or a new library. In most cases it is pretty easy - someone gives an idea, you discuss it, point possible problems. Maybe someone is more experienced with this tool and can decide whether it is a go/no-go. Mostly it is a moderate(or not - you know, each dev knows better) discussion and you can close it within an hour, no strings attached. You know why such discussions are the most definite ones? Because devs know the best, what they expect from a tool and what it can give a team.

On the other hand it is not always true, that a team decides. This is especially true for big companies, which involve tons of bureaucracy. You cannot decide on your own - you have to ask your manager, your architect and your director. There are some DevOps engineers and middleware specialists also. Don't forget to ask your mom, your wife and your dog. You have to ask everybody because everybody knows what you need better than you.

Have you mentioned everyone in your email requests? Good, now let them meet and talk. Let them babble, let them discuss all those things they hardly understand. Just imagine:

  • Dev: Hi All, we need a TeamCity instance accessible for us so we can test our .NET apps build process.
  • Mgr: Hi Joe Director, my team wants a TeamCity server so they can work with it.
  • Joe Director: Architect, don't we have such thing in our infrastructure?
  • Architect: No, we have Hudson only - they should be OK with it. Do they want a whole server? They have to ask our server team.
  • Dog: Bark, bark!
  • Dev: I said we want only a TeamCity instance + we want to build .NET apps...
  • Mom: Your grandpa gave a TeamCity your grandma instead of a wedding ring, I will try to find it...
  • Finance: It costs 1,999.00, we can't afford it this year.
  • Joe Director: What?! I have to pay  2000 for this Hudson server?
  • Wife: Are you getting  2000 extra this month? I'll go shopping, wow!
  • Dog: Bark, bark!
  • Mgr: Why do we want to test build process anyway? Can't you just use MSBuild?
  • Dev: We want to test the 'whole' process and by the way - TC is free!
  • Architect: Is it free? Is it enterprise enough? What about integration? Last year we bought enterprise ESB solution for $100K and since we haven't started to implement it yet, I have to know whether this SimCity will work with it.
  • Finance: SimCity? Can we also get it?
  • Dog: Bark, bark!

Sounds familiar? I think everyone knows that feeling.

They will talk for a month considering whether a tool you mentioned is needed for you. They will spend their time discussing, arguing and trying to prove, that they can or cannot afford it. They don't care, that they will spend money while talking. They will spend much more that your tool costs. Funny fact that they don't seem to care about it.


Comments (2) -

Karol Pawłowski 4/20/2016 4:55:59 PM

That's the behavior that differentiates corpo's from TOP companies. They won't ever be leading as jargon consumes more effort than valuable work. Basically that's similar to the conversation we had today with the BOSS ;]

Kamil Mrzygłód 4/21/2016 9:12:21 AM

The problem is that most people "at the top" tend to decide on their own instead of to ask specialists they hired.

Add comment