

Techies Vs. The Business - jonnytran
http://plpatterns.com/post/55433565/techies-vs-the-business

======
tomsaffell
I think the advice that 'tech people should learn to talk business' and
'business people should learn to talk tech' is spot on, and ultimately _the
most important point here_. After all, there really is no such thing as a
'business person' or a 'tech person' there are just people, some of whom have
spent time building experience in one domain, some in another domain.

My word of caution is this: due to the all too common 'them and us' situation
(as described in the article), it is sometimes the case that the situation
escalates to the point that one (or both) parties put up barriers to prevent
'the other side' from learning to speak their language, aka 'domain freakism'.
This is sometime done as a defensive measure to prevent 'the other side' from
'getting in', for example to cover the tracks on things they dont want 'the
other side' to know.

This doesnt always happen, but it is sad when it does. My advice in this
scenario is to find an independent person (either inside the company or
outside) who can help you learn the basic language of 'the other side' to help
bring that wall down. And then go solve the root problem around why one side
does want to let the other side in (it's often skeletons / legacy).

~~~
jwilliams
This article alludes to this, but doesn't go into it - but the terms
"Technology" and "Business" are totally bogus and I usually recommend that
people don't use them.

I hear this all the time in big corporates - "We need to ask the Business", or
"That's for Technology to sort out". It sets "Technology" apart from the rest
of the organization in a way that just isn't realistic or productive.

When people invoke the term "The Business", what do they really mean? - is it
marketing, or the call center, or the HR department, is it sales, is it the
warehouse? It's a meaningless term. Technology is the Business just like every
other part of an organization.

I've worked on projects where that mentality persists - and had successes and
failures. I've also worked on projects where Tech/Business is never mentioned,
it never comes up... These projects have been overwhelming successes (and more
fun to boot).

------
gaius
It starts well, then gets all political at the end. You don't get trapped in a
job _by the job_. You get "trapped" by commitments that you freely entered
into at the time, such as, having kids, buying a house and so on. Commitments
that the job makes it possible for you to keep. If you really want to stay out
of the trap, it's not hard! But is it worth it?

~~~
astine
It did feel rather tacked on and poorly considered. Human beings are not
slaves to employers but to our own needs. We take out our frustration at this
upon our employers even though it isn't really their fault (most of the time)
that the only safe and efficient way to satisfy these needs is through tedious
employment.

(Well, it's not the only way, but it is the way most people chose, which is
primarily their fault.)

I very much liked the comparison of management of people to management of
computers. We each understand our own field and how, generally, to utilize the
resources we are meant to manage, but we don't understand each other's so
well. This is a problem when we have to cooperate and each have a good
understanding of what the other needs and does, as it is in the
employer/techie relationship. Division of labor has its advantages, but it's
no excuse for not knowing what your neighbor does.

------
Dilpil
Its extremely well thought out articles like this one that have converted me
and so many others from digg to HN.

~~~
a-priori
I agree. This is one of the better articles to grace HN in some time, and if
I'm not mistaken, the blog is a newcomer here as well.

~~~
jonnytran
Thanks, everyone. I've been around for a little while. I recently moved my
entire blog from plpatterns.blogspot.com .

------
senihele
Very interesting and thorough article. I think these questions are
particularly interesting to consider from the perspective of a startup. While
smaller startups may not face these challenges yet, since them teams are still
relatively small, it is a good idea to begin considering them. It makes me
wonder if there is something an organization can do ahead of time to mitigate
these conflicts down the road. Any thoughts?

~~~
jonnytran
Yes, I think it definitely has to be in the culture from the start. I doubt
people who have been working at a company for a while are going to go for
switching to a completely different methodology for getting compensated.

In the beginning, when a startup is very small, everything is transparent.
Everyone knows who's doing what, and their share of the pay/company can be
proportional. Kind of like the way Joel Spolsky describes having compensation
open, not a big secret how much every person is being paid. But as the company
gets bigger, you might not even know all the people there, let alone what work
they're doing. The transparency breaks down.

I was already considering ideas of how to measure contribution by analyzing
source code that you commit. But this obviously only works for code. Not all
value contributed is through code. Maybe each department or kind of work could
have its own scheme. (Manning the phone, for example, probably _should_ be
paid hourly.)

In the end though, some hybrid will probably make the most sense. I'm looking
for other ideas too.

~~~
senihele
Yeah, very good point about transparency. I remember reading some
entrepreneur's story who stressed fostering this kind of environment. It is a
somewhat different but related point: he insisted that everyone in the company
spend time doing customer service, so everyone had a sense of what the
customer's needs were and how the product was progressing. I thought this was
very clever.

I also think you're right - there doesn't seem to be enough innovation in
regard to compensation. Even bonuses don't necessarily create the right
incentives - often these seem more related to the overall health of the
economy rather than work or contributions. While it is a good idea to share
success with employees, regardless of the cause, it does little to encourage
employees in their individual actions. While you say this sort of salary
structure is in reaction to a company's growth, it seems like they are even
less useful as a company grows and each individual's contribution has an ever
smaller affect on how well a company ultimately does.

~~~
jonnytran
Yes, absolutely! Doing customer service is a great idea. Many problems (esp.
usability) stem from the fact that the people making the product don't
empathize with the people using the product. It's just like when developers
eat their own dog food, the software almost always ends up being significantly
better.

I actually have asked multiple times to work in different departments at my
day job to get a better sense of how users use the stuff I'm making. I feel
it's necessary to do my job well. _Necessary._ But the culture just isn't open
to that I guess. Short of quitting, I don't see it ever actually happening.

I completely agree with you about compensation. At a big company, the bonus I
get has no correspondence to what I actually do. I wonder if it would work out
better if profits were broken down by product, for example. Then, if you
worked on a given product, you get a cut of the profit for that product. At
least then, the profit from big hit products wouldn't be split among everyone
in the company.

------
known
Techies priorities:

1\. Technology

2\. Processes

3\. People

Business priorities:

3\. Technology

2\. Processes

1\. People

------
jmtame
I for one thought this article was incredible. I'll recommend it to my student
group.

