Testers

[GlenSausio]

Again - the techy folk are SO anxious to tell everyone why they're better. Get over yourself. Managing IS doing. Selling IS doing. Designing the whole darn thing on paper IS doing. Just because you don't enjoy those parts doesn't stop them being valuable, the inability to see that marks you out as just another nerd who cannot understand the world outside their computer

The thing is, the decent developer can do all those other roles. You can't flip it around. A BA or tester cannot stand in for a developer. If the BA has done incomplete analysis I have to do the analysis myself. I always test my own work because I don't want my rep managed by a tester.

In a sense these other roles (architect, PM, BA, tester) are tasks of a dev, not careers. That's the way it was in the old days.

[tomtomagain]

Again - the techy folk are SO anxious to tell everyone why they're better.

My background is technical but I spent 15 years doing IT project & programme management.

I managed projects in the $1M - $20M range when I worked at various FTSE 100 companies. I have a lot of IT management experience.

I jacked it all in last year and am coming up to the 12 month mark supporting myself and family entirely on my "Plan-B". Haven't had to commute, or been in a meeting, or filled in a timesheet for soooo long.

Get over yourself.

I was not claiming to be better. I was just pointing out that the people who do the "work" are at the bottom of most organisations. Those that immediately manage them are in generally unfulfilling roles getting a lot of sh*t from two or three layers of management above them.

I would suggest that your quick attempts to attack me point to something lacking in your own life rather.

Cheers

[d000hg]

The thing is, the decent developer can do all those other roles. You can't flip it around. A BA or tester cannot stand in for a developer. If the BA has done incomplete analysis I have to do the analysis myself. I always test my own work because I don't want my rep managed by a tester.

In a sense these other roles (architect, PM, BA, tester) are tasks of a dev, not careers. That's the way it was in the old days.

Everyone thinks they can do their boss' job, normally better than their boss. Your boss thinks the same about their boss. A developer can do all those roles well only by investing time to learn how to do them. Being a good tester isn't easy and requires an entirely different mindset to being a good developer. Being a good PM requires a whole boatload of skills the typical developer doesn't have, doesn't want, and frequently doesn't consider valuable.

[d000hg]

I was just pointing out that the people who do the "work" are at the bottom of most organisations.

Yes, because you have a very narrow view of what is valuable or constitutes work.

I would suggest that your quick attempts to attack me point to something lacking in your own life rather.

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your arguments. Flaring up with passive-aggressive personal insults the moment says they think you're wrong is a perfect illustration why most technical people are not equipped to do non-technical roles

[GlenSausio]

Everyone thinks they can do their boss' job, normally better than their boss. Your boss thinks the same about their boss. A developer can do all those roles well only by investing time to learn how to do them. Being a good tester isn't easy and requires an entirely different mindset to being a good developer. Being a good PM requires a whole boatload of skills the typical developer doesn't have, doesn't want, and frequently doesn't consider valuable.

You can get away with one good developer and get rid of all the other actors. It works. This model is desired by the guys I work for.

But ... Java/C# has ruined the game for decent devs, the entry level is so low that you get idiots who can't
do the other roles- that's not to say there are not brilliant java devs around, because there are. In the old days, when we were all doing C++, there were very few idiots around - no BAs or many testers either.

You get me droog? I don't think you do..

[d000hg]

You can get away with one good developer and get rid of all the other actors. It works. This model is desired by the guys I work for.

But ... Java/C# has ruined the game for decent devs, the entry level is so low that you get idiots who can't
do the other roles- that's not to say there are not brilliant java devs around, because there are. In the old days, when we were all doing C++, there were very few idiots around - no BAs or many testers either.

You get me droog? I don't think you do..

This works at the small scale where you have one or two people working on something, and one person can keep the entire thing in their head. It is simply unsustainable in larger projects. You WILL have bugs, regardless if they are spotted in the timeframe you work on the project.

By comparison look at the automotive industry. At the rawest level, you can get rid of everyone except the guy who makes the car. Great. But without a quality control department you will at some point end up having a problem, probably one that leads to someone dying. And without a legal department you will get sued into the ground. Although of course without a sales department you won't sell enough cars to last long enough, you'd already be bankrupt.

The "I make the thing" argument is weak. The product can still be made without salesmen but you will soon be out of a job. If you are making a product then making software is only a small part of the process, of getting it into the customer's hands. Indie developers who take the plunge into doing it full time typically reckon writing the code is the easy bit, and the other 80% of the time is spent not actually doing development.

[GlenSausio]

This works at the small scale where you have one or two people working on something, and one person can keep the entire thing in their head. It is simply unsustainable in larger projects. You WILL have bugs, regardless if they are spotted in the timeframe you work on the project.

By comparison look at the automotive industry. At the rawest level, you can get rid of everyone except the guy who makes the car. Great. But without a quality control department you will at some point end up having a problem, probably one that leads to someone dying. And without a legal department you will get sued into the ground. Although of course without a sales department you won't sell enough cars to last long enough, you'd already be bankrupt.

The "I make the thing" argument is weak. The product can still be made without salesmen but you will soon be out of a job. If you are making a product then making software is only a small part of the process, of getting it into the customer's hands. Indie developers who take the plunge into doing it full time typically reckon writing the code is the easy bit, and the other 80% of the time is spent not actually doing development.

I agree the sales/design/test tasks need to be performed. I just don't think they require time wasters doing them.

Most of testing is managing risk. I know where the bodies are buried, you don't. Leave it to me.

In software, most people are not doing large scale dev anymore. Small agile teams where everyone can do all roles, is the way forward.

[vetran]

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your arguments. Flaring up with passive-aggressive personal insults the moment says they think you're wrong is a perfect illustration why most technical people are not equipped to do non-technical roles

Pot meet kettle .....

[FatLazyContractor]

Everyone thinks they can do their boss' job, normally better than their boss. .

[Goatfell]

I agree the sales/design/test tasks need to be performed. I just don't think they require time wasters doing them.

Most of testing is managing risk. I know where the bodies are buried, you don't. Leave it to me.

In software, most people are not doing large scale dev anymore. Small agile teams where everyone can do all roles, is the way forward.

If you know where they are, why did you leave them there inh the first place? OK, that was a slightly facetious question, but what about the bodies you don't know are there, that's what good testing finds.

I run a business, and do my own marketing (ish ) but I have my accounts done by a professional accountancy firm, I could do it myself, but they do it better and quicker allowing me to concentrate on raising revenue, I have my website hosted for the same reasons. It's not a case of you can't perform a number of roles, rather that others can do it better allowing you to concentrate on what is the most profitable use of your time.

I agree with some of posters that the supporting roles have grown to assume an importance and cost disproportionate to the intrinsic value they add to the product, but I think that's a sign of the times. Are you a manufacturer that sells cars; or a marketing company that makes cars?