Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Leif Roar Moldskred on 5 Oct 2009 02:06 Arne Vajh�j <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > And I don't think IT is that much different from other > businesses regarding whether management has a past > doing what the company actually do. > > I very much doubt that the managers in car companies can assemble > a car, managers in airlines can fly a plan, managers in oil companies > can drill etc.. Well, no, but they know the _business_ of assembling a car, flying a plane, drilling a well and so on. A (good) manager at a car plant will know about the product line, cost and maintenance times on robots and production equipment, part storage and order chains, quality standards for the product, health and safety standards for the employees and so on. While there are exceptions, of course, in my experience there is a surprising lack of knowledge about the _business_ of software _both_ among managers in IT companies _and_ among many developers. As an industry it seems rather infantile and unprofessional, stubbornly unable to look inwards at its own workings. -- Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Arved Sandstrom on 5 Oct 2009 05:37 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>> It's not that the managers themselves - as people - are defective. >>>> It's the system that's defective. Next time you get a chance look at >>>> your organization or one that you have dealings with. If the >>>> structure is one of top-level non-technical managers supervising >>>> intermediate-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise >>>> bottom-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise technical >>>> people, you've got a problem. >>> >>> Manager may not know about writing code, but they should know about >>> managing. >>> >>> Since their job is to manage not to write code. >>> >>> First level management actually do benefit a lot from >>> understanding what the work is all about. >>> >>> But higher up the food chain it is all budgets, ressource >>> planning, strategy etc.. >> >> Budgets and resource planning, sure - that's pretty interchangeable >> managerial stuff. But strategy, at any level of an IT organization, >> requires technical savvy. It doesn't mean that a manager four or five >> levels up needs to know how to write code, but they'd best be able to >> listen to a technical architect without getting a glazed look in their >> eyes. And IT managers two or three levels up had best be able to talk >> to a senior developer, when the occasion demands, and have half a clue >> as to what the developer is telling them. >> >> Managers in other industries don't get these free passes like IT >> managers seem to do. A manager in most other sectors actually has to >> know a fair bit about the nuts and bolts of the job. But in IT it's >> seemingly OK for a manager at intermediate and senior levels to know >> extremely little about technology. I don't think that's acceptable. > > If the manager has the skill to hire the right people and to > make those people explain the technical matter in plain English, > then they can do quite fine. It all depends on how "plain" the English needs to be. I wouldn't be surprised if each of us has had times when a relative or friend is curious about what we are doing at work *right now*, and we find it very difficult to explain in anything but the most general terms. If you also have that feeling talking to a manager, that's a problem. > It is like programmers using cryptography. Very few really > understands all the math behind it but chose to base > decisions on summaries from trustworthy sources. True enough, as far as it goes. But any developer who uses cryptographic software is well-advised to be conversant with things like the JCA. IOW, you don't have the math to either develop or analyze a crytographic algorithm, but you're still well-informed otherwise. You can (and probably do) spend years developing this kind of knowledge as a developer if you claim to have in-depth knowledge of application security. > And I don't think IT is that much different from other > businesses regarding whether management has a past > doing what the company actually do. > > I very much doubt that the managers in car companies can assemble > a car, managers in airlines can fly a plan, managers in oil companies > can drill etc.. I suspect a considerably higher percentage of managers in non-IT businesses can actually do some of the basic tasks involved in their business, or at least are well-informed about what those tasks entail. I'm not talking about CEOs of large companies here, but the lower and intermediate levels of management. I myself truly believe that IT is treated differently, that it's perceived to be a field where you can drop in a non-IT type as a manager and that's OK. The developers and what they do are perceived to be sufficiently arcane that few non-developers really try to get a good handle on the nuts and bolts of the business. Obviously there are some IT managers with a technical background. I'm not saying it's exceptionally uncommon. But it's not the norm, IMHO. AHS
From: Dave Searles on 5 Oct 2009 15:57 Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > While there are exceptions, of course, in my experience there is a > surprising lack of knowledge about the _business_ of software _both_ > among managers in IT companies _and_ among many developers. As an > industry it seems rather infantile and unprofessional, stubbornly > unable to look inwards at its own workings. Perhaps because the industry IS an infant. We've had a serious consumer software industry for what, 30 years? Internet industry for 15? Even the mainframe industry for maybe 50. Vs. an automotive industry for 100, an entertainment industry for 150, a telecom industry for 150, a transportation industry for over 200, and clothing, housing, and some other industries in some form or another for over 10,000.
From: Mike Schilling on 5 Oct 2009 16:23 Dave Searles wrote: > Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: >> While there are exceptions, of course, in my experience there is a >> surprising lack of knowledge about the _business_ of software >> _both_ >> among managers in IT companies _and_ among many developers. As an >> industry it seems rather infantile and unprofessional, stubbornly >> unable to look inwards at its own workings. > > Perhaps because the industry IS an infant. We've had a serious > consumer software industry for what, 30 years? Internet industry for > 15? Even the mainframe industry for maybe 50. Vs. an automotive > industry for 100, an entertainment industry for 150, a telecom > industry for 150, a transportation industry for over 200, and > clothing, housing, and some other industries in some form or another > for over 10,000. Not only is it (as you point out) young, it's extremely volatile. "Professional", in the sense Leif uses, largely means "There is a canon of conventional wisdom that members are assumed to understand". That could be formed over a few decades, but not when things are turned upside down several times each decade.
From: Alan Morgan on 5 Oct 2009 19:20
In article <4ac825d1$0$1954$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie <kevinmcm(a)sonic.net> wrote: >In article <ha83np$3g6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >> > - Misc: Your cellphone rang >> >> So it's held against you if someone else happens to pick a (probably >> unknown-to-them) particular period of time in which to decide to want to >> talk to you? How ridiculous. > >Fail. Show some respect by turning off the phone. Agreed. I had one person actually have a conversation during an interview. Here are some acceptable reasons to have a phone on during an interview: 1. Existing company requires you be on call 24/7. 2. Wife or equiv. is 9 1/2 months pregnant and you have to be ready to run at a second's notice. Just let me know before we start and keep it short if the phone should ring and I'm cool. Alan -- Defendit numerus |