The author seems to answered his own question if you pull out some key points and examine them in a logical way:
1. Software development was tightly controlled in the 70's through a hierarchy of management (project managers, business analysts, senior programmers).
2. Today the hierarchy is gone, reduced to “team leads” and “scrum masters” with no real authority or control.
3. Today programmers left to themselves often adopt or create methodologies stricter and more filled with ritual than software development in the 70s.
4. Today he often gets involved in 1 or 2 people projects that have so much process and “best practice” that nothing of real value gets produced.
5. What makes software development work is “conceptual integrity” or common vision or that feeling working on a team where everyone clicks and things just get done.
6. He doesn't understand why he had that feeling more in the 70’s than now.
Well if you follow the logic, what is missing? The hierarchy of management. Which he seemed to blame for the original reason why software development methodology doesn't work.
I hate to admit it, but maybe the hierarchy of management added more value than we gave them credit for?
He sort of suggested finding that “feeling” in a project/team was unpredictable, random. But perhaps the hierarchy of managers actually had valuable skills that led to higher success rates of projects achieving that “feeling”? Perhaps they had a knack for picking the right people and for managing people in a way so they worked together more efficiently? Of course they weren't perfect and there were some bad apples, just like any profession.
I wonder what the demise of the hierarchy of managers was caused by? Did the hierarchy of managers lose these skills overtime and become useless? Did programmers just not recognize their value added and throw them under the bus for 30 years until they didn't have a leg to stand on? Was it pure budgetary, cut costs and get rid of the resources with the least perceived value?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a manager. I use to be very hard on managers, then I became one for a while, realized how difficult their jobs can be, and now I am one of the easiest people to manage.
1. Software development was tightly controlled in the 70's through a hierarchy of management (project managers, business analysts, senior programmers).
2. Today the hierarchy is gone, reduced to “team leads” and “scrum masters” with no real authority or control.
3. Today programmers left to themselves often adopt or create methodologies stricter and more filled with ritual than software development in the 70s.
4. Today he often gets involved in 1 or 2 people projects that have so much process and “best practice” that nothing of real value gets produced.
5. What makes software development work is “conceptual integrity” or common vision or that feeling working on a team where everyone clicks and things just get done.
6. He doesn't understand why he had that feeling more in the 70’s than now.
Well if you follow the logic, what is missing? The hierarchy of management. Which he seemed to blame for the original reason why software development methodology doesn't work.
I hate to admit it, but maybe the hierarchy of management added more value than we gave them credit for?
He sort of suggested finding that “feeling” in a project/team was unpredictable, random. But perhaps the hierarchy of managers actually had valuable skills that led to higher success rates of projects achieving that “feeling”? Perhaps they had a knack for picking the right people and for managing people in a way so they worked together more efficiently? Of course they weren't perfect and there were some bad apples, just like any profession.
I wonder what the demise of the hierarchy of managers was caused by? Did the hierarchy of managers lose these skills overtime and become useless? Did programmers just not recognize their value added and throw them under the bus for 30 years until they didn't have a leg to stand on? Was it pure budgetary, cut costs and get rid of the resources with the least perceived value?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a manager. I use to be very hard on managers, then I became one for a while, realized how difficult their jobs can be, and now I am one of the easiest people to manage.