No one can doubt this thesis to be true, if you’ve been mandated to fix things. If you haven’t, you’re just asking for trouble. In my experience, the real “fixing” has to start at the top though. CIO/CTO level, and motivated by existential threats, like crippling technical debt, bad releases resulting in waning sales, lost customers.
I would be curious to hear this authors take on Rao’s The Gervaise Principle. She really seems to care, and Rao provides convincing arguments that caring, in business, is misguided.
Can you really be “a fixer” without the support of management?
It seems to me that this type of engagement would only be workable if every party - the employee “parachuting in”, the team they’re assigned to & its leader, management up the chain - has a very clear understanding around the engagement.
Otherwise it just sounds like you’re a technical employee assigned to an underperforming team with the vague hope that you’ll be able to influence them. I’ve never had the misfortune of trying that, but I can’t imagine it’d end well unless you are very adept at playing politics.
When reading this, either i’m too dense to catch it, or this text doesn’t actually say anything. What’s your point? Can you pin it down instead of talking past and around it, for us dense people?
The project is six months late. Management brings in the fixer to find out why. The fixer determines that the convoluted spaghetti mess of json generating xml generating lisp macros is slowing things down and they’d be better of with six lines of awk. The team working on the late project cries foul, the fixer doesn’t understand the problem, and the only reason the problem is late is because the fixer is so stupid they wasted days explaining things and they still don’t get it.
At this point, the fixer either has (air) support from management, who tell the project team to shape up. Or they don’t, and the fixer gets a bad mark in their file.