Nick Carroll’s Post

One of the tangential benefits to having a very streamlined mainline/agile development process: you sometimes get ancillary contributions outside of work projects. Case in point: I had some free time this evening, and was thinking about doing some coding. In past orgs, this probably would have led to me experimenting with some new technology, refactoring some chunk of code which was bugging me, inventing something new, optimizing something, etc. Often these types of instances will lead to significant value creation for orgs (see the many anecdotal stories to this effect). In my case, I know that in my current situation, this would be largely pointless, and perhaps even counter-productive. Changes cannot be merged unless approved and assigned to releases in advance, large changes induce high personal risk, refactoring is generally discouraged, and the divergent-branch methodology means that every branch will add maintenance overhead for me for literally months, just to have the potential to have something be eventually approved. In short, every single process in place is aligned to push back against this type of inclination. So, obviously, I didn't do that, and did other things instead. I'd note that, incidentally, the org/management is well aware of this state, and has made a management decision to enforce it; in essence, they are intentionally sacrificing that potential innovation and value for additional stability and control of the processes. I'm not asserting either path is unequivocally good/bad; I'm just noting the benefits and costs inherent in those decisions, which are sometimes overlooked.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics