Re: Do I Really Need A Supervisor?

[jmartin@cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin)]

Auntie Alias <antialias@earthlink.net> writes:

>Do I Really Need A Supervisor?

>I work for a well known aerospace firm developing embeddded
>Ada software for a well known fighter aircraft. I have been
>developing embedded Ada software for going on ten years now,
>having contributed to missile, aircraft, tank and electronic 
>warfare systems now fielded. Like many of you out there I have 
>a wide range of experience developing Ada software for a wide 
>variety of processors. Like most companies, my present client 
>integrates me into a large and deeply nested management 
>environment - I have two direct supervisors (one functional, 
>one project) who each have their supervisors (functional and 
>project) who each have their supervisors, who have their 
>supervisors, etc,etc...My question is, Do I really need 
>a supervisor?

>It has been my observation over the years that one step above
>where I work, there is little or no software development done,
>i.e, my boss does mostly management "work" - going to meetings,
>interfacing with other supervisors, tracking my progress. My
>bosses rarely contribute anything of technical value to the
>project. Most of the time, they have little or no understanding
>of what it is that I am working on. Often times, they have little
>or no understanding even how to do my job - sometimes they are
>not even trained as software people. Too many times in my career
>I have had to explain the most basic ideas of Ada programming
>to my boss. (For example, I have twice had to explain to a boss
>that an Ada program needs a main procedure - that it was not just
>a collection of packages that somehow starts running.) 

>In my current assignment, I am on a team of three people, only
>two of which are designing or coding. My co-worker has been 
>designing our project for the past 2 1/2 years but does not
>know Ada. I know Ada, but I do not know the application or her
>design as well. Together or singly, either of us could complete
>the design, coding, testing and integration of our subsystem into
>the airplane. Working together we can get it done even faster. 
>But our company feels that we need a supervisor. So they assign
>a third person to our team - the supervisor. Our supervisor
>is buried with the responsibilities of communicating and 
>coordinating with other managers and with the customer (another
>division of our corporation). She is unable to contribute 
>technically to our work. Added to this supervisor, I have a
>functional supervisor and my co-worker also has a separate 
>functional supervisor. In addition to these supervisors, my 
>project feels a need to have a team of supervisors to formulate
>what our software development process should be. These supervisors
>it turns out do not even have experience in some cases of 
>developing software - let alone Ada software or embedded software.
>But there they are, year after year churning out directions for
>us to use to develop our software by. And let there be no doubt,
>some of these directions and processes are truly assinine.

>And over and above these supervisors are still more supervisors.
>And they all get together for frequent meetings to study how
>much our company is spending developing our software. Charts,
>graphs, databases and documents are generated by the thousands
>to document how far along I and my co-worker have gotten in
>our development efforts. None of the people gathered together
>have any idea of how to do the jobs I and my co-worker do, but
>there they are, tracking our progress, coordinating our efforts,
>collecting metrics, deciding on schedules, estimating efforts,
>determining budgets, deciding on policies. And the schedules, 
>budgets and estimates are always wrong! (Never even close!) 
>Our project suffered a major reorganization at the beginning of 
>the year. A new schedule was established. Within two weeks of 
>the new schedule being established, it was invalidated by events. 
>What possible good are these supervisors?

>My supervisors are incapable of doing or understanding my work.
>Most of the time, they do not even know what it is that I am 
>working on. They are incapable of giving meaningful advice or 
>suggestions about the design or implementation of the software. 
>They are totally incapable of estimating the time that it will 
>take for me to do my work. They are unable to forecast the cost 
>of doing my work. They sign my time cards every week, but in 
>ten years, I have never once been challenged about my actual 
>time spent working. Any communications they have with other 
>groups, with other engineers or with the customer could more
>sensibly be done by me or my co-worker. They do make a lot of
>design policy and scheduling decisions - and most all of them
>are poor decisions based on a poor understanding of the 
>technology. Either me or my co-worker could have made better
>decisions quicker. What possible good are these supervisors?

>The task before me and my co-worker involves developing about
>15,000 to 20,000 lines of Ada for an embedded controller. It is 
>complicated and safety critical, but it is not that big of a
>deal. I wrote something very similar last year for another 
>client. If I had to, I could write the code at home using an 
>ordinary PC and a few thousand dollars worth of equipment. It 
>would probably take me a year of full time effort. But the way
>our company works, it has so far taken about seven man-years of
>effort of the software developers alone. Many more years if you
>add in the supervisor overhead - all those people arguing in 
>their meetings about how I should do my job. Our effort will
>take another two years yet - both me and my co-worker (and the 
>supervisor watching over us) - all because we have to develop our
>software according to the "process" (#$%@& SEI !!!) designed for 
>us by the other supervisors. It buys us nothing; it cost us much. 
>What possible good are these supervisors?

>I, and engineers like me and my co-worker have clearly demonstrated
>that we are trustworthy, competent and capable to get complicated 
>military systems implemented and fielded. All this without any real
>technical help from our supervisors. (In many cases, in spite of 
>our supervisor's "help"!) My question is, Do I really need a 
>supervisor? 

>My answer is, No. I can do my job better and faster without the 
>interference of a supervisor. Just tell us what you want us to
>develop a software solution for and leave us alone to develop the
>solution. We already know how to do the job. Get out of our way 
>and we will do it. Do you want to see our country field the next 
>fighter aircraft ahead of schedule and way under budget? Just get 
>rid of most of the supervisors - our country will save billions 
>and have better weapons as well.

Heh. As anyone in defense software knows, the main goal of defense
software is to suck the maximum $$$ out of the DOD while producing
little to zilch.  So given inefficiency as something to optimize, your
company sounds like it is doing a brilliant job.  Recognize their
genius!  (forwarded to comp.software-eng)

Jay