|
|
You're in the
dotnet general
group:OT: The Economics of Incompetence
dotnet general:
Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. The Project: Create a simple report. Initial Cost of Project: Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the business: $14.00 Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the business: $30.00 Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: $240.00 Lifetime Cost of the Project: Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as compared to software that just works. Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers considering only hourly rates. Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? Thanks.
Thanks Tom...
RE: << You're describing a known problem but what do you think the solution is? [quoted text, click to view] >> I certainly don't know. Thus the post!RE: << I find it unlikely that anybody can develop a significant (aka "readable") report in 10 minutes >> Agreed... however that was just a quick example to keep the numbers obvious ($14 vs. $240). The numbers become even larger - seemingly unreal - with real bad projects that make it into production. I just showed a new client that they are paying their employees over $300,000/year to stare at an hourglass (it's a poorly designed MS Access system with over 100 users). The $ numbers are big - very big - once you count other costs (beyond the hourglass). Some of the managers there say they cannot afford better programmers. Mind boggling to me. It looks to me like they can't afford the junior and Incompetent programmers they currently have on staff. It's killing them financially. I don't understand why it's not perfectly obvious to them (except perhaps they've never seen competent programmers in action). A presumption of my OP is that the $85/hr developer is truly competent. A rough definition of "competent" would be a developer that can design and implement solutions that (1) actually meet the needs of the business; (2) perform well; (3) are scalable; (4) are maintainable; and (5) are extensible. Many of the other holy grails are at least given some consideration - like "self-documenting." Junior level programmers might deliver such, but would take a long time to do so; Incompetent developers - by definition- cannot or do not deliver solutions that could be described in those terms. RE: << there are plenty of incompetent "senior" programmers >> YES! Those are far more expensive than even the Incompetent programmers. There are a tone of those out there too, but it seems that a lot of them disappeared with the .com bubble and the whole outsourcing thing. RE: << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one guy is worth $20 more than the other? >> Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. Interview them *while* they are doing it. Give them a real programming task or bug to solve... somthing like that. Get them to explain what they are thinking and why they are taking the specific steps or actions they are undertaking. I'm sure there are other effective ways to measure competence. Oh, and make the task relevant to the position to be filled. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Bob [quoted text, click to view] "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ezVNQa%23KHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Well since it's a discussion... > > Keep in mind that there are plenty of incompetent "senior" programmers > charging $85 an hour taking 2 hours to explain how stupid everybody is and > how he/she could have written it ("it" being anything) better, faster and > in Java. > > The expense in your example (not counting the completely incompetent guy) > is incurred when using a senior developer to write a report. There is an > opportunity cost and there was nobody available to work on a senior-level > problem while the pro worked on something a junior level guy can a) handle > and b) learn from. Learning takes time and costs money but it has to > happen. > > I find it unlikely that anybody can develop a significant (aka "readable") > report in 10 minutes. If you mean directing a SQL query to Excel okay > maybe but if there are lots of these 1-up "reports" then the senior guy > should sit with the junior guy and show him how. One hour later the > junior is guy is pumping them out in 10 minutes as well. > > You're describing a known problem but what do you think the solution is? > Imagine two guys sit in front of you, one asking for $55/hr and one asking > for $75/hr. So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the > one guy is worth $20 more than the other? > > You could have him generate a report... the problem is taking 2 hours to > write a report using your favorite report writer is not an indicator of > how he would write that ActiveX component you need. He might whip up a > screen in minutes, it might run fast, the code might be clever and it > might look like crap :-) Just because he is a coding wizard doesn't mean > he understands the user interface. > > Finally recognize that on Friday at 4:00 pm when all three programmers are > leaning back in their chair talking about what they doing on the weekend > one guy is still charging $85 an hour so you have to add that to the cost > of the report he wrote in 10 minutes. > > The trick (as the project lead) is to divide the tasks up based upon the > skill level needed to accomplish the task and the experience (and > interest) of those available to work on the tasks. > > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Hourly Rates: >> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> >> The Project: >> Create a simple report. >> >> Initial Cost of Project: >> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $14.00 >> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $30.00 >> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: >> $240.00 >> >> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The >> solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more >> likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution >> delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are >> huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as >> compared to software that just works. >> >> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? >> >> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after >> years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care >> only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long >> run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, >> eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad >> software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers >> considering only hourly rates. >> >> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >> >> Thanks. >> > >
Well since it's a discussion...
Keep in mind that there are plenty of incompetent "senior" programmers charging $85 an hour taking 2 hours to explain how stupid everybody is and how he/she could have written it ("it" being anything) better, faster and in Java. The expense in your example (not counting the completely incompetent guy) is incurred when using a senior developer to write a report. There is an opportunity cost and there was nobody available to work on a senior-level problem while the pro worked on something a junior level guy can a) handle and b) learn from. Learning takes time and costs money but it has to happen. I find it unlikely that anybody can develop a significant (aka "readable") report in 10 minutes. If you mean directing a SQL query to Excel okay maybe but if there are lots of these 1-up "reports" then the senior guy should sit with the junior guy and show him how. One hour later the junior is guy is pumping them out in 10 minutes as well. You're describing a known problem but what do you think the solution is? Imagine two guys sit in front of you, one asking for $55/hr and one asking for $75/hr. So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one guy is worth $20 more than the other? You could have him generate a report... the problem is taking 2 hours to write a report using your favorite report writer is not an indicator of how he would write that ActiveX component you need. He might whip up a screen in minutes, it might run fast, the code might be clever and it might look like crap :-) Just because he is a coding wizard doesn't mean he understands the user interface. Finally recognize that on Friday at 4:00 pm when all three programmers are leaning back in their chair talking about what they doing on the weekend one guy is still charging $85 an hour so you have to add that to the cost of the report he wrote in 10 minutes. The trick (as the project lead) is to divide the tasks up based upon the skill level needed to accomplish the task and the experience (and interest) of those available to work on the tasks. [quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hourly Rates: > Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. > Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. > Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. > > The Project: > Create a simple report. > > Initial Cost of Project: > Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the > business: $14.00 > Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the > business: $30.00 > Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: > $240.00 > > Lifetime Cost of the Project: > Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The > solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more > likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution > delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are > huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as compared > to software that just works. > > Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? > > I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after > years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care > only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long > run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, > eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad > software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers > considering only hourly rates. > > Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? > > Thanks. >
[quoted text, click to view]
"Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > RE: > ...Mind boggling to me. It looks to me like they can't afford the junior > and Incompetent programmers they currently have on staff. It's killing > them financially. I don't understand why it's not perfectly obvious to > them (except perhaps they've never seen competent programmers in action). It's a business model Bob. It's mind-boggling to a graphic artist that a store can design lousy handwritten signs or to a marketing maven that they can layout the store so poorly. Professionals can probably demonstrate how much more business would be generated with simple professional improvements. Don't know if you have ever watched "Sell This House" on TV but they take a house that hasn't sold for months, fix it up in 48 hours and usually sell it. They don't "repair it" they simply prepare it for showing. Add a little paint, move the Star Trek memorabilia out of the living room, etc. The point is everybody doesn't see the advantage. In some cases the company may have in fact hired a "guru" and 2 years later the Java wonder app was still in the development stage. The company itself may have been the cause but without attributing blame, they may simply have experienced the downside. [quoted text, click to view] > A presumption of my OP is that the $85/hr developer is truly competent. A > rough definition of "competent" would be a developer that can design and > implement solutions that (1) actually meet the needs of the business; (2) > perform well; (3) are scalable; (4) are maintainable; and (5) are > extensible. Many of the other holy grails are at least given some > consideration - like "self-documenting." Junior level programmers might > deliver such, but would take a long time to do so; Incompetent > developers - by definition- cannot or do not deliver solutions that could > be described in those terms. Sure where do they find one of them. And this is the kicker, when that person leaves where do they find a second one? Again they often (more or less) draw a bell curve an choose what they believe is average. This gives them the largest pool to choose from but from a group that is not outstanding (neither too bad nor too good.) An example of this might be professional sports teams. Why doesn't the last place team in the NFL simply hire the coach and players that the first or second ranking teams have? Despite being last they probably still post a profit. They might earn more if they placed higher but then it would probably cost them more. [quoted text, click to view] > RE: > << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one guy is > worth $20 more than the other? >> > Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. Interview them > *while* they are doing it. Give them a real programming task or bug to > solve... somthing like that. Get them to explain what they are thinking > and why they are taking the specific steps or actions they are > undertaking. I'm sure there are other effective ways to measure > competence. Oh, and make the task relevant to the position to be filled. Management can't typically do that. Certainly nobody in Human Resources can and often not the head of IT. I tend to look at people's code and I like to see a finished app that they wrote. I think I can tell from their "style" if they understand the software development process, if they have an eye for design, etc. If I see spaghetti code, ugly input screens, misaligned reports and such I can be reasonably certain there will be a problem. One guy showed me his "app" and he had mispelled the name of the company that he wrote it for. He hadn't noticed that... I've also been through the interview process as I'm sure you have. So now imagine the guy who writes the spaghetti code is interviewing you. When you explain you could have written in faster, clearer (and spelled the name of the company correctly) in Java :-) you won't get the job. Very few managers are looking to get replaced by somebody they hire. This is the horror of "incompetent management" ... hence the Peter Principle and as a direct result, life in the 21st century :-)
This is a subject I could rant and rave on for days, and I can tell you
from years of painful experience that we are only scratching the surface here :-) The cost of inexperienced, and incompetent staff is staggering when you look at it in terms of the complete development lifecycle. Bad staff introduce the element of randomness into what should be a formal, logical process of development by contract. Say for eample that the requirements and analysis folks produce perfect use cases, and the design team produces a system design/architecture complete with method / event shells, parameters, message flows, stimulus, complete static structure, etc, etc, etc,... These documents form the basis of a comprehensive build specification, if you will, that the developer need only follow, filling in the blanks, taking great care and paying attention to detail. Guess what, as you clearly pointed out with your example of someone spelling the company name wrong, inexperienced and incompetent people DONT PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL. So look at it like this: 1. Junior Guy doesn't pay attention, doesn't adhere to the contract and produces a *single* method in a single class that does not function according to requirements. He checks in the code, cause hey it builds, and it looks like it's working - it's returning some cool XML!. 2. Ripple effect in end to end testing. The getEmployeedetails() method doesn't work quite right, it's returning XML that is invalid according to it's schema. Of course nobody knows this, because little billy junior didn't write an adequate unit test, but said he did. This affects all major areas of the system. Test Team logs 20+ defects, as the method problem manifests itself in bizzare ways once put into production, even though the true *single* defect is the punk method. In this scenario TEST TEAM time is wasted, release is delayed and there are 20 new defects in the defect tracking system. 3. Time to review the defects, evaluate and assign for correction. In a weekly review the team goes over the clusterbomb of 20 new defects. No one understands what the hell is going on. All that stuff worked fine before. There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The situation is serious, people are talking about a system wide code review, never mind that we just did one last week . Time to bring in the Lead Developer and start eating up his time. Lead developer walks in and asks the question, "what's the last thing that changed". Lead Developer checks finds that little billy juniors class was the last thing checked in, he quickly diffs it against the prior version, and finds that the method getEmployeedetails has been added. He reviews the structure and sequence, and finds that getEmployeedetails is a dependency in all 20 areas with defects. The defects list is collapsed to a single defect, and re-assigned to billy junior. 4. Billy junior can't fix the problem, because he is cutting his teeth on 'the new .net stuff' as he puts it. Never mind that validating an xml document against it's schema is neither new, nor some exclusive botique technology particular to .Net. He asks for help from someone who's 'good at this stuff'. Lead reviews the code, adds the validation , calls the unit test and finds that the unit test fails because billy is populating the unique ID with a GUID and not the integer described in the contract, as validated by the XSD. Lead corrects the code, and checks it in. He marks the defect corrected, and provides a lucid narrative of what was wrong and how he fixed the problem. Of course Billy junior doesn't read lucid narratives :-) 5. Lather, rinse, repeat... Uggg.. [quoted text, click to view] Tom Leylan wrote:
> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > > RE: > > ...Mind boggling to me. It looks to me like they can't afford the junior > > and Incompetent programmers they currently have on staff. It's killing > > them financially. I don't understand why it's not perfectly obvious to > > them (except perhaps they've never seen competent programmers in action). > > It's a business model Bob. It's mind-boggling to a graphic artist that a > store can design lousy handwritten signs or to a marketing maven that they > can layout the store so poorly. Professionals can probably demonstrate how > much more business would be generated with simple professional improvements. > Don't know if you have ever watched "Sell This House" on TV but they take a > house that hasn't sold for months, fix it up in 48 hours and usually sell > it. They don't "repair it" they simply prepare it for showing. Add a > little paint, move the Star Trek memorabilia out of the living room, etc. > > The point is everybody doesn't see the advantage. In some cases the company > may have in fact hired a "guru" and 2 years later the Java wonder app was > still in the development stage. The company itself may have been the cause > but without attributing blame, they may simply have experienced the > downside. > > > A presumption of my OP is that the $85/hr developer is truly competent. A > > rough definition of "competent" would be a developer that can design and > > implement solutions that (1) actually meet the needs of the business; (2) > > perform well; (3) are scalable; (4) are maintainable; and (5) are > > extensible. Many of the other holy grails are at least given some > > consideration - like "self-documenting." Junior level programmers might > > deliver such, but would take a long time to do so; Incompetent > > developers - by definition- cannot or do not deliver solutions that could > > be described in those terms. > > Sure where do they find one of them. And this is the kicker, when that > person leaves where do they find a second one? Again they often (more or > less) draw a bell curve an choose what they believe is average. This gives > them the largest pool to choose from but from a group that is not > outstanding (neither too bad nor too good.) An example of this might be > professional sports teams. Why doesn't the last place team in the NFL > simply hire the coach and players that the first or second ranking teams > have? Despite being last they probably still post a profit. They might > earn more if they placed higher but then it would probably cost them more. > > > RE: > > << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one guy is > > worth $20 more than the other? >> > > Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. Interview them > > *while* they are doing it. Give them a real programming task or bug to > > solve... somthing like that. Get them to explain what they are thinking > > and why they are taking the specific steps or actions they are > > undertaking. I'm sure there are other effective ways to measure
RE:
<< So what? Most programmers and a larger percentage of other computer related professionals are barely competent. >> << We have to make do with what is available. >> Yes - I guess I'm just trying to understand from others what your perspective is on this issue. For a long time I thought that I was just coincidentally running into a bunch of exceptionally bad systems as I moved around as an independent consultant. Then at the .NET 2005 unveiling in San Francisco about a year ago, Steve Ballmer starts off his presentation with a graphic showing that some ungodly percentage (35% + ) of software projects FAIL. Then I checked out his sources and - sure enough.... Then I looked back at some of the oddball situations I have been hired to fix or situations seemed to evolve while on long-term contracts - and geeze - that 35% might be optimistic depending on one's definition of "failure" of a software system. Then I found http://thedailywtf.com/ and finally I'm concluding that my personal observations are really *representative* of the bad state of affairs when it comes to the "professional" software development world. So now I'm on a new project for a new client and trying to get into the heads of management to find out why/how their current abomination could have evolved over such a long perod (5 years) - and why when some management was practically begging for a "real" professional to come in and help, others were banging the drum of "we can't afford someone that good." (yes - they will actually make statements like that) So trying to look at this from a strictly economics perspective (my attempt to get into the management mind), I guess much of it boils down to the perception of competence and therefore value. If one cannot differentiate between the competence of Michael Jordan as compared to [insert any no-namer here], then I guess that person would prefer to hire 8 no-namers rather than one Michael Jordan. After all, you get 8 for the price of one. Value my friend! This thread, I hope, isn't about ranting. Rather I'm trying to understand how non technical management perceives value when it comes to software and technology related purchasing decisions - including hiring developers. That would be valuable information to have - if it can be used to improve the current state of affairs; even if on a client-by-client basis. Bob
[quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > RE: > << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one > guy is worth $20 more than the other? >> > Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. Interview > them *while* they are doing it. Give them a real programming task or > bug to solve... somthing like that. Get them to explain what they are > thinking and why they are taking the specific steps or actions they > are undertaking. I'm sure there are other effective ways to measure > competence. Oh, and make the task relevant to the position to be > filled. > For one thing, check their references. If they're really as good as they say they are, the people they used to work for will have nothing but great things to say about them. If the people they used to work for say something like, "We are only able to confirm that they worked here", I'd be suspicious. I know that most companies *say* that, but every person I've worked for at those companies will ignore that because they liked me so much. Check out Joel Spolsky's site. He has some interesting observations about interviewing. He worked for Microsoft for a while, and of course there are the Microsoft interview questions out there. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html One of the things he talks about is asking how to solve real-world problems. In this article, he mentions finding how many piano tuners there are in Seattle. Another one he talks about in one of his other blogs is "the elevator question" -- how would you program an elevator? The basic idea is to see if the candidate goes, "I don't know." or "well, let me see, we'd have to keep track of where the elevator is, whether it's going up or down, what floors it needs to stop on..." and so on. I thought this was really interesting. He also mentions giving a small, simple real-world test, like how do you figure out if a character is an uppercase letter? He thought everyone would sail through it, but they don't. I found this to be true when interviewing people. Once when I was interviewing people for a Vax Cobol job, one of the q's we would ask people was how big an S9(9) COMP field was. This was a signed integer, 4 bytes, and very commonly used. About 1/2 the candidates had no idea what it was. We got answers from "9 bytes" to "81 bytes" to "18 bits", all delivered with complete confiction. How can you program and never use integers? Answer: they didn't really know Cobol, they just thought they could wing it. Anyway, hope that article helps. I found it very informative and helpful from both sides of the desk. Robin S.
Thanks for your perspective Robin,
RE: << they're really as good as they say they are, the people they used to work for will have nothing but great things to say about them >> I have to respectfully disagree 100% on this one. Some of my former clients totally despise/hate me and would never say good things about me. Reason being - they (the management) was unethical and incompetent and I called them on it. Case in point - I worked for the client for 6 years... did a fabulous job blah blah. The first 4 years the management was technically competent, themselves, we hit our Y2K deadlines and life was good. Then the business was sold and a new group of managers came in and tried to run the IS department like it was a Taco Shop crew. They squelched a lot of imprtant projects that they had promised to various busienss units. I ended up being somewhat of a whistle blower when they spent the money on other things (other than what the business units had paid for). They subsequently replaced me with 4 guys from India (no kidding) for the same rate as mine (4 for the price of 1) and let me go, stating that I was too difficult to work with. In the subsequent years I stayed in touch with some of my coworkers. That new/incompetent group of managers spent more that 8 million dollars trying to replace the system I had left them with (that me and another guy designed and built). Their replacement system never saw production and was 'canned two years later - with nobody losing their jobs or being repremanded for doing lousy work. For something to fail that spectacularly, a lot of things have to go very wrong, at a number of levels, and over an extended period. Meanwhile the system I left them with is still humming along (it's been 3 years since I left). Do you think they would give me a good recommendation? No way. My story isn't the only one where competent worker bees are perceived as a threat to incompetent managment. I thought that was a truly unique situation (there are a lot of wild details I'm omitting) - but looking at the daily wtf.com and hearing Ballmer state 35% + failure rate and I'm now clear that my experience was not really all that unique. It happens all the time I guess. Bob [quoted text, click to view] "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:8fWdnUpsr79tAwvYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> RE: >> << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one guy >> is worth $20 more than the other? >> >> Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. Interview >> them *while* they are doing it. Give them a real programming task or bug >> to solve... somthing like that. Get them to explain what they are >> thinking and why they are taking the specific steps or actions they are >> undertaking. I'm sure there are other effective ways to measure >> competence. Oh, and make the task relevant to the position to be filled. >> > > For one thing, check their references. If they're really as good as > they say they are, the people they used to work for will have nothing > but great things to say about them. If the people they used to work for > say something like, "We are only able to confirm that they worked here", > I'd be suspicious. I know that most companies *say* that, but every > person I've worked for at those companies will ignore that because > they liked me so much. > > Check out Joel Spolsky's site. He has some interesting observations > about interviewing. He worked for Microsoft for a while, and of > course there are the Microsoft interview questions out there. > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html > > One of the things he talks about is asking how to solve real-world > problems. In this article, he mentions finding how many piano > tuners there are in Seattle. Another one he talks about in one > of his other blogs is "the elevator question" -- how would you > program an elevator? The basic idea is to see if the candidate > goes, "I don't know." or "well, let me see, we'd have to keep > track of where the elevator is, whether it's going up or down, > what floors it needs to stop on..." and so on. I thought this > was really interesting. > > He also mentions giving a small, simple real-world test, like > how do you figure out if a character is an uppercase letter? > He thought everyone would sail through it, but they don't. I > found this to be true when interviewing people. Once when I > was interviewing people for a Vax Cobol job, one of the q's > we would ask people was how big an S9(9) COMP field was. > This was a signed integer, 4 bytes, and very commonly used. > About 1/2 the candidates had no idea what it was. We got > answers from "9 bytes" to "81 bytes" to "18 bits", all > delivered with complete confiction. How can you program > and never use integers? Answer: they didn't really know > Cobol, they just thought they could wing it. > > Anyway, hope that article helps. I found it very informative > and helpful from both sides of the desk. > > Robin S. >
Excellent points, Tom. Thank you so much for your perspective. You have
given me some things to think about as I try to move around more effectively in the IT world. Bob [quoted text, click to view] "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ermHQlDLHHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Respondents are still thinking in terms of programmers. Lots of people > lack adequate skill in their profession, some (and more than a few) lack > the social skills to operate in general. > > What Bob has mentioned "failed systems" is due largely to incompetent > "groups". Some people have adequate skills as an individual but can't > function within a group. We've heard examples of otherwise excellent > athletes being dropped from a team because they annoy everybody else. In > some cases Bob you're seeing the results of "the least common denominator" > syndrome. There are probably individuals with the skills needed (within a > group) but the poor quality of the group in general makes it impossible > for that person to succeed. They often succumb and just let stuff slide > because the quality is so low to begin with. > > I know of one project referred to by the employees as "the project that > wouldn't die". It should have been finished and working in a few months > but instead development kept going for years and it never worked properly. > > You mention Michael Jordan and I'm sure he is good but only one team can > have him right? It isn't that other teams don't want him or aren't > willing to pay for his expertise (though there is a limit) he's taken. So > you ask why don't they just get the guy slightly below Michael Jordan and > the question is "who is that?" If he is recognized then he is also busy. > So who is #3, and on down the line until you find somebody who fits your > business model. > > Look at it this way (heaven forbid you need brain surgery but pretend you > do) so who is the best brain surgeon and is that the guy you will get? I > doubt it because you a) can't personally afford him and b) he's booked. > But you still need the surgery so you get the person available at the time > at the price you can afford. If it is successful then you claim "I did > the research and came up with the best match" and if you die somebody > writes "why the heck did he make such a dumb managerial decision he could > have had Dr. <blah> in <blah berg>". > > Also don't underestimate the "no-namer". Michael Jordan didn't have a > name when he was first signed up. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that > the founders of Google were told they lacked the experience to get a > programming job at an established company, the author of "Harry Potter" > (her first book) was told "kids don't want to read stories this long". > > As the old story goes... in the 70's a bunch of executives were sitting in > their offices at the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago lauding themselves > over their rank as the #1 retailer in the US. Of course they hadn't heard > of a guy in Arkansas named Sam Walton. > > Tom > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:%23ipLyBDLHHA.320@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> RE: >> << So what? Most programmers and a larger percentage of other computer >> related professionals are barely competent. >> >> << We have to make do with what is available. >> >> >> Yes - I guess I'm just trying to understand from others what your >> perspective is on this issue. For a long time I thought that I was just >> coincidentally running into a bunch of exceptionally bad systems as I >> moved around as an independent consultant. Then at the .NET 2005 >> unveiling in San Francisco about a year ago, Steve Ballmer starts off his >> presentation with a graphic showing that some ungodly percentage (35% + ) >> of software projects FAIL. Then I checked out his sources and - sure >> enough.... Then I looked back at some of the oddball situations I have >> been hired to fix or situations seemed to evolve while on long-term >> contracts - and geeze - that 35% might be optimistic depending on one's >> definition of "failure" of a software system. Then I found >> http://thedailywtf.com/ and finally I'm concluding that my personal >> observations are really *representative* of the bad state of affairs when >> it comes to the "professional" software development world. >> >> So now I'm on a new project for a new client and trying to get into the >> heads of management to find out why/how their current abomination could >> have evolved over such a long perod (5 years) - and why when some >> management was practically begging for a "real" professional to come in >> and help, others were banging the drum of "we can't afford someone that >> good." (yes - they will actually make statements like that) So trying to >> look at this from a strictly economics perspective (my attempt to get >> into the management mind), I guess much of it boils down to the >> perception of competence and therefore value. If one cannot differentiate >> between the competence of Michael Jordan as compared to [insert any >> no-namer here], then I guess that person would prefer to hire 8 no-namers >> rather than one Michael Jordan. After all, you get 8 for the price of >> one. Value my friend! >> >> This thread, I hope, isn't about ranting. Rather I'm trying to understand >> how non technical management perceives value when it comes to software >> and technology related purchasing decisions - including hiring >> developers. That would be valuable information to have - if it can be >> used to improve the current state of affairs; even if on a >> client-by-client basis. >> >> Bob >> >> >> > >
Wow, you're right, I hadn't thought of it that way. I've never
held it against anybody, because there *are* some companies that just won't give any kind of recommendation whether they like you or not, but it's always nice when you work for someone who will. You got royally, um, screwed (not to put too fine a point on it). That must have been incredibly stressful. The other thing I guess that has to be accounted for (like in this case) is when something fails and it's not the fault of the programmer. You can be a star, but there are some things you just can't overcome. For example, I worked for a huge telecommunications company and their intercompany network speed was very poor (I think it's the case of the cobbler's children). I had to connect to an Oracle database on the other side of the country, and it was *SO* slow. It wasn't my code, because I sent it to a programmer out there and when he ran it, it took 15 seconds. When I ran it, it took 40 minutes. There was nothing *I* could do about it, and I certainly couldn't impact the Oracle side. It was very frustrating. Interesting discussion; thanks for sharing your perspective. Robin S. ------------------------------------------- [quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:O36oO2DLHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Thanks for your perspective Robin, > > RE: > << they're really as good as they say they are, the people they used > to work for will have nothing but great things to say about them >> > > I have to respectfully disagree 100% on this one. Some of my former > clients totally despise/hate me and would never say good things about > me. Reason being - they (the management) was unethical and incompetent > and I called them on it. Case in point - I worked for the client for 6 > years... did a fabulous job blah blah. The first 4 years the > management was technically competent, themselves, we hit our Y2K > deadlines and life was good. Then the business was sold and a new > group of managers came in and tried to run the IS department like it > was a Taco Shop crew. They squelched a lot of imprtant projects that > they had promised to various busienss units. I ended up being somewhat > of a whistle blower when they spent the money on other things (other > than what the business units had paid for). They subsequently replaced > me with 4 guys from India (no kidding) for the same rate as mine (4 > for the price of 1) and let me go, stating that I was too difficult to > work with. In the subsequent years I stayed in touch with some of my > coworkers. That new/incompetent group of managers spent more that 8 > million dollars trying to replace the system I had left them with > (that me and another guy designed and built). Their replacement system > never saw production and was 'canned two years later - with nobody > losing their jobs or being repremanded for doing lousy work. For > something to fail that spectacularly, a lot of things have to go very > wrong, at a number of levels, and over an extended period. Meanwhile > the system I left them with is still humming along (it's been 3 years > since I left). > > Do you think they would give me a good recommendation? No way. My > story isn't the only one where competent worker bees are perceived as > a threat to incompetent managment. > > I thought that was a truly unique situation (there are a lot of wild > details I'm omitting) - but looking at the daily wtf.com and hearing > Ballmer state 35% + failure rate and I'm now clear that my experience > was not really all that unique. It happens all the time I guess. > > Bob > > > > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:8fWdnUpsr79tAwvYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >> news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >>> RE: >>> << So what are the steps you would use to determine whether the one >>> guy is worth $20 more than the other? >> >>> Good question. Make them do something and watch them do it. >>> Interview them *while* they are doing it. Give them a real >>> programming task or bug to solve... somthing like that. Get them to >>> explain what they are thinking and why they are taking the specific >>> steps or actions they are undertaking. I'm sure there are other >>> effective ways to measure competence. Oh, and make the task relevant >>> to the position to be filled. >>> >> >> For one thing, check their references. If they're really as good as >> they say they are, the people they used to work for will have nothing >> but great things to say about them. If the people they used to work >> for >> say something like, "We are only able to confirm that they worked >> here", >> I'd be suspicious. I know that most companies *say* that, but every >> person I've worked for at those companies will ignore that because >> they liked me so much. >> >> Check out Joel Spolsky's site. He has some interesting observations >> about interviewing. He worked for Microsoft for a while, and of >> course there are the Microsoft interview questions out there. >> >> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html >> >> One of the things he talks about is asking how to solve real-world >> problems. In this article, he mentions finding how many piano >> tuners there are in Seattle. Another one he talks about in one >> of his other blogs is "the elevator question" -- how would you >> program an elevator? The basic idea is to see if the candidate >> goes, "I don't know." or "well, let me see, we'd have to keep >> track of where the elevator is, whether it's going up or down, >> what floors it needs to stop on..." and so on. I thought this >> was really interesting. >> >> He also mentions giving a small, simple real-world test, like >> how do you figure out if a character is an uppercase letter? >> He thought everyone would sail through it, but they don't. I >> found this to be true when interviewing people. Once when I >> was interviewing people for a Vax Cobol job, one of the q's >> we would ask people was how big an S9(9) COMP field was. >> This was a signed integer, 4 bytes, and very commonly used. >> About 1/2 the candidates had no idea what it was. We got >> answers from "9 bytes" to "81 bytes" to "18 bits", all >> delivered with complete confiction. How can you program >> and never use integers? Answer: they didn't really know >> Cobol, they just thought they could wing it. >> >> Anyway, hope that article helps. I found it very informative >> and helpful from both sides of the desk. >> >> Robin S. >> > >
Respondents are still thinking in terms of programmers. Lots of people lack
adequate skill in their profession, some (and more than a few) lack the social skills to operate in general. What Bob has mentioned "failed systems" is due largely to incompetent "groups". Some people have adequate skills as an individual but can't function within a group. We've heard examples of otherwise excellent athletes being dropped from a team because they annoy everybody else. In some cases Bob you're seeing the results of "the least common denominator" syndrome. There are probably individuals with the skills needed (within a group) but the poor quality of the group in general makes it impossible for that person to succeed. They often succumb and just let stuff slide because the quality is so low to begin with. I know of one project referred to by the employees as "the project that wouldn't die". It should have been finished and working in a few months but instead development kept going for years and it never worked properly. You mention Michael Jordan and I'm sure he is good but only one team can have him right? It isn't that other teams don't want him or aren't willing to pay for his expertise (though there is a limit) he's taken. So you ask why don't they just get the guy slightly below Michael Jordan and the question is "who is that?" If he is recognized then he is also busy. So who is #3, and on down the line until you find somebody who fits your business model. Look at it this way (heaven forbid you need brain surgery but pretend you do) so who is the best brain surgeon and is that the guy you will get? I doubt it because you a) can't personally afford him and b) he's booked. But you still need the surgery so you get the person available at the time at the price you can afford. If it is successful then you claim "I did the research and came up with the best match" and if you die somebody writes "why the heck did he make such a dumb managerial decision he could have had Dr. <blah> in <blah berg>". Also don't underestimate the "no-namer". Michael Jordan didn't have a name when he was first signed up. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the founders of Google were told they lacked the experience to get a programming job at an established company, the author of "Harry Potter" (her first book) was told "kids don't want to read stories this long". As the old story goes... in the 70's a bunch of executives were sitting in their offices at the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago lauding themselves over their rank as the #1 retailer in the US. Of course they hadn't heard of a guy in Arkansas named Sam Walton. Tom [quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:%23ipLyBDLHHA.320@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > RE: > << So what? Most programmers and a larger percentage of other computer > related professionals are barely competent. >> > << We have to make do with what is available. >> > > Yes - I guess I'm just trying to understand from others what your > perspective is on this issue. For a long time I thought that I was just > coincidentally running into a bunch of exceptionally bad systems as I > moved around as an independent consultant. Then at the .NET 2005 unveiling > in San Francisco about a year ago, Steve Ballmer starts off his > presentation with a graphic showing that some ungodly percentage (35% + ) > of software projects FAIL. Then I checked out his sources and - sure > enough.... Then I looked back at some of the oddball situations I have > been hired to fix or situations seemed to evolve while on long-term > contracts - and geeze - that 35% might be optimistic depending on one's > definition of "failure" of a software system. Then I found > http://thedailywtf.com/ and finally I'm concluding that my personal > observations are really *representative* of the bad state of affairs when > it comes to the "professional" software development world. > > So now I'm on a new project for a new client and trying to get into the > heads of management to find out why/how their current abomination could > have evolved over such a long perod (5 years) - and why when some > management was practically begging for a "real" professional to come in > and help, others were banging the drum of "we can't afford someone that > good." (yes - they will actually make statements like that) So trying to > look at this from a strictly economics perspective (my attempt to get into > the management mind), I guess much of it boils down to the perception of > competence and therefore value. If one cannot differentiate between the > competence of Michael Jordan as compared to [insert any no-namer here], > then I guess that person would prefer to hire 8 no-namers rather than one > Michael Jordan. After all, you get 8 for the price of one. Value my > friend! > > This thread, I hope, isn't about ranting. Rather I'm trying to understand > how non technical management perceives value when it comes to software and > technology related purchasing decisions - including hiring developers. > That would be valuable information to have - if it can be used to improve > the current state of affairs; even if on a client-by-client basis. > > Bob > > >
Bob,
I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand that the skill to author quality software takes years of experience to master. Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in 21 Days." Regards, Steve Covert [quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hourly Rates: > Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. > Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. > Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. > > The Project: > Create a simple report. > > Initial Cost of Project: > Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the > business: $14.00 > Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the > business: $30.00 > Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: > $240.00 > > Lifetime Cost of the Project: > Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The > solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more > likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution > delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are > huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as compared > to software that just works. > > Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? > > I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after > years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care > only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long > run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, > eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad > software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers > considering only hourly rates. > > Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? > > Thanks. >
You're right that better is subjecttive, but there's a
difference between buying a car that goes, and buying a car that goes expensively (you know what I mean). But what about the difference between buying a car that goes expensively, and buying a car that tries to go, and sort of goes part of the way, but never gets you to your destination? Would that be worth spending any money on? Also, money isn't always an indicator. Jaguars used to be known for their unreliability, and cost 2 or 3 times as much as a Toyota Camry which is known for its reliability. It's just that the Jaguar looked good and talked well and you bought the spiel. It wasn't until you took it home that you found out it wasn't quite as effective as you thought. Robin S. ------------------------------------ [quoted text, click to view] "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message news:OAzMsEHLHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi Steve: > > I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money alone > is the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to the guy > who charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report in 5 > minutes. > > Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is > subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what kind > of car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, BMW or > Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in shorter > distance and ride more comfortably than the car you currently drive? > They are simply put, better. > > But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an > $85/hr guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when he > knew less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of money when > he was a novice so the company should have replaced him right? > > There is no simple formula... > > > "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message > news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Bob, >> >> I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." >> And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand that >> the skill to author quality software takes years of experience to >> master. >> >> Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in 21 >> Days." >> >> Regards, >> Steve Covert >> >> >> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >> news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Hourly Rates: >>> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >>> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>> >>> The Project: >>> Create a simple report. >>> >>> Initial Cost of Project: >>> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to >>> the business: $14.00 >>> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the >>> business: $30.00 >>> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the >>> business: $240.00 >>> >>> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >>> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. >>> The solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are >>> more likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The >>> solution delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just >>> work." There are huge long-term cost differences between software >>> that is buggy as compared to software that just works. >>> >>> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the >>> team? >>> >>> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question >>> after years of consulting - and observing that businesses so >>> frequently care only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so >>> much more in the long run... through living with their bad systems >>> and, if bad enough, eventually hiring someone to come in and fix >>> things. There's so much bad software out there - I'm guessing that >>> it's the myopic managers considering only hourly rates. >>> >>> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >> >> > >
So what? Most programmers and a larger percentage of other computer related
professionals are barely competent. We have to make do with what is available. JR [quoted text, click to view] "Chuck" <cduffy@ideacorporation.com> wrote in message
news:1167490836.798269.161000@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > This is a subject I could rant and rave on for days, and I can tell you > from years of painful experience that we are only scratching the > surface here :-) > > The cost of inexperienced, and incompetent staff is staggering when > you look at it in terms of the complete development lifecycle. Bad > staff introduce the element of randomness into what should be a formal, > logical process of development by contract. > > Say for eample that the requirements and analysis folks produce perfect > use cases, and the design team produces a system design/architecture > complete with method / event shells, parameters, message flows, > stimulus, complete static structure, etc, etc, etc,... > > These documents form the basis of a comprehensive build specification, > if you will, that the developer need only follow, filling in the > blanks, taking great care and paying attention to detail. > > Guess what, as you clearly pointed out with your example of someone > spelling the company name wrong, inexperienced and incompetent people > DONT PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL. > > So look at it like this: > > 1. Junior Guy doesn't pay attention, doesn't adhere to the contract and > produces a *single* method in a single class that does not function > according to requirements. He checks in the code, cause hey it builds, > and it looks like it's working - it's returning some cool XML!. > > 2. Ripple effect in end to end testing. The getEmployeedetails() > method doesn't work quite right, it's returning XML that is invalid > according to it's schema. Of course nobody knows this, because little > billy junior didn't write an adequate unit test, but said he did. This > affects all major areas of the system. Test Team logs 20+ defects, as > the method problem manifests itself in bizzare ways once put into > production, even though the true *single* defect is the punk method. > In this scenario TEST TEAM time is wasted, release is delayed and there > are 20 new defects in the defect tracking system. > > 3. Time to review the defects, evaluate and assign for correction. In > a weekly review the team goes over the clusterbomb of 20 new defects. > No one understands what the hell is going on. All that stuff worked > fine before. There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The > situation is serious, people are talking about a system wide code > review, never mind that we just did one last week . Time to bring in > the Lead Developer and start eating up his time. Lead developer walks > in and asks the question, "what's the last thing that changed". Lead > Developer checks finds that little billy juniors class was the last > thing checked in, he quickly diffs it against the prior version, and > finds that the method getEmployeedetails has been added. He reviews > the structure and sequence, and finds that getEmployeedetails is a > dependency in all 20 areas with defects. The defects list is collapsed > to a single defect, and re-assigned to billy junior. > > 4. Billy junior can't fix the problem, because he is cutting his teeth > on 'the new .net stuff' as he puts it. Never mind that validating an > xml document against it's schema is neither new, nor some exclusive > botique technology particular to .Net. He asks for help from someone > who's 'good at this stuff'. Lead reviews the code, adds the validation > , calls the unit test and finds that the unit test fails because billy > is populating the unique ID with a GUID and not the integer described > in the contract, as validated by the XSD. Lead corrects the code, and > checks it in. He marks the defect corrected, and provides a lucid > narrative of what was wrong and how he fixed the problem. Of course > Billy junior doesn't read lucid narratives :-) > > 5. Lather, rinse, repeat... > > > Uggg.. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Leylan wrote: >> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >> news:etSfc$%23KHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> > RE: >> > ...Mind boggling to me. It looks to me like they can't afford the >> > junior >> > and Incompetent programmers they currently have on staff. It's killing >> > them financially. I don't understand why it's not perfectly obvious to >> > them (except perhaps they've never seen competent programmers in >> > action). >> >> It's a business model Bob. It's mind-boggling to a graphic artist that a >> store can design lousy handwritten signs or to a marketing maven that >> they >> can layout the store so poorly. Professionals can probably demonstrate >> how >> much more business would be generated with simple professional >> improvements. >> Don't know if you have ever watched "Sell This House" on TV but they take >> a >> house that hasn't sold for months, fix it up in 48 hours and usually sell >> it. They don't "repair it" they simply prepare it for showing. Add a >> little paint, move the Star Trek memorabilia out of the living room, etc. >> >> The point is everybody doesn't see the advantage. In some cases the >> company >> may have in fact hired a "guru" and 2 years later the Java wonder app was >> still in the development stage. The company itself may have been the >> cause >> but without attributing blame, they may simply have experienced the >> downside. >> >> > A presumption of my OP is that the $85/hr developer is truly competent. >> > A >> > rough definition of "competent" would be a developer that can design >> > and >> > implement solutions that (1) actually meet the needs of the business; >> > (2) >> > perform well; (3) are scalable; (4) are maintainable; and (5) are >> > extensible. Many of the other holy grails are at least given some >> > consideration - like "self-documenting." Junior level programmers might >> > deliver such, but would take a long time to do so; Incompetent >> > developers - by definition- cannot or do not deliver solutions that >> > could >> > be described in those terms. >> >> Sure where do they find one of them. And this is the kicker, when that >> person leaves where do they find a second one? Again they often (more or >> less) draw a bell curve an choose what they believe is average. This >> gives >> them the largest pool to choose from but from a group that is not >> outstanding (neither too bad nor too good.) An example of this might be >> professional sports teams. Why doesn't the last place team in the NFL >> simply hire the coach and players that the first or second ranking teams >> have? Despite being last they probably still post a profit. They might
Tom,
In my idea this text was more than enough, [quoted text, click to view] > The rest was in my opinion not so important, did you write it at the end and > The trick (as the project lead) is to divide the tasks up based upon the > skill level needed to accomplish the task and the experience (and > interest) of those available to work on the tasks. > found it a pity to erase all that other text. I would have done it in your place. Probably somebody stops reading that long text while it is a pity if he does not read this (although there is in my opinion not one word false in the rest of the text). :-) Cor [quoted text, click to view] > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Hourly Rates: >> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> >> The Project: >> Create a simple report. >> >> Initial Cost of Project: >> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $14.00 >> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $30.00 >> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: >> $240.00 >> >> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The >> solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more >> likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution >> delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are >> huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as >> compared to software that just works. >> >> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? >> >> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after >> years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care >> only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long >> run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, >> eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad >> software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers >> considering only hourly rates. >> >> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >> >> Thanks. >> > >
Bob,
To add a little bit: You see the difference between a Senior Programmer, a Junior Programmer and an Incompetent Programmer mostly after a year or longer, as there has to be done some maintenance and those are nomore there. Cor
Hi Steve:
I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money alone is the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to the guy who charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report in 5 minutes. Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what kind of car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, BMW or Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in shorter distance and ride more comfortably than the car you currently drive? They are simply put, better. But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an $85/hr guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when he knew less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of money when he was a novice so the company should have replaced him right? There is no simple formula... [quoted text, click to view] "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Bob, > > I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." > And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand that the > skill to author quality software takes years of experience to master. > > Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in 21 Days." > > Regards, > Steve Covert > > > "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message > news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Hourly Rates: >> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >> >> The Project: >> Create a simple report. >> >> Initial Cost of Project: >> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $14.00 >> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the >> business: $30.00 >> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: >> $240.00 >> >> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. The >> solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are more >> likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The solution >> delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." There are >> huge long-term cost differences between software that is buggy as >> compared to software that just works. >> >> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? >> >> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after >> years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care >> only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the long >> run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, >> eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much bad >> software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers >> considering only hourly rates. >> >> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >> >> Thanks. >> > >
[quoted text, click to view] "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message news:%23ipLyBDLHHA.320@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > RE: > << So what? Most programmers and a larger percentage of other computer > related professionals are barely competent. >> > << We have to make do with what is available. >> > > Yes - I guess I'm just trying to understand from others what your > perspective is on this issue. For a long time I thought that I was just > coincidentally running into a bunch of exceptionally bad systems as I > moved around as an independent consultant. Then at the .NET 2005 unveiling > in San Francisco about a year ago, Steve Ballmer starts off his > presentation with a graphic showing that some ungodly percentage (35% + ) > of software projects FAIL. Then I checked out his sources and - sure > enough.... That is 35% fail completely and admit it. An additional 65% fail only partly, or just don't admit it. The rest are OK. JR [quoted text, click to view] > Then I looked back at some of the oddball situations I have been hired to > fix or situations seemed to evolve while on long-term contracts - and > geeze - that 35% might be optimistic depending on one's definition of > "failure" of a software system. Then I found http://thedailywtf.com/ and > finally I'm concluding that my personal observations are really > *representative* of the bad state of affairs when it comes to the > "professional" software development world. > > So now I'm on a new project for a new client and trying to get into the > heads of management to find out why/how their current abomination could > have evolved over such a long perod (5 years) - and why when some > management was practically begging for a "real" professional to come in > and help, others were banging the drum of "we can't afford someone that > good." (yes - they will actually make statements like that) So trying to > look at this from a strictly economics perspective (my attempt to get into > the management mind), I guess much of it boils down to the perception of > competence and therefore value. If one cannot differentiate between the > competence of Michael Jordan as compared to [insert any no-namer here], > then I guess that person would prefer to hire 8 no-namers rather than one > Michael Jordan. After all, you get 8 for the price of one. Value my > friend! > > This thread, I hope, isn't about ranting. Rather I'm trying to understand > how non technical management perceives value when it comes to software and > technology related purchasing decisions - including hiring developers. > That would be valuable information to have - if it can be used to improve > the current state of affairs; even if on a client-by-client basis. > > Bob > > >
Hi Robin:
You are absolutely correct in that there is a difference. But who could have guessed that the $35/hr programmer couldn't "go" and that the $85/hr one wasn't just going expensively? Could a $50/hr programmer go? Could the $85/hr programmer have a reliability quotient of a Jaguar? I know it's going to sound like I'm picking nits but at what point did Jaguar owners not know about the cost of maintenance? How could people who opted for the Toyota be aware of it (and decide on the Camry) while the guy buying the Jaguar didn't? Do you see it's about choices, not about stupid and smart? Is the guy with the Jaguar the $125/hr programmer and the the guy with the Camry the $15/hr guy or vice-versa? From the movie _Citizen Kane_. "I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty years." So is Kane incompetent? [quoted text, click to view] "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message news:F8adneLPMp2WlArYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com... > You're right that better is subjecttive, but there's a > difference between buying a car that goes, and buying > a car that goes expensively (you know what I mean). But what > about the difference between buying a car that goes expensively, > and buying a car that tries to go, and sort of goes part of the > way, but never gets you to your destination? Would that be worth > spending any money on? > > Also, money isn't always an indicator. Jaguars used to be > known for their unreliability, and cost 2 or 3 times as much > as a Toyota Camry which is known for its reliability. It's > just that the Jaguar looked good and talked well and you bought > the spiel. It wasn't until you took it home that you found > out it wasn't quite as effective as you thought. > > Robin S. > ------------------------------------ > "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:OAzMsEHLHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Hi Steve: >> >> I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money alone is >> the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to the guy who >> charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report in 5 minutes. >> >> Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is >> subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what kind of >> car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, BMW or >> Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in shorter distance >> and ride more comfortably than the car you currently drive? They are >> simply put, better. >> >> But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an $85/hr >> guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when he knew >> less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of money when he was >> a novice so the company should have replaced him right? >> >> There is no simple formula... >> >> >> "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message >> news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Bob, >>> >>> I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." >>> And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand that >>> the skill to author quality software takes years of experience to >>> master. >>> >>> Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in 21 >>> Days." >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steve Covert >>> >>> >>> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >>> news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Hourly Rates: >>>> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >>>> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>> >>>> The Project: >>>> Create a simple report. >>>> >>>> Initial Cost of Project: >>>> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to the >>>> business: $14.00 >>>> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to the >>>> business: $30.00 >>>> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the business: >>>> $240.00 >>>> >>>> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >>>> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these programmers. >>>> The solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior programmers are >>>> more likely to suffer performance problems and have "bugs." The >>>> solution delivered by the senior programmer is likely to "just work." >>>> There are huge long-term cost differences between software that is >>>> buggy as compared to software that just works. >>>> >>>> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the team? >>>> >>>> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question after >>>> years of consulting - and observing that businesses so frequently care >>>> only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so much more in the >>>> long run... through living with their bad systems and, if bad enough, >>>> eventually hiring someone to come in and fix things. There's so much >>>> bad software out there - I'm guessing that it's the myopic managers >>>> considering only hourly rates. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Man, that makes me wish I lived in Germany. Although once I get
over 100, I feel a bit nervous. Of course, if the Jaguar breaks down, you're screwed. They used to have a saying here: If you're going to own one Jaguar, buy two. That way you have one to drive while the other one is in the shop. Robin S. -------------------- [quoted text, click to view] "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message news:ONzPciJLHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi Tom and Robin, > > Keep in mind that everything has to be seen in its environment. > > I can assure you that in Germany most often a good Jaguar is a much > nicer choose to drive, there on some roads it can be dangerous to > drive less than 80 miles an hour and 110 miles is the avarage. > > Cor > > > "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> schreef in bericht > news:eOFZZEILHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Hi Robin: >> >> You are absolutely correct in that there is a difference. But who >> could have guessed that the $35/hr programmer couldn't "go" and that >> the $85/hr one wasn't just going expensively? Could a $50/hr >> programmer go? Could the $85/hr programmer have a reliability >> quotient of a Jaguar? >> >> I know it's going to sound like I'm picking nits but at what point >> did Jaguar owners not know about the cost of maintenance? How could >> people who opted for the Toyota be aware of it (and decide on the >> Camry) while the guy buying the Jaguar didn't? Do you see it's about >> choices, not about stupid and smart? Is the guy with the Jaguar the >> $125/hr programmer and the the guy with the Camry the $15/hr guy or >> vice-versa? >> >> From the movie _Citizen Kane_. "I did lose a million dollars last >> year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose >> a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a >> million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty >> years." >> >> So is Kane incompetent? >> >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:F8adneLPMp2WlArYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com... >>> You're right that better is subjecttive, but there's a >>> difference between buying a car that goes, and buying >>> a car that goes expensively (you know what I mean). But what >>> about the difference between buying a car that goes expensively, >>> and buying a car that tries to go, and sort of goes part of the >>> way, but never gets you to your destination? Would that be worth >>> spending any money on? >>> >>> Also, money isn't always an indicator. Jaguars used to be >>> known for their unreliability, and cost 2 or 3 times as much >>> as a Toyota Camry which is known for its reliability. It's >>> just that the Jaguar looked good and talked well and you bought >>> the spiel. It wasn't until you took it home that you found >>> out it wasn't quite as effective as you thought. >>> >>> Robin S. >>> ------------------------------------ >>> "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message >>> news:OAzMsEHLHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> Hi Steve: >>>> >>>> I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money >>>> alone is the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to >>>> the guy who charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report >>>> in 5 minutes. >>>> >>>> Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is >>>> subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what >>>> kind of car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, >>>> BMW or Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in >>>> shorter distance and ride more comfortably than the car you >>>> currently drive? They are simply put, better. >>>> >>>> But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an >>>> $85/hr guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when >>>> he knew less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of >>>> money when he was a novice so the company should have replaced him >>>> right? >>>> >>>> There is no simple formula... >>>> >>>> >>>> "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message >>>> news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> Bob, >>>>> >>>>> I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." >>>>> And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand >>>>> that the skill to author quality software takes years of >>>>> experience to master. >>>>> >>>>> Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in >>>>> 21 Days." >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Steve Covert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Hourly Rates: >>>>>> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >>>>>> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>>>> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Project: >>>>>> Create a simple report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Initial Cost of Project: >>>>>> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost >>>>>> to the business: $14.00 >>>>>> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to >>>>>> the business: $30.00 >>>>>> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the >>>>>> business: $240.00 >>>>>> >>>>>> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >>>>>> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these >>>>>> programmers. The solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior >>>>>> programmers are more likely to suffer performance problems and >>>>>> have "bugs." The solution delivered by the senior programmer is >>>>>> likely to "just work." There are huge long-term cost differences >>>>>> between software that is buggy as compared to software that just >>>>>> works. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the >>>>>> team? >>>>>> >>>>>> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question >>>>>> after years of consulting - and observing that businesses so >>>>>> frequently care only about the hourly rate... and end up paying >>>>>> so much more in the long run... through living with their bad >>>>>> systems and, if bad enough, eventually hiring someone to come in >>>>>> and fix things. There's so much bad software out there - I'm >>>>>> guessing that it's the myopic managers considering only hourly >>>>>> rates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Well, that's the question, isn't it? I've worked with people who are
completely full of crap, but management likes them because they talk slick. I don't deal well with people who are pompous. I guess people could read Consumer Reports and see what the history of the car is, much like people can call my references. Of course, it's not like you're going to give someone a reference who's going to say something bad about you. And it's not like someone in management wouldn't just *love* someone who was ineffective because they were clueless (see previous comment about 'slickness'). There's no way to know for sure, but I go back to Joel Spolsky's advice, and have to say it certainly would help one to have a better- than-average chance of success. Robin S. ---------------------------------------- [quoted text, click to view] "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message news:eOFZZEILHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Hi Robin: > > You are absolutely correct in that there is a difference. But who > could have guessed that the $35/hr programmer couldn't "go" and that > the $85/hr one wasn't just going expensively? Could a $50/hr > programmer go? Could the $85/hr programmer have a reliability > quotient of a Jaguar? > > I know it's going to sound like I'm picking nits but at what point did > Jaguar owners not know about the cost of maintenance? How could > people who opted for the Toyota be aware of it (and decide on the > Camry) while the guy buying the Jaguar didn't? Do you see it's about > choices, not about stupid and smart? Is the guy with the Jaguar the > $125/hr programmer and the the guy with the Camry the $15/hr guy or > vice-versa? > > From the movie _Citizen Kane_. "I did lose a million dollars last > year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a > million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a > million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty > years." > > So is Kane incompetent? > > > "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message > news:F8adneLPMp2WlArYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com... >> You're right that better is subjecttive, but there's a >> difference between buying a car that goes, and buying >> a car that goes expensively (you know what I mean). But what >> about the difference between buying a car that goes expensively, >> and buying a car that tries to go, and sort of goes part of the >> way, but never gets you to your destination? Would that be worth >> spending any money on? >> >> Also, money isn't always an indicator. Jaguars used to be >> known for their unreliability, and cost 2 or 3 times as much >> as a Toyota Camry which is known for its reliability. It's >> just that the Jaguar looked good and talked well and you bought >> the spiel. It wasn't until you took it home that you found >> out it wasn't quite as effective as you thought. >> >> Robin S. >> ------------------------------------ >> "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message >> news:OAzMsEHLHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hi Steve: >>> >>> I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money >>> alone is the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to >>> the guy who charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report >>> in 5 minutes. >>> >>> Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is >>> subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what kind >>> of car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, BMW >>> or Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in shorter >>> distance and ride more comfortably than the car you currently drive? >>> They are simply put, better. >>> >>> But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an >>> $85/hr guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when >>> he knew less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of money >>> when he was a novice so the company should have replaced him right? >>> >>> There is no simple formula... >>> >>> >>> "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message >>> news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Bob, >>>> >>>> I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." >>>> And, hiring managers, (who have never coded), need to understand >>>> that the skill to author quality software takes years of experience >>>> to master. >>>> >>>> Unless, of course, the developer has read "Learn Visual Basic in 21 >>>> Days." >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Steve Covert >>>> >>>> >>>> "Bob Johnson" <A@B.com> wrote in message >>>> news:OdBZiM9KHHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Hourly Rates: >>>>> Senior Programmer - $85.00/Hr. >>>>> Junior Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>>> Incompetent Programmer - $15.00/Hr. >>>>> >>>>> The Project: >>>>> Create a simple report. >>>>> >>>>> Initial Cost of Project: >>>>> Senior programmer takes 10 minutes to complete the report. Cost to >>>>> the business: $14.00 >>>>> Junior programmer takes 2 hours to complete the report. Cost to >>>>> the business: $30.00 >>>>> Incompetent Programmer takes 2 days (16 hours). Cost to the >>>>> business: $240.00 >>>>> >>>>> Lifetime Cost of the Project: >>>>> Consider the "final product" delivered by each of these >>>>> programmers. The solutions delivered by the incompetent or junior >>>>> programmers are more likely to suffer performance problems and >>>>> have "bugs." The solution delivered by the senior programmer is >>>>> likely to "just work." There are huge long-term cost differences >>>>> between software that is buggy as compared to software that just >>>>> works. >>>>> >>>>> Rhetorical Question: Who is the most expensive programmer on the >>>>> team? >>>>> >>>>> I"m just looking for some additional perspective on this question >>>>> after years of consulting - and observing that businesses so >>>>> frequently care only about the hourly rate... and end up paying so >>>>> much more in the long run... through living with their bad systems >>>>> and, if bad enough, eventually hiring someone to come in and fix >>>>> things. There's so much bad software out there - I'm guessing that >>>>> it's the myopic managers considering only hourly rates. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? Opinions? Perspective? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
It's turning into the economics of automobiles :-) The relativity of things is an important point. All things considered however it might be a better idea to drive a Mercedes Benz or BMW in Germany considering the Jaguar is an import and seats two. It isn't uncommon to see a Mercedes Benz taxi in Germany, a Jaguar taxi I've never seen. :-) Happy New Year. [quoted text, click to view] "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@planet.nl> wrote in message news:ONzPciJLHHA.448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi Tom and Robin, > > Keep in mind that everything has to be seen in its environment. > > I can assure you that in Germany most often a good Jaguar is a much nicer > choose to drive, there on some roads it can be dangerous to drive less > than 80 miles an hour and 110 miles is the avarage. > > Cor > > > "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> schreef in bericht > news:eOFZZEILHHA.5000@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Hi Robin: >> >> You are absolutely correct in that there is a difference. But who could >> have guessed that the $35/hr programmer couldn't "go" and that the $85/hr >> one wasn't just going expensively? Could a $50/hr programmer go? Could >> the $85/hr programmer have a reliability quotient of a Jaguar? >> >> I know it's going to sound like I'm picking nits but at what point did >> Jaguar owners not know about the cost of maintenance? How could people >> who opted for the Toyota be aware of it (and decide on the Camry) while >> the guy buying the Jaguar didn't? Do you see it's about choices, not >> about stupid and smart? Is the guy with the Jaguar the $125/hr >> programmer and the the guy with the Camry the $15/hr guy or vice-versa? >> >> From the movie _Citizen Kane_. "I did lose a million dollars last year. I >> expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million >> dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million >> dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in...sixty years." >> >> So is Kane incompetent? >> >> >> "RobinS" <RobinS@NoSpam.yah.none> wrote in message >> news:F8adneLPMp2WlArYnZ2dnUVZ_qKknZ2d@comcast.com... >>> You're right that better is subjecttive, but there's a >>> difference between buying a car that goes, and buying >>> a car that goes expensively (you know what I mean). But what >>> about the difference between buying a car that goes expensively, >>> and buying a car that tries to go, and sort of goes part of the >>> way, but never gets you to your destination? Would that be worth >>> spending any money on? >>> >>> Also, money isn't always an indicator. Jaguars used to be >>> known for their unreliability, and cost 2 or 3 times as much >>> as a Toyota Camry which is known for its reliability. It's >>> just that the Jaguar looked good and talked well and you bought >>> the spiel. It wasn't until you took it home that you found >>> out it wasn't quite as effective as you thought. >>> >>> Robin S. >>> ------------------------------------ >>> "Tom Leylan" <tleylan@nospam.net> wrote in message >>> news:OAzMsEHLHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> Hi Steve: >>>> >>>> I think you will find that overall that doesn't apply. If money alone >>>> is the measure then the $85/hr guy is lame in comparison to the guy who >>>> charges $125 who could (by extension) write the report in 5 minutes. >>>> >>>> Faster, cheaper and other things can be measured but "better" is >>>> subjective. I always ask people during these conversations what kind of >>>> car they drive... well wouldn't a top-of-the line Mercedes, BMW or >>>> Porsche be better? Don't they accelerate faster, stop in shorter >>>> distance and ride more comfortably than the car you currently drive? >>>> They are simply put, better. >>>> >>>> But seriously if the $15/hr guy is not worth the money how does an >>>> $85/hr guy get the experience? Did he at no point charge less when he >>>> knew less? He was (according to the computation) a waste of money when >>>> he was a novice so the company should have replaced him right? >>>> >>>> There is no simple formula... >>>> >>>> >>>> "Steve Covert" <scovert@codesmithscorp.com> wrote in message >>>> news:uVKGdrFLHHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> Bob, >>>>> >>>>> I believe the old saying applies: "you get what you pay for." >>>>> And, hiring managers, (who have ne |