Sunday, February 25, 2007
Architect Like You Are Retiring
- Architect with a plan to not be critical path to understanding its elegance or complexity or style. This is a derivation on Keep It Simple Stupid.
Agilists believe that plans tend to be static and therefore refer to planning. It would be interesting to understand how not to be on the critical path as this phrase is very fuzzy and probably has more to do with perception than reality.
- Design so that the brilliance of the solution would beg the company to hire you back after retirement to consult at twice your pension
It is difficult to know if brilliance is serious or sarcastic. Many IT folks create "legacies" so that their employers become heavily dependent on them. I suspect many consulting firms train their employees to do so regardless of retirement.
- Design in a way that values people before process or technology such that people will miss you and invite you to subsequent years Holiday parties.
Sometimes being a good architect requires tough love where folks will appreciate your contribution but may not appreciate your presence...
- Architect with realization that the security of your future pension and profitability of your company stock is based in some part to the efficiency and appropriateness of the costs of your design.
Noble thinking that isn't backtestable. Architects should care that the stock price of their former employer goes up but this really isn't 100% correlated to expenses. A great CEO can have a rising stock price and declining profitability if he manages surprises on Wall Street. I would challenge anyone in the blogosphere in terms of ethics which one would they choose a) Better design that lowers TCO by 20% year over year and you get indirect benefits from stock price increase b) Less optimal design but you had great fun creating it and even got your boss to give you a big freakin bonus but long term TCO increased. Reality says that how folks are measured and compensated seriously needs to be revisited.
- Workwith a realization that your likelihood of getting a good pay increase (which could later translate to a better pension) is based on your ability to
Pay increases are also tied to being in the right place at the right time, supply/demand pressures, and your worth according to recent salary surveys.
If you have taken any of my responses to JT's posting seriously, you are definetely getting it twisted. I wonder if he could in his next blog entry, think about the notion of blogging like you are retiring...
Links to this post: