Motivation of software professionals

On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some places you go, however, you never want to return.
> They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new
> job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is
> behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off
> on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office.

I should hope so!

Last time we had a thing behind schedule, the management sent out a request
that we put in extra time to bring it on schedule. They had already cut
product specs in a few key places to try to make things better, and they
told us they'd make it good if we helped them out. We had very close to
24/7 management coverage, and they helped out as much as they could. And
yes, we made the deadline, and they rewarded us suitably.

The primary motivation there wasn't the money, it was the visible
demonstration that the management felt it was their problem more than ours
that the schedule had been wrong. (Note the emphasis; it was not that we
were behind the schedule, it was that the schedule was, empirically, wrong.)

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some places you go, however, you never want to return.
>> They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new
>> job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is
>> behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off
>> on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office.
>
> I should hope so!
>
> Last time we had a thing behind schedule, the management sent out a request
> that we put in extra time to bring it on schedule. They had already cut
> product specs in a few key places to try to make things better, and they
> told us they'd make it good if we helped them out. We had very close to
> 24/7 management coverage, and they helped out as much as they could. And
> yes, we made the deadline, and they rewarded us suitably.
>
> The primary motivation there wasn't the money, it was the visible
> demonstration that the management felt it was their problem more than ours
> that the schedule had been wrong. (Note the emphasis; it was not that we
> were behind the schedule, it was that the schedule was, empirically, wrong.)
>
> -s

The best place I ever worked was in a small R&D dept run like a
skunkworks. We reported directly to the owner and all other layers of
management eliminated. The most productive place in over 30 years of
design. All went to shit when the owner was persuaded to get in "real"
management. 3 years and the company went from $30m to bust.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

James Kanze wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same conotations
> in English as it does in French, but from the French meaning, I
> don't think you can be truely a "professional" if you're only in
> it for the money. "Professional" implies being paid for what
> you do, but it also implies a certain degree of personal
> standards with regards to quality and such---a "professional"
> will take pride in his work.
>
I think that side of the meaning is becoming less visible.

There was a time when being an engineer was an important thing - and
what we do is a branch of engineering.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mar_Bridge.JPG

AKA

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykycpgu

Nowadays an engineer is no longer someone who exercises their ingenuity,
but a locomotive driver (US) or repairman.

As time has gone by the status of engineering in general has dropped,
and I think the status of the professions in general. A bank manager
was a professional, but not likely to be particularly qualified; an
accountant definitely counted. The real money these days is made by
arbitrageurs and such who are only professional in the sense that they
are in it for the money. I suspect that most people do not have the
respect for them that a banker, lawyer, politician or doctor would have
attracted in years gone by.

Anyway - money a motivator? Only up to a point, for most people. If
you've got enough it just stops mattering.

Except to those few for whom having lots of money is an end to itself.
And in general they tend not to be technical people.

The other side of the coin is amateur - doing it for the love of it.
And I for one am glad that there are people on this group helping people
for no financial reward whatsoever.

Andy

On 08/02/2010 20:06, Andy Champ wrote:

> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykycpgu

Could do with a lick of paint.

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering
> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of
> town if they call themselves one.

This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which
would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless
of any labels.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

On Feb 8, 4:06 pm, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> MarkusSchaber wrote:
> >> I won't dispute that money is a motivator, but it is not
> >> the most efficient motivator. The more money you pay, the
> >> more you will attract those developers which are purely
> >> after the money, and not the really good ones. For the
> >> latter ones, a certain level on the paycheck is enough to
> >> give attention to fun, excitement, atmosphere and such
> >> factors.

> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> > I once joked with an employer that if he paid me twice as
> > much I would only have to work half as long :-)

> Given that nearly nobody gives a perfect working environment,
> or even close, money is the primary distinguisher. As a
> contract worker, I've seen a few dozen IT workplaces. The
> grass is never greener. Offer me twice as much compensation
> as the other potential employer and my talents are yours to
> exploit.

That's completely wrong. The effect of money depends on a lot
of things: someone who's just coming out of an expensive
divorce, heavily endebted, will doubtlessly put more importance
on it that a young, single person who has no debts and is making
enough to comfortably sustain the lifestyle he likes. But
environments do vary, enormously, and unless I'm under duress,
I'll always go for the position which seems to offer the better
environment. (But of course, at my level, even those positions
offer a comfortable level of life. It's generally a question of
being well off, rather than very well off.)

> It's not that money is the motivator. The question is leading
> and extremely ill cast. I don't depend on anyone else for my
> motivation. Money is the decider; it decides whether and
> where I work. It doesn't determine how.

I'll refuse jobs that aren't sufficiently paid. But I recently
changed jobs more because I was bored than because I make more
in my new job. (Formally, my income is considerably higher.
But so are my expenses---my living standard is basically
unchanged, or even a little lower than it used to be.)

--
James Kanze

On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
> The primary motivation there wasn't the money, it was the
> visible demonstration that the management felt it was their
> problem more than ours that the schedule had been wrong.
> (Note the emphasis; it was not that we were behind the
> schedule, it was that the schedule was, empirically, wrong.)

Yes! I think that most people fundamentally like to help
others, in one way or another. And someone saying that they
screwed up, and asking for help, is a strong motivator for most
people. On the other hand, threats almost never work. People
don't work well when they feel threatened.

--
James Kanze

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering
>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of
>> town if they call themselves one.
>
> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which
> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless
> of any labels.
>
> -s

Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real
standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title
"Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have
nothing like this at all, I see no problem here.

AHS

On Feb 8, 4:14 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:43 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 3:14 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:

> > [...]

> > > That said, by definition professionals are, to some
> > > extent, in it for the money. If they were not, they would
> > > be amateurs as I am now. How that is balanced against
> > > interesting work, physical working conditions, status,
> > > etc. varies.

> > I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same
> > conotations in English as it does in French, but from the
> > French meaning, I don't think you can be truely a
> > "professional" if you're only in it for the money.
> > "Professional" implies being paid for what you do, but it
> > also implies a certain degree of personal standards with
> > regards to quality and such---a "professional" will take
> > pride in his work.

> Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a
> professional body which regulates itself and has the right to
> control entry to the profession. For instnace I can't simply
> buy scalpels and antiseptic and set myself up as a brain
> surgeon - I have to go throguh the British Medical Association
> before they'll let me chop people up. the same is true for
> lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure niches.

Words have many meanings, and some professions are "reglementé".
Still, in France, I was a "profession libérale", and not a
"commerçant" or "artisan"---in Germany, the categorie was
"freiberuflich", rather than "Gewerber". These are very
distinct legal categories, with (especially in Germany)
implications with regards to how I was taxed, etc. (And it did
lead to some interesting situations in France, since typically,
as a "profession libérale", I was asked for my registration with
the professional association. Which didn't exist for my
profession.)

--
James Kanze

On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
>> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering
>>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of
>>> town if they call themselves one.

>> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which
>> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless
>> of any labels.

> Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real
> standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title
> "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have
> nothing like this at all, I see no problem here.

Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal
standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed.

In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would
be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the
title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought
to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization.
Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually
not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another.

Measurement by proxy is not very good measurement.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Seebs wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering
>>>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of
>>>> town if they call themselves one.
>
>>> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which
>>> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless
>>> of any labels.
>
>> Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real
>> standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title
>> "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have
>> nothing like this at all, I see no problem here.
>
> Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal
> standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed.
>
> In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would
> be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the
> title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought
> to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization.
> Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually
> not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another.

At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software
developers. So it's pretty much a moot point.

If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed
a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a
certification process?

[ SNIP ]

AHS

On 2010-02-09, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61@hotmail.com> wrote:
> At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software
> developers. So it's pretty much a moot point.

I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance.

> If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed
> a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a
> certification process?

How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You
wouldn't.

It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification
processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone
once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing
to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually
substantially better than this. Certainly, they are extremely popular,
especially among people who have already obtained those certifications.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-02-09, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software
>> developers. So it's pretty much a moot point.
>
> I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance.
>
>> If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed
>> a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a
>> certification process?
>
> How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You
> wouldn't.

How would I, or you, not know? It's not like we are discussing Masonic
rites here.

I myself have chosen not to get any software development certifications,
except for one that I got from the technical campus of Dalhousie
University for a series of software development courses. It's not that I
consider many of the MS and Java etc etc certifications to be
individually useless - many are not - but lacking a larger professional
development framework to plug them into, and because the accountability
of software developers currently is risible, why bother?

> It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification
> processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone
> once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing
> to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually
> substantially better than this.

I can only comment on engineering (I am not one myself but I have a
diploma in engineering, and most of the credits for a baccalaureate in
engineering - I eventually decided to concentrate on a physics degree; I
am also reasonably familiar with how APENS, the Association of
Professional Engineers of Nova Scotia, does these things).

Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more
comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever
exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that
software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or
indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective
professional engineeers.

It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack.
It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client,
professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order
for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt
similar standards.

Certainly, they are extremely popular,
> especially among people who have already obtained those certifications.
>
> -s

_What_ are extremely popular? Professional engineering accreditations or
software development certifications? I expect both are.

AHS

On 08/02/2010 20:11, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 20:06, Andy Champ wrote:
>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykycpgu
>
> Could do with a lick of paint.
>

I think I have a tin of grey paint, wait a moment

....

There!

http://tinyurl.com/ygn3kqw

On Feb 6, 12:39*pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:23:41 -0800 (PST), Richard Cornford
> <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>
>
> >Strange question; the most efficient motivator of professionals is
> >money, and money is very popular.
>
> That may be a motivator for taking a job, but I suspect is fairly far
> down the list for leaving a job.
>
> Leaving motivations might include:
>
> personality conflict
> boredom
> too much pressure
>
> Personally, the opportunity to do something I had never done before
> was always the top priority. *Employers usually want people who have
> extensive specific experience.
>
> In hiring, my main interest was loyalty. *Employees don't get really
> useful until after the first year. I don't expect them to hit the
> ground running. I anticipate investing considerable effort in training
> them. I looked for reasons why they would likely want to stay.
> --
> Roedy Green Canadian Mind Productshttp://mindprod.com
>
> You can’t have great software without a great team, and most software teams behave like dysfunctional families.
> ~ Jim McCarthy

Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real
standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title
"Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers
have
nothing like this at all, I see no problem here.