It's popular in our industry to say you prefer global alignment over local excellence.
Sometimes that's part of an argument against investing in the technical skills of individual developers. Instead of "wasting" energy on that, you should solve the "real" problem: getting everyone marching to the same drummer.
I don't question the truth of the assertion but I do wonder if it considers enough factors to apply to the real world. Here are some questions we can ask ourselves to make sure it is useful guidance and not just some unconsidered platitude...
- Is global alignment as easy to achieve as local excellence?
- Is global alignment as enduring as local excellence?
- Does global alignment have a "critical mass" problem? (e.g., can you have 1% global alignment?)
- What does it cost to maintain global alignment over time?
- Does global alignment carry any typically-unexamined risks?
- Should global alignment and local excellence even be in competition in the first place?
- Can global alignment really be achieved and sustained in a software organization without skilled individual developers?
I'm not sure either way.
I suspect strongly, however, that the answers to the last two questions are "No", and "No."
I suspect strongly, however, that the answers to the last two questions are "No", and "No."
