Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    317 points alexzeitler | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    redleggedfrog ◴[] No.42188611[source]
    I've gone through times when management would treat estimates as deadlines, and were deaf to any sort of reason about why it could be otherwise, like the usual thing of them changing the specification repeatedly.

    So when those times have occurred I've (we've more accurately) adopted what I refer to the "deer in the headlights" response to just about anything non-trivial. "Hoo boy, that could be doozy. I think someone on the team needs to take an hour or so and figure out what this is really going to take." Then you'll get asked to "ballpark it" because that's what managers do, and they get a number that makes them rise up in their chair, and yes, that is the number they remember. And then you do your hour of due diligence, and try your best not to actually give any other number than the ballpark at any time, and then you get it done "ahead of time" and look good.

    Now, I've had good managers who totally didn't need this strategy, and I loved 'em to death. But for the other numbnuts who can't be bothered to learn their career skills, they get the whites of my eyes.

    Also, just made meetings a lot more fun.

    replies(14): >>42189183 #>>42189189 #>>42189248 #>>42189402 #>>42189452 #>>42189674 #>>42189718 #>>42189736 #>>42190599 #>>42190818 #>>42191841 #>>42194204 #>>42194310 #>>42200625 #
    bigiain ◴[] No.42189248[source]
    > I've gone through times when management would treat estimates as deadlines, and were deaf to any sort of reason about why it could be otherwise, like the usual thing of them changing the specification repeatedly.

    I worked at a place where this management insanity was endemic, which lead to everyone padding all estimates with enough contingency to account for that. Which lad to the design team, and the front-end team, and the backend team, and the QA team, all padding out their estimates by 150 or 200% - to avoid the blame storms they'd seen for missing "deadlines".

    Then the Project managers added those all ups and added 150 - 200%. Then the account managers and sales teams added 150 - 200% to the estimated costs before adding margins and setting prices.

    Which ended up in literally around 1 million dollars a month to maintain a website which could _easily_ have been handled by a full time team of 8 or 10 decent web and full stack devs. Hell, apart from the 24x7 support requirement, I reckon I know a few great Rails or Django devs who could have done all the work on their own, perhaps with a part time of contracted graphic designer.

    That all lasted a handful of years, until the client worked out what was going on, and my company management flew the whole thing into the mountain, with ~100 people losing their jobs and their owed entitlements (I was out about $26K that day.)

    replies(4): >>42189522 #>>42190658 #>>42194354 #>>42198739 #
    1. TaurenHunter ◴[] No.42190658[source]
    That is probably analogous to what happens in the American healthcare sector with physicians/hospitals/insurance carriers/pharma/etc. Each one padding their bills making it horrendously expensive for everyone at the end of the chain.
    replies(1): >>42191279 #
    2. timy2shoes ◴[] No.42191279[source]
    The padding in healthcare is part of the system. One part is to have high prices so insurance can negotiate them down. And for hospitals in particular, prices are padded to subsidize emergency care for the indigent (which they have to provide without regard to ability to pay; thanks Reagan).
    replies(4): >>42191299 #>>42191323 #>>42192069 #>>42192291 #
    3. oefnak ◴[] No.42191299[source]
    How can you not be grateful for that? You don't have money, so you should die? Is that really what you mean?
    replies(3): >>42191333 #>>42192463 #>>42193212 #
    4. takemetoearth ◴[] No.42191323[source]
    Yeah, it would certainly be cheaper if those uppity poors just died instead.
    replies(1): >>42194525 #
    5. ykonstant ◴[] No.42192069[source]
    Did... did you just chide Reagan because his healthcare policy was not sociopathic enough? I'll admit, that's new. Impressive.
    6. euroderf ◴[] No.42192291[source]
    > One part is to have high prices so insurance can negotiate them down.

    One basic truism in business is that "Everybody wants a discount".

    7. sobkas ◴[] No.42192463{3}[source]
    How about government is paying for treatment of people too poor to pay themselves and everyone is paying their share to finance that spending? And as a bonus everyone else will also get their medical treatment financed this way?
    8. jprete ◴[] No.42193212{3}[source]
    That's a hyperbolic misstatement of the situation on the ground. Poor people use free emergency rooms as primary care instead of paying for primary care physicians. That's a cost disaster no matter what you think should be done about health care. We'd be much better off with actually free primary care for the poor, and it would at least make sense to prevent the emergency room misuse since it's so wasteful. But it's politically untenable in the US to fix a broken system in any direction people don't like, even when it's Pareto optimal.
    replies(2): >>42194383 #>>42196487 #
    9. skeeter2020 ◴[] No.42194383{4}[source]
    This is the story in Canada as well, but way more than the very poor, because there are not enough primary care physicians where needed, and not enough people pursue family medicine. Why would you? What med student looks at the prospect of administering a dinky small business on top of actually practicing medicine, pay well but not great, and have zero equity when they retire? So we land in a similar position because the change might be publicly funded group practices instead of pay per service which has better optics.
    replies(1): >>42195413 #
    10. ◴[] No.42194525{3}[source]
    11. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.42195413{5}[source]
    Yeah it seems partial privatization is inevitable or at least the default outcome, at least in Ontario. No other way out that’s also politically viable to enact.
    12. rickydroll ◴[] No.42196487{4}[source]
    See "We've got you covered" for an analysis of reallocating current US healthcare spending into a general healthcare program that aligns with your thinking.

    https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/690632/weve-got-you...