The bottlenecks are almost always elsewhere. Design, quality assurance and debugging, art assets, localizations, hiring, performance management, you name it. And to be fair, AI can streamline some of that.
The bottlenecks are almost always elsewhere. Design, quality assurance and debugging, art assets, localizations, hiring, performance management, you name it. And to be fair, AI can streamline some of that.
Literally all the time? Every single month?
I am struggling to understand your perspective. In my existence, the bottleneck is always the coding.
The development team has a backlog that could keep them busy for years. Meanwhile, everyone else -- QA, localization, whatever -- operates at whatever pace the code gets delivered.
Never in my entire life have I been in the situation where the engineering manager said, "well folks, localization is backed up so we've got no more code we need to write. Go home and check in next week to see if we have any work?"
The only exception I can think of might be videogames where the bottleneck is the art and then maybe the testing loop. But gaming isn't representative of software development generally at all.
The developers would have to help with the requirements and planning all the code changes. That implies a huge amount of non-coding work was done by the developers.
The backlog comes from the PM, as user needs are established.
The requirements come from a mix of PM and UX.
Obviously developers plan how to write the code. That's part of coding. Not part of product requirements.
Imagine an architect who never writes a line of code. Under your accounting, they're doing coding, because it's the planning for code.
The root comment was about coding vs "design, quality assurance and debugging, art assets, localizations", etc.
Not coding vs planning coding. It's the same way the art department both plans the art and draws it.