Many of us deal with specifications that are half baked, poorly thought through and some times cobbled together using buzz words and copy paste jobs. The spec writers in my opinion disrespect the institutions that entrust them with acquiring a platform, a solution or a technology.
In commercial dealings, Sales staff who get paid based on number of deals they close, rush customers and prospects into releasing these poorly articulated needs documents to move these "opportunities" along the pipeline.
How should architects react to these? is the question that comes to my mind. Should we educate the customer into understanding what they want, or should we answer the question to make sure we pass this test and get the highest marks in any formal or informal evaluation. Should we penalize the customers for making wrong choices or should we penalize the institutions that hire these executives in the poor choices they made.
My instinct had been to try and serve the institution, understand the organization, the desire behind the specification and articulate it as such. However, this has not worked consistently. The traditional sales thinking is to give the customer what they have asked for instead of what they need.
I am increasingly also seeing the reverse during execution, where delivery organizations try to do as little as possible, to maximise their margins by delivering barely enough compared to the initial ask or the need of the customer.
Increasingly the shrill demands of sales and executives to meet numbers and margins, and ever shortening timelines drowns out any meaningful protest.
However, in my humble opinion, this is a mistake. Architects are supposed to provide the voice of reason, and ability to fight these pressures is the ultimate qualification to the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment