Building software can sometime be similar to building a house.
Let’s imagine your product as a house to examine how different software engineer works (or not work). I am focusing on these 6 types because they kind of work and not work, and which make it interesting (who would love to read about perfect people?!).
(‘any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental’)
Type 1 — the one who builds you a house in China
Description:
They are fast, very fast. When they deliver the house to you, it looks exactly/largely similar to what you pay for. It’s only after one week moving in, things start to not work.
First the tap is not working, you call them in, they would somehow make that works. After a few days, your stove start to make funny sound. You call them in again and they somehow fix it. The cause is sort of obscure and related to the fix for the pipes. 2 weeks later, your floor tile started to come off, you call; them in yet again, they redo some parts for you. Lastly, your apartment started shaking when you turn the lights on. You decided to have a structural engineer to check your house, and found that the builder had connected (and fixed everything) sort of wrong.
You end up spending equal amount on fixing the structural issue.
What’s happening:
Most of them are pure construction worker, whose interest in building/creating tangible/useful thing. They are not interested in theories/lack of foundations, as they are driven by results — if you ask for a house, they will deliver a house and do whatever that works.
Since they do not have and do not care to have theoretical knowledge, most of the complex systems they build have a shaky (if any) foundation, and they tend to “patch up” what it not working by putting a band aid on it without examining the root cause.
You may end up rewriting all the codes or rebuilding your house (before it collapse, if you’re lucky). They are equally good at being fast and at creating technical debt.
What they are good for:
Honestly, it takes some time (and beating) to make them think like a (good) engineer. However, usually, no engineer can deliver as fast as they can.
Therefore, when you need something quick and do not have the intention to maintain it. They are perfect if you are building a demo site or you need something to show urgently (and are prepared to redo everything).
Alternatively, if you have a good architect/structural engineer to nail down all the structural planning, they tend to work pretty well, too.
Type 2 — the one who would who add a Roman Column to any house (just because s/he had read about that over the weekend)
Description:
They are kind of opposite to Type 1. These people love to research and read for their profession in the free time. It is all good and their effort is admirable, until they start putting in too many unnecessary thing or structure in your house for no good reason.
They will (work extra hours to) add some random Roman column to your house, even though it is perfectly supported by its central core. At the beginning (and half of the time), you wouldn’t mind these column as they kind of make your house special (even if it does nothing).
But when you realize how much space these columns are eating up or how obstructive they are, you will need them to remove these column. If you are lucky, your building will stand just fine. Just that extra time and work is taken.
What’s happening:
Usually, the only reason they are adding the column to the house is because they want to practice on what they learn and believe that would be good for you. These type is usually very hard working and spend a lot of time reading about work on the side.
What separate them from a great engineer is usually they lack the experience or sense to make a good decision on what is necessary and what’s not. (Some time it can be that they are just too excited about this new skill to care.)
What they are good for:
Honestly, I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with this type, and do not find them particularly good in any circumstance. One scenario I can think of is when you have these clients you’d need to impress with some extra / uncommon skills, then they might be good.
Having said that, I also think they are not a “hazard” in general, as they would have read enough previously to make sure that the house is sound.
Type 3 — the one who will build you a house that gives you mixed feelings
Description:
When you see the outside of the house, you will be a bit skeptical — it just looks a bit weird, but at the same time, it is not that weird so that you will turn away. When you go inside, you will see that the interior is done meticulously and they have all these small features you didn’t ask for. While some of them are things that you do not need (and wonder if anyone would need); some are really thoughtful, the you don’t know that you need it until you see it type.
What’s happening:
This type of people are usually people who have very good hard skill, highly technical people, but maybe a bit off when it comes to marketing/empathizing with users.
What they are good for:
They are actually good for anything if you have a good marketing person or you are selling to people who have a more open mind or are not deterred by (the lack of) marketing.
Type 4 — the one who can build you a house, but it’s always on their schedule.
Description:
They are good, they always do things right. Their house is exact to the spec with no extra / unnecessary features. The house is solid and easy to maintain/keep up.
The biggest problem is they are always working on their schedule, not yours. If you tell them that you all will die without having a house by a certain time. They will merrily tell you that they will see you in hell.
What’s happening:
This type is just very hard to incentify. They take their time to study the project and gather all the information, but you can just never interfere with their life or get them to work faster.
What they are good for:
Anything that has no urgency and will not become urgent. Probably a more stable product or when you have all the money sitting in the bank and all the time on earth to fund the project.
Type 5— the one who would use his/her chainsaw to layer bricks, cut woods, and even cut his/her meat (because s/he only has one tool)
Description:
You will be amazed by how they can use one tool to do everything (albeit, ineffectively for the most of the time). You will go and ask them why don’t you used “x” for doing “why”, and you can tell that they don’t know those other tools exists.
Since they are (always) not using the right tool for the right task, the house is usually not well built (except for the part that is done correctly. You probably have all the wood cut well).
What’s happening:
They just know one thing and kind of make that works.
What they are good for:
When you’re in a team where people are highly specialized.
Type 6 — the one who (only) has every house in his/her mind
Description:
You go ask them to build a house, come back 4 weeks later, nothing is build, nothing is done. When you ask them, they’ll tell you they have all these grand visions of grand houses in their mind (and they do not know how and what to start). You’ll never get to see the house.
What’s happening:
They are living happily in their mind and have difficulty executing. Often times, just everything is so good in the mind that they do not know what tto choose.
What they are good for:
These people can be a good architect or designer because they do have visions.
They can also be useful if know well enough to make decision for them and you are a good project manager.
Bonus: the property agent that would sell you a house, but deliver a tent (which you realize is good enough)
They are good salesperson, they come up to you with this picture of a house (that will be there). You pay, they deliver a tent to you. You find that the tent actually do serve your need (but you will not pay for). You’re kind of satisfy with what you get. But it doesn’t matter because the salesperson is off to another project anyway.
