[winestock]

From the article:

"Pimentel’s client asked him for list of candidates trained in “Agile” project management techniques for helping companies boost their productivity by using more I.T. systems. The client was offering as much as 200,000 euros ($220,000) a year -- almost 10 times the average salary in Spain."

So they're willing to pay ten times the going rate, but they're not willing to take the time to train anyone?

But wait; there's more!

"But such people are thin on the ground in Spain. It takes at least eight months for an experienced software developer to earn an Agile qualification and they also need the ability to deal with senior executives, limiting the pool of people who could potentially fill the roles."

Again, note that they're willing to pay ten times the going rate, so training them for eight months and then paying them the regular wage would pay for itself after a few months on the job; but they still won't train. More importantly, look at the part which I italicized. Dealing with senior executives takes special skill? I am but a lowly suburban nerd, and the ways of my betters intimidate me, so could someone enlighten me as to what that journalist is talking about? I have a sneaking suspicion that Clay Shirky knows.

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2013/11/healthcare-gov-and-the-...

"Back in the mid-1990s, I did a lot of web work for traditional media. That often meant figuring out what the client was already doing on the web, and how it was going, so I’d find the techies in the company, and ask them what they were doing, and how it was going. Then I’d tell management what I’d learned. This always struck me as a waste of my time and their money; I was like an overpaid bike messenger, moving information from one part of the firm to another. I didn’t understand the job I was doing until one meeting at a magazine company.

"The thing that made this meeting unusual was that one of their programmers had been invited to attend, so management could outline their web strategy to him. After the executives thanked me for explaining what I’d learned from log files given me by their own employees just days before, the programmer leaned forward and said “You know, we have all that information downstairs, but nobody’s ever asked us for it.”

"I remember thinking “Oh, finally!” I figured the executives would be relieved this information was in-house, delighted that their own people were on it, maybe even mad at me for charging an exorbitant markup on local knowledge. Then I saw the look on their faces as they considered the programmer’s offer. The look wasn’t delight, or even relief, but contempt. The situation suddenly came clear: I was getting paid to save management from the distasteful act of listening to their own employees."

EDIT: formatting

[shostack]

It is easy to be dismissive of executives and the fact that dealing with them takes a certain skill set.

If it is one thing I've learned as someone in a data-heavy field it is that executives don't care about the details and nuances, and that distilling the details of things like log files, etc. and conveying it in a way that aligns with their pain points, strategy, etc. does in fact take great interpersonal skills that many more technically-inclined folks unfortunately lack.

[ZenoArrow]

> "conveying it in a way that aligns with their pain points, strategy".

In my experience, some executives don't even care too much for facts if it interferes with their agenda. This is usually expressed in subtle ways, but in one instance I've heard an executive directly ask for a report that was easy to manipulate the figures on in order to push our employees into generating more sales.

This is part of the problem when you have directors who see themselves as insulated from day to day challenges. I accept that there's a need for a long term vision, but if someone isn't prepared to understand the details of what's blocking it, they'll not be in a place to advise on how to fix it, and if they're relying on other people to fix those organisational issues, what's the point of having directors at all?

[internaut]

> This is part of the problem when you have directors who see themselves as insulated from day to day challenges. I accept that there's a need for a long term vision, but if someone isn't prepared to understand the details of what's blocking it, they'll not be in a place to advise on how to fix it, and if they're relying on other people to fix those organisational issues, what's the point of having directors at all?

There isn't any. Why do you think small groups of computer programmers and a handful of venture capitalists are like a wrecking ball to so many different industries.

In the 20th century we got used to the idea of managerial capitalism. Now in the 21st we're seeing that unless you're an Elon Musk level manager, capable of both understanding fine detail plus having comprehension of the big picture, you're surplus to requirements. You'll be competing against managers who are also geeks as well aka the real Silicon Valley advantage.

If your manager thinks 'the market should decide' they ought to step down unless they mass produce widgets in a B2B context. Their entire job is central coordination. In the 18th/19th centuries the manager of a factory would have understood the functions of every bit of machinery they acquired.

[quantumhobbit]

That essay by Clay Shirky is golden. I can't believe I hadn't seen it by now. Reminds me of the promise of what agile should have been instead of what Agile often is. I shudder to think of what the Spainish execs are looking for in candidates "trained in Agile".

[hellogoodbyeeee]

20k isn't the going rate of an agile software developer, it is the average salary in the country. So the average of all the janitors, and chefs and construction workers and agile software developers combined.