[OutOfHere]

You shouldn't have to "convince" anyone, only to inform them. If they don't trust you to look after the software, they will ultimately get what they deserve, which is a software that doesn't work and is unmanageable beyond repair. As an engineer, your job is to do engineering, not to engage in people manipulation. My policy is to not protect evil manifested as product-greed. Sometimes it's better to let it burn.

[jclulow]

What is it that you think engineering entails, exactly? In a software business your job is to produce artefacts the business can sell, without spending so much in the process as to destroy any hope of profit. Part of this involves talking to (not manipulating!) your colleagues, including product management.

[OutOfHere]

> without spending so much

This is really not the engineer's doing or problem. That's except if the engineer has been producing wasteful solutions that rack up cloud bills in a way that's 10x more money inefficient than it needs to be. For the most part, corporations waste extreme amounts of money in numerous ways, and the engineer has nothing to do with any of it. For the most part, the engineer has no say in the general business waste.

> in the process

This was unjustified. A good engineer will spend what is necessary, and no more. Generally, the business expenses that typically make or break the business are much larger than the engineer's residual salary.

> What is it that you think engineering entails

It does not entail saving the management from itself. I would in fact be happy to see the management fail if they don't listen to the engineers, telling them "I told you so". This is assuming I had previously documented my concerns in writing. I don't feel the need to have to convincingly "sell my concerns" in the face of resistance when no one really wants to listen anyway. My job is to eliminate my liability, which I did when I documented the concerns exactly once in writing.

In summary, if management is going to act st00pidly by ignoring the concerns noted by engineers, it is really not the job of the engineers to bend over backwards to convince them. Often it is failure that teaches the most important lessons.

[orev]

It’s not usually the PM that has to deal with the unmanageable mess, it’s the engineer who’s still expected to deliver and gets it held against them when they can’t because of the mess.

[OutOfHere]

That's only if the engineer doesn't have it previously documented in writing, on record, that any delays are due to the mess, and that the mess needs to be fixed the right way. It certainly should not come as a surprise. This is what I meant by "inform them".

[orev]

In a perfect world, yes that would work. But in most places, that’s just a type of CYA and is seen as the engineer being difficult to work with. There’s never some kind of fact-finding committee that really wants to know the truth of who’s to blame based on an objective investigation. All the business side perceives is that “this person is making noise”, and they don’t want the noise, they just want the feature.

[OutOfHere]

> "they just"

Yes, there are such people who revel in keeping their ears closed, but I do my best to not work for them. I certainly don't want to contribute to putting an extra dollar in their pocket. About half the people are this way, but the other half are open to listening.