[hoseyor]

I think this is a partial solution, but I have to point out that relegating that function of translator and tester to a “fresh grad”. That is ideally the exact role of a Product Manager today, the very go-between and translator with vision that can manage customer/client expectations while also adequately communicate technical concepts and both communicate initial tex task breakdowns and also run interference for devs, i.e., dish out conditional nos.

This function is both extremely critical as well as it is also not valued in my opinion. The business/client side thinks that’s what devs are for, and devs think they’re just more management until they’ve learned that (please excuse the sport metaphor since it’s not something I do, but it seems fitting) Product Managers can be the defensive line as well as the quarterback for the running backs converting, the coach’s strategy into wins and a cheering crowds instead of boos and disappointments all around.

[throwaway2037]

The difference? Fresh grads are much cheaper than experienced PMs. I always say: Don't hire PMs; hire better devs (who, when necessary, can wear the hat of a PM). To be clear: My example is specifically talking about internal software development, and I have seen this strategy work at multiple companies. Creating an external product for B2B or B2C is very different.

[gmueckl]

Internal SW dev can work with a lot less overhead and setting up direct communication between users and developers is reasonably simple. There is usually a 1:1 relationship between user roles and developers.

Published software ideally has many, many more licensees and you absolutely need rigid communication channels with various go-betweens (PM, marketing, support). Direct communication between devs and customers wastes too much of the developers' time. Especially the PM role becomes extremely important for product quality then. In the extreme, the product can only be as good as its PM.

[lupire]

Devs are expensive, and devs who can PM are incredibly expensive.

[throwaway2037]

You are missing the point: What generates higher ROI: (1) dev + PM (separate people) or (2) highly skilled dev who can periodically act as PM? In my experience, it is always (2). Any time that I hear a senior manager complaining about "expensive devs", I always ask them: "How do you balance cost and quality?" Most of them are stunned by this question and give a bullshit answer. The truth: Almost all orgs are better to hire far fewer devs who are very high quality, versus many devs who are lower quality. I never worked for Amazon AWS but the "pizza-sized" team thing is real -- from experience.