[siliconc0w]

+1 A huge amount of software - probably most - is not actually generating value and in many cases is actually reducing value.

I've seen teams build and re-build the same infrastructure over and over.

I saw a request that could have been met with a few SQL queries and a dashboard got turned into a huge endeavor that implements parts of an ETL, Configuration Management, CI/CD, and Ticketing system and is now in the critical path of all requests all because people didn't ask the right questions and the incentive in a large organization is to build a mini-empire to reign over.

That said, smart infrastructure investment absolutely can be a competitive advantage. Google's infrastructure is, IMO, a competitive advantage. The amount of vertical integration and scale is unparalleled.

[Aurornis]

One of the most confusing moments in my early career was when someone spent two whole quarters building a custom tool that did something a mature and well respected open source project did for us. There was no advantage to his tool and he would admit it when cornered by the question.

We all thought he would get reprimanded for wasting so much time, but by the time management figured out was happening they decided they needed to sell it as a very important idea rather than admit they just spent $100,000 of engineering time on something nobody needed. So it turned into something to celebrate and we were supposed to find ways to use it.

That company went down in flames about a year later. That’s how I learned one way to spot broken organizations and get out early rather than going down with the ship.

[siliconc0w]

I heard a CEO try to sell some tech they had as this hugely valuable IP and a competitive moat.

When I asked the team that is supposed to use it, "We haven't used that in six months and it wouldn't be missed if it were to go away".

[shiroiuma]

>Google's infrastructure is, IMO, a competitive advantage. The amount of vertical integration and scale is unparalleled.

It's too bad they don't put this kind of thinking into their customer service.

[shimman]

Incentive of undemocratic groups is to build mini-empires yes, but if the business decisions were led by workers instead of a group of tyrants it'll most likely be a better decision. If we want lived examples of this, look at recorded history.

[shiroiuma]

>if the business decisions were led by workers instead of a group of tyrants it'll most likely be a better decision.

I don't see how. The workers will want to work on things that they enjoy, or that make them look good, regardless of how much they help the company's bottom line. Why would workers not want to build mini-empires of their own? If you're thinking that other workers in the company would vote them down, the problem with this is idea is that other workers in the company won't know about or understand why this time-wasting group is doing what it's doing, because it's not part of their competency. Do you keep track of business decisions and happenings in some other group in your company (assuming you're in a large organization)? Of course not; you don't have time to keep track of everything happening across the organization. So why would workers in your worker-led company do any better?

The entire point of leadership is that individuals don't have the time or expertise to know all this stuff and make smart decisions.