Part of the answer is that I like to turn out great software, and get product into the hands of customers (no dead-end products, please).
As an extension, I see the software development process as ending only when the customers receive and are fully able to make use of the delievered software (the job is not done when the code compiles).
On the front end, I have found that I am usually the guy who ends up understanding the product and it's place in the market better than most anyone else. This sounds like hubris, but it's not.
Curiously enough an on-line personality test (that I didn't take very seriously) crystalized a collection of random observations into a coherent whole. I ran across a reference to the "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" and just for grins ran through the on-line questionaire. At the end I was categorized as a "INTP" or "Architect". Now the text describing each personality type reads something like a horoscope - if you try hard enough you might believe any of the descriptions apply to you. Still the description pretty much nailed (perhaps skewered) my personality.
From the INTP description:
For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained-and re-designed.Ouch - guilty as charged - especially the re-designed part :).
It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error. ... Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.Almost fell out of my chair reading this :). This is a tendency I most certainly possess, and have to carefully control.
Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them.This also hit dead-on. I am far more impressed by active minds than accumulated credentials, and have found profitable listening carefully to ideas, no matter the source. Even when the observation and conclusion offered by another are partly or entirely wrong, a bit of reflection will often lead to interesting new ideas. Listening carefully is nearly always worthwhile.
Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity.The first clear example of this in my own behaviour was back in college. In Physics we had a lab course required of upper division students. The year I took the course a new assistant professor was given the job of teaching the course. Naturally he had his own work to pursue, so in practice this meant he'd show you a room full of second-hand equipment, offer the barest of instructions, and expect you to get the equipment operational and perform the assigned experiment. I loved it.
At one point I was paired with another Physics student who was not doing well in the lab course. This was a guy I knew and regarded as quite sharp. We nearly drove each other crazy.
My new-found partner would try to deduce step-by-step how the experiment should function, and invariably get lost at some point. I would try very hard to ignore him, while looking at the experiment and equipment from all angles, until I had a complete enough mental model to "see" how the experiment functioned. Once my mental model was complete, I could describe in great deductive detail how the equipment should work, and where there might lie any malfunction affecting our experiment. Before that point I could only offer incomplete and half-hearted answers to his questions.
In retrospect I see that I have followed much the same path with every problem on which I have worked. First there is time spent absorbing everything I can find about the problem and its environment. During this time I can offer (to my ear) only rather lame answers (though oddly enough the questioner is usually mollified). Only when my mental model is nearly complete do I feel that I can offer good answers to questions about the problem.
There is more that hit far nearer the mark than I expected (it seems I should read more Ayn Rand).
Yes, I'm pretty good at turning out code, but what I'm looking for is a little more leverage. By myself there is only so much ground I can cover. What I'm looking for is the chance lead larger groups. No, I'm not particularly interested in being a traditional manager, nor am I interested in building empires. I'd rather be closer to the customer than isolated. What I am interested in is facing, solving and following through to completion (this means in the customer's hands and working) a larger number of projects.
(This still seems a bit foggy - will have to revisit later...).
$Date: 2002-12-22 23:39:08 $ |
home |