Can software development in a large team be interesting and interesting?

Question

I have been developing hardware and software for 19 years. Previously, the projects and teams I worked on were smaller, much more effective, and more fun.

The impact of one developer’s input on the final product and its success was obvious to everyone. We had direct contact and customer reviews. It was useful for our work and a very effective way to improve the product.

Over the years, the complexity of hard and software has grown, and more and more people need to succeed on time. The disadvantage of the trend for larger teams for me is that the contribution of one developer to the success of the project is becoming less and less. And we are losing contact with the real world of users and customers due to the growing QA departments more and more.

I always enjoyed my work and kept in touch with the latest technologies such as OOP, UML, .NET, etc. I have been working as a team leader for several years, but I didn’t really like it because I skipped development and coding.

I'm just upset by the fact that my part of the whole “thing” we are working on is getting smaller and smaller, and I am losing sight of this and contact with the ground. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to cry for the good old days, but for me the work on more specialized modules of the gigantic system just becomes more and more boring.

I wonder if I feel alone and maybe if you have any advice on how to bring fun back to my work. And, unfortunately, no, I'm not interested in working on an open source project in my free time. Nine hours a day in front of a computer screen is enough, life is more than encoding ...

Answer 1

I also need customer interaction and feedback. However, a client can have many things. As long as I suit someone (end-user, team leader, big boss, etc.), then this is enough for me. Interaction is a key factor.

Regarding the sense of pride and ownership of a large impact on the system, again this is a matter of focus. You are still creating something, even if it is a smaller part of the whole.

I have long understood that I am a small fish in a large pond. The only solution was to learn to enjoy my place in this pond.

IOW, this is all relative!

Answer 2

I assume that it all depends on whether there is a degree of camaraderie that comes with smaller teams and a lesser chance of an ego collision. I experienced both, and they both have their problems and weaknesses. Honestly, while working on a larger team, I learned a lot from other programmers, you think you know a lot, but someone always knows more.

Answer 3

It all depends on the team and the ego of the people.

When you work in a team with ego problems, no matter how cool the technology is or how much you interact with customers. One bad apple can drain all the fun of working on another cool project.

On the other hand, if a team swallows, it is very important if the technology is outdated or a business problem is boring. Working on a back-office accounting system using VI and 10-year-old C ++ beta compilers can still be invigorating when you feel that your peers are in the same battle and you have a back. When you learn from others and listen when you have some kind of new approach. When developers control the build / test / deploy process, so that makes sense and improves the life (and sleep patterns) of the support team. When your peers (and you) are always ready to help with an unclear language problem or work through a crazy mistake. This makes programming fun and interesting regardless of everything else.

Answer 4

You might want to consider changing companies to a smaller company, where you had a wider range of responsibilities for one idea. Also, what are the changes in the process that will help with those points that you don't like?

I have a question about what you mean by big here? Will the team of 50 people in the project be large? Or is it more like 1000? At one level, I ask about the scale, because there are teams outside of the big ones, if you want to look at all the developers who work with large Microsoft products, such as Office and Windows, and at the other end of the spectrum are the teams of one-person developers who do everything this is.

I would say that Kelly will answer that it depends on the team and the ego for another big factor in things. What do you find funny? Does he find more effective ways to solve problems that have poor solutions? Is it a conquest puzzle of Millenium ? Or is someone smiling using your software, which makes it fun? There are many different possible answers, and although I can make suggestions about how good or bad they are, you fully understand.

I don’t think that you are alone in rejecting the way a company matures, the process may change as new people in different roles are added with increased bureaucracy and lose flexibility, as it may take more signatures to be able to change or developers lose it is a touch to the customer of their product. There are a number of different ways to create software, and in some places there may be fewer processes and focus on “just getting it working,” while other places may require that the process be more formal and organized using 1001 policies for every little thing. For what purpose do you want to work?

Answer 5

To answer the question, as he asked in the title: No!

I feel very similar and talk to many others who think alike. In my experience, small teams are much more interested in working and thus (and for some other reasons) they are much more effective.

Answer 6

Thanks to everyone for your interesting and valuable answers (and for correcting the grammar and spelling :-)

You gave me some important points to think about:

• Lack of interaction with custumers (no matter what “customer” means)
• Interaction and feedback within the development team
• What does entertainment mean to me. I think this is more a smile in the face of the user than using advanced technology.
• How to deal with sometimes overwhelming processes.
• And last but not least, find my convenient spot in a large pond. Perhaps this is not the one on which I now live ...