Too many cooks, spoil the ...

Introduction

When it comes to preparing, creating or getting things done we would require planning, design, implementation and testing as the four primary steps (or more), whether it is products or services that you are trying to put together. A good question to ask is, what is the proportion of subject matter experts to the engineers who are building the product/service? The problem that I have observed (be it small businesses or larger enterprises), there are teams where there are not many cooks and some where there is nothing but cooks. Bringing all the teams together in every situation is something that is good in books, but is not something that is feasible.

Cooks?

Every cook is experienced in their domain and how they have done things, their belief's, pros and cons, implemented things a certain way, etc. Let us consider a scenario where we have a couple of very experienced decision makers, combined with experienced engineers, and others (mid-level and inexperienced) in a team. This is the best possible scenario, where the decision makers were in the domain and hands-on at some point of time, which means that they know the pros and cons of what might happen if any of the steps or decisions go side-ways. But in this scenario, if the highly experienced engineers who are about to implement the solution is confronting the experienced decision makers about the fact that the technology cannot be implemented, is that a good or a bad thing?

Argumentation, arguments, debate, and any other forms of multiple/devil's advocacies, in general is a great tool for people to think in multiple angles and come up with multiple possibilities. The other side of it can be considered as controlled chaos, which could make employees compete in the most effective and healthy way. Controlled chaos could although lead to problems and complex situations, especially when implemented in small businesses that assume to be big (or in other words, act as if they are much bigger) based on the funding that they recently received or in other cases. Situations such as these could make the decision makers get confused between authority and decision-making.

With great power comes great responsibility, but what about the authority? In many situations, authority doesn't tag along with the designation, title or the responsibility itself. Under such circumstances, these cooks have to prove themselves, compete and challenge in order to be the top-level guy who gets to own the authority. Problem here is that arguments could lead to more quabble or even a fight. How can responsibility & authority coexist? This is one big question that has multiple answers, but goes beyond the scope of this post.

Conclusion - {too} many?

Every industry has its own saturation point, limits and identifies how they can differentiate the decision makers from the rest of the crew. The difference between subject matter experts, the engineers, developer, tester, etc. can be  easily differentiated and grouped in order to have everyone in different pool's based on their strengths and weaknesses. Does this resolve the problem? Not really! There is always some levels of challenges that are going to be faced, especially in the work environments that are going to promote controlled chaos. Having multiple cooks cook the broth by taking a competitive approach in order to test the competencies, throughput or better performance of a specific cook is something that could lead to disasters, and is something that has to stop.

If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please feel free to address them. You have the Freedom of Speech, so please speak up.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”    ― George Washington

Disclaimer: Please note that these posts and what is described in them are for educational purposes only. Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.