This is usually difficult topic in modern management. But, why a low-profile software developer sometimes needs his/her own credit over something? Isn't everything comes from teamwork?
Sometimes there would be new/extended ideas that overlaps existing projects. Independent team players means no supervise applied/required. Software developers usually don't care much about other's work. Design is a kind of art and nothing are always good or extremely bad. But when one senior designer worked with another and not really trust this person's character, (no, not professional competence,) the senior developer will very worry about the possibility that the new design will eventually downgrade or finally destroy the original design. The final product may look much better than the original one without knowing any critical issues resolved before, and adopting the new design widely shifts the resolvable problems to other teams. (Bugs often come with massive usage, but small group usage alleges the design is trustworthy.)
Saying original design is better than their collaboration is not reasonable. Mostly, what the new team wants is the idea, not really the ability. And, too bad, the ex-version designer is usually not invited (human nature...). But what really disappear is indistinguishable. Credit might be a polite way to indicate the worry on things not yet happen. It takes time to build.
Sometimes there would be new/extended ideas that overlaps existing projects. Independent team players means no supervise applied/required. Software developers usually don't care much about other's work. Design is a kind of art and nothing are always good or extremely bad. But when one senior designer worked with another and not really trust this person's character, (no, not professional competence,) the senior developer will very worry about the possibility that the new design will eventually downgrade or finally destroy the original design. The final product may look much better than the original one without knowing any critical issues resolved before, and adopting the new design widely shifts the resolvable problems to other teams. (Bugs often come with massive usage, but small group usage alleges the design is trustworthy.)
Saying original design is better than their collaboration is not reasonable. Mostly, what the new team wants is the idea, not really the ability. And, too bad, the ex-version designer is usually not invited (human nature...). But what really disappear is indistinguishable. Credit might be a polite way to indicate the worry on things not yet happen. It takes time to build.
Comments
Post a Comment