Product bloated Process

When faced with a demand, product personnel will negotiate with R & D personnel on the completion time and resource investment, sometimes either threatening or offering a reward. Product personnel are concerned with the ability of the system to do this and that (which can be done later), while R & D personnel want to do this for their own benefit first, so the two quickly reached an agreement. At least at this moment, R & D personnel can only focus on one point, because it is simple to do one thing, so the bad habit of implementing light design is developed! I have already met many situations (Quality Requirements) that force me to participate in the design review after code preparation.

Over time, our products are made up of projects that are mostly "temporary" or "emergency", so our application systems become larger and bloated. It's big, understandable, but we cannot accept it if it's bloated. To a certain extent, bloated development will seriously affect efficiency and restrict further business development. We are constantly adding machines and constantly changing servers with higher performance. However, this is not a general solution. Sometimes we cannot do anything about the existing system, so the "Architecture upgrade" is mentioned on the agenda. This is a natural law, and our business systems also need to "evolve ". However, just like the "Evolution" in the biological world, some species have been replaced, while others have become more powerful. The price of "substitution" is huge! This means that the previous investment has been buried by history, and the legacy value is even small.

I have to admit that the current domestic ClassB2CThe company is supporting such a huge business in this way, and some200 ~ 300%The speed is growing. Their performance is very beautiful, but how many people know how many sleepless nights R & D personnel have spent? Most of these companies are lagging behind in business half-shot or even a bottleneck! A smaller company may not be so serious due to business volume issues, but I am not so optimistic about its technical strength.

Does this mean that our technology is passive? I agree that technology is subordinate to the business, but I do not agree that technology will always run behind the business!