Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses IT

Are Software Developers Really More Valuable To Companies Than Money? (cnbc.com) 96

Posted by EditorDavid from the human-resources dept.
Recently the CFO of Stripe revealed a surprising statistic: As our global economy increasingly comes to run on technology-enabled rails and every company becomes a tech company, demand for high-quality software engineers is at an all-time high. A recent study from Stripe and Harris Poll found that 61 percent of C-suite executives believe access to developer talent is a threat to the success of their business. Perhaps more surprisingly -- as we mark a decade after the financial crisis -- this threat was even ranked above capital constraints.

And yet, despite being many corporations' most precious resource, developer talents are all too often squandered. Collectively, companies today lose upward of $300 billion a year paying down "technical debt," as developers pour time into maintaining legacy systems or dealing with the ramifications of bad software... When deployed correctly, developers can be economic multipliers -- coefficients that dramatically ratchet up the output of the teams and companies of which they're a part.
His article even ends with tips for managers about how to get the most out of their developers.
  • Consider very carefully the current and potential allocation of developer time.
  • Embrace the cloud, saving in-house developers to work on higher-impact projects.
  • Hire leaders who have technical backgrounds, so they can make better hiring and strategic decisions, and offer better management of developers.

But first managers have to decide if they agree with his initial premise.

Are software developers more valuable to companies than money?


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are Software Developers Really More Valuable To Companies Than Money? More

Are Software Developers Really More Valuable To Companies Than Money?

Comments Filter:

  • Ran out of news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by balsy2001 ( 941953 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @05:37PM (#57277400)
    Apparently we are just recycling stories that were posted a few days ago.

    • Apparently we are just recycling stories that were posted a few days ago.

      Perhaps content is more valuable to /. than editors.

      On the other hand, recycling is very environmentally conscious.

    • You must be new here, dupes are a time-honored slashdot bug. er, feature.

  • IF they were valuable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @05:37PM (#57277404) Journal

    If they were valuable they would not be outsourced to India and be the first ones laid off when a recession starts. All other departments get untouched. Manufacturing and IT always get gutted first and get the least respect of any department as we are an annoying cost getting in the way of the CEO's bonus.

    At least that is my experience which maybe tainted from the oil and gas industry a little bit.

    • Click bate sir, just bate...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      My impression is that the outsourcing etc. has resulted in many bad solutions that are expensive to fix or replace. Programmer != Programmer. You can't equate programmers because they have different talents and some are more talented than others.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sometimes, it's the way projects are managed. In the old days of programming, you had a specification for each software component which covered exactly how it was supposed to work. It was be the responsibility of one programmer to get all of that done in one task. These days, that specification is split up into about a dozen Jira tasks, prioritized by how whether they will look good for demo day and how quickly they can be done in order to fit inside one sprint.

        Something like a customizable splash screen th

    • My employer and I have established exactly how much money I'm worth to them per year. It's a silly premise to begin with.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        You have no idea. The bosses only give a crap about how much you are worth on one side of the payment equation. Are they paying you less than the profit you are generating, that is all. How much less, they can pay you, BONUS.

        You want to earn money as a developer, learn different language skills, how to shamelessly lie, verbal emotional manipulation, learn to listen to other people's ideas to steal them, finding the right staff, how to pay them as little as possible, the language of IPOs, and accepting you

    • Most software developers have college degrees or at least equivalent amount of experience. The work required for successful development projects, actually needs such levels of education/experience.
      Most businesses need workers, but not too much in terms of highly trained specialists. So the businesses just don't know how to handle Software Developers. Either they just treat them like their normal work staff. Where they are micromanaged and just hindered from creating and thinking, thus paying them and not

      • Re:If used corectly. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @08:02PM (#57277848) Journal

        At the end of the day the bad managers always keep their jobs during a downsizing. There jobs are off the table.

        A successful gas company which I will not name here has 75% of all employees managers at their corporate office. Many have just 1 to 2 people in their so called "teams".

        Everyone else got laid off and this company is still struggling to remain competitive when half the workforce sits in meetings and gets paid $150K a year to tell their 1 employee what to do!

        Yes they wanted me as an outsourced contractor as I was dispensable. But not the managers where 2/3s of the staff left just sit in meetings of course.

    • The bottom line, assuming software isn't the product of said company isn't software, there's generally a diminishing return on software development. Generally the developers are going to automate, and add a snappy interface to supercharge every other department, lessen their workload maximize time efficiency etc... In a few months a developer or small team of developers can easily create the productivity increases of 50x as many employees. But after that initial push, he's just maintaining, adding small ba

      • Any large organization or even a medium one has many many business processes. The problem is people think of technology they think of the guy plugging in desktop computers and calling when one breaks.

        They don't understand the value of software and automation. Some big ones do, other big ones get leaders and executives more concerned with cutting costs to boast the shareprice and don't give a shit about anyone else but their personal bonuses. Other organizations are clueless and think great ideas only come f

    • Re: IF they were valuable (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      MBAs (The executives all seem to have MBAs...) are taught to see and believe IT as only a cost center, even if said IT is the backbone of the company and the money and profits it makes in the first place. Also, the IT staff tend to be kind of smart, so are a bit of a percieved threat for perhaps calling out their supposed superiors for stupid decisions they might make, for their potential of mucking up said IT systems, etc.
      Decisions that are often good for the executive suite (bonuses) and shareholders (bec

    • This.

      I'm retired from Mobil Oil. I went from systems analyst to senior network engineer.

      We had great expense accounts, travel, nice perks.

      Then they bought Montgomery Ward, Went self-insured and sold insurance, got into real estate and built Reston, Va. ... all kinds of wacky shit out of their wheelhouse.

      The problem was cash-on-hand that shareholders wanted them to use to get more money.

      The first thing Mobil did, right before going under, was "right-sizing" (downsizing).

      Great way to instantly decrease spendi

    • For years, when I was asked to describe my job (web application dev) I replied that I was, pretty much, a high tech carpenter. I built things and once those things were built, I was seeking the next thing to build because the people who employed me to build things did not tend to keep me to maintain them.

      Enter India, Bangladesh and China and I found that when I was bidding on projects, I was doing so against a foreign ignoramus who would bid 1/4 of what I was quoting. What made that situation more galli
    • All IT is not created equal. There are IT workers in call centers - this work is easily outsourced. There are simpler, "maintenance" type IT tasks programmers perform - this work is also fairly easily outsourced these days. Then there is high-impact, design level IT work. This work requires a high level of business knowledge AND strong developer skills. These are the workers companies are competing for because they're in short supply - it's simply a rare individual that has a high level of proficiency

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bronney ( 638318 )

      It's not that they aren't valuable but as you said they are replaceable, by India. And it's not respect it's just money. The ones that doesn't get laid off during recessions are the ones that holds business relationships and the ones that sell the products to the relationships. When the recession ends, you still need the same relationships. But at that time it also won't be hard to re-hire the worker ants. Laying off the ones with the connections would make re-building way harder in the same time-frame

  • Try this simple test. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08, 2018 @05:50PM (#57277448)

    Place a software developer and a box of money on the ground, and see which one I grab and run off with.

    • ^ This guy's a CIO. ^

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Place a software developer and a box of money on the ground, and see which one I grab and run off with.

      Depends - am I married to the software developer and is someone watching our kids for the weekend?

  • No where does it say that companies think developers are more important than money.

    The results state that the companies perceive the risk of not being able to find skills as higher than the risks of not being able to access capital.

    This is especially true if you're a cash rich organisation.

    In the current financial climate finding returns on your investments is hard. Interest rates are at historically low levels, bond returns are zero, and so that leaves higher risk investments to get returns. That effective

  • Obviously. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OldMugwump ( 4760237 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @06:03PM (#57277498) Homepage
    Given that companies routinely give away money (in salaries) to hire developers, obviously they'd prefer to have the developers. Of course, you can say the same about every employee in every job - the employer prefers to have the staff member rather than they money they pay them.

    • I think is suppose to mean that companies wan't software developers more then the measurable amount they pay back to the company.

      Typically for a Software Company, if the product they are making and selling brings in more revenue then the cost to pay the developers, then they are worth the expense.
      In other sectors, The cost of a developer should be less then it would be to buy and pay for a support contract from such company listed above.

      Those are the typical measure of value.
      However I think most of these co

  • Budgets? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Cynical Critic ( 1294574 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @06:04PM (#57277502)
    The plain sense answer is just one of "No" for the very simple reason that companies have limited resources and have to get as much work done with what they have. There simply is no such thing as a manager who doesn't have to consider money when deciding who to hire and fire the same way they have to consider money when considering other things that can cost or save them money.

    When you consider that, managers who are actually trying to do their jobs and looking out for the interests of their employer will obviously try to maximize what they can achieve with their allotted budgets. This is the fundamental reason why so many companies are going for H1B workers and avoiding over-qualified workers

    • For the bean counters this makes sense. However if you are to dig further, you will find a skilled over-qualified worker can be 5x more effective then hiring some guy who says they know technology.
      I recently did a skill assessment for a job interview. The questions were so simple that I took more time trying to make sure they weren't trick questions. I have over 20+ years experience in the area. So such questions are no problem, however having given similar assessments in the past, I see so many jr. devel

      • If there really are 5x improvements to be had to the efficiency of a particular task, then those should be something any qualified person will know or figure out. Hence I'm highly skeptical of your claim.

        As for the tests that a lot of tech jobs put workers trough, those are there to easily weed out the truly incompetent applicants with minimum effort from the people in charge of the recruitment. After you pass those you then get to the real assessment of your suitability to for the job and it gets a bit

        • You assume the manager is technical at all and the Finance folks who set the budgets out are aware of this. Hint, they are not.

          The silly tests show basically that this potential employer is out in the mud panning for that one diamond by underpaying for the position and requiring years of experience rather than particular skillsets for the job. Another annoying problem.

          As stated by another Slashdotter here other jobs in like HR or accounting all the workers are the same as there is little productivity differ

          • In my experience the managers who decide which applicant(s) they're going hire are the technical managers and thus are the ones that understand the actual job the best. The involvement of HR or recruiters is mostly to put up the job listings and help narrow down the applicant pool so that managers can still spend most of their time actually working on the product(s) while recruitment is going on.

            Oh and before you ask, I've interviewed for everything from dozen person startups to 10k+ employee multination

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DarenN ( 411219 )

            there is little productivity difference between a jr accountant with 3 years experience vs senior accountant with 10 years experience

            That's exactly the same as someone telling you there's no difference between a programmer with 3 vs 10 years experience. You build experience over time and a 10 year experienced accountant is likely be to be able to pick up something new in their domain much quicker than a 3 year experienced one.

            The problem for me is not Finance, it's management not understanding the value that people bring and looking at everything as a cost. The company's annual budget is (or should be) a give and take between inputs and

  • Article Lacks Basic Economic Reasoning Ability... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brian.stinar ( 1104135 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @06:22PM (#57277550) Homepage

    Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.

    I do actually think I have something else to add, besides a basic criticism of click-bait titles.

    As someone that owns a software company [noventum.us], my company provides services that typically either replace, or supplement, internal development skills. We step in and work for our clients for a number of reasons. One reason is when an organization relies on custom software, but cannot manage the development process, typically through the work of a talented, previous, employee that has since left the company where no one in management had any idea of what they actually did, but they rely on it. Another common reason is that the clients cannot actually pay for a W2 employee to do the work. We are able to charge at least 2x as much as an employee, but since we need to work half the time (either through efficiencies, or because they simply do not have full time work available), this is typically a cost savings. Usually, there is some combination of lack of development/management skill, and cost savings, which is why it makes sense to "outsource" to a U.S. based company, as opposed to developing software skills in-house.

    So, I feel push back on price when selling sometimes. Often times, organizations will simply leave a position empty than pay the 2-3x contractor rates needed to fill these positions, immediately, with me and my team. For those people, developers are NOT worth more than 2-3x an employee rate. They ARE worth the somewhat inflexible price range their HR department is looking to fill people into.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee.

      Not by definition, no, because no employer has perfect knowledge of the actual value of an employee to their company -- particularly not at the moment they decide to hire that employee. Every new hire is something of a gamble over whether and when the employee will actually yield the quality and quantity of product that the employer predicts they will.

    • Re:Article Lacks Basic Economic Reasoning Ability. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday September 08, 2018 @07:22PM (#57277754) Homepage

      Software developers are, by definition, more valuable than the money a company pays to employ them. This is also true of any employee. Unfortunately, the author of the article seems to not be aware of this basic economic trade-off. Someone that pays money for something values that thing more than then money they paid for it. This is probably the most fundamental principle of basic economic exchange.

      It's true in a theoretical world. In the real world, it's not really your manager's money but the company's money. Many people are employed despite their sub-par performance because termination processes are nasty. Termination processes reduce headcount you may not get back. Termination processes may cause employees that actually perform above their pay grade to seek other work. Replacing a hire causes new recruitment costs for a replacement that may not be better than what you had. And even if they are, you've sunk a lot of training cost into the employee you have. If you don't know a mediocre employee that strictly speaking should have been fired but just isn't that horrible, you're not looking very hard or you're it. Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.

      • It depends on the industry.

        I got termed and it hurt my career because of this perception. It was a call center like environment where a new manager came in and fired 7 of us within the first week to make his numbers look good. I was fired because my call volume was 2.6 cases per day and not 2.9 and I was only 3 months in.

        I exceeded my average the last month as I got used to the job and got better at it. However, he averaged training where i didn't take calls. So all the new guys were fired for being incompe

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Honestly if you're terminated for a non-downsizing reason - and I'm including outsourcing in that - you've probably been a rather dreadful employee.

        There are companies that outsource their entire software development department. Nobody but the execs have any control over that.

        Besides, if you want to blame any single employee for outsourcing, why aren't you doing that for downsizing? They could've given 10000% and propped the company up even in a recession.

  • The goal of any company is to make money. They may restrict or target their approach, but the bottom line is... well... the bottom line. The headline is "semantic bullshit". Does it mean "Devs are more valuable than a cash stack of cash"? or does it mean "Devs are more valuable than the income they can produce"?

    For the former: Absolutely. As is every class of employee. That's the entire purpose of employees: to generate more income than it costs to employ them. (The only source of income for a compa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      The only value of a company is money. Absolutely every other "thing of value" is given its value according to it's potential to bring in money or save money.

      That's a common way to run a company, but certainly not the only way. Companies can also be formed as part of an effort to accomplish other (non-monetary) goals, with making money seen as merely a means towards reaching those goals. (e.g. SpaceX and colonizing Mars)

      • Every company has a goal. It may be teaching kids, providing entertainment, or reaching Mars.

        Goals require resources. Resources are purchased with money. If an asset does not bring in money--or provide access to others who bring in money, or preserve (or reduce loss of) assets--then they are a liability. A liability reduces the chance of a company reaching its goal.

        You can't "go to Mars" without money. A lot of money. SpaceX isn't going to hire people who "sit around an dream of going to Mars".
  • My lawn mower does NOT need blue tooth!

  • I wish they felt the same about systems engineers.

    Some I've worked with recognize the value, and treat you accordingly -- or at least they pretend, which is almost as good.

    But most? To most, IT is a drag, not an asset.

  • Um ... money is a medium of exchange. It's not worth anything in itself.

    And companies invest money in programmers, in the hopes of making more money than they invested. But only so they can trade that money for other stuff.

    So your question is oddly nonsensical. Like asking "is thirst more valuable than sideways" or something.

  • Money is just a tool for the people.

  • How valuable is money?

    A penny is money. I think most developers are worth more than a penny. A hundred dollar bill is money and I think most developers are worth more than a hundred dollar bill. A bank account containing a billion dollars is NOT money, although the bank will be willing to give you lots of money in exchange for decrementing the number in their computer.

    The whole question "is X more valuable than money" is utter nonsense. What are you measuring the value of X in if not units of money?

    The topi

  • Owners/Lenders/Shareholders/Managers/Customers

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close