These cartoons are supposed to be jokes, right? The author keeps churning out documentary evidence. Only the button part can pass for a joke. I hope at least that's not been done before.
Satire at its worst and best at the same time. The way I have seen this work in the wild:
A mobile application had been developed to bring to users functionality that was otherwise not available with the main web application. The driving idea was decent enough and the value objectively existed.
However, the application had a few critical flaws. I.e. it kept losing user data. Doesn't get more critical than that. I had put forward a few scenarios regarding why this may be happening. They said they haven't really tested these possibilities, which didn't come as a big surprise.
It was past my job description to perform said tests. There was no related logging to speak of. I didn't have access to devices on which this was happening. I had declared my work to be done: data unrecoverable, issue not reproducable even if inevitable.
The application development cylce went the way of the dodo. The application never got out of the user testing process.
A few years down the line, the project had been rebooted. There was genuine need for the functionality it (should have) brought and there was interest for it on the market.
The application was being built from scratch*. It kept being announced up the wazoo. People were talking about it and asking for the delivery date. Which kept being slated, of course. I didn't lose any sleep over it, due to obvious reasons.
The release finally had hit users. Complaints had started pouring in. The application looked different than the one from the previous iteration. Some new functionality was present.
As the pressure was building up, my manager asked me pretty please to get involved. One of my many shortcomings is that I can not ignore courteous people, even when the situation reeks of pointlessness.
I talked to the lead developer about the project, just to get a general feel about the application. And, more importantly, to get my residual bias out of the way.
The fella point blank states that the new mobile application is essentially 90% the same as the previous iteration. And of course the critical flaw was still present. I passed.
Trust my MBA!
Trust the plan!
1. Remove features.
2. Make the previous standalone application now require a subscription to work
3. Add AI
4. Increase memory and CPU requirements
5. Say "new and improved"
6. Profit!
Trust me bro, it worked before every single time!!!
These cartoons are supposed to be jokes, right? The author keeps churning out documentary evidence. Only the button part can pass for a joke. I hope at least that's not been done before.
Satire at its worst and best at the same time. The way I have seen this work in the wild:
A mobile application had been developed to bring to users functionality that was otherwise not available with the main web application. The driving idea was decent enough and the value objectively existed.
However, the application had a few critical flaws. I.e. it kept losing user data. Doesn't get more critical than that. I had put forward a few scenarios regarding why this may be happening. They said they haven't really tested these possibilities, which didn't come as a big surprise.
It was past my job description to perform said tests. There was no related logging to speak of. I didn't have access to devices on which this was happening. I had declared my work to be done: data unrecoverable, issue not reproducable even if inevitable.
The application development cylce went the way of the dodo. The application never got out of the user testing process.
A few years down the line, the project had been rebooted. There was genuine need for the functionality it (should have) brought and there was interest for it on the market.
The application was being built from scratch*. It kept being announced up the wazoo. People were talking about it and asking for the delivery date. Which kept being slated, of course. I didn't lose any sleep over it, due to obvious reasons.
The release finally had hit users. Complaints had started pouring in. The application looked different than the one from the previous iteration. Some new functionality was present.
As the pressure was building up, my manager asked me pretty please to get involved. One of my many shortcomings is that I can not ignore courteous people, even when the situation reeks of pointlessness.
I talked to the lead developer about the project, just to get a general feel about the application. And, more importantly, to get my residual bias out of the way.
The fella point blank states that the new mobile application is essentially 90% the same as the previous iteration. And of course the critical flaw was still present. I passed.
Sisyphus really started to get with the program when we repainted his rock a happier shade of blue!