But at what cost

This post is part 2 of an earlier post about team resource allocation.   I write a lot about the hidden costs of decisions and are we making the best use of our time.   It feels like too often, we are looking for simple solutions rather than effective solutions.  And think this covers one of those.  Read on.....

I saw someone post a message about ownership:  When something breaks, even if it’s not technically "yours" step in.

I know it is well meant.  As managers, we certainly want to make the best use of our teams time. And we certainly do not want individuals blocked, waiting.  But I also think the people who promote "ownership" miss out on the costs of having someone just step up.

Wether we intend it or not, team members do specialize--some have more indepth knowledge of certain parts of the product.  And these individuals end up having a broader vision and deeper understanding of those areas.  When someone just "steps in", they do not start with that understanding.  They may come up with a "fix" but it is fiting the vision and not encurring technical debt.  It's not their fault.  It might seem right.  The tests even passed!   But truth is they were really focused on getting their solution delivered and in encountering a problem found a way to keep themselves on track.  They have their own commitments and this will affect the effort put into creating a solution.

Some will want to jump in and say "that's what code reviews are for".  Nice try.  If that was really the case, I think we would have a lot less technical debt.  Code reviews are helpful, but let's be sincere in recongizing what value it provides.

Likewise, someone truly may be afraid of touching that part the system.  Maybe it's known to be fragile.  Maybe there some past experience that makes someone not want to "step in".   What's the cost of forcing someone into this scenerio?  I think this is another blog post in itself!  

I do believe that sometimes it's just best to say "so and so is the right person to address that".  I think that is the appropriate use of "ownership".

I would like to hear your thoughts.