This is the dilemma with these “new” tech companies.
In the beginning, they enlist team members that can assist in making their dreams come true. This first wave is the managers that have no “formal” training, things are often completed at the 11th hour, and a whole lot of everything is thrown at the wall to see what sticks.
At this stage, documentation is never great. There are a LOT of single point failures. The system is more “get it out and get it done! Deliver promises no matter what!”. These managers and leaders are good for a couple of years, but they don’t know who to sustain.
The second wave of management and staffing are the people that know how to make a workflow run properly. They take what exists, they typically disappoint a lot of customers- They start saying “no” to people that the first wave would have never said no to.
They develop documentation. They develop QC processes. They develop a proper workflow.
They hold each other accountable to doing things right, and they caution against overpromising and underdelivering.
It’s clear that a company like Rivian is probably still in this first phase. They are, ipso facto, a multi-billion dollar company. But the fact that this issue happened means they do not have measures in place to prevent a single point failure, and somebody on the team still thinks “they can just push the update- they know it will work” at the expense of the proper workflow and using the proper channels.
Shame on them.
I suspect that within the next 4 months we will see brand new leadership within the company.
Yup. A lot of BS/reductionism in this comment section! I’ve been through this transition as a dev and manager at software startups, and it’s all about the attitude towards risk changing in org… It changes as a company/team matures and the product reaches product/market fit.
The processes (or lack thereof) that led to a mistake like this being possible likely caused little harm until now. The rapid experimentation made possible by the lack of defined process likely enabled them to get to this point, only now (or recently) has it become a liability. Adding undue process too early has killed plenty of companies too. So, I disagree with you dismissing the early team as naive/incompetent, that’s likely not fair. There are tradeoffs, and you need to re-evaluate them with growth.
You’re spot on that this necessary cultural shift generally results in the people changing. Many good managers/execs at the inception/early stage are lousy at the growth stage and vice versa. Few can excel in both environments, habits and tendencies are hard to change.
It’s kind of odd to see this play out in the auto space… given there have been so few new companies enter it. Very common transition with software companies.
This is the dilemma with these “new” tech companies.
In the beginning, they enlist team members that can assist in making their dreams come true. This first wave is the managers that have no “formal” training, things are often completed at the 11th hour, and a whole lot of everything is thrown at the wall to see what sticks.
At this stage, documentation is never great. There are a LOT of single point failures. The system is more “get it out and get it done! Deliver promises no matter what!”. These managers and leaders are good for a couple of years, but they don’t know who to sustain.
The second wave of management and staffing are the people that know how to make a workflow run properly. They take what exists, they typically disappoint a lot of customers- They start saying “no” to people that the first wave would have never said no to.
They develop documentation. They develop QC processes. They develop a proper workflow.
They hold each other accountable to doing things right, and they caution against overpromising and underdelivering.
It’s clear that a company like Rivian is probably still in this first phase. They are, ipso facto, a multi-billion dollar company. But the fact that this issue happened means they do not have measures in place to prevent a single point failure, and somebody on the team still thinks “they can just push the update- they know it will work” at the expense of the proper workflow and using the proper channels.
Shame on them.
I suspect that within the next 4 months we will see brand new leadership within the company.
Yup. A lot of BS/reductionism in this comment section! I’ve been through this transition as a dev and manager at software startups, and it’s all about the attitude towards risk changing in org… It changes as a company/team matures and the product reaches product/market fit.
The processes (or lack thereof) that led to a mistake like this being possible likely caused little harm until now. The rapid experimentation made possible by the lack of defined process likely enabled them to get to this point, only now (or recently) has it become a liability. Adding undue process too early has killed plenty of companies too. So, I disagree with you dismissing the early team as naive/incompetent, that’s likely not fair. There are tradeoffs, and you need to re-evaluate them with growth.
You’re spot on that this necessary cultural shift generally results in the people changing. Many good managers/execs at the inception/early stage are lousy at the growth stage and vice versa. Few can excel in both environments, habits and tendencies are hard to change.
It’s kind of odd to see this play out in the auto space… given there have been so few new companies enter it. Very common transition with software companies.