By the same logic, canceling the project to focus on others is a success story. If the expectation is that employees are more than cogs in a machine and are expected to solve real problems, both the author and company have problems.
Washing your hands of a problem, especially when you’ve been empowered to create a solution, doesn’t solve anyone’s problems.
The article actually said they were empowered by management to act as the Architecture Board.
Had they come up with an actual workable solution, I seriously doubt it would be career limiting. In the context of the article, that statement was made about not fixing the problem but just saying it couldn't be done. Not finding a solution is what is career limiting.
Circling back to what you originally commented about on, i could have just told them the software they bet on was crap. I would be right, but it would have been “career limiting.” If you can actually focus your energy on a solution, maybe you won’t get the ego boost by showing everyone how right you are, but you can move the ball forward in a meaningful way.
I do think it's telling that the author viewed being given authority as a subversive act. That sounds much more like somebody who's interested in pointing fingers than taking responsibility to solve problems.
Do you think they would be blamed if they had actually come up with a solution?
The “message” was just stating a problem, not offering a solution. That’s the point.
They apparently thought they role was simply to uncover the problem, not figure out a way to solve it, despite being given the authority to do so. In general, people who just point to problems aren’t very well received in either business or personal life.
> we further suggested that there was probably work we had not discovered. Finally, *we made our primary recommendation*, which was to slip the project 12 months to cover the newly-discovered work, and provide margin for any additional remaining work.
Are you implying they offered more to solve the problem? Being generous and conceding maybe that was the case, why don’t you think that fixed anything?
Just asking for more time or more people isn’t really a solution. Maybe it can be part of the solution but it should rarely be the primary fix. They already said they had over 200 people on the team, so I would expect some pushback on saying they continually need more resources. It’s like asking for more inventory to cover up quality control issues. It only shows a superficial understanding of the problem.
While the author moved on and had more success.
Who exactly had the problem?