Comment by mattgreenrocks
10 years ago
This is why I only work for engineering-driven organizations. If I'm going to be slogging through things, then I want the work to be interesting, challenging, and I need to know my opinion will be heard and respected. I know my peers are reasonably high caliber, and will not compromise quality.
These qualities are extremely counter to a lot of corporate jobs, where development is a cost that should be cut, there's never enough time for anything (because, business!), and the work is CRUD-driven.
Any job or work can eventually become frustrating. That's why its called a "job" or something your "work" for. Even if you work for the greatest company in the work with the best engineering driven "culture", there will be something that will hinder you due to business.
The only place I knew which didn't have any business pressure was the old Bell Labs. That's because of the AT&T was a monopoly and was allow a profit of 7%. That meant any expense can instantly be justified because no matter what AT&T would earn 7%.
End of the day, engineering is about compromises and tradeoffs. It's applied science. It's about being practical and sometimes that means we need to compromise on "quality". That's what makes good engineering culture. A product that ships and makes money is infinitely better than a product that doesn't ship. So, I don't think it's right to assume that the corporate approach is incorrect. In fact, it is better simply because once you get business involved, a lot of the decisions become impersonal.
You probably know this already but for the youngins ... such places (such as the old Bell Labs) don't exist anymore. Research labs have gotten a lot more stressful over the years. Simple problem of having to justify their existence, and aligning with the products of their sponsor company.
When I try to explain to loved ones that research is a dying career path (which I sadly invested in by getting a PhD), I get pep talks saying that I should be more optimistic :-p