The issue that seems to be overlooked here is the objective value of solving the problem itself. Instead it focuses on the developers and their rewards.
A does a thing, it takes a long time, solves the problem and he becomes System Analyst.
C does a thing, it's shorter in both time and effort, and he leaves the company a year later.
What about the value produced by the solution?
It's clear that if a single (inexperienced and poorly communicative) developer can produce a satisfactory solution in a fraction of the time of a majorly architected approach then the first view (A) is overvalued.
The moral of the story seems to be something about how huffing and puffing, self-importance is rewarded over a thought out appropriate solution to the task at hand.
How about going forward in the story? A sequel-sequel?
At Automated, their unrealistic approach to planning and development, and their focus on titles and rewards led to bloated and unmaintainable software, where everyone in the company fought to make something "smart" that demonstrated their intelligence and worthiness of being rewarded - the problem specifications being nothing more than a means to achieving this.
At C, Charles either gained the experience necessary to understand the reasons for communicating efforts and planning to the rest of his management and went on to design appropriate solutions in another company, or he decided that being rewarded for his efforts was more important than solving problems and gaining domain experience and joined the above.
A does a thing, it takes a long time, solves the problem and he becomes System Analyst.
C does a thing, it's shorter in both time and effort, and he leaves the company a year later.
What about the value produced by the solution?
It's clear that if a single (inexperienced and poorly communicative) developer can produce a satisfactory solution in a fraction of the time of a majorly architected approach then the first view (A) is overvalued.
The moral of the story seems to be something about how huffing and puffing, self-importance is rewarded over a thought out appropriate solution to the task at hand.
How about going forward in the story? A sequel-sequel?
At Automated, their unrealistic approach to planning and development, and their focus on titles and rewards led to bloated and unmaintainable software, where everyone in the company fought to make something "smart" that demonstrated their intelligence and worthiness of being rewarded - the problem specifications being nothing more than a means to achieving this.
At C, Charles either gained the experience necessary to understand the reasons for communicating efforts and planning to the rest of his management and went on to design appropriate solutions in another company, or he decided that being rewarded for his efforts was more important than solving problems and gaining domain experience and joined the above.