Facing demands to rush system maintenance fixes from above, are you willing to compromise quality for speed?

Speed without quality is a "Vicious Cycle". It's just like inviting "Wicked Problem" according to Software Engineering. Please beware of time illusion as this fire-fighting would lead to rework, revise estimations and pushing product cost to 200%. We do acknowledge these facts, empirically & quantitatively, so lets play professionally. I have a 2 liner story: [Quality vs Speed] A student prepares for a Physics Test. Luckily he prepares the whole chapter in 30 minutes but scores 3/10 marks, the very Next Day. Kudos

striking the right balance between speed and quality is not just important, it's essential for long-term success. If we prioritize speed over quality, we run the risk of deploying solutions that may not have undergone thorough validation or testing. This can lead to unforeseen issues, requiring additional resources to fix problems that could have been avoided. Conversely, focusing solely on quality without considering the need for timely delivery can result in missed opportunities and delayed project timelines. This careful balancing act is what ensures sustainable progress and consistent delivery of high-quality outcomes.

It depends upon the type of maintenance task, is it related to vulnerability management, zero-day support, health or sanity check, or any major security related maintenance. 1. Nothing can be rushed upon, unless thorough testing has been performed as per the severity. 2. Here comes the expertise of highly skilled and experienced resources, who are well-versed in managing any exigency. 3. There shouldn't be any temp solution implemented as it will have its repercussions. 4. Crystal and effective communication should be in place with Stakeholders, Security, Leadership and other concerned teams. 5. Critical Incident Management plays a vital role in managing the requirement effectively and opening a bridge to bring required teams together.

En mi opinión, en un caso de contingencia es fundamental priorizar la velocidad para restablecer los sistemas lo más pronto posible. En un negocio de gran envergadura, cuyo núcleo depende al 100% de los sistemas de información, como una entidad financiera o una casa de apuestas que maneja millones de transacciones por minuto, la rapidez es clave. Sin embargo, una vez que la contingencia ha sido atendida de manera inmediata, es imprescindible realizar una pausa programada para corregir posibles errores y prevenir problemas futuros, momento en el que entra en juego la calidad.

Quality compromise proves more costly in the longer run. So if maintenance is urgent try to negotiate on prioritisation of other features. Or buy necessary time to build with quality amid maintenance.

If you want me to train your AI by answering these questions, you can pay me for it. Interestingly, I have to write at least 125 characters of drivel in order to get my sugar lump.

There is alway pressure to resolve a production issue quickly, as it is costing your business time and money. Rushing to fix an issue means you are cutting corners in understand the issue and the consequences of any solution devised, which will leave you with a risk of not solving it correctly the first time and having to redo work in the future.

It's wrong to oppose quality to speed. There will always be a problem to fix, and if it takes too long to solve it in a proper way, it means that the system has a quality problem. So, when you make a software with quality embedded it does not only implies that there should not be any major problem, it also means that in case a bug is detected it can be fixed in time without compromising the quality of the overall system.

One day in the morning, I was alerted to a critical issue in our data management system. Before taking action, I evaluated the potential impact of quick fixes. I identified three key factors: 1. Impact on Functionality: A rapid solution could compromise other essential features. 2. Security: Quick fixes might introduce vulnerabilities. 3. Long-Term Costs: Hastily implemented changes could lead to future expenses. After consulting with stakeholders, we decided on a temporary solution to minimize impact while planning a thorough review. This day highlighted the importance of risk assessment in ensuring the security and long-term performance of IT systems.

Proceso sistemático para identificar, analizar y priorizar riesgos potenciales que podrían afectar el desarrollo de software. Método, podría realizar los siguientes puntos: 1.Identificación de riesgos 2. Análisis de riesgos 3. Priorización de riesgos 4. Asignación de propietarios de riesgos 5. Planes de mitigación 6. _Monitoreo La evaluación de riesgos es un proceso continuo que debe adaptarse a medida que evoluciona el proyecto.

Risk assessment start with honesty and accuracy, never favorism to beat competition. Truly assess the long-term risk before making a fast patch to save time. Quick temporary fixes always cause more headache, more monetary damage, and more importantly reputation damage. Always risk assess the root of the problem, never the symptoms. Once the root is fixed, observe the symptoms disappear. Many companies hire the wrong talent which eventually becomes their bankruptcy reason. Latest example: Latest trend is AI hiring (full of Risk), it's the worst thing ever because it never connects the 2 parties.

La comunicación es fundamental en la gestión tecnológica para garantizar que todos estén informados y alineados. Algunos puntos claves para una comunicación efectiva: 1. Claridad 2. Relevancia 3. Canal adecuado 4. Escucha activa 5. Colaboración 6. Documentación La comunicación efectiva es un proceso bidireccional que requiere esfuerzo y objetivos comunes.

### Stakeholder Communication: My Perspective As an IT Service Manager, I often find myself juggling urgent requests like a circus performer. When management demands speed, I channel my inner comedian to lighten the mood. I tell them, “Rushing fixes is like trying to microwave a gourmet meal—it might look done, but you’ll regret it later!” I emphasize that quality maintenance is crucial for smooth operations. I use analogies, like comparing our system to a well-tuned car; if we skip the oil change, we’re in for a breakdown! By setting realistic expectations and sprinkling in humor, I help stakeholders grasp the importance of quality over speed, ensuring we don’t end up with a “mole party” of issues later on. Clear communication is key!

Communication should always be honest and clear. Whether Stakeholder or Stockholder, Investor or Owner, Vendor or Customer... giving a sense of honest details that drive long-term success is always the best result over short-term fast fix that results in long-term damages. Be honest, open, and straight-forward, and line out all the pro's and con's... let the stakeholders confirm the decision you already made.

Effective stakeholder communication is crucial when balancing speed and quality. It’s important to clearly explain the risks of prioritizing fast fixes over long-term stability. Emphasizing how a well-maintained system supports business goals can help set realistic expectations. Open, transparent dialogue allows stakeholders to understand the trade-offs and the potential impact of rushed decisions, ensuring informed choices that prioritize both quality and sustainability.

1. Priorize Correções Críticas: Foque primeiro nas falhas que têm maior impacto; 2. Implemente Soluções Temporárias: pode ser necessário tal solução. Isso deve ser seguido por uma definitiva; 3. Automatize Testes: Utilize testes automatizados para que as mudanças não sejam novos problemas; 4. Documentação Clara: Mantenha a documentação atualizada, com transparência; 5. Equipe Colaborativa: Mantenha uma comunicação clara entre as equipes; 6. Realize Revisões Pós-Implementação: para identificar pontos de melhoria e garantir que as soluções temporárias sejam substituídas; 7. Gerenciamento de Riscos: Avalie os riscos envolvidos. Identifique o que pode ser comprometido e tome decisões informadas sobre o que é aceitável no curto prazo.

When it comes to repetitive task and/or simple basic routine, stick to the entirety of best practices. It is there to wet out any problem early on. When it comes to inventions, researches, and unprecedented territory, avoid best practices, because no one has been there except you. There try anything and everything to form new protocols which then become best practices for others when they get there.

Recommended practices: Agile Development: Deliver features incrementally, ensuring each iteration is tested and meets quality standards. Prioritize Key Features: Delivering the most important features first with high quality, while less critical features can be developed at a faster pace. Technical Debt Management: Address technical debt incrementally to avoid long-term problems without sacrificing immediate speed. MVP Approach: Release a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) to gather feedback quickly, then improve quality iteratively based on user input. Stakeholder Communication: Maintain clear communication with stakeholders about the trade-offs between speed and quality to set realistic expectations.

As an Engineer, the mark of the BEST, is when what you design never breaks down. What you design always works and becomes robust and reliable. That is your identity. Management is there to manage you (they only understand $$), but you are the Engineer... you are there to persuade management what they don't understand. Whenever the system, or management breaks down, company is doomed to bankruptcy. In short, no quick fixes should ever be considered that has a short term life. Only more sturdy fixes shall be implemented with less future maintenance required. More than $$, it's about service and less dissatisfaction in future.

It’s a no-brainer to sacrifice quality with speed simply because of its long run cost consequences. If speed is more important than quality, top management should state that early on or at the start of the project so that quality is not substantially sacrificed and appropriate technical interventions are undertaken.