The Workplace Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for members of the workforce navigating the professional setting. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
My team is meeting later this work to discuss how to build a new component for our software system to handle a new business problem we are facing.
I don't believe this new component is required and want to explore an alternative solution. The decision to build this component was taken at a meeting I wasn't present for nor invited to.
Is sending an email with a different proposal ahead of that meeting appropriate or should I wait and bring it up in the meeting instead?
The decision to build this component was taken at a meeting I wasn't present for nor invited to.
Seems, for some reason (completely legit or absolutely bogus - either way) someone thinks it's out of your jurisdiction to comment / decide / chime in about the decision.
If you are now invited to the follow up meeting, and you have your reasons to believe there's significant drawback to the currently proposed approach and you have a better / alternate solution, then based on the scenario, do the following:
If your points have merits, the decision makers will get back to you to know more.
Either way, keep in mind: the point is not to oppose the current idea, rather present an idea which has more positives over the existing one.
Engineering is always an evolving discipline. By that I mean the correct time to raise an issue or flaw with a plan, in engineering, is always "right now", because the sooner the problem is raised, the sooner it can be fixed.
Aside from the obvious reason that if your suggestion is actually better then you'll waste time thinking about a subpar solution, the other issue is that perhaps it is you who is missing context on this application you're being asked to build. If you walk into a meeting and you spend a bunch of time outlining another possible solution that solves X problem much better than the proposed solution, but then someone comes out and asks "how about Y?", when you didn't even know Y was a thing you needed to think about, then you're going to look really silly and waste everyone's time.
So here's what you should do: Whoever is in charge of spearheading this new feature, send them (and only them) an email asking for more details about this new assignment, and mention you have another idea and ask for feedback on that idea. Don't assertively say your idea is better or whatever, because you may not have all the facts. Simply send your idea and ask what they think of it. They may come back and say "oh, we also need to solve Y", and maybe your solution doesn't solve Y, in which case you've just saved yourself a whole bunch of time, hassle, and embarrassment versus bringing it up in the meeting.
Is sending an email with a different proposal ahead of that meeting appropriate or should I wait and bring it up in the meeting instead?
Both are inappropriate.
The decision was already made to build a new component, and the new meeting is to decide how.
Don't hijack that meeting. Instead, speak offline before the meeting with product and the business.
If they still decide that a component must be built, either contribute to the "how" meeting with ideas about how to build it, or (if you can't just contribute to moving forward) skip the meeting altogether.
Here's what to do. Use the concept of nemawashi.
Via a set of 1-1 discussions, find out
You can do this under color of "getting more context." Then if you still think you have a better solution,
Make sure the "why" it's better is something those decisionmakers care about (hint: "it's more work for engineering" they don't care about. "I can get the same benefit more cheaply or more quickly" they do.)
You might send out an email with details prior to the meeting but only after you feel like you've gotten input from all the primary contributors. It's not clear to me if the meeting you're asking about is just engineers, or engineers and product or whatnot - if it's just engineers, you can use it to vet your alternate solution in the group prior to trying to float it back up the chain. If it's more than that, you need to lay the groundwork before the meeting.
If you want to reverse the decision to add function X, arguing against it on the basis of "not needed" may be hard, as someone has already assessed this and may be invested in sticking with the decision. Questioning their judgment of need can provoke them to fight harder to defend keeping X.
The more practical approach may be to explain that the cost will be exorbitant, AND will as a direct consequence result in other important things Y and Z being sacrificed. (be prepared for the counterargument of "let's build a really minimal low quality version of X").
Ideally, after discussion of cost increase, someone else will then step in and ask whether "we can get by without X". If you take the in-meeting route, that might be something to arrange for ahead of time.
Also, even if you don't get your way, try to get yourself invited to future meetings like the one you weren't at, "to avoid cost/time surprises".
