This question already has an answer here:
I work for a consulting company that manages the project I am on. So we are more than just a placement agency that provides contractors. The project is pretty badly managed from the technical perspective. The client is pretty clueless as to what they should be getting for their money because the type of business they are in is not really business so they kind of have an endless supply of funding not subject to the vicissitudes of the marketplace, if you know what I am talking about. So there is room to slack and that, no doubt, takes place.
An example of such slack is that the current lifecycle and integration methodology is a complete train wreck that wouldn't be suitable for a 3rd world country. In such an environment, the consulting company charges the client hours for people on my team who literally manually execute build scripts (which they didn't write) and they call them fancy names like integrators but they are really just button pushers. The kind of thing that continuous integration should do. There is simply no incentive for the company to enhance the process but there are means to do it and would be the ethical thing to do.
I was hired as a developer but I instantly developed a visceral hatred for the lack of automation on my team and I submitted a proposal for how to perform a team process overhaul and institute continuous integration practices. The client should benefit greatly from the mechanism that I have designed. The consulting company that bills hours -- not so much -- because the client will realize they don't need to be paying the "integrators". So the project management doesn't really have a vested interest to enact my enhancement and they are pushing back on it. The CI I put in place literally does the jobs of our "integrators". It automatically builds the changes from source control and deploys them to an environment instance, with no human interaction. The robot does it all.
My boss and PM seem like the kind of people who are somewhere between incompetent (technically at least) and resistant of change. The kind that doesn't want to move forward because they grow comfortable in their established routine and then everything past that point is "too risky". Think of someone who will fight the idea of self-driving cars tooth and nail because they cannot shift their mind.
Now the interesting thing is that my boss's boss, who doesn't work with us directly on site, is a guy who I do respect, minus some of his hiring choices. He is smart, eloquent, and technically competent. He can really drill down into technical details despite being high in management. In short, he's a competent guy, unlike my manager and other string pullers here on site.
So I need ideas how to approach this guy and discuss my concerns for incompetence on my team. My main concern is that, the automation I have set in place (demonstrable in great detail and functional, not a prototype) benefits the customer -- not our company. I need to tell him that my manager is incompetent (there is hardly any other way to put it). I need to get this guy to talk to me. Do I call him? Email? Do I give him details in an email? Lastly but not least, how do I tell him that the ethical thing to do is to push these beautiful automation enhancements onto the client, which may eat on the company profits?