I agree with you in spirit. The worst place I ever worked had managers like this in spades (not sure if they had any other kind).
But if we're honest with ourselves I think we have to admit that this is our fault. Why does the pointy haired boss even know about the "quick & dirty solution"? We always talk about how much better other engineering disciplines are, "you don't see bridges falling over every time someone makes a new model of car!" we say, but why is this? It's at least partially because no engineer offers a "quick & dirty" option for making bridges. They never say "well, we could use this material and skip all these steps to get done in 1/10th of the time for 1/5th of the cost but it's probably going to fall over" [1].
This is the key point. Of course for bridges purchasers are going to want the cheapest and fastest thing they can get. They aren't given an incomplete solution as an option so that's why they don't ask for it. If we want things to change in our industry we have to do what the GP suggested. Don't mention non-solutions, aren't you an engineer (at least partially, I know many of us think of ourselves as artists)? In fact, if a manager says "lets just do this quick & dirty" you should take that to mean that they still want a completely correct solution that just doesn't address some of the requirements (e.g. "handle email quick and dirty" might mean leaving out SSL).
>What if you are told directly to do it "quick & dirty," and you refuse?
This is the place where they shouldn't know this term. It shouldn't exist. No one asks a bridge builder for "quick & dirty" they ask for cheaper & faster. So the bridge maker considers all the possibilities that still leave a completely working bridge and answers based on that.
The bridge builder recognizes that no one is asking him what is the cheapest/fastest way to possibly make something that looks like a bridge. What good would that do anyone? We also need to understand that no one is asking us for what we mean by "quick & dirty". Are they going to expect it to fail 70% of the time? No? Then what they're actually asking for is a correct solution but they want it fast, cheap and without unnecessary frills.
[1] I have no doubt that some joker will find an example on the internet of exactly that happening. When you do, understand that you've found the exception that proves the rule, not that refutes the point.
But if we're honest with ourselves I think we have to admit that this is our fault. Why does the pointy haired boss even know about the "quick & dirty solution"? We always talk about how much better other engineering disciplines are, "you don't see bridges falling over every time someone makes a new model of car!" we say, but why is this? It's at least partially because no engineer offers a "quick & dirty" option for making bridges. They never say "well, we could use this material and skip all these steps to get done in 1/10th of the time for 1/5th of the cost but it's probably going to fall over" [1].
This is the key point. Of course for bridges purchasers are going to want the cheapest and fastest thing they can get. They aren't given an incomplete solution as an option so that's why they don't ask for it. If we want things to change in our industry we have to do what the GP suggested. Don't mention non-solutions, aren't you an engineer (at least partially, I know many of us think of ourselves as artists)? In fact, if a manager says "lets just do this quick & dirty" you should take that to mean that they still want a completely correct solution that just doesn't address some of the requirements (e.g. "handle email quick and dirty" might mean leaving out SSL).
>What if you are told directly to do it "quick & dirty," and you refuse?
This is the place where they shouldn't know this term. It shouldn't exist. No one asks a bridge builder for "quick & dirty" they ask for cheaper & faster. So the bridge maker considers all the possibilities that still leave a completely working bridge and answers based on that.
The bridge builder recognizes that no one is asking him what is the cheapest/fastest way to possibly make something that looks like a bridge. What good would that do anyone? We also need to understand that no one is asking us for what we mean by "quick & dirty". Are they going to expect it to fail 70% of the time? No? Then what they're actually asking for is a correct solution but they want it fast, cheap and without unnecessary frills.
[1] I have no doubt that some joker will find an example on the internet of exactly that happening. When you do, understand that you've found the exception that proves the rule, not that refutes the point.