When the Non-Tech Person needs to pick up the wrench instead of just watching the dashboard

When the Non-Tech Person needs to pick up the wrench instead of just watching the dashboard

I have been seeing a lot of content in our Philippine ecosystem lately about Buwan ng Wikang Pambansa, with people commemorating how language shapes communication, identity, and national life.

That somehow sent me down a completely different rabbit hole yesterday.

I became curious again about one of those mandatory things we encountered in school, something that if you belong to the pre-K-12 generation, probably followed you all the way into college.

Yes, the Rizal course.

And no, this is not a Netflix or Prime Video series. Rizal gave us 2 novels, but for purposes of this journal, I am exercising my constitutional right to treat them as 2 seasons:

Season 1: _Noli Me Tangere_ Season 2: _El Filibusterismo_

The Rizal course itself is not some academic tradition somebody invented because teachers needed additional slides. Republic Act No. 1425 requires courses on Rizal's life, works, and writings, particularly these 2 novels.

Now, we are not going to start aboard the Bapor Tabo, where Doña Victorina and company are cruising along the Pasig river.

I want to talk about Elias and Crisóstomo Ibarra.

What interests me about Elias is how pragmatic he is.

Ibarra is the intellectual. He believes in reform. He wants institutions improved through a decent, organized, civilized process.

Basically the character who walks into the stand-up call or scrum meeting and asks:

Did you follow the KT methodology? Sobrang kupal diba?

Elias operates differently.

He understands Ibarra's objectives, but he has spent enough time close to the ground to know that elegant plans do not necessarily survive contact with reality. He sees structural problems that Ibarra, despite his education and good intentions, does not always experience from the same position.

The 2 characters occupy different worlds.

And now, let us move on to your tickets. Hehehe!

Do you remember the last time a first-line manager or team lead asked something like:

Hey, why has this P1 been sitting in this bucket for a week? What is going on? I do not see a situation appraisal or problem analysis in the notes.

Most organizations have some form of methodology.

Maybe it is DMAIC. Maybe Kepner-Tregoe. Maybe an internal incident-management framework with a different name.

Those processes are bureaucratic, Oo naman yes.

They are also not merely placeholders.

They helped me before, and they still help me now in developer support. The terminology may not always be verbatim, but the underlying discipline remains: understand the situation, separate facts from assumptions, identify the problem, test what you think you know, and document what happens next.

But methodology should not become an excuse for the individual contributor and the manager to enter a cockpit ring and fight to the death over who failed to follow which acronym.

That is not the point because the point is making sure both sides understand enough about how the machine moves.

During the age of AI, I think 2 excuses are becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

From management:

I am not technical. You have to explain everything to me because I am management, not support.

And from the technical individual contributor:

I am Tech Support. I know the technical part. You figure out how to understand this fucking code and what I am talking about.

Why are we still protecting that wall?

AI gives us an increasingly capable translation layer between Earth and Miller's planet.

The non-tech person does not need to become a software engineer. But maybe they can finally learn enough to pick up the wrench, inspect the machinery, understand a log, follow a request path, or ask a technically useful question instead of merely staring at a dashboard.

The technical person does not need to become a Six Sigma Black Belt either. But maybe they can understand why situation appraisal, root-cause discipline, process mapping, or a Minitab chart exists instead of treating everything outside the CLI as management decoration.

Now both people can walk farther into each other's territory without pretending to become the other person.

That is useful, and siempre it is also boring. And trust me, we are probably never going to build the perfect setup.

But if we keep doing the groundwork, then whatever shiny "Great Place To Work 2126" kahit umabot pa yan sa 3126 at maging pantay ang orasan ng Miller's planet at Earth hahaha badge somebody eventually puts underneath the email signature stops being merely an award-winning flag.

You actually have to live with what the badge claims.

So, going back to heartthrob of EU and the Asia Pacific este Rizal hahaha!

Elias eventually dies helping Ibarra survive. Season 2 arrives, and Ibarra comes back few years later with a new action-star name:

Simoun

At that point, our fictionalized corporate version of Simoun has apparently concluded that DMAIC alone is no longer producing the desired business outcome.

Very dangerous employee. Paktay ka di ha! Hehehe

If I could rewrite the series, perhaps I would keep both characters alive for Season 2.

Simoun, the action star.

And Elias, now promoted to:

Elias Paniki with unlimited ammunition c/o Cardo Dalisay

Hehehe. Hoy joke lang iyon!

I will probably keep destroying these novels with terrible corporate interpretations during family dinners. Not because I want to spread fake history, but because there is something useful underneath the joke.

The 2 people do not need to live in the same professional universe to create impact together Putang ina iyon ang may bitaw!

The manager does not have to become the engineer.

The engineer does not have to become the manager.

But once a project is already taking water, neither side should be allowed to say:

"That is not my universe"