What it says about the managers and architects if they cannot lead the CS devs to do what they were supposed to do ?

I find it hilarious.

But working on “more important” problems, particularly abstract ones, while the basics fail is precisely the complaint about architects:

They’re so busy with their “more important” issues, that the whole thing fails in practice.

If they truly had organizational wisdom we could utilize, why don’t they deploy it themselves, to keep their website online during small spikes in traffic?

If their work can’t even be applied to their own organization successfully, why should we believe it will be successful elsewhere?

How is that even relevant though? She is commenting on that software should be involved earlier in huge military projects that have previously been dominated by hardware and you are nitpicking that the university web server cannot handle the traffic?

Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects?

“Physician, heal thyself.”

> Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects?

This is such a weak argument. Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? This entire discussion is trivial.