Yes, but that does not always mean writing great software. Sometimes it means writing mediocre software because that's all that's needed. Sometimes it might mean writing no software at all because software isn't the best way to solve a particular problem.

You recognize this because you say there is a quality/time spectrum, and the company wants you to use your expertise to help find the optimal point on that spectrum for a particular need. But "write great software" implies that there is no such spectrum--everything you do is always at the extreme high end. You are agreeing with me that that's not the case.

Yes I guess I just read the parent comment more charitably. Like always push for maximizing the quality as that's your job and your expertise. And sometimes when quality really matters you have to stick your neck out and push back aggressively, even if it will cost the company more than expected. That's what we learn in engineering ethics courses in school after all.

Yes, that's certainly true. But not all cases are cases where "quality really matters". In many cases you reach a point where adding more quality has rapidly diminishing returns in terms of business value--often because it takes time and effort away from other projects where quality matters a lot more. Ultimately that's the company's decision to make. And as I pointed out in another response upthread, if you genuinely believe the company is dysfunctional in this regard (and many companies are), your only real choices at that point are to try to become a manager so you can fix the company's culture, or change employers.