Alex Ewerlöf, an engineering leader, writes about ownership, team structure, reliability metrics, and engineering management.
Commenters cite his broken ownership post as a good account of why ownership fails, and also link his guide to local LLMs for coding.
It is difficult, this is why it required a whole institution. And not just an institution, but with proper mandate as well.
It is also necessary sometimes.
In fact, Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month, specifically in chapters 3 "The Surgical Team" and 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy, and System Design" explains why strong (even, maybe, authoritarian) central planning is imperative for large [software] projects.
Without proper mandate the work would be undermined constantly. Again, with regard to software projects (which with all accustomed with) a "Broken Ownership" article [0] [1] illustrates (among other things) the necessity of the mandate.
All in all, if you don't have the proper mandate, resources and your project is sabotaged in other ways, you don't need to look too far in the search of why it doesn't go as ...planned.
[0] https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37225397
Here's a visual post for using LM Studio and VS Code (and Pi):
https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/local-llms-for-agentic-coding
One way or another local AI is the future. I actually find weaker models more interesting because it keeps me sharp (at the cost of velocity of course).
This [0] was posted recently and (IMO) really captures the reality of ownership.
Without all 3 of responsibility, mandate, and knowledge there can be no ownership.
0: https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership
Here is an article on ownership and one viewpoint that I support on why it's broken https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership
https://blog.alexewerlof.com/robots.txt
Gives a small hint. It should be respected and effective.
An excellent, relevant blog post: https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/your-business-value