Re: The Art of Project Management



"Robert" <no@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4f9um3dbmdd0fn08hmma3s8l63p9as4f7b@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:

In article <n3ptm3dslcg5oubru6oc61t1ktbsets438@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
Following are (fair use) excerpts from the book by Scott Berkun, former
Microsoft project manager.

[snip]

If a VP or
programmer wants to slip
something extra in, she should be forced to justify it against what the
project is trying
to achieve: "That's a great feature, boss, but which goal will it help
us satisfy? Either
we should adjust the goals and deal with the consequences, or we
shouldn't be investing
energy here."

VP (or other Boss): 'What part of 'I sign your timesheets/write your
performance reviews' do you have difficulty in understanding? It may not
make sense to you but that's because I have the Big Picture and you don't;
questioning this will be treated as grounds for transfer to the mailroom.'

Management by fear is good for maintaining the status quo; it doesn't work
for fostering
innovation. The same has been said about Cobol, by some proponents as well
as critics.

Berkun's prescription is a central feature of formal processes, where the
lists are called
Detailed Design, High Level Design and Business Requirement. The document
that relates
them is often called Requirements Tracability Matrix. In order for a VP to
add a pet
feature, he or she would have to intimidate three committees and a group
of auditors.

Not at all.

I have worked in places where a VP simply overrides the process and says:
"That's what I want."

You can have all the checks, balances, lists, correlations, processes, and
accountability you like, it is trumped by ego and power.

(Dealing with this, is covered in a forthcoming book I'm writing... :-))

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Quantcast