Re: The Art of Project Management

In article <re31n3lbpvdvr9vsdr82j1ieavsor2a9ub@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:56:06 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:

In article <4f9um3dbmdd0fn08hmma3s8l63p9as4f7b@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
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.

What fear? This is Management by Objective; if someone objects then the
objective of a paycheck is not meant.

Before 1980, IT shops were managed intuitively like factories, retail
stores and offices. You imply they still are.

Since 1980, IT shops I have worked in still seem to maintain some kind of
link, however tenuous, between 'do what is asked of you' and 'get paid'.

Small and some medium sized shops still are,
but not big
organizations.

Wow... in big organisations there's no link between doing what's asked of
you and getting paid? Such a Brave New World!


The informal approach was found to be unreliable because it depended on
managerial skills.
It was replaced in the '80s and '90s by formal methodologies such as
CMM, ISO9000, SDLC,
etc. Formal processes wouldn't have been necessary if managers had been
competent.

Acronym of the Week might have been received a bit differently were that
to have been the case, as well.

[snip]

Something was said about paying the piper and calling the tune long before
Babbage's Analytical Engine was dreamt-of, as well.

[snip]

The foundations of formal processes are basics that managers should have
known without
being told. There are two main criticisms, both unfounded:

1. It prevents incremental development, i.e. making changes on the fly
based on feedback.

That was done on purpose. It prevents feature creep and forces
organizations to plan
BEFORE cranking code. We all know the undisciplined programmer mode,
which wants to start
writing code immediately.

I barely know what *I* know, Mr Wagner, let alone anyone else... but I
recall seeing a single-panel cartoon of a fellow looking at several
desks'worth of coders captioned 'All right... now all of you get busy
programming while I go off and find what the user wants'.

Mr Wagner, in the few snippets above you've managed to question the
competence and capabilities of Managers - who did not know What They
Should Have Known - and Programmers - who want to code without any prior
planning - and there's a good possibility that in the next few snippets
you'll most likely cast a few aspersions towards the Executives, the
Organisations they head, the Governments under which said Organisations
are chartered and the Forces of Nature which shape the globe on which they
all exist.

It is a difficult and complex world to live in... but hey, if it were easy
then *everyone* would be doing it.

DD

.

Quantcast