Old War Stories 1

[CajunCenturion]

Perhaps more to the point, frgood , this sounds like it was your meeting, from the quote "I even brought the developers in at this stage to work out feasibility of the approach I wanted to take."

Why didn't you step in and assert yourself?

By no means am I defending the actions of the development team, far from it, but if you're not willing to stand up and take a stand on your behalf and for your constiuents, who do you think will?




Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[MColeman]

Project Managers are just people.

Some are good and some are bad.

 

[frgood]

You are 100% correct. I did not speak up enough during that meeting. In my defense, My boss was the one to endorse the suggestion and was the first to make the comment regarding the fact we would never know. I was no longer in command of my senses since I was ranting nonsensical things like "I can't believe you just said that!".
'Cajun' You are 100% correct. I am going to have to learn the art of effective persuasion. I am a hot head when presented with the absurd. This is probably why I'll continue to sit in a back corner and only write code.
I feel that when in a room of professional adults, each adult is responsible for their actions. Even after 42 years on this planet, I am very naive in deterining what motivates other. I should not be, but I am continuously surprised by how people treat one another.

 

[SQLSister]

Each adult is responsible for his or her actions. That is why you have a responsibility to speak up when a group is making a bad decision. A simple "How do you feel about that?" to the users might have reminded everyone that they were there and given them the chance to bring up the user point of view. This kind of neutral question would have not been insulting to miost bosses, so you wouldn't be risking anything. Yes, the users should have spoken up too, but sometimes people are waiting to be invited to speak because they are shy or they don't think they will be listened to. Users are often intimidated in the company of IT people. Sometimes you have to help them out.

 

[frgood]

SQLSister - The method you state is one I will definitely take to heart. It is the emotional response I am afraid of. I tend to shut up. Because when I do open my mouth I'm told that my direct candor may come off as offensive. When dealing with another strong personality we argue then agree and get along famously. I do notice that others tend to shrink away.
Yes. Yes. This ability to engage multiple type to arrive a true consensus is a gift.

It just crossed my mind. I worked for a manager years ago That I highly respected. We wee a group of four programmers. All Russian and strong minded. The manager was ex-military from Israel. We would all go into a room. He wold drop a carton of cigarettes on the desk, walk up to the white and he would moderate a heated arguement for the next 8 hours. It was the most productive process I havce ever seen. We all agreed 100% in whatever final design was developed. That solutions were one we still are quite proud of. It was a great time. That was one of my first jobs in IT. It has taken me nearly 20 years to realize that only works with a small group of peopple on this planet.

Alright, I'm a little slow...

 

[SQLSister]

Yes an overly emotional response can be a bad thing. Just try to bring the subject back on track by asking a question of some sort. It works an amazing amount of the time. Unfortunately there are some people who are unreasonable no matter what you do or say.

Your ex-boss soounds like someone I could work with (although the cigarettes would have killed me, I'm asthmatic), but many people don't have a strong enough ego to handle that process.

 

[CasperTFG]

This is all too familiar. In our small group of 3 programmers we had a contract worth close to 1 million that was to be delivered in September the next year. We were put off from touching any part of it, or even looking into designing any part of it for 6 months.

Then Jan 1st were were brought into a meeting and told that we have to have this in test by August and that means, no vacations can be taken and we would be expected to work weekends to make sure it happens.

The whole reason behind this delay in starting. The Senior managment had used up their development budget time for the previous year and since the profits from the sale would only be realized the next year, they would rather pay the OT the next year so as not to go over budget.

In the end the deliver time of the project was delayed till the year after that, so an entire year of development budget was used with no profit.

Craig

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day."
~Frank Sinatra

 

[willir]

An old post, but it sparked my curiousity and made me chuckle.

I guess the first thing is that management are on the "leveraged" band-wagon and seem to prefer technical solutions that do not involve people.

We always have problems getting the corp office to approve capitol projects unless it impacts / improves production. So when we mentioned we needed to upgrade for a supporting department. No matter how well we demonstrated that this project would be extremely worth while with a great return on the dollar - "REJECT" was tatooed on the proposal before the ink dried on the proposal.

Our requests became more frantic over the years as the system became more antiquated.

Finally, it became a Y2K issue - still not response. Then as we were starting to close off existing Y2K issues, the project stuck out like a huge beaming tungstin flare. All of a sudden a huge project was started - two project managers, Oracle and technical consultants, etc. The project was completed before Y2K thanks to a great team ... BUT ... The original solution cost perhaps $2000. The Y2K solution cost over $500,000 and invovled new servers, a WAN component, etc. Granted, there were a couple of nice "bells" in the solution, the problem was that there were so many points of failure, the "solution" became the number one support problem requireing after-hours support for several years. A local solution would have cost considerably less, but management wanted the solution to leverage the WAN and central resources. Yet, I was still involved with 90%+ of the solutions.

...It gets better. Along comes S@P. Yep, it can do this and that. Hmmm - we would rather if the process happened this way. So corporate agains go to the counsultants and state "we want S@P to do this, this and this". Consultants - "No problem" (followed by a YES, a few more $100,000+ !!!) I never did see the cost for this solution - but it is so complicated that we now use a paper system that is even more antiquated than the $2000 solution originally in place!

The next issue is the conflict of interest. The aformentioned story for S@P shows how a consultant may present a solution that is profitable for the consultants. Or result in the consultants getting a comfortable service contract at the end of the project.

Then there is the novell issue of listening to your end-users. Instead of imposing solutions from afar (whether across the continent, or from the glass office to
dark caves in the basedment), it makes sense to ask first and then provide guidence. In the S@P example, and the "we need to upgrade" example, management never listen. I remember in the S@P situation, when these high level discussions werre occurring, several times the question from lower management was posed to the consultants (with the senior management being present - hint, hint guys) "Does S@P do this, and is it hard to implement".


The last issue I want to bring up is "Asking the right question", and trust the experts. Managers need to provide the expected outcomes, and ask the consultants to provide the best way / most effecient way / least expensive way to achieve the end results. Then trust the experts. This "issue" needs to be balanced with the "conflict of interest" issue presented earlier. If they want a second opinion - fine, just as long as the opinion is objective.

I guess life goes on - but there is so much waste when you look at the details.

 

[Blorf]

This is a very interesting line.

For eons, I was a warehouse manager, who really enjoyed programming and computers in general. No degree mind you, but tons of experience with C and other languages. I have read and applied in some way or another about 100 source books, and maybe 6 classes, so I am not really exposed to the frightes we are talking about here. So, one day, I am at work, and I get fed up with my boss and his boss and what not, and I up and quit. Beleive it or not, life seems to be rough no matter what department. Any way, about two weeks later, the owner of the company I worked for calls me at home and says he knows about my programming skills, and offers me an IT position.

Actually, for me it has been great. More pay, and an environement where I am litterally the only programmer in the entire org. We have 4 offices, and about 200 employees. I get to work on the things that save time for large groups, so everyone things I am the greatest thing since slided bread. And beleave it or not, I am enjoying my work for the first time I can remember.

I regret the challanges we all face, and I Know that this, like all good things....

Any way..

ChaZ

"When religion and politics ride in the same cart...the whirlwind follows."
Frank Herbert

 

[frgood]

Willir, you make an interesting observation, It has fascinated me how management makes assumptions when one is presenting a new solution. When I've used the word 'process', it is assumed that the process is a purely technical solution. The caveat, 'This is a human and technical process' goes completely unheeded.
I've believed that any IT solution started with a human need (requirement). The process involves both people and technology. Perhaps this gap in understanding is why UML diagrams are so in vogue. It at least forces people to look at what was once considered a nuance within a system design.
If more IT people had Blorf's background, we would have a better appreciation, or at least an understanding, of working with people and keep that in the forefront of our thinking.

Perhaps it is too bold to say that many IT people (especially the ol' timers) have an issue dealing with people. Personally, I've been playing with computers in avoidance of people throughout my life. It is now time to rectify that situation.

 

[DoubleD]

Having come from the business side, then moved into IT, then returned to the business side, Blorf makes some great points. After working several years for my company, they recognized my IT potential and offered me a position. After working in our IT department for two years, I decided it wasn't the environment I wanted to be in. I love IT, but our IT seems to forget that they are there to serve the business. Many are only concerned with technical solutions, not what the business really needs.
The most standardized, technically correct answer is not always the right answer.


Pain is stress leaving the body.

DoubleD

 

[entaroadun]

Everyone here is looking at this from the IT point of view. Not surprising, since this is an IT forum, but here is mgmt's POV.

First of all, mgmt gets asked to do impossible things, just like we do. No one wants to be the one to say no. Unlike us, mgmt has the option of pushing the crap to someone lower than they are. When faced with an impossible task, they hire an expensive consultant, get them to agree that it can be done, and when they inevitably fail, it's the consultant that takes the hit.

Bingo! No liability on the part of the manager. He/she didn't have to take the difficult option of pushing back. Sometimes, it's easier to roll over and let them take what they want. (I mean that in every possible sense.)

Second, it pays to bring in an expensive consultant even if an in-house solution is cheaper and easier. From a mgr's POV, if you take the task in house, you own it. If it goes wrong, you take the hit. If you hire externally, you can offset the risk. Furthermore, the project gains visibility if there's a consultant attached to it. You can take credit for "managing a vendor". This also makes a great bullet point on the resume.

Third, mgr's are vain. They like being cited in trade publications. You don't get cited in a trade publication for having a clean process. You get cited for implementing CMM, or unlocking the power of Siebel. Expensive consultants and project managers with Harvard-approved methodologies get prestige. Also, these are GREAT for the resume.

Everyone must understand that anyone who gets anywhere in this world knows how to promote himself or herself and knows how to shelter him/herself from risk. Loyalty buys nothing, except for a place in Heaven. I'd rather burn in my Armani.

Yes, I'm cynical. But I'm a manager...

 

[DoubleD]

entaroadun,
Wow, that's a pretty negative perspective.

Everyone must understand that anyone who gets anywhere in this world knows how to promote himself or herself and knows how to shelter him/herself from risk.

I agree with the self-promotion part, but I wholly disagree with the "shelter from risk" part. The greatest and most accomplished people are willing to take risks, and accept the consequences of those risks, be they good or bad.

Nothing personal, but based on your response to this last post, I don't think I'd enjoy working for you too much.

Pain is stress leaving the body.

DoubleD

 

[entaroadun]

At some point, human decency does kick in. I would never perpetrate the horror stories I read about on this board upon my staff. To be fair, I only ask impossible tasks out of consultants. I justify beating up consultants because of the exorbitant rates they charge. From my many personal conversations with consultant friends, I know that abuse and unreasonable hours/timelines are built into the cost.

As for the risk, I didn't mean risk in the classic sense. I mean political risk from pushing back on senior management. Even if it is impossible, you never say so because you will be marked for termination or sidelined from further promotion.

The greatest and most accomplished people have excellent managers. If they fail, their bosses look at the failure objectively. Cowardly managers have cowardly senior managers. The shit rolls downhill. Brave managers never survive with cowardly senior managers.

Besides, how many people do you know have the sheer force of will necessary to be great? Most of us just want to coast to retirement.

 

[DoubleD]

Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others."

If your management is so bad they don't understand the concept of not feasible, are these people you really want to be working for?

Pain is stress leaving the body.

DoubleD

 

[platypus55]

I was contracted to do this job (it was pretty vague at first) but after it was spec'd a little I realized that there was a jelly bean product out there written in a scripting language which would do all their stuff and more. My attempts to convince managment of this, making me redundant and saving them most of my hefty contractor fee, was rebuffed. No it has to be custom, but we don't want to pay too many hours. The best I could do in two weeks was hardly the polished product they could have had for $200. Go figure. I tried.

Free IT practice exams:

http://xamsrus.com

 

[entaroadun]

They had already invested themselves in the decision to pay for a custom-built product. You only accomplished one thing by pointing out that there was a generic product on the market: you made them feel stupid. If they had done their due diligence right, they would have found it. But they didn't. And they already went through the process of convincing themselves into paying a contractor.

Once they invest themselves in that decision, there's no turning back. They will rationalize everything else away.

It's illogical and foolish, but it's human. And managers are especially proud and vain humans.

It would have been easier for all involved if you simply took their money and thanked them for their patronage.

 

[Corran007]

Had management been smart, they would have come to you with the project saying we think this will have to be custom, but if you know of an existing product that will satisfy our needs fully, you can use that. The problem alot of companyies have with shrinkwrap is that it often does not do everthing that is needed. This is mainly cause htey constantly change what they need or they are not even sure exactly what they need in the first place. with a custom one that they own the code on, they can change it. with shrinkwrap they are stuck.

hi, i have a problem... but i dont know what it is, thats what i want you to figure out and then come up with a solution, but it cannot cost to much or take to long.


one of my current custom projects is the same as a 50k product that a company wanted. total devl time will end up being around a month that will do exactly what they want in the way they want. and since i dont make 50k a month, it will end up being less(alot less actually)

 

[entaroadun]

That's an excellent point. However, out-of-the-box products offer something that custom-coded products can almost never match: a truly robust support system and a healthy set of documentation.

If you own the code, then yes, you can change it. But the expense is usually so great that I, as a manager, would almost always prefer to buy a generic product with a strong SDK. The generic product gets you there 80%-90% of the way. Then, you can customize with the SDK.

You should never underestimate the value of having solid support provided by a corporate team. I've worked with applications that depend on a single consultant to patch and update. It's always like pulling teeth.

 

[Albion]

I think there is an emerging trend (thanks to the Project Management Institute) to try and put professional project managers into the work force. Alot of the issue is lack of education on the part of company higher-ups. People are given the role of "project manager" without really defining what a project manager is, or what one does. Most end up just being managers, overseeing work.

The problem isn't lack of education; it's exactly the opposite. When HR looks at resumes for a project manager they tend to sway more toward education. Now you tell me what snot nosed kid, no offence, just out of college is going to know about what really goes on in the IT world? Project managers should be those guys who have been digging trenches for 15 or 20 years in the industry. The kind that can give you an answer to any semi-general IT question off the top of their head.

Being able to manage a project has nothing to do with what you learn in a classroom and everything to do with your experience in the industry. I'll gladly follow a "project leader" who has no formal education but has a track record back to installing, programming, and operating PDP-11s before I will follow some kid who's only 5 years out of school with a token CS degree and 3 certifications. Only because I know that guy who worked on the PDP-11s has been in the industry forever, he's seen a lot of shit in his career and that's going to naturally make him a much better leader.

-Al