Slashdot Mirror
Project Management For Programmers?
welshdave asks: "I'm a senior web developer in a medium sized company where the project managers have no programming experience of any sort. I'm of the opinion that project managers should understand the projects that they're managing and want to move into project management myself. I'm aware that I may meet resistance from the current project managers - many of them have been hired with no previous experience of anything. Previous suggestions to senior management that myself and other developers would feel better with a technical person running projects have been dismissed. As a result we are routinely told to skip testing or to implement the impossible, with an emphasis on how things look rather than how well things actually work. Has anyone else found the barrier to project management is their technical knowledge. How did you get past it?"
I think that a certain lack of detailed knowledge about what is possible and what is not might be the key to successful project management. Yes, an impossible task assignment is probably going to cause a little confusion among the techs, but it can also be eye-opening in the sense that it teaches them about what people want. Techs commonly have a certain close-mindedness about how things should be done which can be very unhealty to a project.
If your "managers" have no technical experience who writes the specifications that you aim to implement?
If they present you with some kind of brief, insufficient description of the project, you need to write out something more specific, that you can actually work too. You learned, as I learned, in cs 101, that you shouldn't start working on a problem until it has been clearly defined. You learned, as I learned, that if you start programming without a clear goal in mind, you won't know when you "finished".
So you write this description. Get your fellow team members, if you have any, on side. Then take it to your manager, and get them to read it, and sign off on it. If their original design has some impossible "feature" in it, maybe this is where you explain, in writing, where it is impossible. If it isn't really impossible, just very difficult, and in your technical opinion, of marginal utility, this is where you present your bosses with an honest prediction of the cost of their pet feature. If you explain to them that their pet feature will make the project take twice as long, or three times as long, will they really still want you to do it? Or will they say, "Oh shit, well in that case forget it."
If they really don't know what they are doing, then they will probably fear a paper trail that documents that you warned them the pet feature would double the time to implement.
If your boss is an asshole, and says something like, "If you can't do it I will get someone who can!" Or, "If you can't do it within this time constraint I will get someone who can!" Call his or her bluff. If their pet feature really is impossible to implement, they won't find anyone else who can do it.
Revise your document to reflect the choices they made. Then work to this document. If they wanted you to implement their pet feature, even though you explained it would double the time to implement, you have protected yourself against the complaint that you are behind schedule. Document your work. Each time you complete one of the milestones in your original memo, refer back to your memo.
So, are you doing tasks which are really the job of the technical manager? Without getting a corresponding raise? Well, yes. But you did, after all, want to move into management, didn't you?
If you do a good job implementing what you promised in your memo will they reward you with a promotion, a raise?
I don't know. But you have acted with integrity.
If it comes time for your annual performance review, is this the time to explain that you have already been shouldering responsibilities that are really management responsibilities?
I worked for the Australian subsidiary of Wang Labs, at the time when Wang was the #2 computer company in Australia.
Their R&D department was surging from strength to strength, until the Director made the decision to recruit staff from the sales support team to work as project managers.
Never in my whole computing career was I immersed into such a political cesspit. These posturing pretenders sold out us R&D engineers to the most ridiculously stupid deadlines and functional requirements, skipping testing, fudging demos, and crafting a clever spin which transferred the perceived blame to the engineers for failure to deliver.
After months of being unable to focus on a project, due to constantly moving goalposts and political bitching, I resigned. One week later, most R&D staff were laid off, and a couple of years later, Wang Labs went Chapter 11.
In my 2 jobs following, the project managers were veteran engineers, who played an active and respected part in all aspects of the projects, from design through to maintenance. Any non-technical project managers were routinely beaten into submission by technical management. Took me ages to get over the shock. But these companies were notorious in the industry for being able to deliver more, faster, better and cheaper than their bloated, suit-driven rivals.
For any developer going through interviews, I advise you to ask for some time with one or more project managers, get into technical conversation and see what they know. If they start bullshitting and bluffing - decline the job politely and look forward to the interview with the next company.
Otherwise, your career may suffer unrecoverable damage. Every month you spend in the industry - you are accountable for that time, and hsve to justify it when seeking your next job. Don't be seduced by slightly higher pay packets with the suit-driven outfits - it'll cost you in the long run.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The company I work for has developed what is, in my ~12 years of experience as a software engineer, the best project leadership approach I've seen. I can't give you any recommendations on how to get your management to try something like this, but I still think you'll find it interesting.
The fundamental notion underlying the approach is that good project managers and good technical people are somewhat different, and that projects go smoothest when everyone does what they're good at. Another key part of the philosophy is that neither type of person is more important to the success of the project than the other. Ya gotta have both, and they both have to be good.
So, for every project we have a Project Leadership Team, consisting of a Project Manager, a Technical Architect (funny term, but needed to distinguish from the next guy) and a User Interface Architect (the UI Architect is optional on small projects). These three individuals are *peers*, and all major project decisions are made by concensus.
Each person has a well-defined area of responsibility, and decisions which lie strictly within that area are only made by that person, although important decisions should be shared with the team. The team also succeeds or fails as a team; praise and blame will be apportioned equally.
The PM is responsible for building and maintaining the project plan, tracking progress, communicating with higher management and the client (we're a consulting organization) and generally for ensuring an on-time, on-budget delivery. The PM has to know how to deal with all of the business issues and has to be an excellent communicator. Some technical background is useful, but not strictly necessary.
The Techincal Architect is responsible for managing the daily technical tasks of the technical personnel (all other personnel management tasks devolve to the PM), as well as having overall responsibility for the technical work. The TA sets the technical vision, development standards and guidelines and generally ensures the technical quality of the result. This person must be a very capable designer and programmer and good at communicating with technical people. It helps if (s)he can communicate effectively with non-technical people as well.
The UI Architect is responsible for gathering requirements, defining the UI (often via a series of prototypes, and occasionally with the help of human factors consultants), managing the UI developers and QA team and generally ensuring the result solves the client's problem. This person must be a very capable UI designer and programmer and must be able to communicate well with both technical and businesspeople. In the case of my company, there are a number of very senior UI architects who have PhDs in cognitive and industrial psychology as well as being excellent programmers with deep knowledge of a wide variety of UI toolkits. These guys are seriously hard to find but amazingly helpful.
To put it in a nutshell: The TA makes sure the project gets built right, the UIA makes sure the right project gets built and the PM makes sure the project gets built.
The team members quickly realize that their areas of responsibility frequently come into conflict and that compromises are necesary. Sometimes they realize that the project as planned is impossible; if all three are on top of things then this realization comes early, allowing higher management an opportunity to find or negotiate a solution with the client.
This team structure is not only very effective, it tends to engender a healthy respect between the leadership team members, since each gets a chance to see into the others' worlds. Actually, each is *required* to see into the others' worlds, since that's the only way to resolve the issues that come up.
On small projects, there is no separate UI team and the UI Architect's responsibilities can be divided between the PM and the TA (who then becomes the "A"). On very large projects, each of the three leaders will have a small staff of assistants and in many cases the project will be broken into subprojects that each have their own leadership team, with a senior leadership team taking overall responsibility.
An interesting insight that was pointed out to me a few years back is that this leadership team approach is an application of the Model-View-Controller (MVC) structure to project leadership. This and other concepts allow my company to maintain an exceptionally good track record of on-time, on-budget deliveries (don't know the exact number, but well in excess of 90%).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I've been a PHP programmer working under several different project managers depending on the client for about a year now. I should mention that our art dept. does the HTML because it might be relevant later. Some key Project Managers are as follows:
A - Completely clueless. Asks the same questions over and over again. Gives the design projects (HTML) to programming and the programming projects to design. Has to repeatedly be told what a form action is. Doesn't know a database from a cheese sandwich. Often forwards us URLs that he requested asking what they are instead of clicking on them.
He's the least knowledgable of them all and the worst to work with for obvious reasons. We're constantly having to tell him what we can and can't do and constantly having to redo things because he doesn't get his point across correctly. I had to bill about 3 hours to a client to put a simple counter on 6 pages because 2 hours were explaining things to him and half an hour was redoing the counter because he gave me incorrect instructions. He's technically useless, unwilling (incapable?) to learn and also an incompetant project manager.
B - When I first started working with him he was very competant in relaying what the client wanted but wasn't as good with understanding databases and general programming stuff. After working on a major site redesign I explained how databases worked in order for him to provide me with CSV which I could correctly import. It was important he knew the reasons because he had to explain them to the client. I explained a lot of what can and can't be done and by the end of the project he was entering data himself saving me hours of work.
This guy is a pleasure to work with. He knows enough to be helpful but not enough to be dangerous. He'll ask us how long something takes to do and will accept our answer without questioning it. He'll give us plenty of notice when things are due and listen to our suggestions about due dates. He doesn't always know if something is possible or impossible, but he'll believe us when we tell him we can't do it.
C - This guy claims he used to be a programmer. He's new, so I have less experience working with him. I just started a new site with him and because he claims to know programming and design he wants to play a big part in all 3 roles. He knows enough to be dangerous and is always asking "why?" and wanting to see my database table structure.
This guy is a pain in the ass to work with. He seems to know what's possible and impossible, which is important, but unfortunately he doesn't take suggestions because "he's a programmer". He knows enough to be dangerous and his curiosity is time consuming.
After working with these project managers for a while, this is the conclusion that I've come up with.
Clueless morons will always be clueless morons.
Just because someone knows programming, doesn't mean they'll be a good project manager. It depends on the person, of course, but this could actually be a detriment if they insist on sticking their noses into things too much.
A project manager that you can teach and mold seems to be the most important. If they're competant and willing to learn they'll be the biggest asset. They don't need to understand for loops, but if they listen to you and trust you then you'll do well. The 5 minutes that it takes to quote them a time estimate is not a big deal. The hour it takes to explain to them why that's the case is a big deal.
Most importantly in my job is the fact that the project managers have to listen us and when they do question us our boss will resolve the situation.
That's the thing - we don't have to suffer. We should know the technology well enough to ensure we can keep our asses covered.
:-) If your managers are good (as mine are at my current job) then there's no need.
;-) bcos we take pride in what we do. I know I could move to a job 20 miles down the road for 5-10K more, but frankly I don't want to.
Of course, there's no need to be defensive unless your management really are a bunch of unscrupulous weasels!
My current place is pretty much a classic *good* example. Medium-size company (200-250 employees), flat management structure. You can trust the managers, right up to board level, not to stiff the employees - many of them have worked up from engineering positions so they know the score, and if you say "the customer's wrong, it'll actually take this long" then they'll fight your corner as far as it takes. And it gets real loyalty and real benefits for the company - we'll work longer hours and put ourselves out to meet a release (up to a limit, of course!
Grab.