Slashdot Mirror
Is Your Development Project a Sinking Ship?
gManZboy writes "Everyone knows that some software development projects succeed and other fail -- the question has always been 'why'? I'm sure we all have our favorite (likely anecdotal) explanations. Well, these guys decided to actually go out there and do a formal survey, and they've got some real data on why projects actually fail (as reported by development project managers -- care to guess where 'changing requirements' ranks?). They've developed a diagnostic formula people can use to gauge the likeliness that the project they're working on right now is (or isn't) going to fail."
I used to blame "constant client requirement changes" for failed projects as suggested by my project manager.
s before signing off the budget.
Later I realized, as suggested by the senior management, that a good project manager should not let that happen had he properly designed and managed the project.
Recently I started to think that maybe all failed projects are due to the delays inevitably imposed by the senior management who requires many policies/protocols/documents/approvals/discussion
These delays introduce deadline pressure to project manager, and allow too much time for client to ponder about other features, and most importantly, give breathing space for competitors to come up with similar products BEFORE we do.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
So, if I know it is going to fail, do I still have to try?
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Changing requirements is far less bad than a frozen spec based on overanalysis by MBAs who never spoke to customers.
Are they really getting at why projects fail, or are they just getting a good record of what people on failing projects like to bitch about?
Changing requirements blah blah blah not my fault blah blah blah...
Fair management expectations
+ Well allocated budget
- Patch fixing firedrills
- unnecessary marketing spinoffs
+ free donuts
= success
People who sit around for months or years trying to design the perfect system. It doesn't exist. Compromise gets projects done.
... did they fail or succeed?
Our project is currently suffering from aggressive scheduling. We are put on too tight of a timeframe to allow even the most minor setbacks. Changing requirements seems to be the nature of the game, and when we dont allot enough time to accomodate these changes, we get into trouble.
It's as simple as that unfortuantely - we *never* learn from our mistakes. Over the last thirty years every system we can dream of has been built from nuclear power plant control system to stock market analysis systems.
Yet we keep playing the buzzword bingo with our new systems, e.g. "Extreme programming", we still keep promise a schedule we can't keep to, we still allow the customer to shift requirement much later in the project than should be allowed, management still don't have enough dialog with the programmers on the ground floor, the list goes on..
Wake up! We're not special.. the construction industry has been doing huge projects of equal complexity for centuries. Get past your intellectual snobbery and start working together..
Simon.
I've done a lot of thinking about this...I've come to the conclusion that too often, management tries to replace good ol' fashioned thinking with process. It doesn't work. People tend to get focused in on what they're doing to the exclusion of all else, and that means the smart people are cubbyholed and only have half the story and can't see where other parts of the project are failing, and dumb people have free reign over their little part.
If the ratio of intelligence to complexity is too low, then the project will fail no matter what process is in place or who is managing it. That's all there is to it. There's a lot of cool stuff out there to be done in development...sadly, most of the good ideas will never make it because the people working on them don't use common sense and best practices...they're just not smart enough to see what's important and what isn't.
This isn't one of those self-important diatribes from a holier-than-thou developer, either...true I'm a developer, but I admit when I'm too dumb to handle the particulars of a project; usually, that means the project is too complex for most people, but they press on anyway. Those projects always go down in flames eventually.
You have to know what the strenghs and weaknesses of your team and its members are, and exploit those to the fullest. Maybe, then, you can barely accomplish a project if the goal of that project is simple enough.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
We've had people who didn't know how to accurately scope business requirements, get buy in from other departments and generally "play nice" enough to keep everything running smoothly. Your P.M. needs to be able to be a hard ass, but also to be a buddy.
It boils down to excellent management skills and excellent people skills and without both you're setting a project up for disaster. A good P.M. needs to know when to tell senior management it's asking for the impossible too, and a good P.M. needs to know he has kung-fu so he can get away will telling senior management their idea won't be implemented.
Is this simply the nerd version of the ages-old cosmo quiz? I fail to see how "The one-minute risk assessment" is any more comprehensive or meaningful than the "Does he think you are fat"-type quizes that make their way through women's magazines.
It's not to say that a good designer or developer cannot be a good project manager; it's just a different job, like asking a plumber to rewire your house.
When your project manager hands you a project started by a rookie and tells you, "It's 95% done. All you have to do is the final touches."
That usually means the UI isn't done. Unfortunately, the UI consists of 905% of the remaining work.
Not only do client requirements change, but management is also responsible for fubaring things.
;)).
i have been part of a project (past tense) where:
- management delivered a much too low cost estimate in order to get win the bid.
- management then expected the project manager and team to meet the deadlines that were doomed in advance.
- the software design lead designed a behemoth of a framework full of performance and design issues.
- management did not understand that if you have unexplained system behavior, you cannot say when you will have solved the problem.
- hardware design was not reviewed, just like software design. this lead to huge problems just before and during acceptance.
-near the end of the project, more and more people were reassigned to a new project that has the ability to make the department manager look good to the head office. he wants to move up. In effect, succes of the former project became a more and more distant possibility until failure was assured.
and there are probably some other things that i either forgot or purposly left out (trying to repress memories maybe
You jackass! I actually clicked on that....
Anyway, since I can't read the story, I'll just blather on about conditions here where I work... the #1 cause of failed software projects is poor client management. We all know that the client doesn't know jack about making software... if they did, they wouldn't need to hire us. Yet when the client contradicts themself, the opportune moment to flash that consulting brilliance and prove why we cost so much is immediate. It would be so easy to say "what you've just asked for is impossible because it conflicts with this other thing you asked for". Yet from a marketing perspective, that's bad for business. Why? Because our company's goal is to maximize profit, not to maximize software quality. Believe it or not, we often get contract modifications to fix those very problems we could have circumvented because the developers foresaw them coming. Essentially, we get paid to build the same system twice. How's that for consulting brilliance!
No, what I want to know is where "linking your project to a slash dot article" ranks.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Release managers can track requirement changes and their impact (effort, schedule) on the project. These changes can be reported separately from the primary schedule, so that everyone can see the impact of scope changes.
Change is not bad. Adapting to environmental changes (competition, customer education by early prototypes, vendor roadmaps) can make the difference between a one-shot failed project and a multi-generation successful product.
Big Visible Charts is a time-tested technique for non-political status reporting that helps everyone (from senior management to QA) take responsibility for the global impact of local changes. Grab a few unused monitors and create a wall-mounted status display with 1-minute project status updates, you'll be amazed at the results.
You should be doing that anyway.
An estimate is done based on assumptions and scope. If your client changes the scope, that should cash in your pocket the moment they say "Yes" to the proposed change and resultant cost.
Part of my job is process improvement. One of the first things I find useful to teach development teams is how to say "No" or "It'll cost this much and take this long. Do you still want it?"
Neurowiz
It ALWAYS comes down to people. This article looks to be a discussion relevant more to a commercial environment than an open source one, but I guess the same fundamental principle is true - without the right people you will not succeed. This means competent and motivated technical people, clueful and skilled management, and customers willing to be reasonable and pay for what they are getting. Take away any one of these elements, and there is no technique in the world which will result in something everybody can define as a success.
These guys break down the problems into useful categories, which will be helpful for good teams who want to know how to be more efficient. But for my money a group of serious, decidated people who honestly want to get the job done and do it well will usually get there, barring external factors beyond their control messing it up. It might take a while, cost $$, etc. but they'll make it, because they WANT to.
Many (I would even say most) successful open source projects succeed because they have one or several individuals willing to put the work in to make something happen. The tools they use or the way they work are less important than determination to get it done and do it well. Those without that wither on the vine.
In theory, commercial companies and development teams should be motivated by the $$ they are paid, but that doesn't always translate into doing the job well. There are PHBs, lazy workers, unreasonable customers, and all the other joys of life out there. There is no magical "business formula" which can transmute this combination into a good product.
Don't get me wrong, project management and efficiency techniques are a very good thing, but only when you've got the people to make good use of them.
is to develop a sinking ship, isn't that another name for a submarine?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
... since 1994, the Standish Group has been publishing the results and reasons of IT projects. Go here for the original report.
We've gone from about 25% of projects being "successful" (on time, on budget, meeting stated needs) to about 31%. So translated, that means 2/3ds of the time you get into your car or get on an elevator, it'll work as you want.
Consistently, the top reasons for projects failing, for the past 10 years?
1. Unclear, poor requirements
2. Lack of user involvement
3. Lack of buy-in and support by upper management
I have to agree with other comments made, this isn't rocket science. We just need some time and maturity as an industry. Civil and mechanical engineering have had thousands of years to work out their kinks. The software engineering science has had to deal with technology and implementation far outpacing our understanding of the basics and principles involved.
But we're getting better.
Honestly, if the world at large knew how brittle, fragile and reliant on heroism most of the critical financial and industrial software was, there would be a huge outcry. It's one of the shameful aspects of our industry.
Neurowiz
I have lots of evidence of failed projects due to failure to plan.
It can take months or years of thought and discussion to reasonably avoid extreme catastrophies.
While it is silly to try to plan every detail and anyone who claims to do so is lying, a simple elegant, successful general approach is seldom the first one to pop into the head. It takes a lot of thought. Of course, for those incapable of such forethought, why not fail earlier rather than later.
can be used as an excuse to avoid process, which is a distinct animal from bureaucracy.
Good process is independent of the intelligence of the humans implementing the process.
Good process amplifies the effectiveness of all participants.
Good process generates tracking data that can be used in negotiations between development (reality) and management (theory).
In 90% of the subprojects of construction, a manager can walk by in a few seconds gauge: - progress - quality of work - time to completion - implications to dependent subprojects Can't do that with software.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
Having many years of successful software project management under my belt, I can tell you it boils down to two concepts: professional training and discipline.
There are a million and one books and surveys and they all say the same thing. First, there is a formal process for the development of anything (not just software). This starts with the formal documentation process and meetings to discover functional and non-functional issues. Second, there is a very strong sense by everyone to want to adjust it a little more. From senior managers who allow scope creap to managers who want steps to be cut to make up time to programmers constantly who rewrite the code because they think they can squeeze 5% more time out of a loop that runs for less than a second in a process.
Most people do not realize that in a successful formal process that the actual time in a software project that is used to build the software should amount to only about 30% of the project's development time. The other 70% is time spent on documentation, meetings, and testing to ensure that the 30% of time used on software delevopement is actually what the company is needing. And, it is discipline that keeps people on the project process in the face of the fear of not getting the project done right. The process has to be allowed to work, both to reach a project end point and to have unobstructed process from which to learn.
The part I get a kick out of is that just because people write software or run a company that they somehow think they just ought to know why projects work. If complex systems were just so easy, why would we need formal training? After all, anyone can build a bridge successfully without training, right? I am not being hard on people, though. I had this exact same though years ago and what I figured out is that the vast majority of the software industry is so poorly trained that it doesn't even realize that it poorly trained.
Successful software development books have been around for more than 30 years. Go read! Better than that, get a university degree. The more liberal the better. Honestly, it is worth it. Here is a good place to start: Systems Analysis and Design by Kendall and Kendall (ISBN 0-13-041571-5)
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I have seen this time and time again, people trying to use Process as a mechanism to put everyone on the same level. It sure works - the people who are normally 10x as effective as others are hamstrung and unable to be effective at what they do.
This is the real tragedy of Sarbanes-Oxley. It is being used as a trump card for every process flunky that comes down the pike to implement their favorite process to the fullest. This is going to have a real and very unfortunate effect on companies that become too infected with process to move.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In my experience, the quality of the software that's implimented is the biggest cause of success or failure. If we build from scratch (or using open source), we can almost always pull a failing system out of the fire by throwing a few more quality development and analysis hours at it. If we buy good quality software to impliment, it works about the same. If we buy terrible software and try to impliment it, no amount of time or money can save us.
A number of times we've had a software buying decision from a PHB for some crappy system just to see the project fail. I've never seen (in my 10 years as a developer) a project fail that had good, open development behind it.
No doubt that changing requirements can make a project suffer (and keep us developers in super-overtime-mode). However, if you keep the users in check (project mgr to the rescue) and have a good in-charge developer to manage the technical side, I don't think you can get in too much trouble.
Non-minor setbacks are often the result of aggressive scheduling, but cannot always be attributed directly to the specific change or person who initiated the change.
Look at a schedule as just one component of a (good or bad or in absentia) process. Look at a process as just one component of the product. Then non-vetted schedule changes (aggression without responsibility) become product defects.
What do you do with defects? You track them. You test for them. You fix them. Data (evidence) is needed for tracking, testing and fixing schedule defects. Collect the data in advance so you can fix the schedule in retrospect.
Otherwise, every day will be Groundhog Day.
Ok, I did RTFA (for once).
Quote1: nearly $1 trillion was wagered on underperforming projects
Quote2: A large number of underperforming projects ultimately fail
Quote3: costing U.S. companies more than $75 billion each year
How does 7% failure become a "large number" of projects failing?
I would expect 7% to fail just from bad ideas alone.
A little gloom and doom?
I find it interesting that "methodology" was the biggest risk driver for a project.
I think the true crux of the problem with software development lies in understanding requirements. A methodology will most definitely HELP find the requirements, but I don't think it's directly the biggest risk driver.
In my experience the biggest problem is getting the users engaged in the requirements gathering. This is the most critical piece- no matter what methdology you use (and they will come and go) you still need to make sure that you understand the requirements. In most business environments, software development tends to a discovery process. In some cases the users can visualize a system and what it should look like, in others they cannot and it just may take a lot longer time. In that case, expectations should be properly managed by the stakeholders. PM's come in to play and should explain what is likely to happen- requirements will change, development or design may take more time, etc. Investigate other options for requirements gathering and understand not all of it may be able to be done on paper.
I've found that most business applications work best when I have users who have had some level of experience with Information Systems, who are committed to walking through what the system should do, and have support from management to do so through the entire development cycle. Technology and development tools are usually the issue, especially if you have competent developers.
In my experience, it is usually drugs, alcohol, too much sleep, unconcerned management, or a combination thereof that causes projects to fail. Have you ever tried to project-manage after 8 double vodkas, a short nap, and a full rack of ribs?
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Aaaah, that one is subject to the 95% rule:
The first 95% of the project takes 95% of the time, and the remaining 5% takes the other 95% of the time"
(loosely quoted from some fortune)
I've seen a lot of projects get truly overdesigned, because someone wants to make sure that they'll be easily extensible to changing requirements.
The resulting source is then needlessly complicated, and often when it comes to extending it, the original design gets in the way because it didn't pander to the particular change being made.
I'll suggest everybody who has not yet done so should RTF precedents for such a study...it is as ancient as it is true: Brooks "Mythical Man Month" describes the reasons projects blow up pretty well. For all the technology heaped on software development in the 30 years since the book came out, very little has changed: Software projects are complicated beasts attempted by mere humans. Steve McConnel's books will be more familiar to /. readers and his approach to project management tries to head off the "changed requirements" fiascos with a feedback and correction mechanism of frequent critical project reviews...I wonder if that actually has worked for anyone:-(
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Interesting article. I can't disagree with its findings, though I'd argue they're of limited usefulness as the problems it notes can happen under a variety of situations.
The most unexpected result here, and the most insightful to me, is "Similarity to Previous Projects." This is a factor that I think deserves more attention - you can have a great staff, great management, and all the resources, but stick them in unfamiliar territory and your chance of failure goes up.
I don't think people pay enough attention to this factor, and thus it sneaks up on them easier than the obvious ones.
I have witnessed very talented people completely screw up an simple application because they had no previous experience with a project of that particular kind and neither did the management structure. Thus they all did their best, worked hard - and still produced a massively flawed product.
In these cases, I asked myself "How could they mess up like this when the solution was obvious." Now I realize that the solutions were obvious to me as I was more familiar with the kind of software they were trying to design.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The lack of focus made testing difficult because it wasn't particularly clear what the testing metrics should be. A library system I know of was so overwhelmingly bloated trying to meet a variety of interoperability specs that when the testers saw some 2 megabytes of data cross the lan to handle a single checkout/checkin transaction, they didn't realize they had a problem.
Another salient feature of successful projects I've worked on is technical competence. The managers of the successful projects tended to be ex-coders and had a feel for what made sense vs what didn't. The bloated projects were run by people from all manner of backgrounds and hence, didn't have the cut-to-the-quick feel when something was going awry. One time, I was working on an air defense project for a country in the middle east and the project manager started getting antsy when he saw all his developers waiting on the compiler. We were using the machine we were going to deliver the product on and it was having a tough time just compiling code for some 12 developers. He sat down and wrote a bare-bones air defense system that did nothing more than establish a client server relationship and had the client simulate the required number of radar contacts per second while the server did nothing more than ack said contacts. The machine couldn't handle a load as simple as that which led to some back and forth with the hardware company until they upgraded the hardware to handle the problem. Had he not had the tech background, he wouldn't have realized that there was a problem until it was too late.
The number of projects failing now will probably rise because Moore's Law isn't there anymore to bail over-speced projects out. The code written today won't run any better on tomorrow's machines primarily because it doesn't look like tomorrow's machines are going to be much faster. Knocking that crutch out from underneath projects will tumble more than a few projects.
Yes, but you should be working harder on updating your resume than on the project.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Most project management methods push waterfall development - with its huge reliance on time-consuming and error-prone upfront analysis & requirements gathering.
Of course, they hate requirements changes. And of course, their initial requirements are usually wrong - and fail to meet the need.
The answer isn't to stop changes - but to use methods that aren't so vulnerable to impact of change - like patterns, agile methods, passionate & highly skilled staff, etc, etc.
Our most famous crash and burn ( to date ) was an attempt to migrate a number of different applications to an Oracle Applications suite.
We expected a web based desktop client wouldn't require configuration; a jinitiator component required numerous desktop visits.
We expected streamlined operation; In fact the replacement product required more end user data entry and provided less critical information ( i.e. fewer metrics the end users have come to expect).
Management drank the marketroids cool aid. They should have asked the end users to evaluate the software before commiting to a purchase, rather than shoehorning the end users into accepting what was the cheapest.
A Human Right
i actually was "assigned" to supervise a death march project at my last employer. my "new" manager(6th one in one year) knew the project was going to be canned(didn't confirm the inevitable to me, even when confronted), and most of the people would be absorbed into other projects or simply layed off. why was it a doomed project? politics.
someone else in our organization (at another geographical location), happened to be better aligned with the top management group, and used this to their advantage to eliminate competing projects, or in some cases eliminate the internal competition and take the projects over as their own.
of course at the time i had no idea what i was getting into(or who my "competition" was). no matter what our team did to produce a superior product, our project was cancelled for reasons beyond our control. i ended up stressing out and nearly damaged my health and my relationship...
then i read a book call Death March: The Complete Software Developer's Guide to Surviving "Mission Impossible" Projects. i soon realized that we were set up as an ugly style project, doomed(in fact designed) to fail.
it's good to understand why projects fail, i have not yet RTFA, but i'm sure it will compliment some of the discussions/concepts in the death march book. good read.
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
One result of ad-hoc software design and implementation has been government regulation of software in the financial, security and pharmaceutical sectors.
One result of government regulation has been the emergence of requirements management tools like Borland's CaliberRM and Telelogic's DOORS.
These tools trace every functional requirement back to a business requirement. They also track the risk (schedule, safety, robustness, performance) of every functional requirement to the rest of the system.
Vague specification, like vague design is an indicator of not understanding the problem. The first step towards understanding the problem is categorization of ignorance, such as unexpected consequences already experienced by the project.
Good requirements management tools incorporate practices that have been proven to flush out vague specifications. Good traceability educates upstream participants so they can produce better specs in the future. Better specs yield better products, including better spec management tools
So I worked on a project that spent 8 months getting through "project approval" on an 18 month scedule. Of course by the time it was approved, they still wanted it to be delivered in 18 months (from the start date) so we now had 10 months on an 18 month schedule.
Long story short - we delivered in 13 months, and were blamed for being late... Nothing like marketting and management not taking any blame for taking 8 months to approve the beginning of the project
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
On the flip side, if you show that you are brilliant up front and point out the problems early, they will tell everyone else what an incredible job you did, unlike those lazy, incompetent morons who they hired the last time who had to redo the whole project.
What planet are you from? If you tell the customer it can't be done for this that and the other reason, you're more likely to get canned as they move on to another consulting firm that can get the job done.
Even in this day and age, most people see software as a magical phenomenon that can do anything provided the magician is powerful enough. Telling them "no" means you're but a lowly apprentice.
Here is a pretty good paper by Mary Shaw explaining why software is not yet an engineering discipline (IEEE). http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/ajila/4106-5006 /Prospect%20Eng%20Soft.pdf/
Al: No, Peg. Your fat makes you look fat.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
"Is Your Development Project a Sinking Ship?"
Why yes, we make submarines. Hoo-hah!
Of the six reasons adduced for project failure, these cannot be accurately applied post facto:
. pdf/
0 1/10/1844255&tid=156&tid=9/.
Use of an inappropriate methodology: Had they used a different methodology, they might have simply stumbled on different "gotcha's".
Lack of formal project management practices: This reason means they know a number of issues got out of control. They do not know how much more those issues would have been controlled, nor how much additional control might have slowed progress.
In addition, the "Requirements volatility" category begs a big question: requirements DO change over time; how is this category different from "Lack of formal project management practices" that would have planned for requirements changes?
It is interesting that "Project complexity" falls low on this list, because it is the most clearly proven reason why project plans fail. See this website for a fairly formal proof that project complexity cannot be estimated in advance: http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Work/Softestim/kcsest
This proof has been discussed at slashdot here: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
It would be interesting to see such an analysis done with an open source-centric viewpoint: why open source/free software projects fail.
It would be necessary to structure the survey carefully to avoid the obvious results that don't contain useful information. For instance, Sourceforge is littered with old projects that never got past alpha or pre-alpha because no one was interested except for the project initiator (who never created enough of a start to encourage significant involvement from others), and the project initiator eventually lost interest him/herself. That may be the way in which most open source projects fail -- but that knowledge is of little use to someone running a project and looking for tips on management. There are of course books about aspects of this topic; but it would be nice if someone were to do a similar survey of open source projects that did get their legs underneath them, that did produce something that enticed involvement and an interested user community, only to eventually fail.
I'm working for a large Telco doing roughly 80-120 IT projects every calendar year worth about $200M. Most of them get through in one way or another, but some fail spetacularly and all of them have ridiculous overheads, delays and frustrations.
Best example of a crash-and-burn is a transaction engine designed to process a simple text file from another company. Should have been 6 months/$500K, project actually folded at 2 years / $3M and now we're going round for a second bite at the cherry (but with a new project name!!!).
Why do they fail ? Lot's of reasons.
Sometimes the user's requirements are unclear. Sometimes we're using the wrong spanner for the job. Sometimes the team loses the plot and we get a jumbo jet when we wanted a paper air plane. And we're always under pressure on time, but that's business - if we don't get there first someone else will.
What's the root cause?
Complexity. We let our systems get too complex and now a two line code change can cost >$500K because the down stream effects will hit ten other systems that generate $1M/day of revenue.
The moral - KISS. Use the simplest solution for the job. Don't let the sales guy run away with it, don't let your geek-ego run away with it, don't let the user's get over excited and your project might just come in on time on budget. As someone else said... it isn't rocket science... or shouldn't be...
Don't look back the lemmings are gaining on you
Thanks mirrordot!
Tiwana and Keil were asking MIS directors what *they* thought, not project managers or developers, leading me to believe that this is more based on client perception than someone with experience working on said projects.
That said, they ranked changing requirements last when talking about risk of failure, and actually said that inappropriate methodology was the top reason of project failure.
Now, while a lack of any sort of methodology is a disaster waiting to happen, I have a difficult time believing that a bad fit for a project creates more risk than project complexity and shifting requirements combined, as they suggest.
*sigh*
Do you really believe that a client is going to place shifting requirements as a risk? After all, they're the ones asking for the changes!
It's written by Steve C McConnell (who also wrote Rapid Development and Writing Solid Code) and well worth it for anybody doing project management.
Chris Peters (former Microsoft VP) wrote an interesting documented called "Is Your Project Out of Control". It seems to have appeared on the net in various formats.
Focus on launch from the start. Launch all the time, incrementally. Here's a few other nice pieces of advice. Read it, and then, well forgetaboutit... just do it.
> management tries to replace good ol' fashioned thinking with
> process
That's because that's what they teach in business schools. Businesses are about repeatability and consistency. It's good if you can make a cup of coffee. It's great if you can sell a cup of coffee for more than it cost you to make it. If you can make a good cup of coffee and sell it profitably one million times, you have a healthy, sustainable business. Obviously, the third action requires a process.
That's why sometimes people make a distinction between management and leadership. Management is about incremental cost reductions and process improvement. Leadership is about changing directions and determining new courses of strategy.
The problem is managers often confuse themselves for leaders and leaders confuse themselves for managers. That's why many start-ups fail: the person who started it had great leadership skills (coming up with a new idea for a product), but poor management skills (taking that product and building a sustainable business out of it).
Management is always looking for a process. The problem is creative people can feel stifled by the process and poor performers can hide behind it. A good idea is to have a mixture of people (managers and leaders) in different roles so you have elements of strategy combined with repeatability. Obviously to do that you have to have effective teamwork and people that can get along with each other. I think the relative scarcity of all those elements (managers, leaders, teamwork) is the reason why failure is so common.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
First, a survey based on data "as reported by development project managers" is suspect to a high degree. Obviously their view will differ from that of the senior manager and from the actual developer. SO I will put little stock in that survey.
But the question is valid: why does it always fail?
Personally, I see a mixture of the following:
I am not ranking them in importance, will leave that to others!
Mike
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Interesting that project managers say the factors that they are paid to manage are the ones that are most important and higher risk (and thus justify the most funding, of course).
I also think that the chosen dimensions are not orthogonal. The methodology chosen is influenced by experience with similar projects... If your architects have done something similar before, then a structured approach will be extremely effective, if they haven't, then an iterative approach as they work out how to do it.
All in all, a pointless study that will do more harm than good.
News flash: software is nothing like building construction.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
I find it funny that they didn't consider 'fundamentally a worhtless idea' one of the top reasons that projects fail.
...), the customer won't want it, and won't buy it.
Seriosuly, how many of you have worked on a project (probably you were assigned by someone who wanted to get rid of you), where you thought from the beginning of the project 'this is a terrible product?'
Even if the product ships (which is unlikely, because your coworkers probably also think the product is terrible, thus morale plummets, thus productivity plummets, thus
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
That I will be alotted an absolutely reasonable and appropriate amount of time to actually to complete a project. I have a dream that my ptototypes will not be scattered around the country in various states of "production". I have a dream that I will someday be able to look at a project in CVS and proclaim - that is the damn freaking good code - I am proud that my name is on this application ( and mean it ).
...
I have learned to live with disapointment this long - back to the next fire
Once you have captured requirements, you present them back to the user with some difficulty estimates. This is where the 'Win98' thing you quote should get killed. You also make sure that the customer is aware that you are always thinking around the next releases too (even if there is no budget yet), so they feel comfortable with postphoning funtionality.
When changes appear (you can't dodge all of them), you make sure that the customer is aware of changes to delivery schedule and budget. Perhaps they don't really need that in 1.0?
See my journal, I write things there
Appreciate the history lesson. Are any of the early requirements management tools still around, in any incarnation?
Agree on the value of tracking estimates and actuals. I've not had the experience of working on a project that was mature enough to track both. But even a mental comparison of estimates with personal observation was invaluable in understanding developer strengths/weaknesses.
Do you think there is a place in the market for an open-source requirements management system? E.g. if someone started such a tool, would any home-grown tool owners contribute expertise or code?
Have you seen a good tool that is more affordable than CaliberRM/DOORS? The market seems to have an absent low end (excluding MS Office). Microsoft plans some process management for their developer tools, e.g. "Visual Studio Team System" is mentioned in a comprehensive description (with photos) of their internal build+test environment for ASP.NET.