The Art of Project Management
in [Cobol]
|
From: Anonymous on 23 Dec 2007 19:21 In article <n3ptm3dslcg5oubru6oc61t1ktbsets438(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> 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.' From <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/9b3c2b947a2a9169?dmode=source> --begin quoted text: Date: 1997/12/29 [snip] Hmmmm... decades back, when I got my First Job, my sainted Mother, may she sleep with the angels, gave me the following sage counsel: 'Then it comes to work remember two things: you can be wrong about something... and be fired for it; you can be right about something... and be fired for it.' --end quoted text DD
From: Robert on 23 Dec 2007 23:21 On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >In article <n3ptm3dslcg5oubru6oc61t1ktbsets438(a)4ax.com>, >Robert <no(a)e.mail> 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.
From: Anonymous on 24 Dec 2007 07:56 In article <4f9um3dbmdd0fn08hmma3s8l63p9as4f7b(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <n3ptm3dslcg5oubru6oc61t1ktbsets438(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> 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. >The same has been said about Cobol, by some proponents as >well as critics. Something was said about paying the piper and calling the tune long before Babbage's Analytical Engine was dreamt-of, as well. > >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. '(A) central feature of formal process'... Mr Wagner, some people might say that this is antithetical to progress, with RAD two-coders-to-a-keyboard programming and JIT implementation of features that weren't thought of back when someone said 'wouldn't it be nice if we could...' and other aspects of Modern Design. Centralised, formal processint... what comes next, requests for User Sign-Off? DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 24 Dec 2007 16:28 "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:4f9um3dbmdd0fn08hmma3s8l63p9as4f7b(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:21 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <n3ptm3dslcg5oubru6oc61t1ktbsets438(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> 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."
From: Judson McClendon on 24 Dec 2007 18:15
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > You can have all the checks, balances, lists, correlations, processes, and accountability you like, it is trumped by ego and > power. Or stupid/ignorant/etc. and power. The main ingredient is power. :-) -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." |