Software project management aspects of "playing is the Heartbeat"

playing is the heartbeat

The phone rang.

"We would like to complete the specification of the requirements this week. Can you come and see what you can do? ”

"What happened to the spec sheet?" ”

"We're in a hurry, so we've got a lot of people to write specifications. We feel that they have no idea what they are doing at all. ”

"If we were to guide them in writing the requirements, wouldn't it be more efficient?" ”

"But we need specs this week. ”

"Well, I'll come over tomorrow." ”

After two hours.

"Can you come and see our estimates?" ”

"What about the spec sheet?" ”

"We don't have time." We will proceed according to the existing requirements specification. The boss asked for the results to be handed in today ... "

You may have discovered the characteristics of this type of "Heartbeat game" (Adrenaline Junkie) Organization: Priorities are always changing, everything is "Yesterday", there is always not enough time to deliver the project, each project is an expedited project, and the expedited project continues to emerge. Everyone is so busy ... Always be like this.

The people in these organizations do not think about the strategic level of the problem, but just to the extent of urgency to complete the work. Unless the "Fuss index" is very high, the index is usually ignored – although it is likely to be valued for a significant long-term advantage. People will always be indifferent to it until it suddenly (absolutely unexpectedly) becomes important. "It's the heartbeat." The molecules believe that the best way to work is not to plan and act first, but to move faster.

This culture believes that the higher the urgency of the project, the greater the harvest. If you're in this culture, it's hard not to be infected: the more urgent the better. Programmers who work overtime all night because of the short time of the project are considered heroes (they don't care about the quality of the program they deliver). Every weekend, all members of the team work as usual to maintain their workload: This team is more praised than the team who does not. In addition, if you have not been over-working overtime, or are not crazy and busy, you will be labeled "outsider", you are not to protect the smooth running of the organization one of the busy people. Non-heroic behavior is absolutely unacceptable.

Most of the "Heartbeat game" type of organization there is at least one bottleneck, that is the hero. He is the decision maker of all designs, the only source of all needs, and may also be the whole structure. He played two roles: one was to show that he could not be imagined, the other was to trigger an impasse, and his decision, once published, would make other parts of the organization more hectic.

Most "heart-beating" organizations enthusiastically embrace the dogma of serving customers: They confuse response to urgent events and a commendable response. As long as the customer makes a request, whether or not it brings benefits (even if it doesn't), it is instantly converted into a project, and usually the deadline is ridiculously short. (For more discussion, see Pattern 38.) This new project will naturally add to the burden of already overworked heroes, making them more frantic--the relentless need to make the organization extremely busy. Many of these organizations are (wrongly) thinking that this is all about agility.

The "Heartbeat game" type of action is hasty, without thinking. The result is that most of the work is in a state of constant change and cannot be fixed, and nothing can be fixed, and nothing can be maintained for a long time. This state of uncertainty continues: the requirements are not fixed-no one really knows what to develop, and the design and planning are not fixed-they are likely to change tomorrow. Urgency is the only standard, and no one attempts to prioritize work by importance or work value.

For the "heart-beating game" type of organization, there is no cure. They are hopeless, unless the heart-pounding task is lifted, and the manager is dismissed, employing those who understand that "the organization is not too busy dealing with emergencies to be most efficient". But such personnel changes are unlikely to be accepted, because high-level leaders, usually CEOs, want to see the organization stay in a state of haste for a long time, and a rush of work will give people a high productivity illusion. And if the company's managers are superstitious about "playing the heartbeat," the project team will follow suit.

The "Heartbeat Game" type of organization does not always fail, and some of them have been in a hurry for years. But none of them can build something significant-that requires stability and planning. Hyper-behavior cannot be extended--by a relatively small number of people without direction or strategic guidance, with very, very busy work, the results are very limited.

Of course, there are urgent things in various organizations, and there are some roles that need to be concerned with urgent tasks. But not all things are urgent, and not all roles are concerned with urgent tasks. Unless the urgency is prioritized and constrained, the cure for this "heartbeat game" is minimal.

dead Fish

From the start, the project is completely impossible to achieve the goal, most of the project team is aware of this, but silent.

The goals of many IT projects can be summarized as follows: We have to complete this series of functions before the deadline, to achieve this accuracy, and to ensure adequate robustness. The project team is then set up, the project objectives and constraints are implemented as detailed requirements and design, and then released.

The big secret is that no one on the project team believes the project will be successful at the end. Usually it seems that the deadline is not enough if other targets are not modified. It is hard to Incredibles, and no one has pointed out that the shadow of failure is just like a foul-smelling big dead fish, and the project becomes stink.

So the Greek tragedy began, the project was struggling. No surprises, in the weeks leading up to the expected delivery date, all project members, project managers, supervisors of project managers and anyone who has a point with the project, or

(1) For the project is not in accordance with the forthcoming release date, expressed shock, discouraged, surprised;

Or--

(2) Keep a low profile and remain silent on everything unless asked to do so by name.

Why is it that so many people in so many organizations use deodorants to cover up the truth, rather than pointing out that "the way the project is now is not the way we want it, the dead fish is there"?

Many organizations value success too much, so anyone who expresses doubts will not be rewarded for telling the truth. In fact, if someone claims the existence of a dead fish in the early stages of the project, the management's first response is mostly as follows.

"Prove it to us." The possibility of proving success to us is zero. Do not use the dead fish experience of previous projects to bluff people. The project is not the same now. Please use strict mathematical proofs to tell us that failure cannot be avoided. ”

Once you present anything that lacks precise evidence, you will be accused of being soft or trying to avoid a hard-working job:

"Are you soft or lazy?" Choose it yourself. But we wonder how long you can stay in this progressive organization. ”

In such an environment, "hard work" can not be done more safely than to stand out and say that the goal cannot be achieved. Indeed, sometimes we need to be brave enough to face the challenge and really fight before we concede. Quite right--but the difference is that, in a difficult project with a definite deadline, no one will be at the last minute to declare the crisis. If the project is to develop software for communications satellites that will be launched only 18 months from now (you know that if you miss the launch, you'll have to wait for another 16 months), then each of you has a daily highlight of what smells like a project. As long as you smell a whiff, you should shout it out, because you know very well that if you encounter a "dead fish" project, no one will talk until the last minute.

It is very clear that "dead fish" not only has a damaging effect on the organization, but also dampens the morale of the team members and managers of the "Dead Fish" project. No matter what the culture of the Organization, no one would feel comfortable staying in the stinking "Dead fish" project for a long time. The cost of tightly blocking the "dead fish" message is too high.

Dedicated to "①", Fans of the "Simon Parker":

"The project is not dead yet, it is attaching to the fjord!" ”

"The project is not dead, just molting!" ”

"This project is dead. He has gone to the west of the crane. ”

"Now it's a completely different model ..."

  Monty Python，英国喜剧六人团，出演了系列电视喜剧片。——译者注

Babysitter

Good project managers must be knowledgeable about the abilities of their employees. He assigns tasks, makes plans, and seeks the best balance between the skills to be used and the requirements of the task itself. This is obvious. There are also project managers who take a step further: the work environment they create-not only technical, but also social-allows people to maximize their abilities and improve those capabilities. These project managers ensure that their employees have the tools necessary to complete the task. These project managers also encourage questions and are willing to debate with employees, who present the most appropriate challenges to each team member, criticize them when they need them, build a place where everyone is happy to work, and take the necessary adjustments to ensure that everything is organized. To put it simply, a good manager cultivates their employees, just as a babysitter looks after their children.

In traditional British culture, a nanny is employed by a family and is responsible for the care of the child. Nannies usually have the skills of a teacher, nurse, and chef, and are fully responsible for the physical, mental, social, creative and intellectual development of the child. In daily activities, the babysitter ensures that the child is kept away from injuries, that the children get enough fresh air and exercise, eat nutritious food, deepen their understanding of the world, and learn more about the world's survival skills. In addition to babysitting, the nanny also needs to promote the child's talent development and communicate with parents about their child's growth concerns. The babysitter creates a safe environment where children can take risks and learn from them.

Managers who have the same skills as nannies can get more and better results from their employees by encouraging and nurturing their talent.

So far, the best manager I've ever worked for is Peter Ford. It's more obvious, for example, that he makes his employees do everything they can at work. For example, we worked in a large open design office, which was not the best environment for thinking, so he managed to get some soundproof screens for the team and kept several "quiet rooms". All this, and all the other things he did for us, used negotiation skills and wrists, but they didn't let us know. He encouraged us to read more and discuss new ideas as we developed our systems. He buys books and magazines for the team and arranges time for us to get together and discuss. When we feel unhappy or uncomfortable, he will notice this, talk to us and help us. He protects us from the interference of other people and things in the organization, but if he is dissatisfied with us, he will let us know. The door of his office is seldom closed. Peter is our nanny.

--sqr

Your organization may already have some "nanny-type" managers, and if you look at them, you'll find them: you don't have to make an appointment to see your boss, or you don't have to spend too much time on trivial and annoying management work. Surrounded by an open atmosphere, people speak freely and learn from each other. Such managers think training or learning is necessary, not as a burn. They also specialize in arranging time (such as morning coffee chats or Friday afternoon readings) to get everyone together to discuss new ideas.

As long as people get together, there will always be gossip, gossip and some skiving. However, in an office that is carefully cared for by the manager, this kind of waste of time is rare, because the manager ensures that the team members are very clear about what actually happened. People don't need to pry into the grapevine to understand what's going on in the organization. Instead, they feel they are fully informed, trusted, and focused on their jobs.

A nanny-like manager sees himself as a catalyst for work. The job satisfaction of a traditional nanny comes from seeing the development of the child's ability, and the job satisfaction of the "nanny-type" manager comes from seeing each team member develop in their personal roles, improve productivity, and be more satisfied with their work.

The opposite of this pattern is this: managers are concerned with power upheavals, giving orders, making processes, pandering to superiors; drawing, adjusting pert charts and Gantertubi talking to team members is more important, and some managers are doing too much of their own actual development, rather than solving the needs of the team.

What does your organization think of the role of the manager? Will they be praised for "catalyzing" their work? Do you hire "nanny" or "manager"?

Software project management aspects of "playing is the Heartbeat"