View software development management from a joke

1. Program The employee writes the code that he thinks has no bugs. Code .
2. During software testing, 20 bugs were found.
3. the programmer modified 10 bugs and told the test group that the other 10 were not bugs.
4. the test group found that five of the changes were not working at all, and 15 new bugs were found.
5. Repeat Steps 3 and 4 three times.
6. In view of the market pressure, in order to cooperate with the originally formulated overly optimistic release schedule, the product was finally listed.
7. User 137 new bugs were found.
8. You have received Project The bonus programmer does not know where to go.
9. The new project team fixed almost all 137 bugs, but found 456 new bugs.
10. At first, the programmer sent a postcard from Fiji to a test group suffering from wage arrears. The entire test group resigned.
11. The company was maliciously acquired by competitors. At the time of acquisition, the final version of the software contained 783 bugs.
12. The new CEO takes office immediately. The company hired a new programmer to rewrite the software.
13. programmers write code that they think has no bugs.

I want to say that if such a company does not close down, I am sorry for the people.
This joke begins with a programmer and ends with a programmer. It is not a programmer from the beginning to the end. But what I want to say is that this is totally a failure of the manager, and there is no management work in the whole process. This kind of manager is not only ignorant and incompetent, but also shameless-to blame the programmer for failure.

1. Why does a programmer prove that his code has no bugs? Is there a test case? Is there code review? Management of this link is missing.

2. Is there any bug management in the test? Are you tracking? Management of this link is missing.

3. Why does it prove that the programmer has modified the 10 bugs? Why are the other 10 not bugs? Is the evaluation criteria for bugs determined by programmers? Management of this link is missing.

4. Are there five bug fixes that cannot work under investigation? Adding new bugs is inevitable in the modification process. However, if an effective unit test mechanism is available, this situation can be greatly reduced. Management of this link is missing.

5. iteration is normal, but the problem is solved by divergence rather than convergence. It can be seen that there is no effective management and control. Management of this link is missing.

6. An overly optimistic timetable and an impossible deadline all show the ignorance and incompetence of managers. Under such circumstances, the launch of products by force means that the ignorant are fearless.

7. This is not responsible to users, and managers must bear the greatest responsibility.

8. In this case, you can send project bonuses. It can only be said that managers are not stupid.

9. The management work has not been improved, and the problem is still in a divergent iteration state. Management is still in place.

10. The arrears in the salary of the Testing Department reflect the neglect of quality management by managers and the ignorance of human resource management.

11. Send the word to the acquired person: deserve it. Send two words to the acquirer: blind eye.

12. We can see that the new manager and the original manager did not recognize the root cause of the problem. However, only such managers can make a decision to buy such a company.

13. replaying history is inevitable.

A normalEnterpriseOr a project must be operated cyclically and upwards. The task of ensuring this operation is management. The main content of management work is control, including controlling the cycle-neither too fast nor too slow, and controlling the direction of development-only up and down, control the stability of operations-Not Big Ups and downs or time aggregation.

All of this is invisible in this example.

In the example of this joke, everything is driven by development work. This is first of all a kind of directionality error. The product serves the user, and of course it should be driven by the user and the market, and ultimately determine the focus of work based on their own capabilities. This error reflects the fact that managers do not know much about managed content, so they have to be at the mercy of well-known programmers.Technology.

If a manager does not know what he or she manages, he or she cannot manage the content well.

There is no doubt about this, but the domestic software industry does not seem to believe this. One of the deepest lies in the Chinese software industry is:

Managers only need to understand management, and do not need to understand technology.
In fact, this is just a compilation of ignorant and shameless managers who want to cheat money. Those who believe in this sentence will pay the price.

The second is quality management. The basic quality management knowledge tells us that the most important task before each cycle is to summarize and improve. Only in this way can we ensure that the circular operation develops upwards, rather than the downward development without control. Only effective quality management can ensure that the iteration process is converged and eventually achieves the goal. However, in this example, this part is obviously missing-although there are test departments, their role is only the quality inspection link in quality management, and the management part is still missing.

Then there is human resource management. Software development is a labor-intensive job. Although it is mental work, it also means that people are decisive in factors. In this example, programmers who haven't completed the bug change get the project bonus, while testers who have worked hard have been in arrears with their salary. In addition to showing that managers do not understand their work content, in addition to the lack of emphasis on quality management, it also shows that managers do not care about people at all. This is a behavior of killing a team-it is much easier to murder a team than building a team.

Finally, the failed manager compiled his experiences into this joke, which made everyone see how miserable he was by programmers and turned programmers into a group of scammers. However, it can be seen from a simple analysis by a person who understands management a little bit, but the ignorance and incompetence of this person have caused his current results, the behavior of putting responsibility on others is even more shameless.

As a high-ranking manager, if they have to shirk their responsibilities, what else can they do.