|
|
Posted by Andrew DeFaria on 11/12/57 11:30
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Ah that would be wonderful. But in my some 25 years in the business I
>> don't think I've ever actually seen that in practice! Then again I do
>> more admin/build/release stuff... (And surprisingly enough, even at
>> that late stage of the game, rarely do I see design docs that go to
>> the level of defining function names and parameters... Sad but true)
>
> Then you're Project Manager is not managing the project properly.
Then my Project Managers, from over 25 years - at companies as big and
diverse as HP, Sun, Cisco, Amerquest, Broadcom and a plethora of others
(look up my resume...) have all not been managing their projects
properly. This does say something very loudly and clearly - what you
describe is definitely not the norm. Indeed what you describe is pie in
the sky rarity!
Mind you I agree with the philosophy and personally that's the way I
would do it. However, and again, that is not the way I've ever seen it done.
Finally, my Project Managers as of late are not really projects managers
as per se, rather they are clients.
> I learned about project management when I was working for IBM back in
> the 80's.
Break out the blue suit and tie... ;-)
> Since then I've been both a programmer and a PM. When I've been a PM,
> the documentation is complete long before programming starts (and yes,
> I get the programmers involved in the design). And I've been a
> programmer on projects where the design is done properly. Every one
> was completed on time
Given enough time that is. Unfortunately businesses do not really have
that kind of time anymore. Models like the Open Source model beat the
pants off of the structured design everything first then start coding
methodologies of the past...
> and within budget, given reasonable time and budgetary constraints.
Aye there's the rub - "reasonable time". Which is way longer than is
acceptable these days. Why do you think IBM fell from on high? Because
different more flexible and a lot faster ways of doing things developed
and IBM didn't keep pace. The only reason IBM is back at all is that
they have actively changed their culture and stringentness.
> And change orders were handled by modifying the design - which showed
> exactly how it would affect other parts of the project.
>
> I've also worked on ones where PM wasn't properly done. Some were on
> time, but most were late. They also had more bugs and change orders
> were harder to implement.
The track records of the big companies has not agreed with your assessment.
>>> Of course, if you don't design the application and fly by the seat
>>> of your pants, that's another story.
>>
>> In my line of work I'm forced to do that all the time...
>
> I've heard that before. But all but the smallest projects benefit
> from a proper design.
Yes but then your contract expires early and your out on the street
begging for food. You know those grandiose ideas and methodologies look
great on paper. But the real world and real business constraints always
seem to get in way. As a contract and a businessman myself I strive to
keep the customer happy and they are always right, etc... Real world is,
while proper design, etc. is all nice, it don't happen much.
--
Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible
crisp no one would eat?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|