3 ms·

If management don't understand the projects, and they generally don't, what are they really managing? Oh yeah, get the pay but use position as shield and sword.

by loopz 6y ago

If management don't understand the projects, and they generally don't, what are they really managing? Oh yeah, get the pay but use position as shield and sword.. You'll see the few exceptions are acting more like a PM, on and off.

rualca 6y ago
> If management don't understand the projects, and they generally don't, what are they really managing? With the inception of Agile, by definition software projects are impossible to understand in the sense of having a clear idea regarding concrete goals and risks, technical designs, and timelines. Yet, you will need to manage resource allocation, plan tasks, eliminate risks, and coordinate between stakeholders. That's what a manager does.
- loopz 6y ago
  The consultants behind AM are always hired by managers. I'm sure they agree what they do get for the money. Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. The only thing with Agile, is there's no room for a management class inside such teams. So yes, empowering the team with all those responsibilities, this puts more in the hands of the people providing actual solutions. Though, the paperwork can be handled by staff. Managers facilitating this will be more like an overall PM for multiple efforts. This across functions, as that is how you can get most value and improve culture. Such work is actually worth higher compensation too!
  - rualca 6y ago
    > Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. I'm not sure we are on the same page regarding what "being on the same team" means, and thus what the problems and challenges are. Agile argues in favour of shared responsibility through the direct participation of stakeholders. Yet, that does not mean that clients and product owners and team leaders and junior developers don't have goals and responsibilities and resources that need to be otimized, and more importantly that there is no accountability. In agile you still have different stakeholders with their own goals. You still have work that needs to be done and prioritized. You still have to decide what needs to be done in a given time frame. That's what a manager does. Agile does not make that go away.
    - loopz 6y ago
      I only take some issue in last two paragraphs. I'll only mention for Agile teams, not other kinds: In Agile team, the team is responsible. Management decides how to reach accountability, though in practice the team together can pull through more. Agile team wants stakeholders in team, or close to team. Team plans work according to agreements with stakeholders, but can never ever be forced to do anything against their explicit agreement. Which is why there's no room for management on the team. Agile teams sets managenent in their rightful place, and may work well when workloads, accountability and additional complexity are balanced within reason. Ensuring this for org, is too big for each team (indians). So chiefs are still needed around. Vs projects: Agile teams isn't suited in all circumstances. There might be important stakeholders, costs, dates, hard known requirements, regulatory and coordination needs, that makes projects more suitable methodologies. Projects are temporary and manager-lead (PM on team), however. Having a manager or PM in team though, isn't an Agile team. You need servant leaders on team, and managers wield too much power and information imbalance.
PeterisP 6y ago
It's not about not understanding the projects, it's more often about misaligned incentives. In most companies project work is the exception compared to "everyday functioning" of the company, and the line managers are managing that instead; and a typical situation is where particular resources are needed for the success of the project, but they're also needed for the non-project things that the particular manager controlling that resource cares about and is evaluated upon, so it's in their best interest to prioritize other things at the expense of that project. Or that manager might need a particular narrow subsection of that project done their way and the rest of the project is worthless to their goals (i.e. the very common 'silo thinking' in many organizations), so they might assign resources for that part of the project and 'starve' it afterwards. Management and internal politics has a big effect on which things get done and which don't.
- loopz 6y ago
  Traditional line managers lack interest / incentives for projects. Even though they might be high priority, different functions have different goals and measurements. The managers themselves fail every new line initiative, since they've no project / PM experience too, and also no support or real budgets. When this happens, look at the environment though for answers. This type of managing is running out of time, as it simply doesn't work that well beyond managers having eachother's backs. Managers need to involve themselves much more around projects / Agile, than just borrowing and stealing back "resources". If they can't provide servant leadership skills and healthy repurposing of roles, they need to stay away and clear blocks, allocate funds and people, from quite a distance.

by loopz 6y ago

rualca 6y ago

> If management don't understand the projects, and they generally don't, what are they really managing? With the inception of Agile, by definition software projects are impossible to understand in the sense of having a clear idea regarding concrete goals and risks, technical designs, and timelines. Yet, you will need to manage resource allocation, plan tasks, eliminate risks, and coordinate between stakeholders. That's what a manager does.

loopz 6y ago
The consultants behind AM are always hired by managers. I'm sure they agree what they do get for the money. Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. The only thing with Agile, is there's no room for a management class inside such teams. So yes, empowering the team with all those responsibilities, this puts more in the hands of the people providing actual solutions. Though, the paperwork can be handled by staff. Managers facilitating this will be more like an overall PM for multiple efforts. This across functions, as that is how you can get most value and improve culture. Such work is actually worth higher compensation too!
- rualca 6y ago
  > Also being in same team with a stakeholder, you minimize coordination cost and adjust goals and plans according to value. I'm not sure we are on the same page regarding what "being on the same team" means, and thus what the problems and challenges are. Agile argues in favour of shared responsibility through the direct participation of stakeholders. Yet, that does not mean that clients and product owners and team leaders and junior developers don't have goals and responsibilities and resources that need to be otimized, and more importantly that there is no accountability. In agile you still have different stakeholders with their own goals. You still have work that needs to be done and prioritized. You still have to decide what needs to be done in a given time frame. That's what a manager does. Agile does not make that go away.
  - loopz 6y ago
    I only take some issue in last two paragraphs. I'll only mention for Agile teams, not other kinds: In Agile team, the team is responsible. Management decides how to reach accountability, though in practice the team together can pull through more. Agile team wants stakeholders in team, or close to team. Team plans work according to agreements with stakeholders, but can never ever be forced to do anything against their explicit agreement. Which is why there's no room for management on the team. Agile teams sets managenent in their rightful place, and may work well when workloads, accountability and additional complexity are balanced within reason. Ensuring this for org, is too big for each team (indians). So chiefs are still needed around. Vs projects: Agile teams isn't suited in all circumstances. There might be important stakeholders, costs, dates, hard known requirements, regulatory and coordination needs, that makes projects more suitable methodologies. Projects are temporary and manager-lead (PM on team), however. Having a manager or PM in team though, isn't an Agile team. You need servant leaders on team, and managers wield too much power and information imbalance.

PeterisP 6y ago

It's not about not understanding the projects, it's more often about misaligned incentives. In most companies project work is the exception compared to "everyday functioning" of the company, and the line managers are managing that instead; and a typical situation is where particular resources are needed for the success of the project, but they're also needed for the non-project things that the particular manager controlling that resource cares about and is evaluated upon, so it's in their best interest to prioritize other things at the expense of that project. Or that manager might need a particular narrow subsection of that project done their way and the rest of the project is worthless to their goals (i.e. the very common 'silo thinking' in many organizations), so they might assign resources for that part of the project and 'starve' it afterwards. Management and internal politics has a big effect on which things get done and which don't.

loopz 6y ago
Traditional line managers lack interest / incentives for projects. Even though they might be high priority, different functions have different goals and measurements. The managers themselves fail every new line initiative, since they've no project / PM experience too, and also no support or real budgets. When this happens, look at the environment though for answers. This type of managing is running out of time, as it simply doesn't work that well beyond managers having eachother's backs. Managers need to involve themselves much more around projects / Agile, than just borrowing and stealing back "resources". If they can't provide servant leadership skills and healthy repurposing of roles, they need to stay away and clear blocks, allocate funds and people, from quite a distance.