4 ms·

I get the feeling you don't work on massively complex projects. We have loads of project managers where I work and I thank my stars we have every one of them.

I get the feeling you don't work on massively complex projects. We have loads of project managers where I work and I thank my stars we have every one of them. The coordination and planning required is ferocious for the work we need to deliver. It is not trivial and it would quickly fall apart without them.

sanderjd 3y ago
Some of what you described in the comment I replied to fits the description of complicated company-spanning project management - a valuable role I have typically seen referred to as "program management" - but some of it, the team level dealing-with-task-backlogs type stuff, are things that managers and team members can just do in the course of their work. But you're right that my comment focused only on the latter thing and ignored the former one. But setting that aside, there is certainly a personality thing at play here. If I worked where you work, I would probably be more skeptical of the value of all the time being put into project management, and if you worked at my favorite companies that I've worked at, you would probably feel like it's a poorly managed mess (I've had lots of coworkers who felt that way!). To some extent different folks just like different strokes, and that's one of the things that makes it really hard to do things that require lots of people to pull in the same direction.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  There is certainly a distinction between teams just dealing with their task backlog and project management. I wouldn't waste a project manager on that. Program management is a level above project management as you say, coordinating multiple projects. But there is definitely a space for complex single projects (not programs) that still require detailed planning and coordination. It's not really about personal preference though, unless this issue is a show stopper for you in terms of where you work. I've worked in both informal and formal settings. I personally dislike heavyweight project management processes but they are sometimes required!
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Yeah I was thinking last night that my comments here were a lot more strident about this than I am in real life. I agree with your whole comment, except I think the middle ground between team-level management and program management is more often better served by tooling, architecture, requirements, or team structure changes rather than project management. (I get it, sometimes the need for a lot of planning is imposed from the top, like if you sign a contract with an immovable delivery date, but I think most organizations should do whatever they can to avoid doing that, in order to enable them to structure projects flexibly and have small mostly-autonomous teams.) I think the personality thing is important both in terms of contentment with your work (and thus which organizations and projects you choose) and in terms of how you analyze the relative value of things when evaluating trade-offs between the different things an organization can invest its time and resources on.
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      In our case we are a heavily regulated industry and the level of coordination, governance and compliance that is required to make change is shocking! I agree that it's good if it's possible to avoid all that and still deliver what you need to! Also agree that many people simply can't stand working in really heavyweight environments. While I dont love it, I can live with it.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        Yep! I think, somewhat humorously for how this thread started - which was entirely mea culpa! - our perspectives on this are pretty closely aligned. One thing I think is that a lot (though not all!) of the requirements imposed in heavily-regulated industries are actively counter-productive, because they more effectively introduce friction on positive changes than risky ones. But it's basically impossible to strike the exact right balance between mitigating tail risks, which is critical, vs. introducing counter-productive friction. So I have sympathy, I just also find it very frustrating to work in such environments.
        3y ago

sanderjd 3y ago

Some of what you described in the comment I replied to fits the description of complicated company-spanning project management - a valuable role I have typically seen referred to as "program management" - but some of it, the team level dealing-with-task-backlogs type stuff, are things that managers and team members can just do in the course of their work. But you're right that my comment focused only on the latter thing and ignored the former one. But setting that aside, there is certainly a personality thing at play here. If I worked where you work, I would probably be more skeptical of the value of all the time being put into project management, and if you worked at my favorite companies that I've worked at, you would probably feel like it's a poorly managed mess (I've had lots of coworkers who felt that way!). To some extent different folks just like different strokes, and that's one of the things that makes it really hard to do things that require lots of people to pull in the same direction.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
There is certainly a distinction between teams just dealing with their task backlog and project management. I wouldn't waste a project manager on that. Program management is a level above project management as you say, coordinating multiple projects. But there is definitely a space for complex single projects (not programs) that still require detailed planning and coordination. It's not really about personal preference though, unless this issue is a show stopper for you in terms of where you work. I've worked in both informal and formal settings. I personally dislike heavyweight project management processes but they are sometimes required!
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yeah I was thinking last night that my comments here were a lot more strident about this than I am in real life. I agree with your whole comment, except I think the middle ground between team-level management and program management is more often better served by tooling, architecture, requirements, or team structure changes rather than project management. (I get it, sometimes the need for a lot of planning is imposed from the top, like if you sign a contract with an immovable delivery date, but I think most organizations should do whatever they can to avoid doing that, in order to enable them to structure projects flexibly and have small mostly-autonomous teams.) I think the personality thing is important both in terms of contentment with your work (and thus which organizations and projects you choose) and in terms of how you analyze the relative value of things when evaluating trade-offs between the different things an organization can invest its time and resources on.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    In our case we are a heavily regulated industry and the level of coordination, governance and compliance that is required to make change is shocking! I agree that it's good if it's possible to avoid all that and still deliver what you need to! Also agree that many people simply can't stand working in really heavyweight environments. While I dont love it, I can live with it.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Yep! I think, somewhat humorously for how this thread started - which was entirely mea culpa! - our perspectives on this are pretty closely aligned. One thing I think is that a lot (though not all!) of the requirements imposed in heavily-regulated industries are actively counter-productive, because they more effectively introduce friction on positive changes than risky ones. But it's basically impossible to strike the exact right balance between mitigating tail risks, which is critical, vs. introducing counter-productive friction. So I have sympathy, I just also find it very frustrating to work in such environments.
      - 3y ago