3 ms·

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

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.
    - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
      Yeah, we aren't too far apart! It's why I like HN, you can actually have a civilised conversation :) Friction certainly makes it harder to introduce positive change. I don't think it makes it easier to make riskier ones though, but you often can't do everything you'd like to get done.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        Just to clarify, I didn't mean regulatory friction makes it easier to do things that are risky. I think regulation is pretty much entirely successful at making that harder. What I meant is that, in my view, regulations that reduce the chance of tail risks by let's say X% often seem to increase the friction on making improvements by more like say 2X%. Of course this isn't scientific or anything, but it's my intuition, that the trade-off doesn't seem to be 1:1 when you take on some friction to reduce the likelihood of some tail risk.

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.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    Yeah, we aren't too far apart! It's why I like HN, you can actually have a civilised conversation :) Friction certainly makes it harder to introduce positive change. I don't think it makes it easier to make riskier ones though, but you often can't do everything you'd like to get done.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Just to clarify, I didn't mean regulatory friction makes it easier to do things that are risky. I think regulation is pretty much entirely successful at making that harder. What I meant is that, in my view, regulations that reduce the chance of tail risks by let's say X% often seem to increase the friction on making improvements by more like say 2X%. Of course this isn't scientific or anything, but it's my intuition, that the trade-off doesn't seem to be 1:1 when you take on some friction to reduce the likelihood of some tail risk.