3 ms·

Brilliant article and spot-on. The hardest jobs in software (IMHO) will be the engineering leads that have to be an interface between management and their engi

by thorax 17y ago

Brilliant article and spot-on. The hardest jobs in software (IMHO) will be the engineering leads that have to be an interface between management and their engineering team. They are also asked to "make" at high quality but can't escape the management schedule overlap. So the only other option is to work themselves to death at night when no one can interrupt. I think some managers have also begun to require (or encourage) semi-constant instant messaging which can hurt a "maker's schedule", too. I've been guilty of this even recently. Perhaps the continual overhang of the interruptive IM can make them feel that anxiety of not being able to work on any hard/long problems for fear of being interrupted? The best "makers" have adapted to this in their own ways, of course.

abstractbill 17y ago
My adaptation to this is just to say Bill does not do IM, and leave it at that.
frossie 17y ago
I agree, the problem (and the solution) lies with the people who are the interface between makers and managers. The job description for these people varies but you know who they are - project leader type people. Here's what we try to do: all meetings known to involve lots of people are all scheduled Thursdays. The people who only have to attend one meeting don't care, and the people who have to attend multiple ones just cross off Thursday from being a "real work" day. Yes okay, it's a cost, but at least it is only a 20% cost. "Emergency" meetings involving senior management (you all know why the sarcasm quotes are there): the interface person should take the hit. In my experience there is rarely a technical issue raised in a senior management context that cannot be adequeately fielded (!= implemented) by a good project lead. Actually, I regard this as one of the major contributions of the leader: take all the crap on so that your guys can be left alone to do their work. I realise this opens a whole different can of worms in discussing what kind of person should be a project leader. If you have a shop with people working mixed hours (ie when everybody is not on a 9-5 schedule) you should have "core hours" to allow for meetings anyway. This at least stops meetingitis from creeping throughout the day. IM is a bigger problem I agree, but not necessarily in this category as it is a maker-to-maker disruption source as well as manager-to-maker one.

by thorax 17y ago

abstractbill 17y ago

My adaptation to this is just to say Bill does not do IM, and leave it at that.

frossie 17y ago

I agree, the problem (and the solution) lies with the people who are the interface between makers and managers. The job description for these people varies but you know who they are - project leader type people. Here's what we try to do: all meetings known to involve lots of people are all scheduled Thursdays. The people who only have to attend one meeting don't care, and the people who have to attend multiple ones just cross off Thursday from being a "real work" day. Yes okay, it's a cost, but at least it is only a 20% cost. "Emergency" meetings involving senior management (you all know why the sarcasm quotes are there): the interface person should take the hit. In my experience there is rarely a technical issue raised in a senior management context that cannot be adequeately fielded (!= implemented) by a good project lead. Actually, I regard this as one of the major contributions of the leader: take all the crap on so that your guys can be left alone to do their work. I realise this opens a whole different can of worms in discussing what kind of person should be a project leader. If you have a shop with people working mixed hours (ie when everybody is not on a 9-5 schedule) you should have "core hours" to allow for meetings anyway. This at least stops meetingitis from creeping throughout the day. IM is a bigger problem I agree, but not necessarily in this category as it is a maker-to-maker disruption source as well as manager-to-maker one.