5 ms·

The only "process" that I've ever seen work is "have someone really good in charge." It doesn't matter if they are male or female, and I've learned that it does

The only "process" that I've ever seen work is "have someone really good in charge." It doesn't matter if they are male or female, and I've learned that it doesn't matter if they initially have a technical background. The best project manager I ever worked with, in the 16 years I've done this work, was a woman who initially did not have a technical background, but she was willing to dive into the technical end of things. She eventually taught herself SQL and how to write Cucumber tests, so she could better QA test the code she was overseeing. I met when she was in her 4th year, and she had an impressive skill for estimating how long a given task would take, and whether things were going well or badly. If you have someone really good in charge, and they call their system "Agile", then it might appear that Agile works. If you have someone terrible in charge, and they call their system "Agile", then it might appear that Agile sucks. Likewise, if they call their system "XP" or "Deep Review" or anything else. But the only process that seems to matter is "have someone really good in charge."

joe_the_user 12y ago
Uh, I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow. Whether that could be made into the kind of system marketed by gurus is naturally a different question and I'd be skeptical about that.
- tormeh 12y ago
  I'd guess that the structure would have to be really big to cover all kinds of situations and corner cases.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied If Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance isn't required reading anymore, this could be a sign that it should be.
  - Throwaway1224 12y ago
    or Aristotle.
- maratd 12y ago
  > I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow. How do you teach someone an attention to detail, good work ethic, and perseverance? Those are character traits, not methodologies. If a PM has those 3, he'll be a good PM regardless of anything else. Actually, if someone has those 3, they'll be a good anything. Agile or something else might make someone better, but they can't determine if someone is good.
  - northernmonkey 12y ago
    How do they have those traits without being taught them? They are 'character' traits, but they are still taught. Surely we can agree you are not born with a good work ethic?
    - svisser 12y ago
      Some traits are inherent to a person. You develop skills over the years but some people "just are" more organised and disciplined.
      - collyw 11y ago
        I find as I get older I get more organized and disciplined. Maybe its because memory isn't as good at absorbing information as effortlessly as it used to be.
        branchless 11y ago
        I've got more organised as I get older, not because I want to make the world a better place or anything altruistic. Over time I've learned that if you are organised it takes less effort.
  - vlasev 12y ago
    You can teach them. I personally had a lot less attention to detail before studying math. Good work ethic and perseverance can be taught as part of reaching a bigger goal, for example in sports.
- Retra 12y ago
  Can you teach it in less than 20 years? How do you know if you've taught it correctly? The question isn't whether it is possible to teach it, but whether it is practical.
- ulfw 11y ago
  That is a ridiculous statement. But that 'definition' there are no good or bad people, good or bad engineers, good or bad project managers, scrum masters, managers or anything. Not everyone can be 'taught' or just go by a structure. In fact I would strongly argue that those who just go by a predefinied step-by-step structure are always never the 'good' ones.
- krig 11y ago
  Can you teach someone to be good at what they do? Of course you can study people who are good at what they do. Perhaps other people who want to become good at what they do can learn from that. However, no one will become good at what they do purely by emulating someone else, since what they do won't be the same thing. Besides. Things like Agile aren't "observing what people who are good at what they do, do". It's a formalized process based on the ideas that some people who are good at what they do have about WHY they are good at what they do. But do people who are good at what they do really know why they are so? They probably don't! Besides, they are going to mix in all kinds of things that they think they do, or they think they should do, or they think that good people they learned from did, in that formalized process. In the end, the process they describe may sound good to them, but have very little to do with what good people actually do or should do in any particular circumstance.
faragon 12y ago
I agree with you. Usually "agile" is used just as a religion: a mix of wishful thinking plus a way of pushing developers "because of the agile rules".
Nelson69 12y ago
What's the criteria for a process to be considered "working?" Fundamentally, since the inception of software, many people have thought that it's complex enough that we need "processes" to manage its delivery. Sort of like we have for manufacturing. Those processes often slow things down, make it difficult to add new features quickly, etc.. Their goal is to give the customer what they expect and have it work though. Agile pretty much says "fuck process, it's not fun" and that's it's whole philosophy. If you've got some really solid and dedicated heroes then you might ship some software that's great and make some money, if you've got some weak links on the team then you might not. My heuristic has been that when the problem domain is large enough that it's acceptable for members of the team to not have it all in their head, agile starts to have issues. I've also noticed that if you're a "hard problem solver" kind of person, it's less fun. It does seem like it has success in some domains and such, I'm not sure that it's entirely agile though. The one failing point I can clearly point to with agile is that it appears to be very very difficult to actually, successfully implement, there are so many unhappy people with it.
bduerst 12y ago
>"have someone really good in charge." Pretty much. The person you describes sounds like someone who is willing to learn/improve/grow and not be confined by occupational labels. This leadership trait coupled with self-motivation is always a boon to a team, regardless of the project management style.
semi-extrinsic 12y ago
> the only process that seems to matter is "have someone really good in charge". I fully agree, and would thus like to recommend this manifesto: http://programming-motherfucker.com http://programming-motherfucker.com
ams6110 11y ago
Not very profound really. Someone really good in charge is most likely hiring really good developers as well.
- EpicEng 11y ago
  There is a massive amount of work that goes on outside of writing code which contributes to the success of a project. Without strategic and tactical intelligence you're not going to get anywhere regardless of how good your devs are. In fact, the leadership and management functions are more important than engineering savvy. You can build a good product and fail, but you can also build a mediocre product and succeed. In the latter case, it's not the devs who got you there. But yes, you're right; good managers make good hires. What's your point?
kyllo 11y ago
And the someone really good in charge needs to hire a team full of really good people, too. Good process and competent management does not mean you can slot in interchangeable cogs to do the work and expect good results.
Hermel 11y ago
Still, even someone really good can be rendered unproductive with bad processes and misguided strategy.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  If a really good person can be rendered unproductive with bad processes then that person is not in charge.

joe_the_user 12y ago

Uh, I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow. Whether that could be made into the kind of system marketed by gurus is naturally a different question and I'd be skeptical about that.

tormeh 12y ago
I'd guess that the structure would have to be really big to cover all kinds of situations and corner cases.
stcredzero 12y ago
I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied If Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance isn't required reading anymore, this could be a sign that it should be.
- Throwaway1224 12y ago
  or Aristotle.
maratd 12y ago
> I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow. How do you teach someone an attention to detail, good work ethic, and perseverance? Those are character traits, not methodologies. If a PM has those 3, he'll be a good PM regardless of anything else. Actually, if someone has those 3, they'll be a good anything. Agile or something else might make someone better, but they can't determine if someone is good.
- northernmonkey 12y ago
  How do they have those traits without being taught them? They are 'character' traits, but they are still taught. Surely we can agree you are not born with a good work ethic?
  - svisser 12y ago
    Some traits are inherent to a person. You develop skills over the years but some people "just are" more organised and disciplined.
    - collyw 11y ago
      I find as I get older I get more organized and disciplined. Maybe its because memory isn't as good at absorbing information as effortlessly as it used to be.
      - branchless 11y ago
        I've got more organised as I get older, not because I want to make the world a better place or anything altruistic. Over time I've learned that if you are organised it takes less effort.
- vlasev 12y ago
  You can teach them. I personally had a lot less attention to detail before studying math. Good work ethic and perseverance can be taught as part of reaching a bigger goal, for example in sports.
Retra 12y ago
Can you teach it in less than 20 years? How do you know if you've taught it correctly? The question isn't whether it is possible to teach it, but whether it is practical.
ulfw 11y ago
That is a ridiculous statement. But that 'definition' there are no good or bad people, good or bad engineers, good or bad project managers, scrum masters, managers or anything. Not everyone can be 'taught' or just go by a structure. In fact I would strongly argue that those who just go by a predefinied step-by-step structure are always never the 'good' ones.
krig 11y ago
Can you teach someone to be good at what they do? Of course you can study people who are good at what they do. Perhaps other people who want to become good at what they do can learn from that. However, no one will become good at what they do purely by emulating someone else, since what they do won't be the same thing. Besides. Things like Agile aren't "observing what people who are good at what they do, do". It's a formalized process based on the ideas that some people who are good at what they do have about WHY they are good at what they do. But do people who are good at what they do really know why they are so? They probably don't! Besides, they are going to mix in all kinds of things that they think they do, or they think they should do, or they think that good people they learned from did, in that formalized process. In the end, the process they describe may sound good to them, but have very little to do with what good people actually do or should do in any particular circumstance.

faragon 12y ago

I agree with you. Usually "agile" is used just as a religion: a mix of wishful thinking plus a way of pushing developers "because of the agile rules".

Nelson69 12y ago

What's the criteria for a process to be considered "working?" Fundamentally, since the inception of software, many people have thought that it's complex enough that we need "processes" to manage its delivery. Sort of like we have for manufacturing. Those processes often slow things down, make it difficult to add new features quickly, etc.. Their goal is to give the customer what they expect and have it work though. Agile pretty much says "fuck process, it's not fun" and that's it's whole philosophy. If you've got some really solid and dedicated heroes then you might ship some software that's great and make some money, if you've got some weak links on the team then you might not. My heuristic has been that when the problem domain is large enough that it's acceptable for members of the team to not have it all in their head, agile starts to have issues. I've also noticed that if you're a "hard problem solver" kind of person, it's less fun. It does seem like it has success in some domains and such, I'm not sure that it's entirely agile though. The one failing point I can clearly point to with agile is that it appears to be very very difficult to actually, successfully implement, there are so many unhappy people with it.

bduerst 12y ago

>"have someone really good in charge." Pretty much. The person you describes sounds like someone who is willing to learn/improve/grow and not be confined by occupational labels. This leadership trait coupled with self-motivation is always a boon to a team, regardless of the project management style.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago

> the only process that seems to matter is "have someone really good in charge". I fully agree, and would thus like to recommend this manifesto: http://programming-motherfucker.com http://programming-motherfucker.com

ams6110 11y ago

Not very profound really. Someone really good in charge is most likely hiring really good developers as well.

EpicEng 11y ago
There is a massive amount of work that goes on outside of writing code which contributes to the success of a project. Without strategic and tactical intelligence you're not going to get anywhere regardless of how good your devs are. In fact, the leadership and management functions are more important than engineering savvy. You can build a good product and fail, but you can also build a mediocre product and succeed. In the latter case, it's not the devs who got you there. But yes, you're right; good managers make good hires. What's your point?

kyllo 11y ago

And the someone really good in charge needs to hire a team full of really good people, too. Good process and competent management does not mean you can slot in interchangeable cogs to do the work and expect good results.

Hermel 11y ago

Still, even someone really good can be rendered unproductive with bad processes and misguided strategy.

Consultant32452 11y ago
If a really good person can be rendered unproductive with bad processes then that person is not in charge.