On Agile...

You've heard said it before: in order to learn one must have an open mind.

I think sometimes the opposite is better. Keep a closed mind. Let the new idea try to make its way in with difficulty. Let it argue itself in with facts. Let it convince you of its correctness. Once convinced, make it your own. If the idea has enough merit, it can make its way in.

I've been trying to like the Agile methods, but for reasons I still cannot pin down, I am still pessimistic about these approaches. There is no doubt they work. Sometimes. But that's not a criticism. Nothing works everywhere. Agile's more moderate proponents have never suggested that is applicable everywhere.

I should clarify that I am pessimistic mainly about the XP approach, since that is the methodology I am most familiar with among the agile methodologies. I am still agnostic about the rest.

These methodologies have been developed because of the unworkability of the one-pass waterfall approach. In an ideal world, where people do not make mistakes, the one-pass waterfall is the simplest and most efficient approach to developing software: complete the requirements in one phase, then complete the design, then complete the programming, then complete the testing, and finally, complete the acceptance, and we're done.

But since we're not mistake-proof, the waterfall is simply impossible as an approach, and no one in their right mind will attempt to develop software using this model. Except in the business world, of course.

Here's one of my issues. No one has been complaining that the programming phase of a waterfall approach comes out with a program that does not match the design documents. No one has been complaining that the design documents do not match the specified requirements. In other words, the problem is not with the design phase and it is not with the programming phase. The problem is, and always have been, that the specified requirements do not match the actual requirements.

If that is true, then it is the domain of requirements analysis that is at fault. They come up with the faulty requirements. The domain of software design and programming is just fine -- give us the correct requirements and we'll give you the correct software.

An approach that tries to fix the system development problem by fixing the software design and development phases rather than the requirements phase is looking under the wrong lamppost. And I think Agile is doing just that.

Be that as it may, I'm currently reading Robert Martin's Agile Software Development and have more to say on the topic.

Is Managing a Project Like Conducting an Orchestra?

Managing a project is so often compared to conducting an orchestra the comparison is almost a cliche. It seems to me that the comparison is rather off.

An orchestra has had time to rehearse and practice over and over exactly what they are supposed to do. Indeed, they must refine their work until it is flawless. A project team hasn't got that luxury.  It has only one pass at executing the project. 

An orchestra will never be asked to work faster or redo a task. There is no such thing as crashing the music. Project teams have deadlines to meet and often need to redo work and work faster than normal.  An orchestra performance is an operation. It is perhaps the smoothest of operations.  There is no change of plans.  The audience's (stakeholders) mood will not change what the orchestra will play or how they play it.

There is a slight similarity between conducting an orchestra and managing a project. The similarity lies in the fact that both the conductor and the project manager do not make the actual product. They simply orchestrate the work of those who produce.

But then again, why pick on a conductor as the focus of an analogy? Every orchestra presentation has an actual project manager orchestrating it, scheduling the rehearsals, picking the team, selecting alternate members.

And that person is not the conductor.

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? How much? Say what?

How do you know if you are still in control of a project?

One way is to ensure you know the answer to the following:

1. Who are the stakeholders in the project?
2. What are their interests?
3. What is the purpose of the project?
4. How much is the budget for this project?
5. How much is this project going to take?
6. How long will the project take?
7. What is the project schedule?
8. When is it to be completed?
9. What is the project plan?

RISK AND OPPORTUNITY

Are risks and opportunities completely different notions or they simply different faces of the same coin? Can you capitalize on a potential risk beside just avoiding the eventuation of that risk? For example, if there's a risk that your top programmer will leave for another job, and he doesn't, therefore the risk doesn't eventuate. But apart from heaving a sigh of relief, is there an opportunity there that you could take advantage of?

Suppose in your project you are expecting a lot of active opposition from environmentalist groups, and therefore allocated an extra $10,000 for the purpose of public relations and legal expenses. But for some reason, the expected opposition did not materialise and you find yourself with extra project funds and the *opportunity* to use those funds to accelerate the project. In this example: - the risk did not eventuate, and opened up an opportunity - the opportunity was there only because you planned for the risk. - you have the basic option of acting as if the risk did not materialise (business as usual), or the more advanced option of seizing the opportunity that opened up and turning it into something beneficial.

Things to Ensure When Running a Project

I'm compiling a list of things to ensure while running a project. The list will be relevant to me. Yours may be different. A complete list will be infinitely long.

This list will be updated as often as I recognize a need to do so.  Currently, it stands as:

1. Make sure you have a clear delineation of the project scope.
2. Make sure you have a clear and complete list of stakeholders and their expectations of the project deliverables and execution.
3. Make sure the project team is clear on the project plan.
4. Corollary to 3, have a project plan.
5. Always have a valid, real, working schedule and stick to the schedule for as long as the schedule is valid. Update the schedule when needed.
6. Have frequent completions and starts (ie, have milestones). This is intended to instill in the team the plan for the next segment of the project.

ON POLITICS ( AND NERDS )

Skill in organizational politics is a function of social skills. The more you have of one, the more you have of the other. Computer nerds are reputed to have a distaste for organizational politics. The word 'nerd' is also often used as if the word itself meant 'someone who lacks social skills'.

It takes, however, an exceptionally analytical and logical mind to become a good programmer. In other words, you have to be rather smart to be a good programmer. So how come that smartness seem to flounder in the face of organizational politics?

Some may posit that the smartness that nerds possess is of a different sort from the smartness required to engage in politics. I disagree. I'm more convinced that their smartness is just not focused on politics.

Nerds simply detest politics. Such an attitude comes out of the pureness of heart. They see politics as an unnecessary evil played by people who need to cover up for their incompetence, or people who see it as a tool to feed their greed. One of the early definitions of politics that roamed the internet was a play on the word itself tself ("poli" - many, "tics" - blood sucking parasites).

Besides the attitude toward politics, nerds are also unprepared to manage things that fight back. They deal extremely well with computers and software, which respond with a deterministic response to stimulus (IOW, they act the same way each time). Politics is about managing people. And people are deterministically unpredictable. The same request to the same person will receive a different response each time. People tend to not want to be managed and tend to want to manage. The nerd is afraid that the engaged person may attempt a coup and end up managing the nerd. Such do not happen in a nerd cum machine interaction.

The pervasive view that politics is only for the incompetent is unfortunate because it gives the viewer an unnecessary disability.

Politics is a part of organizational life. It is an essential part which cannot be removed. Anytime two or more people get together, there is going to be politics. Even if these two people happen to be the most considerate of sweethearts so madly in love with each other. She will do what she needs to do to make sure his eyes do not flit to another. In other words, she will attempt to control his behaviour. She will attempt to manage.

Politics is so pervasive that it is just unavoidable. It's like air. No matter where you sit in the totem pole you are within its reach. The lowliest messenger has to conform to politics (send the messages to the evil bitchlady on the third floor first). If you're not in the totem pole, you are not in any organization. You are unemployed.

While politics exist at the bottom and the middle, at the top it is even more acute, and the stakes higherThe politics at the top is even more pervasive. Even the highest officer in the land has to contend with politics. The US president may have the most powerful military on earth, but his power over it is limited. Even he has to play games of give and take with senators and congressmen. He also has to engage the same games with countries ranging from the big ones like Russia and China, to small ones like Venezuela, and even with close allies such as Japan, Australia, and the UK.

Politics is as unavoidable and as necessary as grooming. Unfortunately, many nerds also tend to dislike grooming -- some cats have better grooming skills.

If you cannot avoid it, join it.

The first step is to embrace a new attitude toward politics. Politics is like Galactus. It is a "force of nature." Politics is neither immoral nor moral. It is to be likened to grooming, manners, eating from plates instead of cans, and common courtesy -- society expects them and woe to those who do not conform. There is no free lunch.

That is not representative of politics. There is no getting ahead without politics.

But...what is politics?

Upon Taking on a Project

Project management is concerned with effecting a desired change. The first step is to be clear and understand two questions:

• What change does the project owner want?
• Why do they think this change desirable?

The first question clarifies what change needs to be done and provides an initial glimpse into the objective of the project. The second question helps us to understand the problem with the current situation.