Archive for January 2008
_ Driven Development
In recent years there’s been a proliferation of _ Driven Development methodologies, where the underscore can be substituted by just about any letter of the alphabet. Some examples include: Behaviour Driven Development (BDD), Feature Driven Development (FDD) and Test Driven Development (TDD). What is perhaps not as well known, is that the world of in-house application development has its own A to Z of _DD methodologies. In this post I offer short notes on those that have gained popularity (notoreity?) in Corporate IT shops.
For convenience (mainly mine!) I go through half the alphabet here, with the strictly non-binding promise to cover the remainder in a future post.
Off we go then:
-
Arbitrarily Driven Development: ADD, which has many adherents in the corporate world, is characterised by a complete lack of planning or process. Also see item 3 below. This is sometimes referred to as Cowboy Coding.
-
Bulldust Driven Development: BDD is employed when end users don’t have a clue as to what they want. An (often unstated) implication is that developers don’t have a clue either.
-
Confusion Driven Development: See ADD above.
-
Desperation Driven Development: DDD, which is characterised by frantic, undirected activity, is often resorted to when a project runs short of time, money or any other resources.
-
Everyone Driven Development: This is used when every user (and potential user) wants to have a say in defining application requirements.
-
Finance Driven Development: Useful when saving money is the major consideration. The methodology is characterised by ruthless cutting of corners rather than code.
-
Google Driven Development: Development by way of this methodology is popular when the project team doesn’t have a firm grasp of the technology involved. Consequently the team spends many hours filling in the gaps via the well-known search engine.
-
Helicopter Driven Development: This occurs when the effort is lead (piloted?) by someone with a birds-eye of the project. Difficult and nitpicky details tend to be glossed over, much to the distress of developers.
-
Idiot Driven Development: This is where the project decision-maker has strong opinions coupled with little sense. See this post on Scott Berkun’s blog for more. Note that he uses a stronger, perhaps more appropriate, word to describe the decision-maker. This methodology is also known as…
-
Jackass Driven Development: See Idiot Driven Development above.
-
Killjoy Driven Development: Is when the project lead is a confirmed pessimist who keeps going on about how the team’s never going to make the deadline.
-
Luck Driven Development: This happens when the team hasn’t a prayer of making the deadline. They press on regardless, relying on Lady Luck to do the right thing by them.
-
Myopia Driven Development: This is when the project lead and the project team have no visibility of the project beyond a few days. Some dignify this mode of working by claiming they’re using Rolling Wave Planning. Don’t be fooled, though; they really don’t know where they’re headed.
Admittedly, these methodologies aren’t as well known as others that have gained acceptance through their utility or agility. This post is my small contribution in increasing general awareness of these (strictly non-agile) development methodologies.
Stay tuned for N to Z.
Motivation rehashed
Ah, motivation! All project managers want to find that magic button that will, when punched, fire up their teams to ever-higher levels of achievement. I’m no different. So when a paper entitled, Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, appeared in a recent issue of the Project Management Journal, I was motivated enough to give it a read. Unfortunately, I was a little disappointed on reading it. Although well written, and perhaps even useful to practising project managers, the paper does not belong in a professional, peer-reviewed academic/research journal. Read on for my reasons why.
To begin with, a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic/research journal ought to contain one or more of the following:
-
Original research.
-
A new or different perspective on existing knowledge.
-
A comprehensive critical review of an existing area of knowledge.
This paper contains none of the above – a claim which I substantiate below. Ergo, it doesn’t belong in an academic or research journal.
And so, on to the content.
The paper begins with a review of existing theories of motivation. The usual suspects are all present and accounted for: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y; Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory; McClelland’s Theory of Needs and motivation based on individual Myers-Briggs personality types. The applicability of each of the above – which the author lists under “roles and responsibilities”, “advantages” and “disadvantages” – are well known, and the paper adds nothing new.
The next section discusses the impact and resolution (or correction) of so-called “motivational mistakes” that are outlined in the book Essential People Skills For Project Managers by Flannes and Levin (see pages 80-81 of the book). These “mistakes” – which are essentially ineffective techniques often used to motivate people – include approaches such as: “whatever motivates me will motivate others” or “they are are professionals and don’t need motivating” etc. (see the paper for a complete list). These “mistakes” are well known, as is their impact and resolution (see the book listed above, for example)
The author then delves into the use P-CMM framework in the context of project teams. Regardless of the utility of the framework in improving processes for managing and developing workforces (and opinions on this vary), the paper does not state anything new on the topic. Advice such as laying out well defined expectations, having well defined project processes, involving the project team in planning etc. etc. are offered. However, these have long been a part of project management lore.
In the penultimate section, the author offers some “directives” (which I prefer to interpret as advice) to assist in the development of a “team culture”. Most of the advice offered is, again, well known. The fourth item in the list, for example, states, “Reward the team and the team members.” So tell us something we don’t know…
The paper concludes with the observation that, “...Taking the time to to work with each team member to understand personal work drivers will allow the project manager to uncover basic human needs and individual motivators.” No contesting this point, for sure. But again, what’s new?
Having reviewed the paper, I should reiterate that it is well written and worth a read for practising project managers – if only as a reminder of what they already know. My main quibble, as you’ve undoubtedly gathered, is that the material presented isn’t new or comprehensive, and as such does not fulfil the criteria for a paper in an academic or research journal.
Reference:
Peterson T. M., Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance, Project Management Journal, 38 (4), 60-69 (2007).
Seeing through the hype
The trade media plays a major role in indoctrinating informing corporate IT decision-makers about new idealogies developments in enterprise technologies. In fact, many IT folks first hear of a new technology (or architecture, or whatever) through journals such as Computerworld, and before we know it a shiny new bandwagon starts to roll. It was therefore refreshing to see this article in CIO Magazine, reminding corporate IT punters to be wary of media (and vendor) generated hyperbole regarding emerging trends in technology. In this post I offer my approach to dealing with this issue.
The questions one should ask when evaluating new technologies are age-old ones: what, why and how. I elaborate below.
-
What is it about? The first step is to understand what the technology is about. You don’t need to figure out all the nuts and bolts at this point. What’s needed is a high level understanding, untainted by media hype. You may need to consult your in-house experts for this, but beware of distracting them from their ongoing work. Armed with an understanding of the technology, you can move on to the next question which is…
-
Why do you want to use it? Or stated another way, would your business benefit by using it? There could be several good reasons for implementing a new technology. On the other hand, there will be several more bad ones. You need to ensure that your reasons are the former, not the latter. In this context, it helps to focus on business benefits rather than technology. You’re unlikely to get the go-ahead if there is no demonstrable business rationale for implementing the new technology. If you find there’s none – stop! Else, proceed to the next question which is…
-
How do you implement it? Before you present your recommendations to the business for approval, think about how you will proceed if you did get the go-ahead. Some senior managers may want to see this information before they give their approval, so it is important you have it on hand. Things to consider include: implementation steps, personnel involved (internal and external), rough estimates on budgets, schedules etc.
Now you have enough to build a business case detailing the benefits of using the technology, and how you intend to implement it. Your business case should enable senior management to make a well-informed decision on whether to go-ahead with the new technology or not. If you do get the green light, the work you’ve put in evaluating the technology will also help in developing a project plan.
Trade journals will continue to promote technologies, often uncritically. The responsibility for separating the grain from the chaff lies with those who work at the interface of business and technology. The winnowing begins with the simple questions: what, why and how.
Eight to Late 