What does a PM do?

[cojak]

Originally Posted by Cowboy Bob

Which this lead developer knows he doesn't want to do for the reasons you mention. What I'm stuck with is someone who wouldn't know what DBA stood for...

Ooh, that's a rubbish gig...

[Notanimby]

Originally Posted by PM-Junkie

A good PM gives stakeholders what they want (and getting a stakeholder to figure out exactly what it is they want is a skill in itself), when they want it and at a price they agreed, whilst enabling the project team to deliver it without being pestered by said stakeholders. The PM is also there to ensure the goalposts don't move....or at least to try to.

How (or if) a PM does that is a skill and a science all of it's own, and no amount of Prince courses or whatever else the flavour of the month is can make up for time in the trenches. An effective PM is worth his or her weight in gold, both to the folks doing the work and to the bottom line.

Anyone who thinks PMs do nothing either has a very ineffective PM, and/or spends so much of their time dealing with carp from functional managers and stakeholders that they never get any real work done.

I may be a tad biased of course...

On finally getting round to sitting the Prince2 Practitioner exam, a pal told me on passing that I was now a qualified box-ticker

P.S Hello to all, by the way

[NotAllThere]

Originally Posted by TykeMerc

...
In short a PM does as little as possible and takes all of the credit,...

And shifts the blame when things go horribly wrong.

[original PM]

3 words

Plan Do Review

80% of a PM's time should be spent on communication.

I had a bit of a discussion with one of the other PM's at the place I currently work.

We were having a problem with the IT team - they seem to think that we should roll out our project and this will highlight their router issue.

My view was that actually we know there is a problem with the routers and so it should be solved prior to the rollout.

The other PM reckons we should just highlight the risk to the steering group and let them decide. I feel we should actually work on a solution (as we know the stakeholder wants working routers!)

Personally I feel a PM is responsible for getting the project in on time and making sure it works - it is ok highligting the risk but then really a risk should actually become an action (to remove the risk) or an issue (in that if we do nothing this is going to happen) - risks should not stay as risks for long!

Appreciate this can cause scope creep but when working in an environment where nothing seems to have happened for 2 years and the infrastructure has gone to pot (there was supposed to be a roll out of new IT kit 2.5 years ago but the project budget was cut by some muppet and thus we are now picking up the pieces of the corner cutting which went on) there are times when it makes sense to kick off new projects running in parrallel to ensure the main project works.

What you lot think?

[cojak]

I agree with you - tell 'em to fix the routers before you touch 'em. I see massive buck-passing onto your project on this one...

The problem is - who picks up the tab for budget and resource? If it's you this will result in a load of pain since I'm sure that fixing this problem isn't in your mandate (and should be stated as currently out of scope in your PID).

Get your communication hat on and talk to the exec and the IT manager (at the same time, in the same room..) to hammer out what needs to be done.

Just sticking an ISSUE (think the risk has come and gone on this one) on a log doesn't sort it.

[original PM]

It is quite interesting you mention buck passing - no one is in any doubt as to whose problem the routers are - but they want a solution.

If I leave them to sort the routers themselves they will not do it cos they are a bit bone idle and a touch clueless. So in order to make my project work I have to take this on as a side project.

And this is where the questions comes back to what does a PM do - is it my responsibility as a PM to ensure that to make my project come in on time and to its original scope I have to ensure this other side project goes ahead to support it.

Used to have some interesting discusions about budget but when they tried to slash the budget I just slashed the project deliverables until they got it into their heads that if you want x it is going to cost you y - not (y - 10%) so you can run around thinking you have saved some money and are in control!! (think there is a Dilbert cartoon about this!)

I use my charm (and planning skills) to get resources - one of the biggest skills a PM needs imho.

[chef]

and here's me thinking a PM's main job is to run the country..

IGMC

[badger7579]

We have a PM??? when did that happen???

Sorry do you mean the stand in PM??

[Turion]

is what they should do.

[VectraMan]

Originally Posted by original PM

80% of a PM's time should be spent on communication.

Which is the problem. If developers have to talk direct to "stakeholders" (if you must call them that), then it can be awkward and cause problems, but at least it gets done. With a PM in the mix with nothing much to do with their time and an existance to justify, you've just added an extra layer of chinese whispers inbetween the people that do the work and the people that need the work done. It then becomes much more difficult to get a simple answer to anything as it has to go via a PM, has to be planned, has to be discussed at a scheduled meeting days later etc. etc.

PMs might give the illusion of making a project run more smoothly, but all they actually acheive is to slow things down. But both developers and managers put up with PMs for the simple reason that they're happy to have somebody else to take the blame. The developers then take a "somebody else's problem" approach and doss around and produce carp, and the managers don't care because the PM is the one that can carry the can.

Or am I being too cynical?