Technical term for a brain dead management technique?

[Churchill]

I noticed last week that our scrums just sound like what AA meetings probably sound like...

"I had a really tough day Yesterday, managed to get some help from people on the team and got through it, much more positive today, got my objectives set up"

"Nice one, remember the team is always here to help, your objectives are our objectives"

I really think I could be more productive getting in at 9 and doing a burst of coding rather than having a forced break at 10 for a daft group hug.

Yeah but you and Threaded don't play well with other children, do you?

[original PM]

so it would seem that a group of correctly skilled motivated people who are committed to achieving the project goal will achieve more than a bunch of seperate people who are hung together by a process.

so choose the right team, make sure they understand the goal and keep them motivated - and your project will be a success regardless of the methodology you use.

Which is why project management cannot be learned from a book.

[Addanc]

I would suggest that the success of a project is dependent on the following factors in order:

• Development success is directly proportional to the quality of the people developing the system. If your team isn't top heavy in good devs your going to struggle.
• Development success is inversely proportional to the size of the team developing the system. Throwing bodies at a problem rarely works.

This to me, hints that the agile methodologies are heading in the right direction.

[Sysman]

It's called "watering the mushrooms".

[Svalbaard]

It's also amazing how often a project manager caught walking the floor will get told off by a programme manager or programme director for not working. "If you are not at your desk fukcing about in MS Project, you're not managing the project. Now go and spend 3 days writing me a status report and if I see you leave your desk again you're in trouble."

Project management is a tulip job.

Did you make this up based on your supposed view on what you think PM'ing is like? As I've been managing projects for years in all sorts of companies and have not come across this happening once. I'm guessing your post is mostly generalisation, similar to 50% of the content in your other post "Recruitment agents are habitual liars". The other 50% in that post I might add though was spot on.

As for being a tulip job, well... perhaps it is you that is tulip at PM'ing, rather than vice versa? As my experience differs from yours. Bearing in mind I was never going to be cut out to be a fighter jet pilot or captain of a Navy destroyer, I do find that it suits all of the hats that I like to wear - techie, politician, Field marshall, accountant, philosopher and deep sea diver.

OK... so I lied about the deep sea diver bit, bit the point is that no two days are the same in my line of work and I'm usually right at the coalface of delivering new technologies. Oh... and I generally take around 6 months off out of every two years to enjoy spending all the cash I've accumulated.

Still, it's a tulip job eh.

[Sysman]

No it's definitely not Agile. In this technique, it's normally a couple or three managers and they go around the table and ask each programmers to say what they've done today. If they haven't done what they agreed to yesterday, they're berated in a bad cop, worse cop, downright nasty cop kinda way, made to feel bad, female staff made to cry etc. then the programmer is coerced into agreeing to perform some unreasonable task before the next meeting.

The phrase you are looking for is Workplace bullying.

I sometimes wonder if it is meant to be a technique to reduce the wage bill by getting the good people to seek alternative employment or is it to provide a cover for a failing project by dint of staff sickness.

I might go for the first one, but of course it could just be that they are bullies by nature.

[RichardCranium]

It's also amazing how often a project manager caught walking the floor will get told off by a programme manager or programme director for not working. "If you are not at your desk fukcing about in MS Project, you're not managing the project. Now go and spend 3 days writing me a status report and if I see you leave your desk again you're in trouble."

Project management is a tulip job.

Did you make this up based on your supposed view on what you think PM'ing is like?

No. I have about eight years PM experience (depending on how you define 'PM') and before that ten years as a supervisor and manager of developers and support staff.

The incident I had in mind when I wrote that happened at a utility where the programme manager was particularly incompetent. I tried to arrange a project initiation meeting and was bollocked publicly for wasting time. I was also bollocked for recording all the risks in the risk log because "people do read those things and it reflects badly on me". And if she saw the PMs talking to people she assumed you were up to something. She believed MS Project managed projects, and that PMs were just the drivers of MS Project.

I'm guessing your post is mostly generalisation, similar to 50% of the content in your other post "Recruitment agents are habitual liars".

The first post on that thread was an actual conversation. Edited for effect, but it happened. But I stand by the point I was trying to make: working as a recruitment agent results in that individual becoming a habitual liar.

As for being a tulip job, well... perhaps it is you that is tulip at PM'ing, rather than vice versa?

I think you may well be right. I try to manage by collaboration, communication and co-operative effort. I usually find that approach bloody hard work and futile. I am coming to the conclusion that fear and shouting are tools I should learn to use more. I am also coming to the conclusion that I ought to give up PMing althogether. I do get the required results and the stakeholders and project teams are always happy at the end. But I do find it bloody hard work to get there.

[original PM]

I think you may well be right. I try to manage by collaboration, communication and co-operative effort. I usually find that approach bloody hard work and futile. I am coming to the conclusion that fear and shouting are tools I should learn to use more. I am also coming to the conclusion that I ought to give up PMing althogether. I do get the required results and the stakeholders and project teams are always happy at the end. But I do find it bloody hard work to get there.

I completely agree with you on that one -collaboration, communication and co-operative effort are a great way to run things.

Biggest problem is it can be seen as woolly by the money men and will leave you back open to stabbing by the azz kissing greasy pole climbers.

I once did use the fear and shouting method - when I had the muppet spreadeagled on the table threatening to rip his f*****g windpipe out I started to get results - like the sack cos it was my boss who was being a tit.

hey ho!

[Doggy Styles]

I did

ineffectiveness is the oppostite of effectiveness. measure one and you have the other.
I just asumed that RH was a glass half empty kinda guy

[NickFitz]

Does micromanagment of this nature actually work?

surely if you have decent profesional people then you do not need to check they actual did any work yesterday and then check they are going to do some work today??

And in fact the very act of checking and re-checking is more demotivating than laying a cable in their morning cuppa?

I could be wrong but......

You could indeed

Firstly, it's not micromanagement: it's as much about the team keeping in touch with each other as anything else.

It's also not about checking up on people: it's about checking up on the state of things and catching potential problems before they become significant. It also lets you discover potential wins you weren't aware of.

To take an example: I explain that I spent yesterday finishing off the frobnosticator, and that is now checked in. This means that the person responsible for QA of the frobnosticator knows that it's there for them to start poking at. However, I point out, it currently has the rather basic UI I defined for it; the UED person remembers that they have that on their list of things to do, and makes a note to let me know when they've decided what colour it should be.

I then announce that today I plan to commence work on the widgetiser. However, I have a blocker: the widgetiser is dependant on the WTTP protocol being implemented, and the last time I looked the server didn't support it. Up pops the server chappy: no problem, he says, he's just got a few more tests to do and he can get the WTTP handler deployed.Do I need it this morning? No, I say, this afternoon would be fine.

At this point one of the other developers reminds me that he's already got a basic implementation of the WTTP client code that he started a few months ago; we should get our heads together and see about using that, rather than starting over from scratch.

So, at this point, I've been speaking for about twenty seconds in total, and we've got the QA guy knowing he's got something to do; the UED lass reminded of something she'd put on the backburner; the server chappy aware that others are waiting on his WTTP implementation; and myself aware that there's a half-made wheel I can use, and that somebody has some knowledge I can take advantage of.

Best of all, none of us end up wasting a whole day because "I emailed so-and-so but she hasn't got back to me yet."

At no point has a manager had to try to organise things: we've all organised it ourselves, and the PM can see that things are running smoothly.

Every person has their thirty to sixty seconds, and everybody knows everything of any importance about the current state of the project.

Of course this all assumes the rest of the Scrum process: the concept of sprints, backlogs, and so forth to provide the meta-management and overall structuring of the project. But within that framework, the daily standup meeting is an epic win for the sake of fifteen minutes a day