Reply to: What does a PM do?

[Cowboy Bob]

Extremely.

No-one expects a PM to be able to help out with coding or anything like that, but if a PM can't adequately describe and understand the target platform of a project then they are useless as a PM as they cannot adequately serve as an effective buffer between IT and the business - which is ultimately their job.

A PM needs to have at least some technical understanding of the project, or regardless of their Prince 2 certificate, they are just a waste of space.

[Cowboy Bob]

Why should we be bitter and twisted? Just because PMs earn more than me, whilst not contributing anything and doing little work of any kind?

Oh wait, you may have a point.

I did once work with a very good PM, but that was where there was several seperate parts of a project that had to be brought together, but I think the difference is he was an engineer (and a very good one) who understood everything and really drove the whole project, and nobody was in any doubt that he worked as hard as anyone.

OTOH, I was once working on a project as sole developer, and I was given a PM who was entirely useless, wasn't capable of understanding the project and would just sit in the corner of meetings and quietly ask at the end for a summary of how long I thought it would take so he could go and update his chart. I felt a bit sorry for him really.

I get the impression PMs are a bit like salesman, in as much as salesman say they can sell anything, they don't need to know what it is or what it does. A good PM is one that really understands the project; a bad PM is one that waves their PRINCE (or whatever it is) certificate and thinks that makes them qualified to manage anything.

Or am I wrong?

[oracleslave]

whilst not contributing anything and doing little work of any kind?

Oh Dear

Or am I wrong?

Extremely.

[VectraMan]

Reading some of these contributions, the phrase "bitter and twisted" kinda pops in there...

Why should we be bitter and twisted? Just because PMs earn more than me, whilst not contributing anything and doing little work of any kind?

Oh wait, you may have a point.

I did once work with a very good PM, but that was where there was several seperate parts of a project that had to be brought together, but I think the difference is he was an engineer (and a very good one) who understood everything and really drove the whole project, and nobody was in any doubt that he worked as hard as anyone.

OTOH, I was once working on a project as sole developer, and I was given a PM who was entirely useless, wasn't capable of understanding the project and would just sit in the corner of meetings and quietly ask at the end for a summary of how long I thought it would take so he could go and update his chart. I felt a bit sorry for him really.

I get the impression PMs are a bit like salesman, in as much as salesman say they can sell anything, they don't need to know what it is or what it does. A good PM is one that really understands the project; a bad PM is one that waves their PRINCE (or whatever it is) certificate and thinks that makes them qualified to manage anything.

Or am I wrong?

[Bob Dalek]

OK, so everything that ever goes wrong on a project is entirely the fault of the PM, all of whom are incompetent idiots who bring no value at all to an organisation.

Glad we got that settled then.

Reading some of these contributions, the phrase "bitter and twisted" kinda pops in there...

And they are incapable of owning-up to their inadequacies.

[PM-Junkie]

OK, so everything that ever goes wrong on a project is entirely the fault of the PM, all of whom are incompetent idiots who bring no value at all to an organisation.

Glad we got that settled then.

Reading some of these contributions, the phrase "bitter and twisted" kinda pops in there...

[Bob Dalek]

Passes the buck to the lead developer when it all gets too technical for him at the end of the project leaving the lead developer to manage the final stages of the project on top of trying to do his own work.

You forgot "Also cleverly uses various techniques to, early on, plant the germ of doubt in the minds of the Upper Crust about the abilities of the Developers and DBAs, before his/her own ineptitude leads to overspend and overrunning, thus covering his/her worthless, amateurish arse, only to be put in charge of another eventual mess."

[original PM]

Or am I being too cynical?

probably!

one of my main task where I am is acting as an intepreter between the developers and the accountants - they both speak different languages!

Personally I always try and get the developers involved in discussions with users and only speak up if things are getting off track - some places unfortunatey seem to try and keep developers locked away in a darkened room working solely from requirement and tech specs.

I guess the fact is if the PM is not so good then yes they will get in the way.

[VectraMan]

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?

[Turion]

is what they should do.

[badger7579]

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

Sorry do you mean the stand in PM??

[chef]

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

IGMC

[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.

[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]

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?