Discussion on:
View:
Show:
As a PM with a PMP, I am often told by the 'techie's that I do not fully understand the issues so I make it a policy that I have a Techical Lead Manager assigned on all projects. Most PMs are assigned to projects because they not only understand process (methodology - PMI speak)but they also have the experience to work with a customer on defining the scope of a project and sticking with that agreed to scope. Where in my experience (20+ years of PM) I have seen the 'techie' get 'talked into' scope change which increases risk. PMs reduce RISK which in turn reduce COST which inturn reduce PROJECT FAILURE. The top 5 conulting companies use PMs on all their projects and their success can be attributed to the fact that their PMs manage their projects for and with the customer. Bottom Line, PMs are the essential key to most all projects.
I have been involved in managing IT departments and major IT projects as a Project Manager over the last 10 years. I have both technical and business background with a MBA. I have found that PMs often bring skills essential to determining failure orsuccess of a project. Skills such as cost analysis, TCO analysis, planning, etc. There will always be scope creep,etc., and can only be managed by speaking the language of business not technical expertise. I have been on both ends.
Well, my 7 years of experience in the IT industry (telecom in particular) shows that in the majority of cases those who are promoted to a project-, product- or ..uct- managers are the most incompetent ones.
The higher management logic is that:
"Why shoud I take Z, who is brilliant on the techical level, and make him a manager, while I have the mediocre Y instead? In this way I have someone to do the job and someone to kick his ass when things go wrong."
On top of that, the Y is usually with better contacts and social skills. After all he knows his "weak" sides and emphasises on the "strong" ones.
Later the promoted one continues his mediocre performance in the new function. After all if s'o is medocre by nature, changing its position don't affect that - he does the job the very same way.
The problem is that the higher managment cannot recognize that. Because they are just the same type of people, but just promoted some years earlier.
Those who don't believe me - please answer this questions:
How on earth (almost) NO ONE of this management people could not predict the biggest decline in any industry ever? How all these "big guns" could not make the maths that you cannot cover the enormous cash holes by selling things that has current customer base of 0.01% of the current one?
My answer is simple - all this happened, because the decisions were left in hands of mediocre people, who got promoted over the competent ones. And who went to some kind of school, but probably did not pay much attention in class...
P.S.
You may think that I am bitter, because I am one of the "competent ones" that was skipped over a "better managemently skilled one". Fugetaboutit!
I declined to take management position in a department that supports (projectwise and technical wise) a whole country and is presently making one of the best margins in the telecom sector...
The higher management logic is that:
"Why shoud I take Z, who is brilliant on the techical level, and make him a manager, while I have the mediocre Y instead? In this way I have someone to do the job and someone to kick his ass when things go wrong."
On top of that, the Y is usually with better contacts and social skills. After all he knows his "weak" sides and emphasises on the "strong" ones.
Later the promoted one continues his mediocre performance in the new function. After all if s'o is medocre by nature, changing its position don't affect that - he does the job the very same way.
The problem is that the higher managment cannot recognize that. Because they are just the same type of people, but just promoted some years earlier.
Those who don't believe me - please answer this questions:
How on earth (almost) NO ONE of this management people could not predict the biggest decline in any industry ever? How all these "big guns" could not make the maths that you cannot cover the enormous cash holes by selling things that has current customer base of 0.01% of the current one?
My answer is simple - all this happened, because the decisions were left in hands of mediocre people, who got promoted over the competent ones. And who went to some kind of school, but probably did not pay much attention in class...
P.S.
You may think that I am bitter, because I am one of the "competent ones" that was skipped over a "better managemently skilled one". Fugetaboutit!
I declined to take management position in a department that supports (projectwise and technical wise) a whole country and is presently making one of the best margins in the telecom sector...
It appears that you have contradicted yourself a little here. You say that only mediocre people get promoted to management positions. However you go on to say that you are "one of the competent ones", yet you too were offered a management position.
I think it comes down to individuals and their opinions of others. I have worked with many managers through my 11 years in my current industry on all levels from the bottom to the top. And I can tell you I have seen all sorts. The whole gammet. Excellent to completely useless.
Sometimes however it becomes obvious that someone I think is bad, others may find to be good and visa-versa.
Often its as simple as an individual opinion forged by personal experiences, personal your requirements from a manager and therefore your expectations.
It might be a simple fact that yes you indeed have had a bad experience with many (if not all) of the managers you have ever worked with. But, I wonder what people have thought about you? Could itbe that once in a while you have worked with a technical person that felt that you too were mediocre... or even that a manager might have thought this of you?
I think it comes down to individuals and their opinions of others. I have worked with many managers through my 11 years in my current industry on all levels from the bottom to the top. And I can tell you I have seen all sorts. The whole gammet. Excellent to completely useless.
Sometimes however it becomes obvious that someone I think is bad, others may find to be good and visa-versa.
Often its as simple as an individual opinion forged by personal experiences, personal your requirements from a manager and therefore your expectations.
It might be a simple fact that yes you indeed have had a bad experience with many (if not all) of the managers you have ever worked with. But, I wonder what people have thought about you? Could itbe that once in a while you have worked with a technical person that felt that you too were mediocre... or even that a manager might have thought this of you?
Event the old movies!
Of course there were moderatly skilled managers, even good ones. But the majority are pure crap.
One guy - a rare excpetion of the general rule - told me once :
"[our company name] is successful because only 80% of the management is useless..."
I will repeat the proof :
How on earth these people couldn't get into their heads the obvious telecom disaster which they, THEMSELVES, cooked and served?
(I am not an market expert, but the CNN ones say there was never in history such a sharp decline - 100 times reduction in share value over just 2 years)
P.S.
I don't think my technical expertise is on line here... it took me to achieve a position in 6 years instead of the usual 12. Probably, people were much happier with my performance, than with my shortcomings...
Of course there were moderatly skilled managers, even good ones. But the majority are pure crap.
One guy - a rare excpetion of the general rule - told me once :
"[our company name] is successful because only 80% of the management is useless..."
I will repeat the proof :
How on earth these people couldn't get into their heads the obvious telecom disaster which they, THEMSELVES, cooked and served?
(I am not an market expert, but the CNN ones say there was never in history such a sharp decline - 100 times reduction in share value over just 2 years)
P.S.
I don't think my technical expertise is on line here... it took me to achieve a position in 6 years instead of the usual 12. Probably, people were much happier with my performance, than with my shortcomings...
Your assessment of how the telcom industry crashed has nothing to do with management or project management.
In broad terms it was a stock con. All these companies were positioning themselves for big IPOs, followed by over inflated acquisition. The market was created by false analysis, based on inflated demand (see Worldcom, among others). This is ownership screwing up, not management.
In my opinion, good management is keeping the remaining firms alive. Many more companies could havedelcared chapter 11 and closed the doors. But it is management that is keeping your job. No matter how good you think you are, it's the manager that keeps the job.
In broad terms it was a stock con. All these companies were positioning themselves for big IPOs, followed by over inflated acquisition. The market was created by false analysis, based on inflated demand (see Worldcom, among others). This is ownership screwing up, not management.
In my opinion, good management is keeping the remaining firms alive. Many more companies could havedelcared chapter 11 and closed the doors. But it is management that is keeping your job. No matter how good you think you are, it's the manager that keeps the job.
The short answer is that I don't entirely agree with you. If you can read past these first two lines, here is why:
1. Managers are not Gods and cannot predict how the market will pan out on a daily basis. If they could, we would all have secure jobs. The complexities are formidable and even the most brilliant minds in history have not been able to make accurate predictions. Just think about it from a top management prospective - you are trying to steer the company in a new dirction so that it can make more money and become more efficient. Notice the key word NEW. How many times have written a program that works 100% properly on the first run? Close to never, right? Now think about a top manger who has to manage the complexity of software development plus that of human behavior (teams and working together). Wow, not so easy, ha?
2. If you want to be a manager, then become one. There is a huge demand for capable managers because, as you aptly pointed out, many of them are mediocre (see the reference to Harvard Business Review below and by all means, find and read the article). But you have to actively pursue this career. Don't just sit back and expect for management to promote you for the excellent technical work you've of done. Do you know how they view us? - as QT: soft-spoken IT people :UNQT. I was working for a small start-up in San Francisco when I heard the CFO say that. It
rattled my cage, but 5 min afterward I was very grateful to have heard these words. Now I know how they think and I came up with strategy to present my projects in way that gets them approved 9 times out of 10. All, these guys see is numbers. So I gave them some nice, reasonable number to into.
So promote yourself!!! There is nothing wrong about that if you deserve it. Otherwise you will remain in your cubicle and see how mediocre managers claim respect for themselves for the excellent work YOU'VE done.
Since you are you are an American, read about your first few presidents. If memory serves me right, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that not only you need to work hard but also you have to make sure that others see you busy all the time. He was carrying some heavy stuff for his shop every day using a wheel barrel. And guess what, he made sure tha wheel screeched as hell so that everyone on the street could hear and ultimately see he was busy at work. Well, the sound was a bit unpleasant, but hey, there are no free lunches.
3. It looks like you haven't had an exposure to good management. I'd like to assure you, there are good managers. Find some in-the-flesh examples and let them know you would like to be mentored in the trade. There is always one who will say "yes".
4. You probably think management is not creative ennough. That's bacase managers are often lead to believe it isn't - after all management books always say management is a practice, a collection of guidelines or frameworks that you follow. Don't fall in that trap. There are always creative ways to hack into people's brains and make them perform well. Trust me, that's very difficult but everything that is worth doing is.
Now on your logic:
No doubt, the management function is an important one. No doubt, mediocre people often get it. No doubt, many mediocre IT professionals will continue to be promoted to management. But WHY?
Firstly, because the people who make the hiring decisions or decisions to promote someone to a management role often don't know what to look for ina candidate. So they go for the "people skills" - a charming smile, the ability to throw punch lines at the right time, the plausible expression of concern for the well-being company (not so hard to express when you remind yourself that they write your paychecks), or the shining resime (in most cases only half true). When in fact they should look for business intelligence: the ability to perform tasks, the ability to work and achieve through others, the ability for critical introspection (I know you like this one - KNOW THYSELF!!!) For more information see Harvard Business Review and look for the article "Hiring for Smarts", here are the details.
Publication Date:
Nov 1, 2005
Availability: In Stock
Author(s):
Justin Menkes
Type: Harvard Business Review Article
Product Number: R0511F
Length: 6p
Secondly, because they don't know exactly what the person should be doing once hired. So they hire a general purpose guy, mediocre as you say. Why, because he has a little knowledge here and a little knowledge there, so may be staggering but still walking. You are right that's not good enough, but remember: people drink the sand, and not the water, not because they are thirsty, but because they don't know the difference. If the management of your company has the reatione you described, man you better quit. That company is not going to walk very far with mediocre managers.
Here is some background on me, if you are interested:
I have 4 years of experience as a system admin in an ISP, 2 years of web development , and 3 months as a Junior IT manager.
My Masters is in Computer Information Systems (CIS). I also have a Bachelor in CS and a Bachelor in International Economic Relations.
I am Bulgarian by birth but spent 7.5 years in the US - 7 in Boston MA, and 6 months in California. Now I work for the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium on a two-year contract. E-mail: kovachevg@hotmail.com
1. Managers are not Gods and cannot predict how the market will pan out on a daily basis. If they could, we would all have secure jobs. The complexities are formidable and even the most brilliant minds in history have not been able to make accurate predictions. Just think about it from a top management prospective - you are trying to steer the company in a new dirction so that it can make more money and become more efficient. Notice the key word NEW. How many times have written a program that works 100% properly on the first run? Close to never, right? Now think about a top manger who has to manage the complexity of software development plus that of human behavior (teams and working together). Wow, not so easy, ha?
2. If you want to be a manager, then become one. There is a huge demand for capable managers because, as you aptly pointed out, many of them are mediocre (see the reference to Harvard Business Review below and by all means, find and read the article). But you have to actively pursue this career. Don't just sit back and expect for management to promote you for the excellent technical work you've of done. Do you know how they view us? - as QT: soft-spoken IT people :UNQT. I was working for a small start-up in San Francisco when I heard the CFO say that. It
rattled my cage, but 5 min afterward I was very grateful to have heard these words. Now I know how they think and I came up with strategy to present my projects in way that gets them approved 9 times out of 10. All, these guys see is numbers. So I gave them some nice, reasonable number to into.
So promote yourself!!! There is nothing wrong about that if you deserve it. Otherwise you will remain in your cubicle and see how mediocre managers claim respect for themselves for the excellent work YOU'VE done.
Since you are you are an American, read about your first few presidents. If memory serves me right, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that not only you need to work hard but also you have to make sure that others see you busy all the time. He was carrying some heavy stuff for his shop every day using a wheel barrel. And guess what, he made sure tha wheel screeched as hell so that everyone on the street could hear and ultimately see he was busy at work. Well, the sound was a bit unpleasant, but hey, there are no free lunches.
3. It looks like you haven't had an exposure to good management. I'd like to assure you, there are good managers. Find some in-the-flesh examples and let them know you would like to be mentored in the trade. There is always one who will say "yes".
4. You probably think management is not creative ennough. That's bacase managers are often lead to believe it isn't - after all management books always say management is a practice, a collection of guidelines or frameworks that you follow. Don't fall in that trap. There are always creative ways to hack into people's brains and make them perform well. Trust me, that's very difficult but everything that is worth doing is.
Now on your logic:
No doubt, the management function is an important one. No doubt, mediocre people often get it. No doubt, many mediocre IT professionals will continue to be promoted to management. But WHY?
Firstly, because the people who make the hiring decisions or decisions to promote someone to a management role often don't know what to look for ina candidate. So they go for the "people skills" - a charming smile, the ability to throw punch lines at the right time, the plausible expression of concern for the well-being company (not so hard to express when you remind yourself that they write your paychecks), or the shining resime (in most cases only half true). When in fact they should look for business intelligence: the ability to perform tasks, the ability to work and achieve through others, the ability for critical introspection (I know you like this one - KNOW THYSELF!!!) For more information see Harvard Business Review and look for the article "Hiring for Smarts", here are the details.
Publication Date:
Nov 1, 2005
Availability: In Stock
Author(s):
Justin Menkes
Type: Harvard Business Review Article
Product Number: R0511F
Length: 6p
Secondly, because they don't know exactly what the person should be doing once hired. So they hire a general purpose guy, mediocre as you say. Why, because he has a little knowledge here and a little knowledge there, so may be staggering but still walking. You are right that's not good enough, but remember: people drink the sand, and not the water, not because they are thirsty, but because they don't know the difference. If the management of your company has the reatione you described, man you better quit. That company is not going to walk very far with mediocre managers.
Here is some background on me, if you are interested:
I have 4 years of experience as a system admin in an ISP, 2 years of web development , and 3 months as a Junior IT manager.
My Masters is in Computer Information Systems (CIS). I also have a Bachelor in CS and a Bachelor in International Economic Relations.
I am Bulgarian by birth but spent 7.5 years in the US - 7 in Boston MA, and 6 months in California. Now I work for the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium on a two-year contract. E-mail: kovachevg@hotmail.com
I had the nisfortune of working fo a company that had a project that was millions of dollars over budget and 2 years behind schedule. It was made clear that managers heads would roll if deadlines weren't met and and the project completed. This resulted in bullying and misallocation of resources by management in the name of project management. Unfortunately, I was the victim of the bullying and my department's budget was gutted to load up the project with extra staff and equipment near the finaldeadline. This caused numerous problems and since I was responsible for actual delivery of the project caused all sorts of problems and pressure for me. The end result was that I became clinically depressed, management turned against me and I lost my job at a time when my wife was terminally ill. This happenned despite the fact that I met all my deadlines while others missed theirs repeatedly. I took them to court but they conducted a witch hunt and cover up of the harassment and discriminationthat the project and department managers engaged in. Now I continue to be ill, unemployable and have no marketable skills due to what happened. Bad project management can destroy your health and career.
The whole process of PM was developed in the 50's when budget and time overruns affected the Polaris sub rollouts. Much input was sought and developed by eminent Universities and other sources. The structure and tracking processes are effective and do work but what tends to spoil the issue in any project is a strong preference to use one methodology over another. I have used a number and familiar with the rest but essentially they are all the same. Why the project fails has many issues attached and to be brief the most usual reasons are 1) customer not willing to look at business processes to ensure the solution is optimized 2)Dedicated resources are sporadically not dedicated 3)Variations blow the project and no variations are relayed to the customer to give choices [commonly known as Scope creep]4)unrealistic expectations of implementation such as not involving effected groups for 'buy in' or limited training before 'going live'.
Most if not all the reasons stated in these replies are also fair reasons but the biggest single success criterion is 'Teamwork'. I have seen many amazing things in over 30 years in ICT and if most people leave their egos outside project meetings and focus on the job it invariably has the highest probability of succeeding. Remember in any project either you ALL win or you ALL lose, there is nothing in between.
Most if not all the reasons stated in these replies are also fair reasons but the biggest single success criterion is 'Teamwork'. I have seen many amazing things in over 30 years in ICT and if most people leave their egos outside project meetings and focus on the job it invariably has the highest probability of succeeding. Remember in any project either you ALL win or you ALL lose, there is nothing in between.
I've been involved with the IT industry for over 20 years, as a systems engineer, sales guy and it seems for the majority of it - A Project Manager.
This whole discussion intrigues me and did make me stop and consider the impact of my role as a PM on a project and the impact of that role on the success of the project.
(I have a resonably strong technical background, I am a member of the PMI but not PMP certified and a CISSP)
- A very respected colleague of my once told me that being a pm was 10% perspiration and 90% communication. HE's right - the PM's role is to become intimately aware of all aspects of the total project and then to communicate 360 degrees to all participants and stakeholders on where we are, where we're going, what progress we're making, what issues we're facing, what solution might exist to deal with the issues, what the finacial status is and will we meet the targets.
- He doesn't have to be the technical guru on a project, but he has to have the guru surgically appended to his hip and LISTEN to the guru;
- She has to be a TEAM Player - here is a major failing point with some PM's. The term Team Player means many things but most people really fail to understand what it means. YOu must submerge your personal needs and desires and focus on the needs of the team. One comment here mentioned that the PM took undeserved credit for work on the project. The PM MUST support and acknwledge the role of all team members and specifically acknowledge exceptional contributions from individuals.
-He has to know the team members and work with them to ensure they understand the need for reporting (not excessively) and meeting committments. In some cases he must decide to remove individuals from the team because they are NOT teamplayers. One prima donna can ruin a project.
- She has to keep the Steering committee and key stakeholders informed of the progress, advise immediately if issues that will affect any aspect of the project are identified, provide potential solutions and never make a decision in a vacumn. Communicate.
- Scope Creep can be a killer. Thats why any changes must go through the PM. Both sides - stakeholders and team members Must identify potential changes and the impact of the changes must be assessed. Change isn't bad - unmanaged change is. A project 6 months late and 2 million over budget - with an aproved change request - is still a success.
- And of course the PM has to deal with the unrealistic expectations of the stakeholders.
Bottom line - PM's who understand their role and fulfill that role are essential to any major project.
For the flip side see Dilbert...
This whole discussion intrigues me and did make me stop and consider the impact of my role as a PM on a project and the impact of that role on the success of the project.
(I have a resonably strong technical background, I am a member of the PMI but not PMP certified and a CISSP)
- A very respected colleague of my once told me that being a pm was 10% perspiration and 90% communication. HE's right - the PM's role is to become intimately aware of all aspects of the total project and then to communicate 360 degrees to all participants and stakeholders on where we are, where we're going, what progress we're making, what issues we're facing, what solution might exist to deal with the issues, what the finacial status is and will we meet the targets.
- He doesn't have to be the technical guru on a project, but he has to have the guru surgically appended to his hip and LISTEN to the guru;
- She has to be a TEAM Player - here is a major failing point with some PM's. The term Team Player means many things but most people really fail to understand what it means. YOu must submerge your personal needs and desires and focus on the needs of the team. One comment here mentioned that the PM took undeserved credit for work on the project. The PM MUST support and acknwledge the role of all team members and specifically acknowledge exceptional contributions from individuals.
-He has to know the team members and work with them to ensure they understand the need for reporting (not excessively) and meeting committments. In some cases he must decide to remove individuals from the team because they are NOT teamplayers. One prima donna can ruin a project.
- She has to keep the Steering committee and key stakeholders informed of the progress, advise immediately if issues that will affect any aspect of the project are identified, provide potential solutions and never make a decision in a vacumn. Communicate.
- Scope Creep can be a killer. Thats why any changes must go through the PM. Both sides - stakeholders and team members Must identify potential changes and the impact of the changes must be assessed. Change isn't bad - unmanaged change is. A project 6 months late and 2 million over budget - with an aproved change request - is still a success.
- And of course the PM has to deal with the unrealistic expectations of the stakeholders.
Bottom line - PM's who understand their role and fulfill that role are essential to any major project.
For the flip side see Dilbert...
There is no way a project or a PM can succeed when dealing the reality of dishonest and greedy organizations. Honesty is a trait sorely lacking in business and government today. When an honest PM lands in the midst of a stinking project there is no way to succeed. The smart ones get out to avoid holding the bucket.
What a statement - i am convinced that Paul must have bad experience with project managers - i can asure you that i managed of the biggest IT project - none of which finished over time and budget
I have to agree with Tom, project management is an important discipline. Project managers come in all flavors from the experienced to the inexperienced. Being a SME is not necessarily a qualification for being a Project Manager, but it does help.Software Project Managers are not equal to Construction or Petroleum Industry Project Managers. Critical skills are mandatory in the heavy industry environment. Software projects can be over managed and slowed to a crawl by detailed project management emphasis, very true. There are analogies here that I would relate the depth of project management to the software development methodology and the development lifecycle. Sometimes, a project manager does not need to do as much as others. In certain industries, 80% of the project manager's time is spent in communication efforts; enabling the project team; reducing friction; interfacing with other managers; solving interpersonal problems: in short, they take a lot of pressure that would otherwise be dumped on the team. Project Managers are important team members, but they do have to be competent.
I can identify with both sides of the argument, as I have been in IT for over 35 years in both a technical role and in a management role. Unless you stay technically up to date, it can create a challenge to huddle with the techies to iron out what needs to be done to keep a project on track. However, technical savvy alone does not help you convey the implications of issues to management. I have seen PM's who do not want to be bearers of bad news, even if that was the realistic option given therisks identified going into a project. I have seen PM's trying to learn on the job what various technical challenges mean, thereby adding to the burden of the technical people who clearly interpret this as a total waste of time (even if the PM learns a lot in the process). I have also been in the position of teaching people to do the jobs required to complete a project, as technical people often don't bother with many more subtle aspects of project documentation and quality. The initial reaction tends to be what the impact on technical progress is: sure, it adds to the work to be done, and so what. How you deal with that narrow focus, and how you expand the horizons of the technical contributors makes the difference between being accepted or rejected. Tom has put this into words in different contexts in earlier articles, and if the PM does not heed the views of the technical staff he/she will be seen to be a hindrance on getting the work done. This should not be such a complex challenge for the PM to get sorted out early on in the project.
Business have been promoting the best technician for year as a reward for their expertise. It is assumed that the good technician will impart their knowledge to their subordinates and all will achieve a higher level of technical production. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not like to generalize, but most good technicians, by nature, are not good motivators, managers of time and perceptive to the needs of their subordinates. By virtue of their achievement in the hands-on world, they have often not been schooled in the skills necessary to be a good manager.
As a Project Manager, I have always recruited the best technical person I can find to my team and that person becomes my "right-hand" when it comes to advice on technical matters. (The same holds true for other elements of the team, by the way.)
Good managers know how to work through their team and maximize production. There is more to a team than just the technical side and no one can be expert in all of it.
As a Project Manager, I have always recruited the best technical person I can find to my team and that person becomes my "right-hand" when it comes to advice on technical matters. (The same holds true for other elements of the team, by the way.)
Good managers know how to work through their team and maximize production. There is more to a team than just the technical side and no one can be expert in all of it.
That's exactly the type of Project Manager I like to work for! I was just kidding about the openings portion though, I love working for myself and bieng pretty much both the "tech" and the "project manager" for my customers. The overhead is lower, and the money that would be spent in the political realm of "project management" can be better spent on the critical element...."The Project!" If I find need for a babysitter, then I hire someone to babysit "Management" till the project is completed under budget and on or before the time deadline or explain why it isn't. But the blame won't be shrugged off onto someone elses shoulders or back. I accept it and move on, but it rarely happens which is why even today work is plentifull.
It's not project management that's the issue, it's product TEAM management that seems to be of concern here. Technology projects are highly complex - and statistically they hardly every fail because of the technology they fail because of the disconnect between the "business" and the technology organization. Good project management assumes an holistic view of the project and bringing all the expertise to bear to make it successful. Not only technologists, but the business folk, training folk,marketing and communications folk, support folk etc. The project TEAM manager needs to set up an environment that respects the complementary skills of each contributing team member and hopefully creates a synergy among the team members. This, to me, is the recipe for the success of projects and project management.
My several years managing IT projects of various sizes suggests that PM skills add considerable value to the project. Skilled and experienced PMs are leaders who provide structure and direction for the project team members as well as the customers and other stakeholders. Cowboy or cowgirl rogue techies who eschew the team concept will find PMs and the structure and cohesiveness they bring to the table annoying. So be it! The rogues have no place on the team and may be a distraction in accomplishing the mission(s).
In summary, skilled PMs bring dignity and tone to what could otherwise be a vulgar brawl. This summary statement is a paraphrase of a description I heard many years ago when describing the nature of US Army Artillery support in a battlefield environment. The metaphor fits here!
In summary, skilled PMs bring dignity and tone to what could otherwise be a vulgar brawl. This summary statement is a paraphrase of a description I heard many years ago when describing the nature of US Army Artillery support in a battlefield environment. The metaphor fits here!
Managers don't unload the freight from the ships, nor load or unload the trucks...and they sure don't complete IT projects. By your thinking get rid of the person that actually gets the work done, and the project completes itself (what a nice utopian world you must live in! Can I live there too?
Guess not, since I'm labor, and after all you are management. We are only rehashing what has been hashed for centuries. Labor vs. Management arguments and who deserves the real money. Management (allhe way to the top), won that fight, which is why all the dot.com failures and fortune 500 bankruptcies of the recent past. I'm sorry all for being so cynical but in my opinion, the failures are caused by poor management, not by over employing good people w/ great tech skills for IT projects. Just get rid of the unneeded layer of PM's, its deadweight in my book is all. With all due respect to any PM''s out there, but if your tech skills are true & up to date there will be work for all of us to actually complete those projects without the PM project bloat then.
Guess not, since I'm labor, and after all you are management. We are only rehashing what has been hashed for centuries. Labor vs. Management arguments and who deserves the real money. Management (allhe way to the top), won that fight, which is why all the dot.com failures and fortune 500 bankruptcies of the recent past. I'm sorry all for being so cynical but in my opinion, the failures are caused by poor management, not by over employing good people w/ great tech skills for IT projects. Just get rid of the unneeded layer of PM's, its deadweight in my book is all. With all due respect to any PM''s out there, but if your tech skills are true & up to date there will be work for all of us to actually complete those projects without the PM project bloat then.
I have been in a program/project management role in the IT Industry for over 15 years. Recently as the manager of both Program Management and Information Technology for an engineering consultant firm to the big 3 auto industry.
At first we werecalled user liaison, then systems analyst, then Business Analyst then... well you get the picture. The responsibilities were the same, a focused centralized individual to communicate back and forth between the end user community and the informationtechnology community. To put it more simply someone who can talk english and computereeze.
I agree with Tom, team members will make or break a project. You have left brain people and right brain people trying to accomplish common goals. Left brain are methodocal and logical (Generalist) were right brain are creative free thinkers (Technical).
Over the past fifteen years I have found that the the technicians have a problem focusing on what the customer is asking to accomplish. They listen, and then tell them "that isn't what you want". Because they don't know the business. A good project manager has a sound business background and can apply varying business techniques to a given situation.
A technician only knows the limitations of the infrastructure environment they are working in.
Tom's right in the other aspect that when a team member complains about a project manager or a manager in general, it's usually because they had their feet held to the fire and were made accountable for some aspect of a project.
I usually found that if you confront these people with the question "What would you do?" and then have them implement their recommendation they either see that it has no merit or you have an added PROCESS to the project.
At first we werecalled user liaison, then systems analyst, then Business Analyst then... well you get the picture. The responsibilities were the same, a focused centralized individual to communicate back and forth between the end user community and the informationtechnology community. To put it more simply someone who can talk english and computereeze.
I agree with Tom, team members will make or break a project. You have left brain people and right brain people trying to accomplish common goals. Left brain are methodocal and logical (Generalist) were right brain are creative free thinkers (Technical).
Over the past fifteen years I have found that the the technicians have a problem focusing on what the customer is asking to accomplish. They listen, and then tell them "that isn't what you want". Because they don't know the business. A good project manager has a sound business background and can apply varying business techniques to a given situation.
A technician only knows the limitations of the infrastructure environment they are working in.
Tom's right in the other aspect that when a team member complains about a project manager or a manager in general, it's usually because they had their feet held to the fire and were made accountable for some aspect of a project.
I usually found that if you confront these people with the question "What would you do?" and then have them implement their recommendation they either see that it has no merit or you have an added PROCESS to the project.
As part of a SI team within a large company I have seen the value of a good PM on a project. Working with Customers and project teams located remote to the core team, the PM was what held the project to it's defined scope. Without the project time line being defined, time critical goals are easly missed which can lead to increased costs and delays. If a PM relies on good techie leads for assistance it all works. The PM doesn't have to know each person on the teams skill to do his job.
He has to know that the skills of the team assigned can match the requirements of the project and that the team can work together toward the final goal of the project.
He has to know that the skills of the team assigned can match the requirements of the project and that the team can work together toward the final goal of the project.
A project manager MUST be a technical expert in all disciplines involved in the project. A weakness in one is a broken chain. He/she should have decades of experience in successful application development. This is seldom the case.
Paper shuffling and status meetings do not make a successful project.
Project managers are generally required for large projects (more than 10 on team, including clients) many times with outside personnel. Coordination, standardization, and quality become paramount and must be administrated top-down by plan, method, and procedure. Every installation is unique and must be thoroughly surveyed, analysed, and documented before the work starts. Modelling techniques and constant communication with clients must be maintained. The project must be pliable and adaptable to change during development. Expect, but control, scope creep. Make sure the client knows he is paying for it.
Paper shuffling and status meetings do not make a successful project.
Project managers are generally required for large projects (more than 10 on team, including clients) many times with outside personnel. Coordination, standardization, and quality become paramount and must be administrated top-down by plan, method, and procedure. Every installation is unique and must be thoroughly surveyed, analysed, and documented before the work starts. Modelling techniques and constant communication with clients must be maintained. The project must be pliable and adaptable to change during development. Expect, but control, scope creep. Make sure the client knows he is paying for it.
I must say that I disagree that a Project Manager must be a technical expert. That is like saying a formula 1 race car driver must be an expert mechanic. Far from it.
Like the formula 1 driver, a good PM will know the basics of how the technicalaspects relate to each other, and to be able to recognize some of the major components, but that is about it.
A good PM will deliver what the client wants (even though they might not know exactly what they want themselves!!!), on time, and under budget, all while keeping the technical team motivated and challenged.
Like the formula 1 driver, a good PM will know the basics of how the technicalaspects relate to each other, and to be able to recognize some of the major components, but that is about it.
A good PM will deliver what the client wants (even though they might not know exactly what they want themselves!!!), on time, and under budget, all while keeping the technical team motivated and challenged.
The fact that Tom Mochal has found it appropriate to present this subject for discussion, and the various opinionated responses from Paul, et all, only highlights the need for project managers. If any project were to proceed with as much difference of opinion as generated by Mochal's column, it would of course be a failure. I believe that the "best possible" project manager would be one that has both technical knowledge and project management skills. However, both knowledge and skills will beof little help if the project manager is not the final arbiter of all "opinions" concerning the project.
All seventy machines have rebooted and there's work, both technical & management related to be completed. Lol
Have a great day!
Have a great day!
Quoted from your article..."Secondly, I?ve observed that some people prefer little or no management structure in general. I consider myself a decent project manager and staff manager. However, I?ve worked with people who had a problem with me and mymanagement style. They didn?t like being accountable for dates or having to ask about due dates or send me a status update.
This didn?t mean they were bad. Many of them were good people and superb technicians. But it was a struggle for us to worktogether on the project."
But you see, sometimes even when you have "superb technicians" who are "good people" working on the project, some seem to find it necessary to introduce a problem (hiring the PM), to create "a struggle" where none shouldexist.
In the ever changing world of this type of technology, you won't find many people that are actually purely lazy, due to the fact that continuing educational demands are a fact of the industry, that is IF you want to keep your skills up & you want to keep working. Truely motivated people don't need babysitters, and yes they (the tech's), find the mere idea worthless, not necessarily the people hired to be the PM's. It does sound personal, it isn't, but the "idea" that I need a babysitter really is.
This didn?t mean they were bad. Many of them were good people and superb technicians. But it was a struggle for us to worktogether on the project."
But you see, sometimes even when you have "superb technicians" who are "good people" working on the project, some seem to find it necessary to introduce a problem (hiring the PM), to create "a struggle" where none shouldexist.
In the ever changing world of this type of technology, you won't find many people that are actually purely lazy, due to the fact that continuing educational demands are a fact of the industry, that is IF you want to keep your skills up & you want to keep working. Truely motivated people don't need babysitters, and yes they (the tech's), find the mere idea worthless, not necessarily the people hired to be the PM's. It does sound personal, it isn't, but the "idea" that I need a babysitter really is.
I do believe that a large project needs to managed however in my experience I have found that most Project Managers are unskilled in people management. The object of these PMs appears to be delivery of a product by a certain deadline with an absence of any responsibility for whether what is delivered is useful. If the product does not work the PM gets off scot free by blaming the techos. Many PMs have no understanding of the technical skills and knowledge required to carry out a particular component of a project. However they think they do and thats where the danger lies. I have seen PMs completely hoodwinked by crafty individuals who can sell them any product. I have seen PMs completely swayed by contractors with a huge conflict of interest in a project. A more technical lead would pick up on these sorts of games and would not be so easily led. I have seen PMs play political games to get themselves the credit for work they have not done.
I have never met a PM with good peoplemanagement skills.
The PM's job should solely be the co-ordination of teams involved in projects, to keep the issues log and to follow up on these issues. The PM's job should not involve the management of people within these teams. I have only seen them fail miserably in this area.
I have never met a PM with good peoplemanagement skills.
The PM's job should solely be the co-ordination of teams involved in projects, to keep the issues log and to follow up on these issues. The PM's job should not involve the management of people within these teams. I have only seen them fail miserably in this area.
When you have been loaded up with so many responsibilities, are given obsolete, useless software and hardware, and report to so many people that generating reports becomes a hazard to your health and work schedule you might understand why generatingreports is despised by some techs. Try sifting through 10 MB software build outputs (due to lousy software practices) and generating reports by a 9 AM meeting everyday and you might start to understand. Some project managers proiorities and expectations are totally unreasonable. Then they turn around and blame you and then start harrassing you over your age, illness and family commitments. They know they can get away with it because they can hire some young kid who will take the abuse or doesn't have any outside resonsibilities. Screw the people over 40 and hire some university grads. That's the motto of most companies and project managers I've worked for.
Fire the PM and get a good secretary for half his salary, twice his efficency and the lack of his damaging potential ... 
I AM one of those College grads hired to harrass veteran programmers on their daily work. I'm part of a fairly infant PM program that's been around for about two+ years now. As my first true career job, the situation continually intrigues me: bureacracy meets technical work.
Essentially, management empowers us PM's enough to cause trouble, but not enough to actually change or direct work. The result tends to be loaded on the techs in requirements: documentation, status updates, meetings, schedules and so on. I watch some PM's who weigh it well, and others dump it without discretion.
My misfortune is that I started as a developer, but ended up as a junior PM. I deal with the techs everyday, and every step of "project management" I perform is done with empathy for the poor guy that just wants to write the damn code. The question in my mind each day I work tends to be, "am I adding real value?"
I generally ask this question everytime a developer has to sit in on a end-of-phase meeting or fill out a requirements document. Some PM's don't go this far, and assume the value of their work is immediately appreciated. For them, I'd suggest spending 2 months as a developer under a project manager. It'd temper their views, and like they say in the military, the only way to learn how to lead is to learn how to obey.
Essentially, management empowers us PM's enough to cause trouble, but not enough to actually change or direct work. The result tends to be loaded on the techs in requirements: documentation, status updates, meetings, schedules and so on. I watch some PM's who weigh it well, and others dump it without discretion.
My misfortune is that I started as a developer, but ended up as a junior PM. I deal with the techs everyday, and every step of "project management" I perform is done with empathy for the poor guy that just wants to write the damn code. The question in my mind each day I work tends to be, "am I adding real value?"
I generally ask this question everytime a developer has to sit in on a end-of-phase meeting or fill out a requirements document. Some PM's don't go this far, and assume the value of their work is immediately appreciated. For them, I'd suggest spending 2 months as a developer under a project manager. It'd temper their views, and like they say in the military, the only way to learn how to lead is to learn how to obey.
The problem is that techies are used to the cowboy coding and hero atmosphere. They use their technical knowledge to essentially hold their bosses hostage and foster a "no consequences" environment. The minute you bring in a PM who attempts to get estimates and hold people to dates, you get techie temper-tantrums!
On the defense of tech workers, you often get too many PM's who have a one-size-fits-all approach to PM. PM practices need to be scaled to the size of the project. Keep administrivia to a minimum!
On the defense of tech workers, you often get too many PM's who have a one-size-fits-all approach to PM. PM practices need to be scaled to the size of the project. Keep administrivia to a minimum!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
