Do I have your
attention yet? Most people in software development instinctively know that the project
manager’s drive to make sure the project is on time is at odds with the desire
to have high quality software. Not that project managers don’t want high
quality software too, it’s just they want the software and they want on-time
delivery and costs that are at or less than what was estimated, in addition to
quality. Their efforts are often successful at reducing cost and the
development time without impacting quality. However, it is possible for them to
push their techniques too far.
Although all of the
following project management techniques are at least well meaning,
and in some cases, they are even time honored techniques, they do have the
potential for disaster.
Getting top honors in
the list of things which can destroy software quality is the practice of time
boxing. This practice is where you tell someone how long they are allowed to
work on the task before it must be turned over. I say turned over and not
completed because used at its extreme it often means that the code isn’t
complete, it’s merely pushed along the process.
Time boxing works—most
of the time—because it does three things:
forces the developer to be creative in finding a solution that fits within
eliminates unnecessary frills that are often added to software that don’t
necessarily add value.
prevents the developer from over testing.
The intent is to get
the piece working. There’s a whole QA phase where detailed testing will
hopefully reveal any problems that there may be with the code.
Time boxing doesn’t
work when the problem is unknown, the technology isn’t proven, or there’s no
real way to predict the results. It also doesn’t work when the box is made so
small there’s no possible way to complete the objective within the allotted
time. In other words, there are some things that time boxing works well for,
such as well understood, carefully estimated, execution-type tasks. And some
that it doesn’t work well for, like research and development, problem solving,
When time boxing is
used correctly it shouldn’t result in poorly tested code that will cause
hundreds of hours of diagnostics and rework. It should be used with moderation
to ensure the lowest cost, quickest and best quality software possible.
something to strive for. Milestones are a respected way to motivate people
towards a unified goal. That motivation can often lead to great results in
short periods of time. However, everyone must accept that the milestone date
won’t always be met and then they must decide what to do when that happens.
Project managers must
put dates out in front of the group to motivate them but when the dates aren’t
realistic and they are consistently missed, it’s time to reevaluate the plan. The
problem is that when a really important date comes up there will be little
drive to hit it because an expectation has been set that the date isn’t
important. After all if the team misses 10 dates in a row, how important can
the 11th date be? It’s like the boy who cried wolf.
If timelines are
being set that have no penalty behind them and people aren’t meeting them it’s
time to put some teeth behind them or move the whole timeline.
Continuing to create
a constant stressful and confusing situation does not create a good software
solution in the long run. Developers need to be able to concentrate on their
work. The desire to meet the date and the confusion about whether the date is
real or not may lead to developers skipping critical steps in the development
process and, in doing so, creating problems that will be hard to find.
Pretending nothing is wrong
When it comes to
project management, ignorance is not bliss. Despite the often overwhelming
political pressure to have a successful project, it’s necessary to be forward
in describing the risks of the project with the rest of the organization. Nearly
every software development project has risks that make it possible that it will
be late or over budget or both.
The problem with this
is eventually there comes a time when those risks turn into a reality and then
panic sets in. Everyone scrambles to put together the rest of the pieces of the
project and the quality of the project will suffer from the hastiness of the
Of course, this
problem isn’t fully realized until the project gets behind; however, most
projects find a way to get behind a little at some point in the project. Nearly
every software development project is at risk of the rush that is caused when
the business learns about the true state of the project after believing that
nothing was wrong for a long time.
development we have a great number of techniques for delaying dependencies. We
can stub out functions, remove connecting infrastructure, or bypass extensive
error handling. All of these techniques when used correctly can be helpful to
moving a project along. However, when it becomes required to get the project
completed and when the costs of these techniques are not factored into the
planning, trouble sets in.
Often times just
sequencing a software development project can be very challenging. The
dependencies are often hard to see so inevitably there are dependencies that
aren’t in the plan to start. Scheduling around these unforeseen dependencies
can drive a person mad. So the techniques of neutralizing dependencies are used.
However, if too many of these techniques are used the clean up cost can often
become a non-trivial part of the project’s overall cost—and one that isn’t
discovered until the very end.
Making sure that
you’re doing what is necessary to manage dependencies—without picking up too
much cost—is a necessary part of software development. When project managers
don’t balance the cost with the convenience of reducing the dependency they
create hastily assembled code which exhibits quality problems.
Disaster waiting to happen?
Be on the look out
for project management techniques which have gone awry and may be causing your
next project to be a quality disaster.