Tag Archives: Management

IEMC ’07

The 2007 International Engineering Management Conference was held near Austin, at Hyatt Lost Pines Resort from July 30 through August 1. I was a panelist on the Peter Drucker Leadership Panel. (See: pdf slides). I also volunteered to prepare a daily video podcast from the conference. You can watch them on YouTube: day 1, day 2, day 3. The IEEE Central Texas Section and local chapter of the Engineering Management Society with Leslie Martinich in the lead helped make this conference happen. Thank you, Leslie!

Peter Drucker on Software Management

Well, Peter Drucker didn’t write about software management, but he did write about management. In his book Managing in a Time of Great Change he has a chapter called The Five Deadly Business Sins. Here is what Drucker has to say:

The third deadly sin is cost-driven pricing. The only thing that works is price-driven costing. Most American and practically all European companies arrive at their prices by adding up costs and then putting a profit margin on the top.

The only sound way to price is to start out with what the market is willing to pay—and thus, it must be assumed, what the competition will charge—and design to that price specification.

How does this apply to software development? Here is how I see the two scenarios in the world of software development:

Cost-Driven Pricing: A Tough Sell

In this scenario the Customer comes with the software product requirements (not quite complete, since they never are). Next the software team goes ahead and figures out how long it is going to take to build it, and tells the Customer what the expected end-date is, thus arriving at a “cost.” The Customer is almost always unhappy with the end-date that the team provides. The Customer is also unhappy with the delivered product, since the software team usually does not manage the scope at a fine-grained level. The team thinks that they know what they need to build, and proceed on building it.

Price-Driven Costing: Problem Solving with Constraints

In this scenario the Customer comes with the requirements (never complete), and a target end date in mind: an end-date that fits into the business scenario that they intend to play out. It is now up to the software team to:

  1. Figure out how the product can be built under the given constraints of date and cost, and
  2. Figure out how to “slice & dice” the requirements to meet the Customer’s goals.

The software team must deliver to and negotiate with the Customer regularly. To deiver the project the team have to bring their ingenuity to solve the problem.

The Bottom Line

Price-Driven Costing applies to the way software teams work. It means that we need to work back from the price (date) that the Customer is willing to take, and then we have to figure out how to deliver the project on that date. There may be times when we have to say, this cannot be done. And there will be others, many others, when we will successfully deliver the project to a happy Customer.

Elements of Agility: Levels of Initiative

When agility comes up in conversations, the typical topics are methods, techniques, or process, but rarely initiative. Even though initiative, more than other factors, determines if a team can perform at maximum performance. These days an organization cannot be competitive if its people are at levels 1 or 2 on the initiative scale.

Levels of Initiative [1]

  1. Wait until told. The lowest level of initiative.
  2. Ask what to do.
  3. Recommend, and then take resulting action.
  4. Act, but advise at once.
  5. Act on own, then routinely report. The highest level of initiative.

Managers often unwittingly kill people’s initiatives, because managers make too many decisions that would better be done by others. If you notice that your manager is making a decision that could be handled more effectively by you, then recommend it. You might be surprised that he or she will gladly accept your assistance.
Do you think that your team could cut cycle time and improve quality if the team members acted at higher levels of initiative?

Reference

  1. Oncken, Jr., William and Donald L. Wass, “Management Time: Who’s Got the Monkey?” Harvard Business Review (November-December 1974).

Managers Need Tools

It seems that all professionals have their tools, but somehow managers were forgotten. No more! There is a great podcast to provide the tools that managers need to do their jobs better called Manager Tools. The podcast is done by Mark Horstman and Mike Auzenne. They publish their podcast weekly and have a website with materials that every manager needs. Check them out and listen weekly!

Software Process: Here is why I got interested

You know the feeling: you are assigned to a new project and asked to give an “estimate” of the length of time the new project will take. You think about it for a moment—or for a day—and then give the date. But you have no confidence in the date, so before you give it you double it, or triple it, hoping that the new date will give you just enough time to take care of most of the unexpected things that might come up.

Both you and I know that this is not adequate, since this almost never yields the correct date. I never trusted the date since I never understood why the fudge factors were needed. But the biggest problem I had with estimation was that I didn’t know how to get better at it, since I didn’t understand how it worked.

It was in early 1992 that I first paid attention to something called the software process. I read Watts Humphrey’s Managing the Software Process. Humphrey points out some of the common process issues that every software organization has to face and how to get a handle on them. I started applying his ideas in a small group, not quite what he designed them for. Shortly after Humphrey finished writing his book he realized that the Capability Maturity Model that he described must be applicable for a person as well. He proceeded to write a book for the individual engineer: A Discipline for Software Engineering—The Personal Software Process. That book put the role of the individual engineer in a new perspective. Later, I had a chance to attend Humphrey’s seminars for engineers, managers and executives and I started teaching it, and mentoring people on its use as well.

Today I know that you get a better overall estimate if you estimate the size of the software first. Then you apply to the size estimate your productivity rate to get the project effort estimate (in hours). If you don’t know what your productivity is, then you will have to estimate it, and reestimate the project effort as soon as you have real data. If you work with short iterations then in a few weeks you should have real data, so your effort estimate will become more accurate.

Once you had figured out how many hours will the project take you can move on to figure out the date when it will be done. First, you consult your calendar and see how many hours you will have available for project work. Second, map the project hours onto the available calendar hours. This will give you a date that is pretty realistic. You might not like it, but this is a realistic date.

A major benefit to coming up with the date like this is that it gives you three levers that you can use to control the the end date:

  1. You can reduce the scope of the project,
  2. Be more productive (likely you can change this lever only in the long term), or
  3. Work more hours (only a short term solution, because if you sprint when you are running a marathon, sooner or later you will run out of steam and you will never finish).

Since these three are independent variables, they require different actions. In the short term, you can reduce the scope of the project if you can’t add more hours either by working more or adding other people to the project. As we know from Fred Brooks, adding more people to an already late project will only make it later.

In 1999 I read The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Science of The Learning Organization by Peter Senge. This work, together with two follow-up works, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook and The Dance of Change, pointed out to me the importance of looking at systems, not just software engineers, development teams, customers, companies, and suppliers. Senge’s work on systems seems comparable to Peter Deming’s work on quality. Senge’s work is not yet appreciated by most organizations.

To close the improvement circle I came back to the individual engineer. It is the individual engineer’s work that determines how good the product will be. The PSP (Personal Software Process) augmented with the TSP (Team Software Process)—both by Watts Humphrey—promise that by helping the engineering team get better—one engineer at a time—the end product will get better as well. Humphrey and his fellows from the SEI has thought the PSP class to thousands of engineers and gathered enough data to back up his claims. The doubters are welcome to try it for themselves.

There are many new challenges in the field of software engineering and I don’t anticipate running out of things to learn and practice. The main focus for the near future is:

  • Integrating size measurement into object-oriented analysis and design;
  • Studying and practicing Six Sigma and figuring out ways to apply DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) in the context of the Software Life Cycle;
  • Studying and practicing Systems Thinking and the other four management disciplines: Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, and Team Learning to create an organization that lives up to its full potential.