In recent times, it's become apparent that a major contributor to success or failure on software projects has to do with team communication, both internally and outwardly. From a systems view, creating great application is about taking expert thinking and domain knowledge, and then effectively moving it about the team in short reviews loops. This rapid-fire venture and conversation is what blends the minds of a team in both an additive and combinatorial process to create top quality killer apps. Killer software are essentially software models of the thinking mind, in order for normally stupid device to mimic the logic of intelligence creatures.
Three key ingredients often determine project failure or success: domain knowledge, deadlines, and dialog. You can think of them as "The Three Ds. inch Domain knowledge is evident. It takes smart people with the right knowledge to create the right stuff. Deadlines are also critical - there must be satisfactory time to make things right; under time pressure, haste makes waste products. What is also essential is the last D - Dialog. In fact, if you examine the tenets of approaches like Souple software development, you find that collaboration and communication is an essential part of its philosophy, clearly mentioned in the value statement known as the Agile Manifesto.
Creating good software is hard, especially under pressure. It gets even more complicated when what you're aiming to build is complex or when members of a team are dispersed, which is often the case in a flat world. Lately, as a management expert, I had the chance to compare projects at two case study companies: one an amazing success, the other a dismal failure. In many ways, the last results could be tracked to how well or poorly they handled the Three Ds.
Since I actually tend to favor happy endings, let's consider the failure first. In this story, the organization brought in a new "green" team from an outside service provider to reinforce its personnel for a medical THIS application being rushed to market. These developers were learning about this product and its particular features for the very first time. Nevertheless a critical problem been with us: key players inside the company who knew the products had quit and were unavailable to help. Much of the brain with this company was hollowed out, as with a lobotomy because of low comfort and attrition.
Score on Domain Knowledge: LOW
After that came the topic of Dialog. People of the new team were on distant shore line, a 12 hour time-zone difference. Processes necessary to move critical knowledge from one continent to another are not well established. They will also skipped a crucial co-located release planning meeting because it was perceived that "there was not enough time. " Thus, face-to-face relationships and a well-knit team weren't established -- quite different when compared to a cohesive group where people know and trust the other person like family.
Score on Dialog and Communication: LOW
Lastly, time pressure can often make or break a project. Sufficient pressure and there's a sense of challenge and feasible urgency, enough to get rid of an occasional dose of complacency. Too much time pressure and you get what's known as a Death March project (the term is done famous by the book by Male impotence Yourdon), wherein teams feel hopeless resignation from striving to do the impossible in too little time.
After having a few months, the project was cancelled. It never acquired off the ground as a result of looming deadline. As Jeff DeMarco and Tim Répertorier state within excellent reserve, Adrenaline Junkies and Design Zombies, "Time removes greeting cards from your odds. inch This team never got a chance. The deadline was set first, and it was fait irresponsible that low domain knowledge and ineffective dialog would manifest in lower production. They missed every task milestone in quick series. Management lost faith, taken the plug, and the VP was asked to resign.
For more on this kindly visit our blog by clicking here.
Comments
Post a Comment