Project Management, do we need it?

[SueEllen]

It's a bit disappointing that at least 3 people think building is an good analogy.

Regardless, I've not heard a really good reason for having a PM as the leader of software team developing a product.

Thank you for your answers though.

I said it depends what you are building.

I've worked for companies who have been involved in the building of things like planes, ships and cars.

The project managers on those projects is doing more than dealing with a software development project, and in fact they spent their time managing the stakeholders and other parties. They definitely didn't "lead" the software team. They just came to us for updates to check where we were in terms of budget, and when they needed evidence to prove that what another party had asked was stupid.

[Lance]

I should have added a bit about completing a project to a timescale - rather than just completing project.

My point is once your focus is completing to estimated timescales, which are often guesses then you produce a bad product.

I agree with that.
A good PM will manage expectations and the timescale to meet quality/cost/etc. criteria.
A good PM will change the date.
You are describing bad PMing.

I think you agree that the role is important but you're just not so sure that it needs to be a different person. I tried being a PM as well as being a techie but hated it. The reporting against budget and having pointless meetings just made me cross. Hence I want a PM. If I have a bad PM I tell them how to do their job. The worst PMs try to manage me rather than the project (that never lasts very long).

[Lance]

It's not my model, it's about questioning when and if project managers are useful when developing a software product. Also, I'm questioning this emphasis on project managers as the leaders of teams creating software products.

Now, outsourcing is a different thing all together, in my experience it's almost like the worst of the waterfall model. You get what you specify at the start and god help you if you need someone to do any thinking.

I'll agree with you there as well. A PM is not a glorified line/team manager and should never be.

[woohoo]

I agree with that.
A good PM will manage expectations and the timescale to meet quality/cost/etc. criteria.
A good PM will change the date.
You are describing bad PMing.

I think you agree that the role is important but you're just not so sure that it needs to be a different person. I tried being a PM as well as being a techie but hated it. The reporting against budget and having pointless meetings just made me cross. Hence I want a PM. If I have a bad PM I tell them how to do their job. The worst PMs try to manage me rather than the project (that never lasts very long).

What you are describing about pointless meetings etc is a problem with the organisation and it's culture. Hiring a pm to deal with this just adds to the problem. Now the PM is trying to justify their wages, hassling for updates so they in turn can update others. Do you need a full time PM to update stakeholders?

Regarding quality of software, that should be done by the software development team, working with the clients.

[woohoo]

I'll agree with you there as well. A PM is not a glorified line/team manager and should never be.

Hah, lets agree to agree then.

[Mordac]

What a waste of 7 pages and 70 odd threads.

The answer is simply, would the software team without a PM;
- be able to manage the initial phases - project setup, reqs/design activity ?
- be able to know what additional numbers to include in the costs in addition to what what they are developing as the
software team - infrastructure, training, resourcing ?
- monitor the budget ?
- be able to manage phases of testing - system, user, nft etc ?
- be able to oversee training to users
- also arrange user logons
- what about rollout approach
- go live cutover, making sure everything is signed off
- manage stakeholders, especially those emedded in the business who are only want to know how much and when, as opposed to what development technologies are being used ?

In my experience I don't think so.

Cockwaffle. In 25 years I can count on one hand (while still holding a pint) the number of good PMs I have encountered, and neither of them were good at everything. Mind you I'm talking network infrastructure, rather than software development. I thought the only qualification needed by a PM in dev these days was that you needed to speak Hindi...

[woohoo]

I said it depends what you are building.

I've worked for companies who have been involved in the building of things like planes, ships and cars.

The project managers on those projects is doing more than dealing with a software development project, and in fact they spent their time managing the stakeholders and other parties. They definitely didn't "lead" the software team. They just came to us for updates to check where we were in terms of budget, and when they needed evidence to prove that what another party had asked was stupid.

ok fair enough. My problem with the building analogy is that if you look at my street, the houses are very similar. Some small differences, some houses are bigger etc but same materials, same general designs. I could imagine that if I built one house on my street I could say the next house would take similar amount of time and resources.

But developing a software product is different, very rarely do I develop the same product over and over again.

[ladymuck]

So, if the developer is doing all the things a PM would do, when do they get time to do the developing?

[SueEllen]

So, if the developer is doing all the things a PM would do, when do they get time to do the developing?

Then they wouldn't be called a developer....

[woohoo]

So, if the developer is doing all the things a PM would do, when do they get time to do the developing?

Well some admin work can be passed onto an admin person.

But so far the main things that stand out that a PM do are (that I can see from the thread)...

1. They are required to coordinate multiple teams.
2. Required as a barrier between senior management and the developers.
3. They can take the blame if the project fails.
4. Required to estimate time and therefore budget for projects.
5. They provide leadership.
6. They put teams of together.

I think teams working together should not require the filter of a PM, the teams should be setup to talk and share on a regular basis.

The barrier thing to me is a culture thing, but the lead dev should be able to communicate and restrict access to the development team.

If the project fails the PM will not take the blame, they will assign blame and protect their job.

Estimates are usually done by the devs/engineers and are guesses, usually they are forced to do this by a PM that needs to justify their progress. It's pretty harmful to estimate/guess at the start of the project.

Providing leadership should not be part of the PM role in my opinion.

PM putting teams together, well I think it can be done at the start without the need for a PM to do this.