Hacker News Reader

What's the criteria for a process to be considered "working?"

Fundamentally, since the inception of software, many people have thought that it's complex enough that we need "processes" to manage its delivery. Sort of like we have for manufacturing. Those processes often slow things down, make it difficult to add new features quickly, etc.. Their goal is to give the customer what they expect and have it work though. Agile pretty much says "fuck process, it's not fun" and that's it's whole philosophy. If you've got some really solid and dedicated heroes then you might ship some software that's great and make some money, if you've got some weak links on the team then you might not.

My heuristic has been that when the problem domain is large enough that it's acceptable for members of the team to not have it all in their head, agile starts to have issues. I've also noticed that if you're a "hard problem solver" kind of person, it's less fun.

It does seem like it has success in some domains and such, I'm not sure that it's entirely agile though. The one failing point I can clearly point to with agile is that it appears to be very very difficult to actually, successfully implement, there are so many unhappy people with it.

> the only process that seems to matter is "have someone really good in charge".

I fully agree, and would thus like to recommend this manifesto: http://programming-motherfucker.com

I agree with you. Usually "agile" is used just as a religion: a mix of wishful thinking plus a way of pushing developers "because of the agile rules".

>"have someone really good in charge."

Pretty much. The person you describes sounds like someone who is willing to learn/improve/grow and not be confined by occupational labels. This leadership trait coupled with self-motivation is always a boon to a team, regardless of the project management style.

And the someone really good in charge needs to hire a team full of really good people, too. Good process and competent management does not mean you can slot in interchangeable cogs to do the work and expect good results.

Uh,

I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow.

Whether that could be made into the kind of system marketed by gurus is naturally a different question and I'd be skeptical about that.

I'd guess that the structure would have to be really big to cover all kinds of situations and corner cases.

I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied

If Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance isn't required reading anymore, this could be a sign that it should be.

> I can't see how a person can have "goodness" without that goodness having a structure which could be studied, systematized and taught somehow.

How do you teach someone an attention to detail, good work ethic, and perseverance?

Those are character traits, not methodologies. If a PM has those 3, he'll be a good PM regardless of anything else. Actually, if someone has those 3, they'll be a good anything.

Agile or something else might make someone better, but they can't determine if someone is good.

How do they have those traits without being taught them? They are 'character' traits, but they are still taught. Surely we can agree you are not born with a good work ethic?

Some traits are inherent to a person. You develop skills over the years but some people "just are" more organised and disciplined.

I find as I get older I get more organized and disciplined. Maybe its because memory isn't as good at absorbing information as effortlessly as it used to be.

I've got more organised as I get older, not because I want to make the world a better place or anything altruistic. Over time I've learned that if you are organised it takes less effort.

You can teach them. I personally had a lot less attention to detail before studying math. Good work ethic and perseverance can be taught as part of reaching a bigger goal, for example in sports.

I have to be careful to adjust the level of detail down. And, frankly, that's one thing Agile is good for - the use of narrative.

I feel like shop work ( saws, sanding, filing, etc ) and music are better for that but maybe that's bias. Sports teaches some things, but there's an awful lot of sorting going on and some of the "adults" have weird reasons for being there. But I think of character as "what you do when nobody is looking."

Truly great coaches are worth it, though. The best one I ever had told me to get out of sports :)

Yeah I agree, but I suppose the person has to be willing to learn too. I can point to a couple of specific teachers and lecturers during my school years, and then the technical director at one job, who all influenced me a lot and shaped my work ethic and desire for attention to detail. Colleagues and friends may not have felt as influenced by the same people.

It takes two people. I guess I'm implicitly assuming that the student will be relatively bright and wiling to learn but will be lacking some of those soft skills at first.

Can you teach it in less than 20 years? How do you know if you've taught it correctly?

The question isn't whether it is possible to teach it, but whether it is practical.

That is a ridiculous statement. But that 'definition' there are no good or bad people, good or bad engineers, good or bad project managers, scrum masters, managers or anything.

Not everyone can be 'taught' or just go by a structure. In fact I would strongly argue that those who just go by a predefinied step-by-step structure are always never the 'good' ones.

Can you teach someone to be good at what they do? Of course you can study people who are good at what they do. Perhaps other people who want to become good at what they do can learn from that. However, no one will become good at what they do purely by emulating someone else, since what they do won't be the same thing.

Besides. Things like Agile aren't "observing what people who are good at what they do, do". It's a formalized process based on the ideas that some people who are good at what they do have about WHY they are good at what they do. But do people who are good at what they do really know why they are so? They probably don't! Besides, they are going to mix in all kinds of things that they think they do, or they think they should do, or they think that good people they learned from did, in that formalized process. In the end, the process they describe may sound good to them, but have very little to do with what good people actually do or should do in any particular circumstance.

Still, even someone really good can be rendered unproductive with bad processes and misguided strategy.

If a really good person can be rendered unproductive with bad processes then that person is not in charge.

Not very profound really. Someone really good in charge is most likely hiring really good developers as well.

There is a massive amount of work that goes on outside of writing code which contributes to the success of a project. Without strategic and tactical intelligence you're not going to get anywhere regardless of how good your devs are. In fact, the leadership and management functions are more important than engineering savvy. You can build a good product and fail, but you can also build a mediocre product and succeed. In the latter case, it's not the devs who got you there.

But yes, you're right; good managers make good hires. What's your point?