Re: OOP - a question about database access

"Phlip" <phlip_cpp_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Flmqb.19888$2e5.13794_at_newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> > They declared a deadline at about a tenth or less of the time required
and
> > asked for the whole enchilada. They then beat up the developers for
> failing
> > to deliver, but urged them to do better for the next timebox... I found
it
> > abusive, wasteful and counterproductive.
>
> Wow! I have certainly never seen /that/ behavior before!

I was certainly surprized to see it, myself. I had worked for one or two managers I considered incompetent prior to that, but the organization I am thinking of was right off the chart. They took dysfunction and incompetence to a whole new level. The money wasted there could industrialize a small third-world country.

> > I have no problems with realistic deadlines or with managers who
actually
> > manage. Prioritizing features and making realistic assessments of what
the
> > team can deliver in the time available is simply management--as is
> adjusting
> > the target feature list as development progresses.
> >
> > If there is any risk at all of any of the "must have" features not
making
> it
> > in before the deadline, a manager will resolve the issue before
> development
> > begins rather than wait for an irresistable force to meet an unmovable
> > object.
>
> One could also do the "must have" features first ;-)

Of course. Mandatory features obviously have higher priority than any optional feature, but if one starts with too many "must have" features and a timeline that puts any of them in jeopardy, one needs to resolve the issue up front. Perhaps one or more of the features are not as mandatory after all, or perhaps the business can adjust the deadline, or perhaps some additional resource will reduce the risk, or perhaps the business will decide to proceed knowing there is some risk but deferring action until the risk materializes. Received on Thu Nov 06 2003 - 14:34:25 CET