Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm in my first development job out of college and have been handed a (solo) project that is completely outside the range of my skills/experience both in terms of the technologies being used and the sheer scope of the thing.
I've spent the last 6 months or so basically completely retraining myself and then starting to do the thing, and although I did very well at college and I think that I'm on track for delivery, I've had zero feedback on what I've been doing and I'm suddenly starting to feel very much out of my depth.
My direct supervisor, while a nice guy and I think a competent coder, doesn't have the best communication skills and basically told me to "read a book" when I asked him for a bit of guidance, which is not really what I was hoping for!
Am I just being unrealistic about the amount of support I can expect as a junior developer? It seems to me that ignoring the issue and ploughing ahead runs the risk of a failed project which is to no-ones benefit. I could take my request for guidance a step higher to the head of development, but I don't want to sound like I'm saying I can't do the job nor do I want to make my supervisor look bad.
Can anyone suggest a good approach for saying "help!" without making myself or my supervisor look bad?
This is a great question, and I think a fairly common situation. Basically, I think what you're asking for is guidance on how to communicate with your boss, and the other people in your organization.
This might be a good time to look into the scrum framework, and take from it what seems applicable to your environment.
In particular, you mention that you might be in over your head. Or, there is an (implicit) expectation that you'll need to finish this project "tomorrow," when you really don't know how long it will take.
I suggest starting with a list. Write down everything you need to do. Include non-coding activities, like "research technology X for doing Y," and give each task a basic time estimate like "1" for short, "2" for medium, "3" for long. Then put the things in an order that you think makes sense.
Then meet with your boss, once a week, for like 20 minutes, to discuss what you did, and what you're going to do next week. Out of this discussion, you'll both see what's going on, and adjust expectations (and the list) accordingly. When conflicts of expectation come up, talk it out.
Regarding the amount of support to expect as a junior developer, this really depends on your organization, and your supervisor's opinion. As software engineering is still a relatively young profession, there isn't much in the way of industry-standard mentoring programs.
I suggest trying the list + meeting thing for a couple months, and observe how your opinion of the support situation changes. Then, go to a large conference as soon as possible; spend the money if you need to. You'll see who is struggling with similar situations, and also who is not, and you'll create your own, more-informed model of "how the industry is supposed to work."
Regarding a good approach to communicating, I (seriously) suggest The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman, which has a lot of examples of what works and doesn't work when communicating with people.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
While doing planning sessions using Rapid Board what are some reasonable ways to make sure each person on the team has a decent enough amount of work for the length of the sprint?
e.g. if you have 10 people on the team, how can you quickly see if 1 person only has 2 hours worth of work? Are you supposed to wait for them to speak up or can this be done through Greenhopper somehow?
The best way to make sure that everybody has work to do throughout the sprint, is to let them sign up for work every time they complete the previous task. This means that the members will be "pulling" work, rather than having their work "pushed" onto them.
If you conduct a daily scrum - daily - you will find out pretty quickly that someone is not signing up for new work - that he's either stuck on what he has, or not picking new work. Essentially, if you break up your work into small enough tasks, you will know what is going on within a day.
All this will work for you regardless of which software tool you use to track your sprint.
If you are using Jira, (and your project can afford it) I would suggest looking into the add-on "Green Hopper." It is also made by Atlassian and does a lot of what you are asking for. You can view individuals and see how much work they have as well as how much free time is remaining.
You can also drag the stories (Jira issues represented as virtual index cards) into different iterations (sprints) and onto different people. As well, it will help you to run your daily standup (using it as the scrum board), however YMMV.
m
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Leaving work at my contractual end of play time seems to be a rare event. Usually work has to be done that requires working an hour over the end of the day, or a meeting (time differences are a real pain).
Is there anything I can do to avoid this? I already make sure I don't start a task in for the end of the day (or the end of the next day), which I cannot finish within that time.
Is this a sign of bad project management? Also, how do Project Managers handle time zones (they are a real inconvenience)?
Thanks
Is there anything I can do to avoid
this?
Sure, leave on time. Task not done? Start on it when you arrive on time the next working day.
Manager doesn't like this? That's his (or her) problem. Scheduling tasks, assigning priorities, and managing resources is the managers job. Doing your tasks to the best of your ability within the contractually agreed upon working hours is your job.
Constantly asking you to stay late or work on weekends or holidays is either poor management or lack of company resources (not enough people to do the job). Requiring you to stay beyond the statutory limit without paying overtime is a violation of labor laws.
(Of course this assumes you are an hourly employee.)
It could be that they simply don't have enough people on the job, and there's too much in the role you're doing for one person to get through in a day. That said, I find that I'll often get engaged with something at work, not notice the time, and end up leaving somewhat late. This is more that I'm enjoying it at a given moment, than it is to do with that extra time being strictly necessary. I think this is something that you need to ask yourself about. Is more being asked of you than you can get done in your contract hours? If so, why? Do you really enjoy what you do, and spend time trying to do it as well as possible?
On the time zones thing, they are a nightmare. Sometimes you need to have a conversation with someone who wakes up not long before you want to head home, and someone's going to have to take the awkward time (or more usually, a compromise must be reached). There's no perfect answer to this, since someone is always going to have to be available at a time they rather wouldn't. I think the most important thing is to ensure it's at the least inconvenient time for all parties involved.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am currently trying to make the transition from a technical PM to a Developer.
Obviously this depends very much on current level of knowledge / experience, but are there some key things that a PM (who also codes regularly) might have missed from not strictly working as a Developer.
Also would a course like this help in the right direction?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/computing/teaching/postgraduate/msc-computing-science/description
Considering I want to work on Audio/Video/3D ideally, I feel this course could be a good leg up?
As a technical PM you have the advantage of knowing the terminology etc so that is at least a heads start. As to making the switch check out information on areas such as
computing fundamentals - low level concepts on computer hardware, network and protocols.
algorithms - for an understanding of sorting, graphs, networks, trees, etc.
architecture and design - web application architecture, messaging architecture, UML, use cases, documentation.
programming languages - OO, scripting and AI (at least to get a feel for the types and applications)
business end of programming - software estimation
This is a broad spectrum of areas that you would need to have at least some exposure to for the transition. In fact it might even be useful if your current employer allowed you to work as the developer on a small part of a project. You'd certainly gain respect from the developers on a project coming from the technical PM role and could even enlighten the developers.
If you have a passion for working in an area, seriously consider the amount of creative freedom, in your experience, developers have as compared to PMs. Make sure that's acceptable to you.
Nothing is worse than having passion in an area, but little or no influence.
As far as technical abilities go, the only thing to do is to code. Any classes primarily will act as ways to ensure that you do so, and do so in ways that will teach you. But at the end of the day, it's going to boil down to time spent writing software.
If you really want to become a great developer, learn at least one language radically different from the languages you know. If you're a Java/C++/C# kind of guy, learn something that will really torque your brain like Haskell, Erlang, or Scheme. To just learn really good OO techniques, learn, read, and write some Smalltalk.
The best thing to do is to spend ten years or so programming during every waking moment. That's what worked for me!
First of all get start practicing to type all day ! Then get ready to work on minute details which a developer works on everyday like... code shortcuts, coding styles, commenting etc.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
we have a number of functional deliverable planned for 2010 but we also have a technology agenda (architectural refactorings, consolidation, upgrade a platform). any suggestions on the best way to include these in a roadmap to help the business understand why they are important.
one option is just saying trust us as this is the right thing to do to keep everything healthy but i would like some better visualization if possible
Being a bit cynical about it, I would say phrase every thing in terms of money. If you can't re-write your technical agenda in terms of money made or money saved, then why are you doing it at all?
Also, there is an article on "technical debt in financial terms" that I found very useful at:
http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2007/11/01/technical-debt-2.aspx
One of the more interesting points, to me, is "One of the important implications of technical debt is that it must be serviced, i.e., once you incur a debt there will be interest charges."
There is a brief follow up at
http://forums.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc/archive/2007/12/12/technical-debt-decision-making.aspx
Show how support time, time between failures, number of problems should go up if you won't do the change.
Each technology has it's time limits, end of support from the manufacture, and regular life cycle.
Example - if you use MFC - you can show that programming a simple task in MFC is 3 times slower than in winforms. so after x months, the benefit from not upgrading will be lost.
with equipment it is even easier, as the older the equipment gets, the more mal-functions there are and it is easy to show (usually after the 3 years covarage everything starts to break, and I think it's planned like this. it didn't use to be but these days it does).
with infrastructure - again - if you have oracle 7.6 - show how much more time (money) you spend on administration and how less will be spent in 11g.
ect. ect. ect.
eventually manager wants to see ROI... TCO... BLA BLA BLA so you need to give them that.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on a project that's been accepted as a proof of concept and is now on the schedule as an actual production project. I'm curious how others approach this transition.
I've heard from various sources that when a project starts as a proof of concept it's often a good idea to trash all of the code written during that rapidly-evolving phase and essentially to start over with a clean slate, relying on what you learned from the conceptual phase but without working to clean up the potentially messy code that you wrote the first time around. Kind of the programming version of "throw away the first copy of that angry email you're about to send and start all over" theory.
I've done it this was in the past and I've also refactored the conceptual code to use in production, but since I'm in the transition phase for a new project I wanted to get an idea how others do this. Obviously a lot depends on the project itself, and on the conceptual code (if what you generated works but won't scale for example, it's probably best to start afresh, but if you have a very compressed timeline for the project you might be forced to build on what you've already written).
That said, if all things were equal what would you all choose as an approach?
As you already kind of hinted at, the answer is, "It Depends"
Starting over is good because you can help trim out the stuff that was added while you were initially working out the kinks but isn't really needed.
It also gives you a chance to give more consideration to how you want the architecture to be -- without already being dependent on how the proof-of-concept was written...
In practice, though, unless you're in the business of selling the software to the outside world, building upon the prototype is pretty commonplace. Just don't get into the habit of thinking "I'll fix it later" if you run into some code that smells or seems like it could be done in a better way...
Refactor the existing code into the solution.
For me it would depend on how sloppy my POC was. If it is something I would be ashamed to pass onto another developer, I would rewrite it. Otherwise, just go with what you got.
If the code works, use it. Spend a little bit of time refactoring the messiest parts in order to ease future maintenance. But don't fall into the trap of building a new system from scratch.
Throw away everything from the proof of concept except for the lessons learned, and, possibly, some minor code fragments such as calculations etc.
Proof of concept applications should never be more than just the bare minimum to see if the technology in question will work and to start testing some of the boundary conditions.
Once done you are free to redesign the application with your new found knowledge.