Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a first time intern at a large corporation and I created a GUI tool that lets my coworkers visualize the log file that their product produces. The tool, known as MRI, is nearing completion and I face a conflict.
One party, (Two ambitious Indian guys that live in California) want me to adapt MRI to a new format and to display much more detailed information. The current version of MRI is built around the idiosyncrasies of the 20 year old log file format. In my opinion it is a bad idea to attempt to grow a more powerful, more universal tool out of a less powerful and idiosyncratic one (Better to start from scratch; something I probably don't have time to do).
The other party is composed of several marketing types and my father. They are drooling over the shiny new GUI that I slapped on top of their crazy old log file, and every one of them wants some feature that would help them with their day to day work.
Whom should I please? I just want to code. Which path will lead to less dumb conflicts like this?
Sounds like you are getting your first taste of the world of a manager! I'm doing exactly the same thing 10 years later, with a much bigger budget and head count. So it never really ends.
I love the answer about doing some time estimates for each requested addition, and then sitting down all parties and working on a negotiation that gets the greatest degree of satisfication. I'm betting that since you are an intern, and many of the people you mention have seniority, that they will be able sort out amongst themselves who has the biggest stake and most power in the situation. But if not, don't hesitate to act as moderator -- after all, this is your project.
Other things to think about:
Types of stake holders:
Customers - the person who controls the budget is often the most powerful of stakeholders, after all, they control your ability to do the work by controlling your funding. For an internal tool, this is probably an internal stakeholder, but it may be someone from a non-engineering group, if this tool is for a non-engineering purpose.
Users - in the long run, users often make or break a tool. They definitely determine the tool's longetivity. It's not unusual, though, for users to lack advocates. And in a big internal project, it's entirely possible that users are not the customers.
Technical Management - particularly when you are an intern and when you are working on an internal project, technical management is the group that's most important for you (as an individual) to please. They may have their own stake in the feature set, as they may be looking for a certain feature path for the product that fits a long term technological end game. Ideally, they should be on your side, and helping to figure out the best feature set.
In a big company, hopefully these roles are really well defined. Probably with an org chart. But not necessarily. And in a group that's used to working together, they may not make it really clear to a new comer exactly what the official roles are. As the guy doing the work, you're job should be to accurately and honestly tell them your best guess on what effort it will take to get the feature done. And to be open to ideas for making it cheaper/easier.
Negotiation:
The best negotiation advice I've ever gotten was "A good negotiation is one where everyone thinks they won". Sadly, the frequent outcome is that everyone feels equally screwed. The trick between every stakeholder leaving happy and every stakeholder feeling beaten down is to see the big picture and be innovative about getting everyone's needs met. In the end, no one really cares how you do it, if you can make their jobs easier, they will be happy. So finding features that serves everyone well can be the key to resolving the conflict.
Being able to do this well will really make a positive impact on your bosses. This is an extremely rare skill, and this type of finesse does get noticed.
Not having it does not mark you as a pariah, however, not many engineers enjoy negotiation. And it's never worth making every engineer be good at it. It's far better to find an engineering manager who is good at negotiating and to let them be the "speaker for the geeks", so the rest of the engineers can do their work in peace. :)
Sit the two parties down in the same room. Show them a list of the features each has asked for and how long you think each will take. Then explain that all of it is possible but all of it takes time, and ask them to come to agreement on what they would like when. Note down what is agreed and mail it to everyone afterwards so there is a record. Don't forget to pad your estimates to allow for testing and debugging time.
Alternatively, work out who the person directly responsible for managing you is, implement what they tell you (feeding back estimates of how long each thing will take) and tell anyone else who asks you to implement anything to go talk to that person to get it on your schedule; then doing the above management work becomes their problem.
Explain, if doing one of the above does not cause the matter does not resolve itself, that the Californians' features would require a refactor, and if you are going to do that you would rather hold off implementing any features for the other party until that is complete since doing the same work twice is wasteful.
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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a reasonably experienced C# developer (about 5 year experience) that has recently been put in charge of my first development team as technical lead (varying between 3-5 other developers). Over the last 4 months in this role, one dilemma that keeps arising is trying to find the right degree of sharing awareness of the communication that goes on between the project manager, account manager, clients, designers, CEO and myself (especially via emails).
On the one hand, I know the more awareness each developer has of the overall direction of the project, the better they can understand the scope that their particular functionality has in the big picture.
However on the other hand, a lot of my time seems to be lost in the sea of emails between all the different stakeholders and managers, so I like to think that isolating the developers to just "what they need to do their current bit of work" will keep them free from interruptions.
I have considered just BCCing all the developers so they can filter these emails and essentially "opt in" to all the emails, but I'm concerned that some of the developers will just see this as extra noise to deal with. It may open the door to "too many cooks" if all the developers want to contribute to too many discussions. Yet on the other hand, other opinions can help me reach better decisions (i.e. House MD style).
Phew... so much to consider. Anyone have some wise guidance in this area?
Answering late, but still believe there is something to add to the superb advice given so far. To answer your question we need to go a level higher, hence the long response.
You’ve been made a tech lead responsible for team and although many aspects of your everyday job might seem to resemble your dev days the way you need to go about them has changed. In software development environment there is usually not that much of a tangible change when you appointed a tech lead (you’re probably still seating at the same desk, wearing the same outfit) as opposed to becoming a foreman on construction site or a factory. The flattering change though is that you now get invited into all these meeting and start getting all these e-mails and phone calls from people outside the dev team.
The lack of tangible change might trick your mind into thinking that you just need to keep treating your job mostly the same. This is not the case and you need to be conscious about your actions and re-actions in the new capacity. It might seem you’re now a bit “more respected” externally and you might be inclined to share some of that “respect” coming your way internally, play a bit of democracy and generally be fair.
Well, this is not that much about fairness or respect, the new job is to:
Direct the dev team (mostly by personal example and creating imagery depicting the goal).
Be an abstraction layer between the team and other organisational units.
Pretty much like in programming you often create an abstraction layer to encapsulate and hide complexity, the same happens in organisations. You’re the layer, the interface that has to encapsulate the dev team. And any good encapsulation from an outsider point of view:
Hides inner complexity that is not relevant to the task at hand (such as concrete implementation of an algorithm) from the outside observer.
Makes things that could affect the outside user explicit (exceptions that can be thrown, any limitations and constraints etc).
Always gives meaningful feedback.
Acts consistently.
These principles are equally applicable to the team’s outward communication. It’s not an easy task to follow these principles; actually it involves a lot of concrete work, such as deciding what details are internal and what facts need to be communicated and when, how the feedback needs to be best structured and be presented in a consistent manner and who should be notified externally of what, and who needs to followed up and when. This is a lot of work, even if some of it seems to be just trivial admin.
Now to internal, inward communication. One way is to broadcast. But it clogs the internal network and everyone has to spend their time on deciding whether the communication bears any relevance to them. It is like having a very generic algorithm that regardless of input always does the exact same amount of work. It’s sure possible, but why would you want to do that? A more efficient way is obviously to adjust processing depending on the input and here it has to be someone’s job to make a decision how the team should go about something, to dispatch, or convert the input:
Decide what sequence of actions needs to be taken,
or just acknowledge and store for future reference,
or follow up,
or put an issue off for a later review and then make sure it is reviewed and fed back into the decision-making loop.
This is not a small job either and someone has to do it. Obviously now it’s your job to manage the outward and inward communication, and you have to spend some of your brain’s processing power to do it well, so no one else has to and devs can concentrate on their tasks.
There are some other good reasons for not CC-ing or BCC-ing everyone regardless of your job title:
TO means “take action”, CC — “take note for future reference”, BCC — “eavesdrop or mass mail”. You should be careful when you use one or another e-mailing a group of people:
E-mailing a single person is a straight forward “TO”, when E-mailing a group of people only “TO” these who you need to take action (including a simple acknowledgement). This is default meaning, in any other case explicitly tell them what is expected (i.e. FYI, no action needed etc).
CC only these who you want to take note of the information for the future reference. If you expect a number of e-mails to go back and forth before an agreement is reached or issue is resolved don’t “CC”, it’s best to send a summary confirmation later to other parties that need to be notified. Besides saving everyone’s time and avoiding misinterpretation due to someone taking note of a non-final communication that will help make exchange more personal, flow more naturally, and reduce formalism and red-tape. Often CC-d e-mails treated formally and this isn’t always a good thing (but sometimes exactly what you want).
Using BCC is almost never ok. The knowledge of someone eavesdropping on your conversations if come to light will easily ruin your trustworthiness. It is simply a question of “when”. And should your team worry then that you might be BCC-ing their conversations to someone else? Mass mailing through BCC in most cases is also wrong, it creates an impression that e-mail is specifically addressed to the recipient.
Forwarding, CC-ing and BCC-ing require little effort, but multiply noise and dilutes signal. It is worth to give some thought to what exactly you need a person to do and what they should know to act on your communication before composing it.
Some conversations are best taken completely "off line" (phone or better still face-to-face), because it gives you more room for maneveour. Broadcasting or formalising in writting is just like putting yourself into a corner. You can always confirm in writing latter.
Moving to the second part of a tech lead responsibility (directing the team through personal example and imagery depicting the goal). To accomplish that you don’t need to pass on to the team every single piece of information that happen to end in your inbox. You have to create a story and any good story is an abstraction of real events that consists of only relevant and interesting detail for a particular audience. Creating this brief story on the basis of your everyday experience and judging what is relevant and interesting and then presenting it regularly to the team is also quite a job.
But don't forget that by directing the team and serving as abstraction layer you help developers and outside world to interact more efficiently, accomplish more and tackle greater complexity, the job has a point.
The engineering team needs to understand the business reasons of why they are asked to do things on a macro-level. The engineering team will gain understanding and motivation from this. But too much chatter is a no-no, as you note, part of your job is to filter, and part of that means not exposing them to tons of noise. Your developers likely have opinions and insights as to how to do particular things or why to pick particular technologies, and they should be fielded for their expertise in those areas.
Definitely don't create a culture of BCCing.
One option is to have separate mailing lists that interested parties can subscribe to, but of course, not all chatter will be on those lists.
And of course, a regular company meeting is a must. Let the engineering guys know why the business depends on delivery of a stable, complete product (or whatever the upcoming milestones require). 20 minutes, no slides, no bullshit is what works for me. Your team & situation may vary.
It sounds like you're technical so I would give you this advice: Follow Joel Spolsky's advice on what Program Managers do. Basically, try to isolate your developers as much as possible so they can be as productive as possible.
He just mentioned this briefly in this recent article, How to be a program manager, but he has gone into more depth on this topic before. Look through his past writings for more info:
Once the spec was finished and the development team got down to work, I had two responsibilities: resolving any questions that came up about the design, and talking to all the other teams so that the developers didn’t have to.
If you aren't technical then you need to select someone from your team to help with the design work and they will have to interface with the customer a little to figure out what the requirements are and what the best design is.
EDIT:
On Joel's home page there are two sections titled Tech Lead and Program Manager. Look at the articles there for some more info on program managers, especially Human Task Switches Considered Harmful.
I'd be using a Wiki, you don't want to add to the email storm, and your developers can also contribute and change things. It's also really useful for sharing documents, and if done well it will become self-supporting.
BTW Cut/Paste from email to wiki seems like an odd thing to have to do, does anyone know a lightwieght .Net wiki that I can email content too?
One way might be to not forward all those emails and once a week compile all the relevant information, design changes, and so forth into a weekly meeting. I definitely wouldn't send out a barrage of emails to the developers. Of course, if something critical is discussed, then that should be put to their attention. However, try for a weekly recap and discussion of relevant details.
I'm seeing this question one year after it's been posted, however I can add my experience with some specific data for my case. For 2-3 developers on the project, I mostly do one-on-ones. Lot of times I do this over the IM or phone since most of my team spends a lot of time in home office. Meeting from time to time is inevitable, mostly when project is starting (1-2 developer meetings tend to be enough to kick off reasonably complicated project), but as a rule, all communication with the rest of the company goes through me and developers get a digest. Only exception is when I connect developer directly with the user (not management!) to work out details of the project.
I tend to avoid regular meetings (weekly or daily) and schedule meetings only when at least two of these happen, in this order:
Important info comes in (depending on urgency this can wait up to a week)
Developers are in the office, preferably for other reasons (developer-to-developer meetings)
Client is available (not much choice there, but I try to do meetings and connect developers with single hands-on expert on the client's side later)
I need design advice (since I'm a technical lead, I'm responsible for most of the high-level architectural decisions)
For teams of 4-8 people (8 people usually means two teams) I found out that short 30-minute meeting roughly once a week is more then enough to keep everyone up to date. This, of course, is in addition to one-on-ones which I do daily for junior developer and about twice a week for senior developers.
For one-on-ones, I prefer that developers contact me when they're looking for more to do or when they're have questions on task they just started doing. This is also a great way for me to keep eye on how things are going without developers needing to think about keeping me up to date. I tend to avoid e-mail when IM is enough, otherwise switch to phone (when there's something to explain or discuss) and to e-mail when:
Customer reported bug via e-mail
There are a lot of important small details and developer will probably go through that e-mail a lot of times during implementation
There are also developer-to-developer meetings when they need to coordinate on something (for example, when Java and Javascript developer need to work out interface details).
This way of working means that I have to respond to IM as fast as possible, and that I usually deal with a lot of interruptions so that developers have to deal only with interruptions for me or other developers. Which is OK, since important part of my job is to make developers effective.
If I need peace for coding (and can afford it) I found that delegating client communication to non-technical project managers and even beta testers (who are much better with distractions than programmers).
Ask them what they'd prefer. I assume they would rather not be cc'd on every email and would opt for a short verbal update on a regular basis.
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 read
what-payment-structure-do-you-use-for-small-projects
and I wonder how you guys are dealing with bug vs. feature. I once had a situation where a client wanted static reports. Then near the end of the project after most of the work on reports had been done he said he had always wanted dynamic reports. That change was not easy, because framework we choose did not support dynamic reports. It was a weird situation, because client had a programming team, so they should have known. Maybe it was just a lack of communication skills.
How do you guys deal with clients trying to make you add features, because they forgot, change their mind, or were misunderstood?
I mean big features, not small ones.
EDIT:
He stated that the budget is fixed and can't be changed and that this feature (like every) is critical and without it they wont accept the system. (just worst case scenario)
In my experience, having been on both sides of this issue, this is usually more about economics than it is about programming, process, or project management.
We, the client, often say "it may be a feature, but if we call it a bug, maybe we can get them to do it for free."
In the end we, the programmer, charge or don't charge based more on whether it will help or hurt our chances for future work. We, the client, dangle the carrot of future work as the incentive to get the programmers to do the extra work for free.
I don't believe any of that will change just because we have a better process for saying "this is a bug" or "this is a new feature."
It is important that both sides understand what they're getting for their money very early on in the process of software development. The Agile methodology is an excellent tool for managing this process. If you have your team's velocity, you can fairly accurately determine how many features it will be possible to add during each iteration. Estimate the tasks, and keep the customer involved in prioritizing what features are to be added and what things are less important. Be sure to have a customer demo after each iteration to show the working functionality you both agreed would be working at the end of the current iteration. Should the customer want another feature or significantly change one that you have already agreed upon, estimate the number of story points necessary (units of work used in Agile) to make this new change or rework a current piece of functionality. This will help them remove another feature that they consider less important than the current one they have just suggested. This keeps everyone happy and there are no surprises when the product "ships"
There is no point in trying to argue them out of the feature. After all, communication issues or not, the mission is to deliver what the customer needs in the software.
I'd go with an Iron triangle argument as follows:
1) Obviously we want to deliver the product you need, so lets work together.
2) We all understand that regardless of how we got to the current point, we can only go forward from where we are today.
3) We also understand that implementing changes will take time and money which has to come from somewhere.
4) At this point your options are these (pick one)
* Replace the work that was planned for some other functionality with the work required for this change to stay on budget and schedule (sacrifice other features)
* Extend the deadline (increase cost/shift deadline)
* Add resources (increase cost)
Warning: Although C makes logical sense if you are doing manufacturing type work (build another 1000 pencils), in R&D work like software engineering it usually is just another flavor of B where you the cost and deadline shift is magnified.
If it isn't in the project plan / written agreement it's out of scope.
We have the spec in writing and have the client sign off on it, agreeing to pay for the features described in that document. If they change their minds later on something simple, we will usually work in the changes for no extra charge, but anything like what you described would require a new purchase order.
Well, simplest answer is that the budget or contract stipulates the requirements. Changes to those requirements have to be submitted as an extra and then go through the same process as the original project. They have to be budgeted for and estimated.
Once all that is done, if the client wants it close to the original launch date (and that's feasible), add extra for overtime hours.
At least, that's what I've done.
I charge them.
I would recommend making sure that the requirements are ironed out as much as possible, and that both sides understand exactly what is being promised. It keeps the client happy because there's fewer situations like you describe, and it keeps you happy because you don't keep getting yanked around.
The question is about two topics: negotiation and project management.
As far as project management concerned you need to manage the risk of customer changing their mind or misunderstanding an agreement in advance. Here is a list of preventitive measures one would normally take in a software development project, it can be used as a checklist when planning or revisiting a project:
Avoid most of the risks by having a written spec aproved before you start. In case you do smaller iterations have a spec for iteration approved. It doesn't need to be overly detailed but should set customer expectations and serve as a reference point. Detail things you're not certain about in the spec.
You might have an opportunity some other ogranisation that reports directly to the customer to do certain risky bits.
Put some contigency time and budget into the plan, exlpain to the customer that any contigency is going to be used only by agreement with them.
Explicitly offer alternative solutions to customer on the planning stage, discuss pros and cons and document the decision.
Even if you do waterfall build in several milestones into the project where you will make a litte demo to the customer or clarify requirements. Take that opportunity that customer is still ok with the proposed solution.
As pointed out by Webdtc always confirm outcome of phone and face-to-face discussions by sending a short summary e-mail.
Keep deliverables, their acceptance and payments spread out for projects longer than a month. Even if customer pays at the end of the project make sure you get evidence of their approval of interim deliverables.
Hopefully, following these tips won't ever put you into a tough situation when you need to negotiate deliverables with customer post-factum threatened by a non-payment. But if nonetheless you found yourself having to stand up to unreasonable demands the info you would have accumulated by then would have given you very strong leverage. Tips for negotiation:
Start with understanding the exact reasoning behind customer demand. And exactly what their position is. Confirm with the customer you understand them correctly.
At this point it can be either your fault (unlikely if you managed the project correctly), customer's fault (sometimes they do change mind their mind) or a cock up on both sides (most likely).
When it's all your fault most likely you'd need to swallow the pill and learn your lesson. However you'd need to negotiate with customer new deadlines to prevent the problem costing you even more. Always consider suggesting an alernative solution to the problem built on top of the software you've got now.
When it's customer's or mutual fault start with "no". Push back to let them understand you not absorbing the cost, not fully at least. Don't let them convience you that they can easilly walk away, this is never true. By this point even if they haven't paid you a penny their investment into the project will be sizeable: time spent evaluating bids, taking part in meetings, the effort they made communicating requirements, their and their customer's dependency on the project being completed mostly on time and within budget etc. You still might have to split the costs between the two organisations, but start with "no" to make it clear that they are as responsible for making an effort to timely clarify requirements as you are for discovering what is needed.
It sounds to me like the client may be looking for an excuse to get out of the agreement without paying anything. If he can arbitrarily add features and insist on them for final acceptance, without additional cost, he's got a way to make you break the contract.
There's two obvious ways to avoid this.
One is payments throughout development, so that the client can't wiggle out of much of the payment, and you're more or less compensated from what you've done at any point.
Another is a good contract. For any reasonable software project, a few hours of lawyer's fees is cheap insurance against something like this. If you are confident that you can sue the client for agreed-on fees and win, the client is less likely to make trouble, and if all else fails you can sue.
I don't know what the contractual arrangements are that you're working under (and I'm not a lawyer anyway), but in a situation like that I'd get a lawyer and see what sort of situation I was in. Even if you're in a dubious legal position, it's possible that a letter from your lawyer could help resolve things.
And don't get into that position again.
Well, if it's the truth, just go by it. What's to explain if you agreed to one thing and now he wants to do extra? Are you receiving push back?
I would make it clear that we originally designed a static report and that was what was signed off on. It can be extended to dynamic reports and that you can provide a quote if he would like to know the specifics.
I often use the analogy of building a house. Either the client is changing the blueprint, or the finishing materials that are requiring more time, materials to get done from what was originally agreed to.
Hope that helps!
What I do in this case is look at prior documentation and communications.
For example, if documentation/communication says "Create reports". If there is no specific mention of dynamic reports I would not give in to the client.
If there is any documentation saying "dynamic reports" then the client would be right and I would have to develop the reports at no cost.
If there is communication about "dynamic reports" I would have to look at what the final outcome is. This is where it might get harder because a lot of times a client might as "Is it possible to create dynamic reports?" and a developer might say "Yes, that is possible." (meaning it's possible, but does not mean we will do it). This is where I would have to explain that although discussed it is not in the scope of work. There has to be concrete agreement that a feature will be developed.
If you do not keep documentation and prior communications then I would say you are at a loss and would need to decide if you are going to give the client what they want or risk losing the client.
One of the worse things to me is a client who insists on telephone communications. These clients are the ones who usually play it fast and easy with their requests. What I usually do here is to always do a written follow up with the client on everything that is discussed during a face to face meeting or phone call and require the client to respond to make sure we are on the same page on what will and won't be done.
There's no right answer - just a few wrong ones. Specs and requirements have more white space than information - there's always room for interpretation and misunderstanding...what it really comes down to is:
future work - is there future work with this client or potential reference for future work? if so, you give in a bit, try to un-grey other areas of the deliverables that, based on this instance, could turn in the right direction.
payment - are they holding payment based on this? and is the work still within your buffered budget (you did add a buffer for this type of work - right? well, next time you will - future clients pay for past client mistakes)
deliver quickly and often - IKIWISI -I Know It When I See It - if it's in front of the client sooner then later, then the 'interpretation'/grey-areas get reduced...iterative deliveries (even incomplete ones) work wonders
After the fact you can't do much, if it comes down to legal action, you lost this client and a good reputation (potential) - be careful in how hard you push it
I'm in a situation where this happens on a regular basis. We write web applications that do complex tasks, then after we've completed it according to specification the user will then turn around and say "We want not just X & Y, but we want Z too". Z wasn't in the project scope and thus isn't achievable in the current system, therefore it must be rewritten to acommodate for the newly introduced "features".
The way we work around this is simply as follows. Treat the user like they're an idiot, and understand the system better than they do. I know this sounds really mean, and at first when my boss introduced me to this I told him straight that I would never treat a user as such - unfortunately I learnt the hard way and now have to know more than the user to complete my tasks. Mitigation is of the utmost importance, and foreseeing major changes which could be introduced is a skill learnt over time.
I now mitigate for these unplanned, but probable changes.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a junior programmer. Since my supervisor told me to sit in with the client, I joined. I saw the unsatisfied face of the client despite the successful (from my programmer's perspective) delivery of the project!
Client: You could have included this!
Us: Was not in the specification!
Client: Common Sense!
As a programmer, how do you respond in this situation?
What you should do to avoid this situation:
Explicitly spec out what will be included and what will not be included.
The problem probably comes down to the unspecified parts of the spec:
The client thinks that unspecified stuff should be in, i.e. it was implied.
The developer thinks that unspecified stuff should not be in.
For future specs that you have, you should have a catch all statement, that explicitly states that if something is not specified in this document, it can be done after the original specification is done at an additional cost.
What you should do in the current situation:
Other than learning from your experiences, you should come to some compromise with the client.
Example: I will do this feature that you feel is common sense, but for all future additions/changes it will have to be spec'ed out explicitly.
I.e. you will have to do a little more work, but it is worth it in return for the catch all explicitly spec'ed agreement your client will enter into.
Bad spec?
Was it necessarily a bad spec? No.
It is impossible to mention everything your clients may expect, so it is critical to have this catch all statement mentioned above stated clearly and explicitly in your spec/contract.
Other ways to reduce the problem:
Involve the client early, show them early prototypes. Even if they don't demand it.
Try not to sell the client an end product, but more of a service for working on his product.
Consider an agile development model or something similar so that tasks are well defined, small, paid for, and indisputable.
This would be one of many reasons why I switched to an Agile development philosophy. The only way, in my opinion, to successfully avoid this scenario is to either be omniscient or involve the customer heavily and release early/release often to get feedback as soon as possible. That way you can develop the software the customer really wants, not the software the customer tells you they want.
Client: You could have included this!
Us: Was not in the specification!
Client: Common Sense!!
Us: We do not attempt to go beyond what the client has specified - we follow the specification. It's as important to NOT implement features not specified as it is to implement features specified. We will never second guess our customers, who value the fact that they can completely depend on us to correctly and completely implement the specification on time and under budget.
As others very rightly point out, the situation is almost always more complex than the simple exchange I've described above.
However, the above is valid if the implementer has a specification with the customer's signature on it which essentially implements an agreement that says "once the software provably implements all the features in the spec then it is considered complete", and anything additional is outside the specification and therefore outside the contract.
The contract itself may have some input here as well - if you don't have a signed contract than it doesn't matter what's in the spec - everything so far has been done on a handshake, and the entire deal (including payment) can go down the toilet based on any dissatisfaction on either side.
But if you have a contract and a specification, and the customer has seen and signed both, then they have no wriggle room to ask you to go further.
Now, as to the question of whether you should implement it:
AWESOME! You delivered a product and they only had one complaint. Implement the feature, call it a 'freebie (make sure they understand you're working outside the spec and contract and explicitly send them a bill for the work with the discount shown in dollars) and have them sign off on the project as a whole.
It will explicitly demonstrate that the project is ended, that you went above and beyond the call of duty, and that any further 'surprises' are outside the contract/spec, which gives you a nice layer of protection beyond what you already (ostensibly) have.
If it's a UI issue, then you're in murkier water.
Does the spec adequately describe the UI? Does it have mockups? I wouldn't fault a customer for this complaint about the UI if the spec did not very closely describe the layout, usage, and include mockups.
Either way, I think you can understand the customer's position - if they haven't played with UI mockups, then they're going to be disappointed with the result regardless - there's no way, psychologically speaking, that you and your customer could have possibly had the same idea in mind (nevermind the fact that common sense isn't!).
Quite frankly if this is the first time the customer has thought about checking out the UI before the work is finished, then it's at least partially your fault for not explaining good UI design processes to them. This is a key feature for their app, and it's very tightly coupled to what they've imagined - no one can be satisfied in such a situation unless they've 'grown' their internal representation over time to match what the reality is.
This disconnect is solved only through frequent user and customer testing, which is obviously missing. This is a problem regarding client education and communication, not whether the specification was met or not.
-Adam
Expect last minute changes of scope - they always happen, so be ready.
Review progress frequently with client - to minimize surprises.
Contract: Functional Spec, plus Time & Materials with initial cap (so client feels control).
Then when changes come along, re-negotiate the cap if necessary.
Never say they can't have what they want. They can get that answer for free!
Always give them a little more than they asked for, so they know you've got a positive attitude.
Relate to the client as being on the same team with them. Don't accept being legalistically painted as an adversary.
They may think of contractors as not loyal, compared to employees. Show them you're as dedicated to their success as their employees are, and you'll go the extra mile.
Classic case...
There's not definite answer to this one, but it all turns around communication. There should have been preventive measures put in place (like weekly reviews or something like that).
For sure, you can't redo the whole thing for free.
Two ways: Or to tell them to ** off or you deal with it.
If you choose to deal:
First, empathize, respect the client.
Have a look at what can easily be changed.
Have a look at the contracts.
Maybe create a new agreement.
Don't do too much.
Make them see the progress and the work it takes.
Find workarounds for the missing features (maybe using other great features, or available tools.)
Use your common sense, it is so common, its not even funny.
This is one of the many drawbacks of a fixed bid arrangement. Any time business needs or priorities change, or there is even a simple misunderstanding, it results in anything from an awkward situation like this to calling lawyers in. If you have an arrangement where you get paid for development time, you can always react to any change and get paid for whatever time it takes to make that change. Also, having a by-the-hour arrangement does not preclude having a plan or making an estimate.
Once you are in a fixed bid pickle, though, your options are:
1) Do it at an additional cost.
2) Do it free.
3) Don't do it.
Option 3 is the worst, and Option 1 is the best. If you have a good trusting relationship and decent communication with the client, it's usually easy to arrive at Option 1. If the relationship is bad, then you've got bigger problems. At that point, just try to avoid laywers.
A final point - any project that has something known as "The Delivery Date" inevitably runs into the problem described. Projects with said date usually involve retreating to a cave for several months to develop in hiding followed by an unleashing of the product all at once in front of the stakeholders. This is abrupt and leaves plenty of time for client expectations and the actual product to drift apart. If, instead, you show intermediate versions of the product and gather feedback every few weeks, two things happen. First, you get better feedback, minimize misunderstandings, and make a better product. Second, there is no single point in time on which a massive amount of expectation is laid. The potential difference between what the client is imagining and what actually exists is much smaller. No surprises.
Good luck.
"how do you react?"
Question 1 - do you want to continue this relationship with this customer? Seriously. If they are going to claim that unspecified features are "common sense," this may not be a good relationship to maintain or enhance.
If you want to disengage, then that's easy. Ask for them to highlight each part of the specification that you failed to comply with and play that game. Get specific test criteria for each missing feature. Pull Teeth. Be confrontational in determining what's missing. Don't ask why. Just ask for all the details up front. It's slow and unpleasant. But you don't want them anyway.
If you want to engage, well, you're going to have to change the relationship. Currently, you have a Passive Aggressive Customer. They won't say what they want, but they will say what they don't want.
This may be a habit with them; this may be how they win concessions. Or this just may be sloppy specification on their part.
If you want the relationship, your reaction has two parts.
Short-term. Get something they're happy with. They have to identify specific changes. You have to score each change with a "cost to do" and "fit with specification".
Some things are cheap and a good fit. Do those.
Some things are cheap to do, but a bad fit with the specification. Think twice about enabling a bad specification to lead to rework. In a sense, you purchased the specification from them; you may need to raise your standards, also.
The expensive things which (sadly) fit the specification are a problem. You're in trouble with these, and pretty much have to do them.
The expensive things which don't fit well with the specification are lessons learned for everyone. Detail a plan for these, including specification rewrites and approvals.
Long-term. Make sure they you're not PA'd again. Review early and often, use Agile techniques. Communicate more, prototype more, release more.
Well, it was not successfully delivered. Somewhere along the line there was miscommunication. Without knowing the specifics I would suggest this is not a developer injected problem and this is probably not to be blamed on the customer - the requirements gathering task was insufficient. This is a classic example of what happens when the software side does not have domain experts or the requirements discovery process doesn't do all that it could...
If it was me I would correct the problem and figure out how to avoid similar issue in the future.
How you handle this can very well determine the future of this contract/business with the client. Taking responsibility and correcting the issue is a huge opportunity for your company.
EDIT:
This is a good time to evaluate how this happened to help correct it. Some companies choose to totally revamp everything they do which is a mistake I think. So is ignoring it. Blaming people for the problem is also a mistake.
It is a good time to walk through how this happened, what the process is, and maybe how it could have been caught. I would not make huge rule changes or process changes - but coming up with guidelines for future work is a great thing. Your company had a clear lesson about a shortcoming. Losing the opportunity to correct this problem and to correct your process would be a waste of a good chance.
ZiG, I've had to deal with this problem on several occasions at my current place of Employment. My group (3 developers) tries to approach things in an Agile manner. We're used to getting mid-stream and even last-second requests (which we then treat on a case-by-case basis).
However, we make it clear that resources (particularly time) are limited and if it's not in the spec we can't make promises. If it's judged important and it can't fit into the current release, we generally plan a followup release. If it isn't important, it goes on a list.
One thing I've found is that you can get users to agree to Spec S at Time T. However at Time T + N, getting them to remember they agreed to Spec S, or getting them to acknowledge that they did so (with the documentation you've been keeping, I hope!) can be trickier than it should be.
Speaking to the OP's subject and question:
If you are an employed programmer, then I would hope that other resources are in the meeting with you. Possibly "higher ups" in the organization.
If this is the case, then your job is to answer DIRECT questions, and to keep your emotions in check. Yes, you may feel injured because they don't love your code, but showing any emotion with bosses present is not a good thing. Rather, try and look neutral and let the others handle the session.
Now, if they "hang you out to dry", then I would recommend the following questions:
a) "OK. I see. Why exactly to you feel this is common sense to include this feature? I'd like to discover why we didn't include it." (force them to explain their thought process. Common sense to one person is rarely common sense to anyone else.)
b) "Well, I'm sure we could include that in the next release. I'll leave it up to XXX (the bosses) to come to a mutually agreeable approach" (i.e. don't talk cost or freebies with bosses present. EVER.)
Again, this assumes you are a programmer WORKING for a company that delivered the product. Now, if are more than that - i.e. you ARE one of the higher ups, then many of the suggestions here are excellent.
However, if you are the higher-up or are a consultant programmer, then first and formost
a) Apologize for the process that did not catch this requirement. Promise to work with the client to prevent this from recurring.
Then on to the other strategies. It really doesn't matter if you charge for the fix or not - the apology is the most important action to the client. Again, it bears repeating - you are not apologizing for the missed feature. You are apologizing for the faulty design process that let it slip. Clients are usually pretty accommodating when you start this way and then seek a solution.
Cheers,
-Richard
Use SCRUM like approaches to avoid this deathtrap: involve the client in the dev process early, frequently and in informal, restricted commitees -> risk reduction and improved agility.
In terms of your literal question, how to react, the best way is to ignore your ego ("what?! After I worked so hard on this and met the spec?!") and instead focus on some active listening and working to consensus.
Client: You could have included this!
Us: Was not in the specification!
Client: Common Sense!!
Us: I understand that you're not happy that we didn't go beyond the bounds of the specification. Seeing how you feel about this, how can we make you happy? Let's see if there's a process we can create together that will help everyone.
Essentially, you don't want to turn this into a "you said/I said" death match. The only way to resolve those involves lawyers and then nobody wins. If you can agree that the spec or the process was to fault, work together to fix those.
This approach actually just worked for me: wait for the guy who doesn't like your software to leave and be replaced by the guy who does like it.
Obviously you can't really rely on this, but if you're sure that you did a good job and that your software really will satisfy the business needs of the people who hired you, it does pay to wait it out. Sometimes the client's initial reaction will not be their final one, especially if you can quickly incorporate their concerns.
Don't try make the client feel like it is their fault. It might be their fault, but making them feel that way will not produce constructive results, and could just annoy them.
Instead, you should realize that clients only complain about software they use, in most cases because they like it. Nobody complains about software nobody uses. It is inevitable that a client will complain about the software you deliver, even if you deliver exactly what they ask for. So don't sweat it. Software is never done.
Total failure on the part of the person in charge of requirements collection, no doubt about it. Additional failure of the project management to not iterate the deliverable and have check-in meetings with the client.
However, you have a signed-off spec, and what you've delivered matches the spec. So, your company has two choices: write off the cost in the name of business development and make the change for free, or charge them for the change request.
If it ain't in the spec, it ain't in the spec. As a developer with no specific domain knowledge, 'common sense' is an irrelevant concept. Different industries work in different ways and one approach might be quite appropriate for a particular domain but completely unacceptable in the other.
Writing good specs is an art-form. IMO, you can either take an agile 'analyst/programmer' approach where you make small iterations or write and maintain a detailed, unambiguous specification. Both are highly skilled tasks, and are still iterative. You still have to evolve the specification.
Either way is not as easy as it sounds and both require the ability to establish a good working relationship with the client.
You cannot know what your customer think in his head. This situation occur often with client that haven't got any experiences with programming project. What I suggest to you is to simply show him that "common sense" isn't very accurate as answer in engineering (or programming if you prefer).
Show him other example in life that will show him that you cannot build something that aren't written. Example: building a new house, the guy who build the house need a plan with all detail... he won't put optional electric plug because in the living room it's more "common sense" to have some extra...
I had this once. And luckily it wasn't me that created the design because that proved to be the problem.
It is of vital importance that the communcation between your company and the client is as perfect as possible. Be sure you understand each other. Ask questions and let them ask questions. Do not let anything open in the design. This will be the problem point at delivery. And have regular meetings during the project (preferably with a prerelease).
Unfortunately a lot of developers are bad at communciation, and a lot of clients are not aware of their own needs. But if you can minimize the gap, you have found yourself a happy (and returning) customer.
This is why I/the teams I worked with always used a prototype-style approach, that means:
after collecting the requirements, you show the client an early and basic release of the software
the client says "you could have included this"/"it's common sense"
you change your design to reflect the client's desiderata
iterate from point 1 till the official release
You have to start it early on; tell the customer, early and often, that the spec/use-cases/user-stories are a contract which define what will be delivered. in an agile environment there are plenty of chances for the customer to observe some "common sense" feature they want and ask for it, which is one of the advantages of an agile approach, but if you start accepting "common sense" additions at the end, you are preparing yourself for infinite extensions, probably at your expense.
Some customers expect this; the more and better you tell them they can't, the easier the eventual arguments will be.
As a junior guy, I realize you can't do this -- yet -- but one of the hard-but-necessary lessons is that sometimes you have to fire a customer.
You learn - everything is learning and nothing is personal.
We are experts in our area we know better than customer what he need. And next time for next customer we will suggest all useful features in advance and make him happy and will make him pay more money because we are the experts and we know better.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
You must have heard the archetypical story of a failing/failed project:
A team of inexperienced programmers work 24x7
Bugs are fixed only to introduce new bugs
Customer is screaming that he could not even do the basic stuff (Saving/Querying) etc.
Programmers used to having the spec handed down struggle to improvise
No automated unit tests aggravate the situation
Architecture document that looked nice on paper was not followed in practice
Third party components used become bottlenecks not having been tested for fitness in the first place
Milestone after milestone missed
The team is not able to come up with a delivery date as nobody agrees as to the quantum of work actually needs to be done
No technical leadership / or a Cowboy Coder that can take on the technical issues
Now, If you were to be brought in as #10 what would be your first steps?
Update: First of all: Thanks to you all for chipping in. Well... I'm being brought in as #10. I was the original Architect anchoring the solution when we made the proposal to the client. Then, unfortunately, I couldn't take on the delivery responsibilities as I was assigned somewhere else. :)
Let's say it's a webification of an existing desktop application. I'm now being brought in as #10. Running away, sadly, is not an option. I'm sure this can still be reversed by following agile best practices and just wanted to tap the community for ideas.
The larger question perhaps is this: If the development team does not have specs but only the (baselined) code for a running application, the original solution called for looking at the code and extracting business rules on the fly. Now, the inexperienced programmers are reluctant to look at VB 6.0 code and want documents! So how do you fight this if you were to instate Agile processes?
Vyas, I feel like I could have written this question. My previous job involved resurrecting a KVM project that had failed after a year's development. Specs were in the form of a user manual and developers' experience with similar products. I ended up teaching C to 3 assembly programmers and re-architecting from scratch. We brought the product successfully to market in 4 months. (Then I resigned. Go figure.)
Some of the things I'd do again, particularly with an inexperienced team:
1. A team of inexperienced programmers work 24x7
10. No technical leadership / or a Cowboy Coder that can take on the technical issues
Give them a (short!) break from the project to "recharge." Maybe a day, maybe an afternoon, or maybe a long lunch on you. It will mark the end of the "old" project and the beginning of success.
Get their agreement to work their butts off when they return, and promise that you will be their go-to guy, cheerleader, and flak jacket. You, collectively, are a team, and your job is to forge their path, eliminate distractions, and lead them.
Plan an immediate success, no matter how small, and maintain a "can-do" attitude.
8. Milestone after milestone missed
9. The team is not able to come up with a delivery date as nobody agrees as to the quantum of work actually needs to be done
3. Customer is screaming that he could not even do the basic stuff (Saving/Querying) etc.
Take small bites! Break each piece down as far as possible, then deal with the small components. You'll identify "gotchas" early and be better able to scope the whole project.
Define your interfaces. Anytime you can isolate a chunk, do it. This allows parallel development, because you've already decided on parameters, preconditions, assumptions, what happens inside, and return values. You can stub it out, and build other modules and tests independently.
Prioritize. Focus on the defects and issues that affect the customer first. New features come last. If necessary, defer features rather than delivering buggy code.
Assign responsibilities. Volunteers are preferred, each in his/her area of expertise, but one person must be accountable for each task.
Track defects, and record everything that will help you reproduce, locate, and fix them. Document any that remain at delivery time, so the customer won't be surprised.
4. Programmers used to having the spec handed down struggle to improvise
6. Architecture document that looked nice on paper was not followed in practice
You will create the spec details as you go, each piece just before it's needed. It needn't be pretty, complete, or even written, as long as everyone understands the current task and you've got the big picture.
Discuss the implementation, one piece at a time, when the developer is ready to code it. Write the skeleton yourself if necessary, and let the team fill in the "guts." You want to keep them focused on each task, without "improvising."
Be available to answer questions as they arise. Your primary goal is to keep the team productive.
2. Bugs are fixed only to introduce new bugs
5. No automated unit tests aggr[a]vate the situation
Plan and start unit testing ASAP. If possible, enlist resources outside the team.
Fix small problems before they grow larger--or get hidden. Confidence in each small piece builds confidence in the whole.
7. Third party components used become bottlenecks not having been tested for fitness in the first place
Brainstorm solutions when you're not coding. Don't let them stop your progress if at all possible. Can you encapsulate or code around them? Replace them?
General suggestions:
Stay ahead of the team. Anticipate and try to solve problems before your team hits them. Gather any necessary information before it's needed.
Communicate constantly. Make it clear that you want no surprises, and solicit concerns, questions, status, roadblocks, etc throughout each day. Encourage collaboration and share "discoveries" across the team.
Celebrate every success. Compliment a clever solution, bring donuts when a problem is solved, demonstrate a new working feature ... anything that shows the team you appreciate them.
Get each task done, then move ahead. Don't waste time tweaking, enhancing, or reworking anything that isn't a direct barrier to success.
Keep your promises to the team, the customer, and your management.
Good luck -- please keep us posted!
Run away or find a new job. This is a death march and they need a scape goat.
Often, the death march will involve
desperate attempts to right the course
of the project by asking team members
to work especially grueling hours,
weekends, or by attempting to "throw
(enough) bodies at the problem" with
varying results, often causing
burnout.
Freeze releases, and start fixing issues with the program.... deal with the customer complaints by priority (the business side of the company can prioritize) and get the program running. Once you get the biggest issues out of the way, start cleaning up the code. Assign tasks to other developers, and start enforcing coding practices on all new code.
If you can do whatever you want, then look at what the real issues are and deal with them. If that means putting together a new team to develop the software all over from scratch, so be it. But you should try to at least fix the major bugs. Don't bother introducing new features, they only compound the problem, and a program that doesn't work and the problems aren't dealt with lose you clients.
Number 10 is obviously the worst problem, or at least the root of all others. Find someone with some creativity and ability to deliver a project, and give them free reign to do anything - including start over.
I hope you are getting paid really well. In any case, my plan would be something like these steps in the following order:
0) Stop adding features or functions across the team. Allow bugs to be addressed while the following steps are taken up to step 5, then stop bug fixing & resume feature development:
1) Apply what I call the Inverse Staffing Law: Weaker team members slow down the better and faster ones and generally a late software project needs people removed, not added. So, you need to assess the quality of the team members as individual contributors. Eliminate weaker staff from the team because presumably there are some. This is best done by reviewing their code and examining their bug fixes and figure out who is making the code worse vs. better and chop them for the team. This is not a time to mentor, you are going to need the best folks to have a change of "fixing" the situation in a optimal period of time. If you can't fire them or reassign them, have them getting coffee or something for everyone else left.
2) Assess the code itself. Identify areas of the code that are not constructed well and/or not well abstracted. If a area code is not constructed well and/or is obviously brittle at it what it is supposed to do, target it for a re-write. This feels painful at this point, but it will save you time in the long run. Recurring bugs and/or history of fixes will help identify the code that can't be salvaged. If a code area or module is fundamentally constructed well, but not abstracted well at the interface level, it should be suitable for re-factoring. This will save significant time and is useful code. Keep a list of the re-write areas, the re-factor areas, and the suitable areas.
3) Define a new reasonable architecture that you believe will result in a robust and complete solution to where you want to eventually be in features and functions. The architecture might not be optimal as starting clean, but in effect match up what you have with where you would like to be.
4) Work with the stake holders to decide what will make an acceptable first release attempting to table as many features as possible for "later" releases. Maybe you can't cut anything, but if you can, now is the time to do it.
5) Stop the background bug fixing efforts and assign the defined work out to the (remaining) team to estimate out a reasonable new implementation plan of the rest of the functionality. They need to own the schedule. Roll up the schedule and be fairly conservative. Now you have a reasonable prediction of when you could actually have something workable and robust.
6) Implement the remaining features and then harden up the release by tackling the remaining bugs. I am assuming all the normal good software development practices are observed here like source control, unit tests, etc.
7) Remove as many barriers as possible to keep the team cranking out stuff as fast possible.
8) Monitor for issues, and assist by getting your hands dirty where ever your can. Offer to take on the nastier issues to the extent you can help and still keep all members of the team as productive.
Good Luck!
This isn't about technical leadership any more, it's now about project management.
You as the technical lead will just be shifting deckchairs on the Titanic. So here's what I would do if I was the de-facto project manager.
1) Identify the project sponsors and stakeholders - both the official ones and the real ones.
2) Go to them and request that the project "goes dark" for a week.
3) If they don't agree, walk away from this project.
4) If they do agree, call a project time-out for a week - everything stops.
5) Spend that whole week talking to the important people on the project to identify the real project state.
6) Whilst engaged in those discussions, start formulating a project recovery plan, emphasising possible trade-offs between scope, schedule, budget, and personnel.
7) At the end of the week, decide which (if any) of your possible project scenarios are feasible.
8) Take the best of these scenarios back to the project sponsors and stakeholders, and start negotiating.
9) When a way forward is agreed, reboot the project and pray - possibly not in that order.
Common sense has already been pointed out to you by Maxim (Quit the death march). But if for reasons unknown you wish to persist, let me regale you with my experience in a similar situation - perhaps it might come useful.
It was my first job in a sleepy old town where good computer jobs where hard to come by and I despertely needed one immediately after college. I was hired coz the management thought i was enthusiastic enough and might be better than nothing (I offered to bring in my own comp to save them a cost of giving me a PC and offered to work for the experience alone)
The project had been abandoned by its creators due to the death march situation and had gone away after deleting all the comments in the code and performing other obfuscations. Nobody knew win32 / MFC stuff either.
I simply started studying the code on good old paper and pencil (lots of rubbing and corrections) until within 20 days time i knew the entire code including the variables by heart and what and where things where happening.
Armed with this knowledge i was able to make a critical piece working which had eluded everyone before. Of-course this was nothing but a drop in the ocean but it enabled the management to buy the clients confidence "smart fellow - got him with great difficulty - already got x working - u will have ur stuff working within y time".
Once the client was convinced and we where able to buy some time, some pressure was taken away. This got some hope back into the team and we started to hammer away for good. 6 months later i got promoted to project lead and 9 months later we had our fix shipment (lots of progress demos and a visibly more and more satisfied client in between).
As you can see, the elements of success are not directly duplicatable. But i would summarize that you need to breath some hope into the project first - show some progress and win confidence - that of your peers, management and the client. Once that is in place the technical stuff should be corrected too - there is nothing to replace this part of the equation.
If that does not seem likely, all that hard work (oh yes - lots and lots of work like you never imagined - why do you think its called a death march) would be a waste and you had better quit even before you start.
I had no choice and i was hot blooded and desperately need a job. The technical details where something icould work magic upon, and everthing just clicked into place. I really earned a lot of good will and self respect with that piece of work but in the long run its just a story i can narrate with great aplomb and nothing more except for those few in the know.
Things might be different for you but its for you to decide.
Good luck
Make sure you aren't the scapegoat
Cut scope creep
Trim functionality "requirements"
Implement a faster dev cycle (maybe Agile/Scrum/XP/whatever)
If you can, run away.
If not, you need to stop all activities that make the project unstable - including coding and fixing defects.
Assess where you are
Break up the requirements into much smaller "milestones"
Read some practical books (Mcconnell's "Software Project Survival Guide" comes to mind.
Identify all the problems and risks. Communicate all those to all involved.
Work on each piece one at a time.
Celebrate improvements and milestones as they are reached.
Good luck. Your scenario sounds pretty bad. It may not be salvageable - and things have to change to get better.
If you really had to get it on track (if bailing isn't an option)
Start off by accepting that it's a failure in management. You might then want to go on to implementing a strict but light process.
I'd suggest some form of Agile, since it's the easiest to successfully implement without a GURU, but you have to be VERY strict about it, including Pairing, Ruthless Refactoring, Reviews, Spiking functionality, Visibility, TDD, one-week cycles, 8-hour workdays (Yes, longer than 8 tends to harm productivity more than help, as you seem to have noticed)...
Don't be cutting anything out either. Parts of Agile rely on other parts--without the pairing, refactoring and testing you cannot eliminate upfront design (one of the biggest agile failures).
Don't forget about the management side of it. One week iterations to start (demo EVERY week). Constant adaptation. Very short stand-ups every day to address issues. (Keep to 15 minutes max, table longer issues, etc) Burndown charts, core-team with a client on it.
You can't just have a 15 minute meeting every week and 2 week iterations and call it Agile, but if you do it right, it just MIGHT give you a chance. You might get a GOOD agile consultant in to train you on getting started.
Also, constantly evaluate what works and what doesn't. Be prepared to fix what doesn't work. Weekly meetings to analyze that weeks' development successes and failures.
Overall it CAN work, and can bring a flailing team into line, but it's not trivial. The nicest part is that you can implement it without taking huge chunks of time out of your current development. You just keep developing, but you do it better.
Tough situation, you have zero customer trust and basically can't be successful under that situation, no matter what.
For all intents and purposes the project needs a reboot; the unfortunate fact is that incumbant shops usually don't get this oppurtunity to start over and re-evaluate everything that is there.
I hate to say it, but you need to halt development and spend a month working out what went wrong...
The result needs to be a plan for a feasible 6month - 1year delivery really making them focus on what the must-haves are and real trade studies on your third party components. And trashing the code base needs to be an option; start a new source control project and when you get to a particular module port peices that make sense and leave the garbage behind.
Agile is great and all, and a valid approach once you get a real plan in place; but its not going to fix a broken relationship with your customer... or all the junk that's already there.
Here's the summary of key learning after reading through your experiences:
Maxim
1: Make sure this is not a "Death March"
Ellie
2: Make sure what's delivered works
3: Refactor & Realgin codebase to Architecture / Best practices
4: Look at what are the real issues: Is the team technically competenet to deliver?
Kendall
5: Ensure availaibility of Technical Leadership
Bill K
6: Implement Agile Processes (At least automated unit tests if not TDD, short iterations that make progress visible)
7: Get customer buy-in
8: Be prepared to throw out what cannot work (wishful thinking aside)
Warren
9: Make sure the team memebers that remain given a chance to start over
Tim
10: Motivate team and as improvement becomes visible reward them
jsl4980
11: You need buy-in on schedule from your team (most imp.) & customer
[This raises more questions. What if your customer asks whether the team is competent enough to stick to your schedule? What if you yourself know that the timelines the team is proposing just shows their lack of understanding]
Ather
12: Is the team commited?
13: Do you formally QA?
Patrick
14: Start over, redesign and reconform to Architecture/Design best practices for modules yet to be developed.
The summary has 14 items. You can't do them all. So, what's the first step?
Here's what you have to do first -- get one thing improved.
You've got fundamental quality issues. (#2-5)
You've got architecture and component issues. (#6, 7)
You've got schedule problems. (#1, 8, 9)
You can tackle quality. Formal unit testing, heading toward TDD can help. This might be hard because architecture issues slow testing down.
You can tackle architecture. This might be harder because it will probably involve rework that will not appear deliverable. But it may fix quality issues. Or, it may be compounded by fundamental testing problems.
You can tackle schedule. Without other corrections (i.e., quality or architecture) you may not get any traction with fixing schedule issues.
I think that overall improvements in people's attitudes come from starting with one success -- any success -- as early as possible. What's the lowest-hanging fruit?
One long-standing bug? One unit test suite to find and fix that bug?
One major architectural feature? Would a diagram that everyone can post in their cube help? How about a presentation clarify things?
One new use case? One new feature that actually works?
Here's a good book on the subject:
Catastrophe Disentanglement: Getting Software Projects Back on Track
First off, be resolved that you may fail -- if you can't accept that, don't take the challenge. And that includes being a scapegoat (it does happen). Management won't look at it in those terms (i.e. they're not intentionally/consciously 'setting you up'). But that is a reality of a corporate environment; if you take on the responsibility (often with more pay than those that don't), then your head is for the block if things don't work out. You have to be ready to stick with it for the long haul too. I was once placed on a client site for 8 months to fix a waning project. And as you saw, one of the other blog-posters here spent 9 months before a release version was ready.
Now, assuming you are okay with the possibility of it going all pear-shaped in spite of your efforts, this is what I suggest:
a bug tracking system is going to be your number one best friend, it will allow you to regain a semblance of control. you can't hope to understand a complex system as a whole, so 'chunking' it will help. and a bug tracking system allows you to unitize problems and distribute them to the other guys you are working with.
you have got both technical and political challenges to deal with. the technical generally aren't so bad because you're a coder and you know how to do this. the political ones are much trickier, you're at the helm of a ship thats gone hopelessly off-course, and you're in the Bermuda triangle. the biggest challenge is often stemming the tide of negative sentiment amongst the client (e.g. client: "these cow-boys don't know what they are doing", "they promised me this and didn't deliver", "i have no confidence in these guys to any more").
for starters, apologize to the customer and tell them in concrete terms what you are doing to do to re-right their project, e.g. you: "I'm sorry about the delay on your project, I'm getting stuck into it now. I've looked at the project history, and personally, I would be angry too if I was paying good money for this system. the first thing I'm going to tackle is..." <- bingo, you've just taken responsibility for the project which means there's no turning back - its all or nothing now.
a few other people have said it here, and I agree; stop adding new features. what they haven't mentioned is that you may have to do this to keep the client happy (remember, there's a technical and political side to the challenge).
understand the business domain as best you can. read through any requirements documents you can get your hands on. you are at a massive disadvantage by coming onto the project late since you don't know what was originally discussed. the devil is in the detail. this is what sunk me on a late projects I wasn't able to salvage, everyone was on edge, and i missed a minor requirement. at the time, it wasn't a big deal and could have been corrected easily, but politically speaking, it was the straw that broke the camels back. one tactic which may help is to go out on client site for a few weeks.
understand that time is money. its not just a technical issue. the client has paid for something which isn't right or has not been delivered. your company has expended resources, possible having already used up all the project budget - the business is now losing money. and this is where the issue of new features come in again, yes - people are saying don't add them, stablise. but adding new features can be a politically helpful tactic, management will be happy because new money is coming in for off-spec work.
I'd recommend against you or your coding crew working ridiculous hours to deliver. if you normally leave at 5pm, leave at 6.30pm or 7pm instead. you and your coding boys can consistently maintain an hour or two of extra work for many weeks on end and perhaps 4-5 hours over the weekend. working until 9pm or 10pm every night will result in burn-out in roughly 2 weeks (some can go longer). after that point, your extra time on the project is doing more harm then good. in the unlikely event your boss takes issue with this, make a choice; do what they ask (i.e. work more hours), or say "I've already committed extra hours to working on this project - I'm here for the long haul and im going to get this project done if its the death of me. but that is the limit of how much time I'm willing to put in. i have other commitments to keep outside of work" <- but be ready for the consequences (remember, political situation as much as a technical one).
there are people here that are saying "stop and write a spec, stop and do this..." - I'm sorry guys, i just cant agree with you here, its unrealistic. the project is already stagnating, the last thing management or the client wants to here is "we have to stop everything and...". I've tried this before, where I've said to the client and management "the bugs will keep coming until we stop and i write up a detailed system test plan. it will take me two weeks" - the client didn't want to pay for this, and management wasn't willing to wear the cost. as it happened, the bugs kept coming.
learn to 'juggle' - you have to map out tasks ahead of time so programmers aren't waiting on you. this will generally mean you do less coding yourself. generally this is best achieved by having a project schedule before coding starts. programmers should know what they are doing next after they finish what they are currently working on, and they shouldn't be coming to ask you "what do i work on next?", they should already know.
build-in recovery utilities, especially if the software has recurring problems which are hard to pin-down. for example; it may take 12 hours to track down a bug and fix it, it may take 2 hours to put in utility (read 'hack') to fix the problem for the time-being. time and momentum are of the essessen, and unfortunately bandaid fixes may be needed.
be very observant of the clients mood. they need to know you are 'on their side' (e.g. client: "the product is unacceptable", you: "i agree, i would kick our asses to if i was in your position. all i can tell you is im on it and wont rest until its all working"). when the client is back on your site, they will actually start helping you. for instance, they may shield you from pressure from your management.
lead your guys by example. something along the lines of "I'm staying back a bit to work on the project, I'd appreciate the help if your willing to stay back too" and "i know its not our mess, but we're still going to clean it up anyway. i want the client to get some good quality software". programmers could generally care less about the company that got them into this situation, but they may care if its about one of their own or the client ('may').
many of the suggestions I've seen here assume a fairly high degree of power (e.g. 'stopping the project to restart it properly' or 'say no to new features') - you are starting the project already hamstrung, and as a programmer, you will traditionally have less power to affect change then a true manager. this doesn't mean 'give up/don't try' - it just means you are going to have to be creative and do things you don't normally do (i.e. use 'soft' or people skills).
a lot of people here are saying bail on the project, run for the hills. I have been on 3 hopelessly late projects to date. i managed to fix 2, and 1 I couldn't fix. personally, it doesn't bother me to take on a late project. after all, the worst that can happen is you get fired :)
If you were involved in the project from the beginning, I hate to say it, but the company should replace you (and the entire team).
It should be reanalyzed with a competent team with real project management processes and lead by a project manager with experience in this situation.
None of the original coders should work on the 'new project' of saving it. They can move to other projects (they don't have to be fired) but to get a fresh look at the project, everybody should be replaced.
And of course, management has to understand and be on board with the fact that the project is going to be much later than expected. If management doesn't agree with this (replace team, find experienced leadership, take a step back and start again) then #Maxim is right - get out of there.
1) The first thing I will assess is whether the people on the team are committed to the project or not? If not, it is worthless to do any other thing. Nothing can prevent the disaster unless I get a dedicated and committed team.
2) I'll make sure that there is QA on the team.
3) Come up with a reasonable plan of iterative and incremental releases to the customer. With the mess we are in, there is no way customer can get everything soon. Based on the priorities of customer, we'll deliver smaller increments of functionality to him frequently. This will keep customer engaged, a bit less-edgy since he is seeing something happening.
What ever you do, do it step by step.
First, it's not about addind features, it's about fixing the app. Don't add anything new. Just refactor. Say no to any new stuff somebody ask you to introduce in the system.
Don't try to improve the whole app. Take your team, make it focus on one aspect at the time, with the best practices you can, especially using unit test.
Use test driven development only. In that case, it will immediately show you what part of the behavior you don't understand (you can't code a test if you don't know what to test.
So here are the road map :
Identify the critical part you need to change
Isolate the code that implies this behavior
Find any occurence of this code in the rest of the code
Refactor using this knowledge and massive TDD
Integrate, test and fix until this particular part works
Go back to step
Make the situation clear to your boss : it will take time, money and will be painfull. Explain why, what you will do, and that you have no other way or it will fail AGAIN.
A above all, don't try to make it clean the first time. Refactor what you can, but don't expect to change the entire architecture of the part you are working on the first time. You will have to iterate the process on the whole application several times.
No miracle. Just method and patience.
Been there, followed these steps:
Stabilize
gather the real story: how good/bad is the codebase, how good/bad are the developers, what really needs to get done (bare bone min.), when it needs to get done by
reduce overtime (tired people, good or bad, don't work well)
remove the bad, input new/good - err on the side of replacement (many could be burnt out and appreciate even a forced change)
remove access to bad/un-required code (focus on the 20% of the code base that provides the 80% of the value)
put base code practices in place ensuring only good code is getting in (don't damage the base anymore)
Control
implement teams focused on the app components (decouple as much as possible)
put code management, release management, risk management, QA, etc. in place (build your environment so you can succeed)
get on your clients/sponsors good side - delivery a win, even if it's a somewhat stable very very small release - and then put in change management (control what gets requested)
Move forward
develop a plan (planning is essential, plans are useless according to Ike - you need to plan to find what is missing and to set a target, but don't expect to tell the future) - continuous planning is required
aggressively manage your people - good people make good product - make sure you get and retain the best
refactor over time - clean up code as you go - you may not have the luxury to fix everything at once so do it overtime to provide for a cleaner code base
move forward bravely - overtime be more aggressive with your deliveries test (but not stress) your team
Agile refactoring. Identify and prioritize what customer wants and then create the most important stuff in short sprints out of existing code. Good luck man :)