As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I often work with sales and marketing types that cannot figure out how to use Excel, let alone understand the scope of their requests from a technical perspective. Of course, it would not be fair to expect them to, but that still leaves me with a problem.
What is the best way to show marketing and sales types that they have asked for something that requires a lot of complex programming and some patience?
Could you please share examples of problems and solutions?
Could you please recommend books on this subject?
Thanks!
Break the problem up into as many sub-divided tasks as possible. Provide a per-item estimate in hours beside each one.
When they think of a project as a whole, it seems simple. However, when they see each individual thing that must be done and the number of hours each item will require, it is putting it into terms business people can understand. Suddenly the software solution they want isn't a "black box" to them anymore and they now have some insight into the process.
If you are looking for books I would suggest Software Estimation - Demystifying the Black Art.
The computer will do what you told it to do, not what you want it to do.
Any form of abstractions needed be translated to exact details.
source http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TeachMeToSmoke
Teacher: "It's hard to express ourselves clearly. You're a smoker, right?
Are you pretty good at it? [Student nods.]
Let's pretend I'm a man from Mars and you are going to teach me to smoke.
Do you have a fresh pack? Let's start with that.
[Takes pack.] OK, now tell me what to do."
Student: "Tear open the pack."
T: [Tears pack to shreds. Cigarettes fly everywhere.]
S: "No, no, tear off the top of the pack!"
T: "OK, sorry, do you have another pack? No? OK, let's just start with this cigarette. [Picks one up.]
S: "Put it in your mouth."
T: [Puts whole cigarette in mouth.]
S: "No, no, just put the end in your mouth!"
T: "Sorry." [Tears filter off, puts whole filter in mouth.]
S: "No, no, don't tear the cigarette, just hold it between your lips!"
T: "Oh, sorry, give me another one." [Places new cig sideways between lips.]
... and so on. You can play the game for a long time. It's hard to give clear instructions, even when you know the domain. Programming will endure for a long long time. -- RonJeffries
I had a friend who could do the Rubik's Cube in seconds.
That made me think of this way of explaining to my manager why did our latest project FAIL!
Olivier takes an average of 10 seconds to completely sort all colors of a 3x3 Rubik's Cube after looking at it for approximately 5 seconds.
If you ask him to make an estimate of how long it will take to sort it, you give him the cube, start the clock and after 5 seconds he will say:
"OK, as soon as I start I will be done in 10 seconds"
you smile and say: "Start!"
After 3 seconds you ask him to stop.. give him another Rubik's cube and say.. sort this one instead...
4 seconds after he starts the second Rubik's cube, how long do you think he will take to sort the first one again?
If you answered 7 seconds approximately, congratulations: You're upper management material!
(and Olivier would be rightly entitled to force you to eat the cubes)
I agree with Simucal in the sense that managers tend to do better when you break a problem into hours, rather than into programming tasks. For example, saying to your boss, "That should take about two hours to complete, but I have a few other things that I have to complete first, so I should have it to you by tomorrow." is a lot more useful than saying, "Well, first I have to design an interface to communicate between objects, and then create the classes to implement the interface, and so on." Managers understand what they can see, so anytime you can explain your task in terms of end-user effects, you will likely have more success.
With that said, don't let your manager intimidate you into making promises that you can't keep. You may know that all they want to hear is "I'll have it by the end of the day.", but if you know it can't be done, don't say that it can, hoping that if you have it to them sometime in the next couple days, that it will be "close enough". If you start factoring in time for designing and testing and give them appropriate estimates, eventually they will start to understand how long it takes to accomplish certain types of tasks, and stop expecting everything to be done by yesterday.
I've also noticed that tangible results along the way tend to put their nerves at rest (temporarily, at least). My boss starts demanding finished results when he starts to panic as to whether or not a task will be completed on time. However, when he is able to "see" the step-by-step progression, then he is more likely to understand that we are, in fact, making progress, even though it isn't in the finished product yet.
Also, as you start this process, try to look at things from their point of view, and understand that until you get to a point where you can spend the amount of time you think is necessary, you may have to find a happy medium. There came a point in my experience where I needed to develop a Cache object, and while I would have loved to take several weeks to design and implement a configurable and extensible Cache that could be widely distributed across multiple applications, I had to limit myself to the task at hand. Just make sure that if you decide to scale back or follow through with a short-sighted design, be sure that it is well-documented so you can go back and fix it when you have time (or so another developer can pick up on the train of thought that you were unable to finish). Also, don't sacrifice good coding standards and style, as this will also make your code easier to maintain and update properly in the future.
Good luck!
This one may be a good book for non-programmers to understand some of these issues and pitfalls of runaway requirements:
Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen Programmers, Three Years, 4,732 Bugs, and One Quest for Transcendent Software
In all seriousness, I think the best thing it to actually tell them that some things are complex and do require complex problem solving, analysis and design. There is a gap between what they do, and what the programmer does and its unfortunate that they will never understand the full implications. You sometimes just have to be firm and explain that it can take alot of time.
Perhaps a breakdown of the task into subtasks and giving them estimates may help.
Make sure you understand their issues too. People will often bring solutions to the table ("we need this feature") rather than start with root business needs. The more you understand the problem the more likely you are to be able to suggest a compromise.
On occassion I've been told a certain large feature is absolutely essential, but I've been able to deploy much simpler solutions that substantially addresses the problem. Sometimes these interim solutions have grown into vital features, just as often I've been able to remove them two releases later without anybody noticing.
In my experience, whenever I started to explain to sales people in the past why a task takes a certain amount of time, they quickly admit that they do not really want to know the technical details, and I am fine with that. I usually do not want them to explain to me why they still have not nailed down that big sale after n days either. To do work effectively, everybody has his own area of responsibility.
Just make sure that your relationship with the sales people that you provide estimates for is good and they trust in your ability to do proper and reasonable estimations and get the work done. IMHO there should be no need to explain and reason an estimation in every detail, but if there is, I would say the real problem lies elsewhere.
And I wholeheartedly agree with "It depends" above.
Related
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 know this may not be exactly a coder question, but I feel it is still related to programming because I'm sure many developers have come across this before and might have some insight on how to resolve this or have advice. There is an actually programming question though.
My issue as a developer.
I work in a small company, roughly 15 people, 5 of which are developers include myself, the rest are tech support and management. Problem I'm having is, when we get a SOW (Statement of Work), our clients give us a rough description of the project they are requesting, which usually is a 1-3 page brief description, usually including a Visio document, now as a programming, I'm responsible for going over the document and relaying a time-line on how long it should take me to complete the project.
Unfortunately, there have been times, not only me, where we under-estimate the project because we didn't fully get into it till we actually developed it, which ends up slapping ourselves in the face, because my boss is upset because he is being hounded by the client, who is now upset because we missed our promised deadline.
My question is, how do you guys handle organizing basic project description when you need to give deadlines on more concept, and do you have any ideas on how to organize it.
I'm thinking of going to my boss and suggesting, instead of always pushing a estimated deadline to our clients which expect us to hit that, we should write up a detailed document that is more step-by-step (more like what to do) on how to develop the application they want, it may take a lot more time, but least if the project is moved to someone else it is laid out for them, and when I usually get back to it 4 months later, I don't have to refresh up again, I can just follow the steps I wrote.
What do you guys think? Ideas? Or better ways to handle this?
If you switch your development to using an iterative methodology (Agile, XP, Scrum, etc), then the customer will see results much earlier than any deadline you feel you have to promise - usually every 1 or 2 weeks.
The moment they see what you've developed, I can pretty much guarantee that they'll make changes to their initial requirements as they now have a visual representation of the product and it may not be quite what they were thinking of. Some of their changes might be quite radical, so best to get the feedback as early as possible.
In all the projects where i've insisted we do this, the customer was delighted - they saw the results early, could influence the project outcome, and we hit their end deadline. Unexpectedly, a whole load of features got left behind and - guess what - the customer did not mind at all as they got the top features they wanted and put the project/product straight into production as they'd had lots of time to refine it to suit their business, so they were already familiar with it.
It takes a lot of effort to get management, sales, creative, etc, to all buy-in to an iterative style, so you may need to implement a hybrid solution int he mean time, but in my experience, it is well worth it.
If a complete shift to iterative is not possible, split your project into tangible milestones and deliver on those milestones. As others have said, inflate your estimates. My previous manager doubled my estimates and the sales team doubled his too.
Inflate your project deadlines. It's something that most programmers should do (and I quote the VP of Freeverse, the company that I work at):
It is a well-known fact among people
who work in the software industry that
the last 5% of development always takes the longest.
If possible try to divide the higher level tasks as much as possible so that you can get a better approximation of how many man hours that sub-task would take.
Also, adding hidden buffers to your task execution helps in covering some of the unseen contingencies.
cheers
If you mock up (balsamiq or whatever) with your customer, you will get more details. Armed with those details and some experience, your estimates will be more accurate. And then double it and add 4 (hours,days,weeks,months)
First, unless you systematically under-estimate, your boss should not get upset. It's his job to answer to the client, and he should know that by definition, an estimate is NOT the future. Statistically, sometimes you should deliver earlier, sometimes later.
Personally, I think that the frame of "how long will it take" is not exactly the right discussion to have. Software development is a risky business, and change/surprises happen all the time. One approach which helps is to focus less on the "right" number, and more on the volatility. Look at the project, and consider the places where you are pretty clear on how long it will take (you have done it before and understand it well), and look at the places where you have uncertainty (unclear requirements, new technology), and for these, think about how bad it could go, and why. That will help you get not one number, but rather boundaries: what you think is reasonable, a worst-case scenario, maybe a best case scenario (which the client should never see :) ) - and convey that information to your boss, so that he can manage accordingly.
Additionally, this will allow you to identify the danger points of the project, and you can then prototype accordingly - look into the uncertainty points as early as possible, so that you can tighten up the timeline fast, and have early warnings for your boss and the client.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
This may be a hopelessly vague question. But I am interested to hear whatever logical thought processes people go through when learning a new concept or trying to get their brain around code they might not have ever seen before.
Basically, what general steps does one take to to break down problems and what does it take to "get it"? If you were to diagram a flowchart of how your mental process works when you look at code or try to solve a problem what might it look like?
What common references, tips, and mental assumptions do you find useful in problem solving?
How is this different between different domains? For example in what ways is a web programmer's thought process similar or different from a traditional desktop app developer's process?
I'm a big believer that no matter what type of application you're looking at for the first time, may it be a web app, a desktop app, a device driver, or whatever else, there are three steps one developer usually follows in order to understand how it works:
Get the big picture :
What kind of app is this (web, desktop, ...)?
How is it layered (standalone, client-server, n-tier, ...)?
What is the app's purpose? What is it supposed to do?
Who is the app made for?
See how it works :
What language(s) is (are) used?
How is the code structured?
How is the data structured?
Understand (or at least try to) the way the app has been thought through:
Has it been thought through at all?
Is the app clearly optimized? (For performances? For readability?)
Is the app finished? Or is there room for evolutions?
Are there signs of multiple releases?
etc...
The 1st and 2nd steps are purely technical, while the 3rd MUST be as untechnical as possible... it's more about psychology and understanding how the app has been built. It obviously requires experience, but as long as you think hard enough and don't waste your brain's time with technical details, you'll eventually get it.
This whole process shouldn't require the use of a keyboard. You're only supposed to read, think, and take notes on a paper (I'm not kidding: pen and paper!).
Ho ho, good luck with this one. It's a great question and I'm sure you'll get a ton of answers. Although I have to say I cannot give a satisfactory answer to this - the last thing I would describe my thought processes as is a flow chart - I don't think there is any golden formula for this.
The only tip in problem solving I can recommend is discussing it with somebody else. In those times when you hit a brick wall, going through it with a colleague is invaluable. Quite often, as well, they will actually not even add much to the discussion - in the process of getting all your thoughts out in the open, the solution can become clear.
People are notoriously bad at examining their own thought processes, but I'll give it a whirl. I test very high for visuo-spacial ability in IQ tests, medium-to-high for verbal skills, and moderate for mathematical skills (explains my A-level Maths grade, I suppose). amd when I start to design software, I think in terms of shapes and the connections between them. When it comes to describing these thoughts to others (or clarifying them for myself), I use simple block diagrams or the object diagrams taken from Jacobson's Objectory method - NOT the over complex stuff that UML suggests. I sometimes write textual descriptions of complex things, mostly as reminders to myself, but never use numbers or maths.
Of course this is just me - I've worked with maths whizzes who were just as good or even better programmers than myself.
I don't think... I process.
This is actually less flip than it sounds. I always break down tasks into their components and then break these down further, and that doesn't just go for writing software! Much like #Mark Pim U go through things sequentially.
My wife gets really annoyed when I make dinner because I take so long to get started.
Divide & Conquer
I start by trying grasp the entire problem as it is, and then start to find patterns I can recognize, and do the same for them in a kind of recursive process, until I have a broken down solution I can implement and follow more easily.
This is one of the rare times I would answer with "it just works." I learn things by steamrolling through them. I don't have gimmicks, or devices to help me. Took me some time to learn PHP, but after that Javascript was much easier. Once you tackle one thing, the next items become cumulatively-easier.
Personally, I conduct an internal dialogue with myself 'OK so we need to loop over this list of integers.' 'But we can break when we find the value we want.' 'OK, will the list definitely be initialised when we start?'
I'd be interested to see if any psychological research had been done on problem solving techniques.
Similar to Jonathan Sampson - it kind of just works.
When I'm attacking a real problem, I try and think of the most logical way of getting through it is.
Then, when everything goes wrong (as it usually does), I have to make hundreds of sidesteps to get things done. Just keep focusing on that end goal, that logical way and you'll get there.
Eventually though, it decides to work for me and I end up with a finished product that is usually nothing like I planned it out to be. As long as the customers are happy, I am!
Personally, I see code in my head pictorally rather than textually (like Neil Butterworth) - it's a bit hard to describe since (quoting STIV) "there's no common frame of reference."
My main skill is identifying similarities between models or systems I already know about and the task at hand. The connections between some of these can seem quite abstract; the key is to spot the connections. This leads to the abstraction of common patterns and approaches which are widely applicable. Related to this, the most important thing I learnt about algorithms was that the problem is never 'come up with a smart algorithm to solve X'. It's 'model problem X such that it can be solved by existing smart algorithm Y'.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What do you do when you get assigned a project that is just way too hard to do:
Say it's a mammoth project and your boss thinks you alone can handle it
You have knowledge to do somethings, but some other things are a little beyond your expertise at this point in time
Your boss probably thinks it's something that can be done by one person in probably one month
SO users, I would love realistic answers here. This is a real world situation and I am trying to figure out my response to my boss tomorrow on how to approach him delicately.
I just wanted to add an update to my note here. The app in question that my boss is targeting is a "NING like" web app. My hesitation is mostly being the only person being assigned to it for such a complicated app in such a short time period.
This is a situation that everyone has to deal with on a regular basis simply due to the nature of work. (Typically, if you know everything you need to know to complete a job, you've already completed the job and don't need to do it again. :) )
Be honest with your boss about your anxiety. Your manager needs to understand your assessment of the project's risk profile. Odds are good that you'll be doing it anyway. That's OK! This is your chance to shine! :)
Break the problem down into tasks you understand and tasks you don't understand, then start tackling issues one at a time. I, personally, like to alternate between easy tasks and hard tasks. Completing easy tasks helps me feel like I'm making real progress on a gut level, which is important for my personal motivation. Completing hard tasks addresses potential problem areas earlier in the schedule. This mitigates the tail-end risk of the project by evaluating unknowns earlier, rather than letting them fester and explode when you've got 2 days left and no more planning/wiggle room. It also helps your stress level because you know you've gotten the ball rolling on the project's scary bits. Remember-- your unknown areas are where you don't understand the problem domain, so that's where the real risk of schedule/budget slips lie. You need to mitigate those risks early and often. Get the ball rolling with colleagues that you can consult to learn how to do these things.
The one month goal is probably a target. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect person A to realistically estimate person B's scheduled completion of a task in the general case. To track your progress against the target, set up milestones, none longer than 16 hours/2 days, and track your completion rate against them. This goes hand-in-hand with your list of easy/hard tasks.
The simple fact is that, sometimes, you'll just get dumped in over your head. In that case, you may have to make the best of an overwhelming situation. My very first task at my first job out of college was to design a reliable, transaction-oriented, peer-to-peer n-way server synchronization system for high-volume, high-rate data. I told my boss up front that I did not have the expertise for this, and at the time I didn't have enough experience to understand that I needed to push back on the requirements. (In retrospect, given the political environment, I don't know if pushing back on the requirements would really have helped anyway). That was simply a case of a poorly managed project that took about 18 months to ultimately collapse under its own weight. I still leveraged the opportunity to learn a lot and take some knowledge about the way my particular organization worked, though, and that can be very valuable no matter what. :)
Good luck! :)
Edit after question update
Ok, if I understand your update correctly, we're definitely in #4 territory here. There's nothing realistic about creating a competitor for Ning in one man-month. I assumed in my prior answer that you were dealing with someone who had a base understanding of software development. Based on that:
Ask your boss to clarify the requirements more. Perhaps (cross your fingers!) you simply misunderstood what you were being asked to do, or the scope of the project. Always assume competence until absolutely proven otherwise for social reasons. Maybe you were only being asked to come up with an overall design and some very simple proof of concept?
If your boss is truly this out of touch with reality, put together a sensible, 15-minute back-of-the-envelope estimate with him/her on a whiteboard or a shared piece of paper. It shouldn't be hard at all to blow all kinds of holes in this one month to completion. Perhaps your boss thinks you'll be able to reuse some internal code that you're not aware of? This will bring any faulty assumptions your manager is making re: project scope to light.
If your boss is absolutely unreasonable (this doesn't happen often, but it occasionally does-- perhaps the company needs a killer app by the end of the month to sell to avoid going under), prep your resume for an intra- or extra-organizational move (depending on how big the place you work is). Unrealistic expectations on that order can be a sign of organizational desperation or malfunction, and your position may simply not exist 3 months from now.
Don't panic. You may have misinterpreted the goal your boss has. It sounds like he was not very clear if he said only "Ning-like."
Research Ning. What are all the things Ning can do? On Ning's Resources link, they list at least 21 major social network features.
Write up a high-level statement of the goal for this project. Include all the features Ning lists. Also include an objective for how many users this app should serve. Don't try to think about how to solve these goals objectives, or how many programmers it'll take or how long it'll take. Just list them. Keep this write-up to one or two pages.
Present the list to your boss. Ask him, "does this sound like what you had in mind?" Ask a few direct questions to ensure he has looked at your write-up:
"Who are the target users for this application?"
"How many new users per month do you expect to sign up?"
"What level of uptime do we need to support?"
"What's our budget for hosting this service?"
"Do you need this application to support international users?"
"What is the end-user license agreement (EULA) for this application?"
It may become clear at this point that your boss has more modest goals than you assumed. Perhaps he does not intend to duplicate all the capabilities and scale of Ning. So then it becomes a task of getting your boss to articulate more clearly what subset of Ning features or capacity he needs.
Install Drupal, Joomla, or Wordpress, download some plugins, and design a custom site for your boss. That'll probably give him 99% of what he wants, and it's the only way you'll be able to do it in one month.
Don't start by saying "No" or "It can't be done" or "Its too hard" or any of the other things you said in your post. Most managers in a company do not even begin to understand the effort level involved in a programming project and need a little education with their software planning estimates.
I would suggest a conversation which includes the following steps.
Estimates: review the effort level you believe is required for this project to be a success. Make sure that you have thought out tasks in enough detail so that you can answer questions.
Education: if your boss doesn't understand why something will take a certain amount of time, explain as clearly as you can (good analogies tend to help, bad ones can be devastating).
Alternatives: if you believe there is some middle ground or some set of sub features which will fulfill the project needs discuss these alternatives. Managers hate when an employee says something is hard or difficult, they want workable options.
Alignment: are you sure that you and your boss are on the same page about this project? Perhaps you see it as a piece of mission critical software and your boss sees it as a minor enhancement to your existing tools. Be sure that you both have the same expectations; otherwise, you may be planning more complex software than what is being requested.
The most important thing I ever learned in software was how to "push back."
It doesn't always mean saying no. What it means is providing your best estimate of what the impact of new work is. Whether you're saying "yes" or "no", you say, "we can do that, but it will require (x, y and z resource). I think it will take (n days for me, n*a for person b) to understand problem b), but I know how to handle (c, d and e). I've never had to solve problem b before, so I don't know if my estimate for that is realistic."
The difference between "yes" and "no" is whether the cost equation is acceptable.
Any good manager will respect your analysis, question some of your assumptions, expect a round of rethinking, and then, either accept the risks, find additional resources, or abandon the project.
If they say "I see what you're saying, but you're going to have to accomplish the impossible anyway," start looking for another job.
Would your boss not understand the truth? Just talk to him about the requirements of the project, and mention what can and can't be done.
Here's how I would plan it out:
Don't panic and to react - tell your boss that you would like to review the request and will get back to him shortly with questions and concerns
Go through the spec (or if there is no spec, the email or write down the request somewhere) and create a work breakdown structure for each delivery. This should be done to a level where each item is understandable (User Login, Message Entry, etc.)
For each item, est. the amount of work and +/- % amt. based on your knowledge, questions, risks, etc.
Create a list as you're going through the spec of any major/important questions (how many people is this targeted for? does this include the ability for users to IM, etc.)
You now have a rough timeline, risk assessment and list of questions to review with your boss. He'll see that you put some effort into it, may open his eyes to the complexity and provide him with confidence that you are not knee-jerking reacting. He might demand you do it in the timeframe he provided anyway....look for another job, you have at least a month.
What you say is that your perception of the task scope and complexity differs greatly from the perception your boss has. Great.
Most likely you're both wrong: you have misunderstood the requirements and the boss underestimated the task or fell into the trap of wishful thinking.
It's best to go through the requirements with your boss once again, work out together that deliverables are required, try to guestimate amount of time and resource needed to deliver these. If there are blind spots in implementation that you feel you lack skills or expirience for, make this clear and work on the assumption that you'll have spend cash to source these externally (that will at least give you an idea of a market price).
I am sure, the longer you and your boss spend discussing and researching the project, the more detailed the dissussions will become and the better idea of what is feasible will emerge.
The worst thing you can do is to keep quiet. Any good boss relies on developers to give some assessment of a project: either affirmative or hear more questions.
You don't have to say "no", that's not your job to decide whether to go ahead, but you have to be asking good questions.
It really depends on the relationship you have with your boss. If you can, I would just be open and honest with them. Tell them a few things are beyond your level of expertise and you would have to do some research, lengthening the project time. And stress the point that you don't believe you can get it done in a month and you're requesting a team to help.
It's possible your boss doesn't really understand the full scope of the project. If you can break it down into a list of tasks or sections to show how much work really has to go into it, they might see where you're coming from.
In the end, if your boss still wants you to go through with it, just keep stressing that you will do your best but you cannot make any promises about the deadline.
You need to be realistic with your boss. You will come out much better having over-delivered on the project rather than under-delivering on an aggressive timeline.
You have to be honest and tell the boss that there's a problem. However you need to show how much exactly of a problem it is so that you don't sound like an incompetent person waiting for a pink slip.
You need to carefully analyze what is to be done and break it into small parts and see which of them you can do and which you can't. It's normal to have parts in the project which look possible but hard to do - every normal boss usderstands that.
This way you show that the problem is not imaginary and it's not your desire to get nice salary for trivial job.
The truth of course is always the right answer, which your boss will find out eventually, better to fail early.
But with that said, is it something you just don't want to be involved in. Make sure you explain to your boss that you don't want to commit to something that you're sure to fail at but let him know that it could be a learning experience and at least be involved at some level, even if it's to look at the solution after it's done.
Create a realistic schedule and present it to your boss. Ask your boss for his input regarding the schedule. Maintain a positive attitude and let him know that you are both working toward the same end goal. Tell him that this is your best professional estimation of the amount of effort needed to meet all the requirements. Point out where the complexities are if challenged. Be firm and clear and above all else give him an opportunity to speak his concerns. Demonstrate good listening skills and address each of the issues he presents in a language that he feels comfortable with. I wish you all possible success in your project.
If estimations are not yet there then your first task is to do a realistic project estimation. Second task would be to check what technologies are required for the project and check if the knowledge is already available. If not then estimate for the training and gaining the knowledge. I understand boss is boss but you do your part and rest is up-to him. If the boss appreciate others opinion then he will understand but if he is like "I am always right" then you do whatever you can(work as best you can and also look for a new job).
Its a bit on the side of all the good advice I've seen here, but I'll say it anyway: most managers are actually quite smart. Senior managers I've met have all been very smart. The problem is that, as Eric Raymond puts it, they are "differently optimised". So they may need some education. If you assume that they will be reasonable once they know all the facts then you will almost always be correct.
Of course you do occasionally get people who behave unreasonably, or think that saying "make it so" like Captain Picard is Leadership. But they are rare, and do not last long.
Go fight club on him? Get free monies and airfare!
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
I often find that I do a less than complete work on a feature, especially in the Design phase. I detect several reasons:
I'm over-optimistic
I feel the need to provide quick solutions, so sometimes I fool myself into thinking the design is fool-proof when in fact it's still full of holes, just to get the job done faster. Of course I end up paying dearly later.
I'm aware of this behavior of mine for some time, yet I still find I don't manage to compensate. Have you encountered similar problems? How do you approach solving them?
I use a couple of techniques. The first is a simple paper to-do list. In the morning I write down my tasks for the day. I try to work on a task until I can cross it off. I cross it off only when I'm done to my own satisfaction. My to-do list helps me stay focused. When an interruption comes in, I can consciously choose whether it is important enough to interrupt what I'm doing now.
The second technique I use is to give up on the idea of "done" for a design. Instead, I focus on what I've started calling "successions", where a design goes through predictable stages. Each stage supports the current functionality well and will be succeeded at some point by the next stage. This lets me do a good job, a job I can be proud of, without over-designing.
I have the intuition that there is a small catalog of such successions (like http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/FirstOneThenMany.html) that would cover most of design. In the meantime, I try to remember that "sufficient to the day are the troubles thereof".
I run into this problem a lot.
My solution is a notebook. (The old fashioned paper kind).
I write out how I'm planning on implementing the solution as an bulleted overview list, and then I try and flesh out each point on the list.
Often, during that process, I come across issues I hadn't thought of.
Of course, the 80/20 rule still applies... I still come across things when I'm actually doing the implementation that hadn't occurred to me, but with experience these tend to diminish.
EDIT: If I'm still not sure at the end of this process, I put together a throwaway prototype testbed... It's important to make sure it's throwaway, because otherwise you run the risk of including some nasty hacks in your real codebase.
It's very common to miss edge-cases and detail when you're in the planning phase of a project, especially in the software development field. Please don't feel that this is a personal failing; it's something endemic.
To counter this, many software development methodologies have emerged. Most recently there has been a shift by many development teams to 'agile' methods, where there is a focus on rapid development with little up-front technical design (after all, many complexities are only discovered when you actually begin developing). I'm currently using the Scrum system, which has been excellent in my small team:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29
If you find that your organisation will not accept what they may regard as a radical shift in approach, it may be worth investigating whether they will agree to the development of a prototype system. This means that you could code up a feature to investigate the technologies involved and judge whether it's feasible, without having to commit to full development, a quality bar, testing schedules etc. The prototype should be thrown away once the feasibility has been proved or disproved, then proper development may begin, including all that you've learned in the process.
If your problem is more related to time management, then I'd recommend the Getting Things Done approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_things_done). This is pragmatic and simple, concentrating on making you productive without overloading you with information that isn't immediately relevant to your current work. I've found that I get overwhelmed with project/feature ideas at times and it really helps to write everything down and file it for a later time when I have the resources available to work effectively.
I hope this helps and best of luck!
Communication.
The best way to not rush yourself into programming mistakes is communication. Yes, good ol' fashioned accountability. If another person in the office is involved in the process, the better the outcome. If a programmer just takes on the task without any concern for anybody else, then there is a higher possiblity for mistakes.
Accountability Checklist:
How do we support this?
Who needs to know what has changed?
Why are we doing this in the first place?
Will there be anybody who doesn't want this changed?
Will someone else understand how I did this?
How will the user perceive and use this change?
A skepticle comrad is usually good enough to help. Functional Specifications are good, they usually answer all of these thoughts. But, sometimes a conversation with another person can help you with it and you can get changes out the door faster.
I have learned, through years of mistakes (though still making them), that almost anything I want to use repeatedly, or distribute, needs to be designed properly. So getting burned enough times will end your optimism.
When getting pressure from management, I tell them I will have to put in the thought anyway, so I should do it when it's cheap. I think on paper as well, so I can actually prove that I'm doing something and it keeps my fingers on the keyboard, both of which provides a soothing effect to management. ;-)
At the risk of sounding obvious - be pessimistic. I had a few experiences where I thought "that should take a few hours" and it ended up taking a couple days because of all the little things that pop up unexpectedly.
By far the best way I've found to manage things is to (much like Andrew's answer) write out the design and requirements as a starting point. Then I go through and look for weak points in the design, gotchas and additional use cases etc. I try to look at this as a critical exercise - there's no code written yet, so this is the time to be totally ruthless and look for every weak point. Look for error conditions you'll have to handle, and whatever amount of time you think it will take to complete each feature/function, pad that amount by a lot. I've had times where I've doubled my initial estimate and still not been that far off the mark.
It's very hard as a programmer to realistically project debugging time - writing the code is easy to estimate, but debugging that into functioning, valid code is something else entirely. Therefore I find there's no exact science to it but I just pad tasks by a whole bunch, so that I have plenty of breathing room for debugging.
See also Evidence Based Scheduling which is a fascinating concept in scheduling developed by FogCreek for their FogBugz product.
You and the rest of the world.
You need more a more detailed design, more accurate estimate, and the willingness to accept that sometimes the optimal solution is not necessarily the best solution (e.g., you could code some loop in assembler to get optimal performance, but that's going to take a lot longer than just doing
for (i=1; i<=10; i++) {}
). Is the time spent doing it really worth it for an accounting package over a missile system.
I like to designing, but over time I've found that much design up front is a lot like building castles into the sky - it's too much speculation, however well-educated, missing critical feedback from actually implementing and using the design.
So today I'm much more into accepting that while implementing a design I will learn a lot of new stuff about it, and need to feed that learning back into the design. Doing that is a skill that is fun to learn, including the skills to keep a design flexible by keeping it simple, free of duplication and cohesive and decoupled, of changing the design in small, controlled steps (=refactoring), and writing the necessary extensive suite of automated tests that make this kind of changes safe.
This seems to be a much more effective approach to me than getting better at "up front design speculation" - and addtionally it makes me equally well prepared for the inevitable moment when the design needs to be changed due to a simply unforseeable change in the requirements.
Divide, divide, divide. List all the steps that will be required to finish the project, then list all the steps those steps will require to be concluded, and so on until you reach atomic items you are absolutely sure you can finish in a day or less. Add the duration of all these values to arrive at a length of time.
Then double it. Now you have a number that, if depressing, is at least somewhat realistic.
If possible "Sleep on your design" before publishing it. I find after I leave work, I usually think of things I have missed. This usually happens while I am lying in bed before falling asleep or even while showering the next day.
I also find it valuable to have a peer/friend that I trust review what I have before distributing it. Somebody else almost always sees something I didn't think of or miscommunicated.
I like to do as others stated here. Write down in pseudo code what the flow of your app will be. This immediately highlights some detailed areas that may require further attention that where not apparent up front.
Pseudo code is also readable to business users who can verify your approach meets their needs.
Using pseudo code also creates a nice set of methods that could be put to use as an interface in the final solution. Once the pseudo code is fairly tight, look for patterns and review some common GOF patterns. They do not have to be perfect but using them will sheild you from having to rewrite the code later during the revisions that are bound to come along.
Just taking an hour or two write psuedo code, yields some invaluable time saving pieces later on:
1. An object model emerges
2. The program's flow is clearly defined for others
3. It can be used as documentation of your design with some refinement
4. Comments are easier to add and will be clearer for someone else reviewing your code.
Best of luck to you!
I've found that the best way to make sure you've chosen a good design is to make sure that you understand the problem, know the limitations you have, and know what things are must-haves vs. nice-to-haves.
Understanding the problem will involve talking to the people who have the need and keeping them anchored to what needs to get done first instead of how they think it ought to get done. Once you know what actually has to happen, you can go back and talk over requirements about how.
Knowing your limitations may be quite easy: needs to run on the iPhone; has to be a web application; needs to integrate with the already-existing Java code and deployment setup; and so on. It may be quite difficult: you don't know what the potential size of your user base is (hundreds? thousands? millions?); you don't know whether you'll need to localize it (though if you're not sure, assume you will have to).
Must-haves vs, nice-to-haves: this is possibly the most difficult part. Users very often have emotional attachments to "requirements" ("It should look just like Excel") that are not actually part of the "has to happen" stuff. You often have to juggle functionality vs. desires to get an acceptable implementation. You can't always give everyone a pony.
Make sure you write all this down! Even if it evolves along the way, or the design is small, having a "this is what we're planning to do now" guide to refer to when you need ot make a decision about committing resources makes it easier to restrain yourself from implementing a really cool whiz-bang feature instead of a boring must-do.
Since you recognize that you feel the need to provide a quick solution, perhaps it will slow you down to realize that you can probably solve the problem faster and deliver it sooner if you spend more upfront time in design. For instance if you spend 3 hours designing and 30 hours writting code, it probably means that if you spend 6 hours designing you might need to only spend 10 hours writing code. (These are not actual figures just examples). You might try to quantify this for yourself on the next few projects you do. Do a couple where you behave as you normally would and see what ratio of design/codewriting/testing&debugging you actually do. Then on the next project deliberately increase the percentage of time you spend on design phase and see if it does shorten the time needed for the other phases. You will have to try for several projects on this as well to get a true baseline since the projects may be quite different. Do it as a test to see if you can improve your performance on the the other phases and thus deliver a faster product if you spend 20% more time or 50% more time or 100% more time on design.
Remember the later in the process you find the problem with a design the harder (and more time-consuming) it is to fix.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I often find myself fighting overengineering -- the person in charge of designing the software comes up with an architecture that's, way, way overcomplicated.
It's all fine and dandy to have all the esoteric features that users will never know about and get that sense of achievement when you're doing something that all the magazine articles are telling you is the latest, cool thing, but we are going to spend half of our engineering time on this monument to our cleverness, and not, you know, the actual product that our users need and upper management expects to be completed within a reasonable or at least a bounded time frame.
And you'll probably just have to revert back to the simpler solution anyway when you start running out of time, that is, if you get that chance.
We've all heard the refrain: Keep It Simple, Stupid™.
How do you fight with overcomplexity in your team?
One example I've had to work with repeatedly lately is when the decision has been made to go to a fully denormalized database design rather than an RDBMS. "because it's faster!" Fully denormalized databases are really hard to get right, and are only appropriate for really specialized data problems like Flickr or ebay, and which can be extremely expensive in terms of developer time relative to the rest of your development.
Tooth and nail, and sometimes you lose. The problem is that it's always easy to be tempted to build something cool.
Why build something simple and efficient when it can be complicated and wonderful?
Try to remind people of the XP rule of building the simplest thing that can possibly work.
Make sure to bounce any ideas you have off of someone else. Oftentimes, we get so wrapped up in doing things a certain way that it takes another set of eyes to set you right. There've been many times that I've figured out difficult problems by having somebody else there to say "do we really need that?" This helps make my code simpler.
On the point of dealing with people you disagree with, Ward Cunningham has a good point:
It was a turning point in my programming career when I realized that I didn't have to win every argument. I'd be talking about code with someone, and I'd say, "I think the best way to do it is A." And they'd say, "I think the best way to do it is B. I'd say, "Well no, it's really A." And they'd say, "Well, we want to do B." It was a turning point for me when I could say, "Fine. Do B. It's not going to hurt us that much if I'm wrong. It's not going to hurt us that much if I'm right and you do B, because, we can correct mistakes. So lets find out if it's a mistake. ... Usually it turns out to be C. It's a learning experience for both of us. If we decide without the experience, neither of us really learns. Ward won, and somebody else didn't. Or vice versa. It's too much of a battle. Why not say, "Well, let's just code it up and see what happens. If it doesn't work, we'll change it.""
My advice? If you want to do something better, come up with a simple prototype that demonstrates that it's better. Opinions are great, but code talks.
I have seen this formula somewhere:
skill = complexity of problem / complexity of solution http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1586/whatisskill.png
In other words, it requires skill to create a simple solution to a complex problem. If somebody purposefully designs and takes pride in complex overengineered solutions, then he is unconsciously incompetent.
Personally, what helps me to keep my designs simple, is the TDD cycle. First write a test that specifies what you're trying to reach, and then produce "the simplest thing that could possibly work". And every now and then, reflect on what you have produced, and think about how to make it more simple.
Never build extra flexibility and abstraction layers into the system, until it is required by something that you have now. Changing the code is easy, when you have a good unit test suite, so you can add those abstraction layers later, when the need arises, if it ever arises. Otherwise, "you ain't gonna need it".
Some symptoms of too complex design are when writing tests is complicated. If the tests require a long setup code, maybe you have too many dependencies or in some other way too much complexity. If you run into concurrency bugs, then maybe you should think about how to design the system so that concurrency is restricted to the absolute minimum number of classes. Maybe use a message-passing architecture, such as the Actor model, and make practically every component single-threaded, even though the system as a whole is multi-threaded.
At least for me, the bigger issue is that it's often hard to tell what feature is in there because of its buzzword-friendly, magaziney enterprisey goodness and which is in there because it adds a level of flexibility that will be useful in the future.
It's been shown that people are generally terrible at anticipating future complexity, and side-effects of current decisions. Unfortunately this doesn't always mean simplest is best - in my case, there've been loads of things I thought were too complicated at first and didn't see the value of until much later (er... spring). Also things I thought made sense that turned out to be wildly overcomplicated (EJB1). So I know that my intuition about these things is faulty.
Best bet - any kind of indirection layer should be supported with an argument supporting the value of the flexibility it adds vs. its added dev complexity.
However, people who are dogmatically maintaining a particular db setup on abstract grounds are probably in the "building it because I read that it's the right thing" camp. It might be unrealistic, but some people might be convinced if you build a test version and benchmark, especially if the results show more effort leading to an insignificant performance increase.
It's all fine and dandy to have all
the esoteric features that users will
never know about and...
This would be feature creep, not unnecessarily complicated design. It's different from your example on databases.
One example I've had to work with
repeatedly lately is when the decision
has been made to go to a fully
denormalized database design rather
than an RDBMS. "because it's faster!"
In this case several things may be going on. One of them is, you might be wrong and these people could really know what they are saying because they have worked with very similar examples. Another is they might be wrong, i.e. their design doesn't offer the speed advantages they claim. In this case there could be two different situations: (1) They are giving speed too much weight in their design, or (2) speed is really critical. If speed is indeed so relevant, the team shouldn't rely only in assumptions - they should try different prototypes and evaluate their speed in the critical paths. You don't build an F1 car in one way just "because it's faster", instead you keep trying several alternative design solutions and pick the fastest one which still doesn't increase maintenance costs too much.
Sometimes you can argue it and reach an agreement, sometimes you can't. It's life.
A final word, though. You don't fight complexity. You treat it. You identify the really important things and act accordingly.
I assume you mean "fully denormalized database design rather than a normalized (e.g., third or fourth normal form) model", because a relational model is managed by an RDBMS regardless of how normalized it is.
Can't judge without knowing more about your requirements, your abilities, and those of your teammates.
I fear that your KISS admonition might not work in this case, because one big, denormalized table might be defended as the simplest thing possible.
How does anybody solve these kinds of problems? Communication, persuasion, better data, prototypes of alternative technologies and techniques. This is what makes software development so hard. If there was only one way to do these things, and everyone agreed on them, we truly could script it or get anyone to develop systems and be done with it.
Get some data. Your words might not be enough. If a quick prototype can demonstrate your point, create it.
"Strong opinions, lightly held" should be your motto.
Sometimes a technical point isn't worth alienating your entire team. Sometimes it is. Your call.
You fight someone else's overdesign/feature creep in several ways:
Request feature priority, based on actual user requirements. Mock up features for alpha and beta testers, and ask if they would trade N months of delay for it.
Aggressively refactor to avoid special-casing. Break code into layers or modular components whenever appropriate. Find a balance between "works just fine now" and "easy to extend later".
Notify your management when you disagree with design decisions, prepare to be overruled, and accept the decision. Don't go over anyone's head or sabotage code.
The best way I have found is to relentlessly ask - again and again - 'What is the business problem we are trying to solve' and 'How does this decision help to solve that problem'.
I find that too often folks jump to solutions instead of being crystal clear on what the problem is.
So in your example of how to organize a database, my question would be 'What do we think are the transaction requirements for this project today, next month, next year, five years from now'. It could be that it makes sense to spend a lot of time to get the data model right, it could be a waste of time. You don't know what the parameters are until you get the problem definition clear.
You may suffer from "too many architects in the team" syndrome. One or two people at most should design/architect a system which will be coded by a team of 5 to 10 people. Input is welcome from everyone but architectural decision makers should be few and experienced.
(the numbers are semi-random and could be different depending on other factors as well)
I try to be open when discussing matters. But when i am discussing with someone else between something that seems simple and another one complicated, i get as stubborn as can be. It helps quite a lot, so long as you are very coherent from one decision to another.
Your example isn't really a complicated design, it's a design choice that you don't agree with. Since you're working on the code, you could easily be right because many of these decisions are made by people reading an article in an article and thinking it sounds like a good goal, or the decision could have been made by someone who ran into problems before and was trying to prevent it from happening again.
Personally I've done a lot of stuff the easy way and a lot of it the hard way, and I'm never happy when I choose doing something the easy way over the hard way. Now I've learned tricks like "never pass around a naked collection, always wrap it in a business class".
If I were to explain the reasoning behind that to someone who hadn't been through the same experiences, they wouldn't understand it until they tried comparing the "easy way" to the "hard way" a few times.
The solution should be no more complex than the problem.
The question intertwines itself with the thought of essential complexity. A sort must touch each element, by its essence. How much more complex must it then get, to solve the problem, given the technical constraints existing on it?
Do the people involved have enough time and incentive to find a simple solution? Without care, complexity will increase. If you spend most of your time trying to do the quickest possible bug fix or feature addition then saying "keep it simple" will not be enough.
Ensure that there are some people on the team with war wounds from maintaining large programs, and people with experience of refactoring, and then give them time to sort the software out. If you can arrange that certain features and opportunities are out of scope, that will help people remove unneeded code. If you want a metric, aim to reduce lines of code; but try not to obsess over it. Improve the test coverage; consider eliminating bits of code which are hard to test.
Don't try to do everything at a stretch. Break every problem/task into manageable chunks. Then prioritize, keeping KISS and YAGNI in mind. This will help you focus on building what you need. If you've done it right, you'll have a good core you can add to later, given time, money, resources and inspiration.