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 find way too many projects to get involved in, way to many languages to play with (and way too many cool features within those languages), and way too many books to read...
How do you guys stay focused and actually get anything done, rather than leaving a trail of partially complete "experiments?"
Seems like there are two types of developers: Tinkerers and Entrepreneurs.
Tinkerers want to know how every little thing works. Once they get the hang of something, they're distracted by everything they don't know. The tech world is brutal for a Tinkerer because there's so much to learn and each new year creates more. Tinkerers are proud of their knowledge.
Entrepreneurs want to know enough to build something really great. They think in terms of features and end-user experiences. You never hear them argue about Python over .NET over Java over C because they just don't care. They're more interested in the result of a language versus the language itself. Entrepreneurs are proud of their user-base.
Sounds like you're struggling with your Tinkerer tendencies. I've got the same problem and have found only one thing that helps - find an Entrepreneur developer that you thoroughly respect. When you put the two together, it's unbeatable. The Tinkerer plumbs the depth of every technical nuance. They keep the Entrepreneur technically honest. In turn, the Entrepreneur creates focus and opportunity for the Tinkerer. When they catch you browsing the Scala site (assuming you're not a Scala developer), they reveal a new challenge in your existing project. Not only that, they're much better at understanding what non-Tinkerers want.
Money, and the feeling of accomplishment that goes along with actually finishing something. When I first thought about working for myself I started coming up with ideas of software that I would develop and then later sell. Of course, I really didn't know if what I was making would actually sell, so it was easy to get distracted and jump at new ideas.
So I decided to go with being a contractor/consultant. When you know that there is a buyer for what you're making, and that somebody is waiting on it, it gives you motivation. If it's an interesting or challenging project, there's a rush associated with finishing it. So that adds extra motivation because you want that rush more and more.
Once I got a fairly steady flow of work-for-hire projects, I found that I can stay focused on my side projects better because I have incentive to practice good time management. I give myself a certain amount of time every day or week to work on my side projects, and it helps me stay focused when I take that time.
Of course, I still go off on tangents occasionally and start new side projects as well, but the ones that I am most interested in I have been able to stick with.
Also, after you finish some projects, then you get a better feel for what it actually takes to go from conception to completion, and it makes it a lot easier to do it again and again.
I think a good programmer may well have lots of unfinished "experiments" hanging around, this is a good thing.
Usually with a good manager, you will be held accountable if your work is simply not getting done. If you're a student, though, it's tougher. I realized that it is impossible to learn everything you want to.
I limit myself to only learning 1 or 2 new languages per year, and only 1 book per month. That seems to be a nice balance between programming chaos and getting my job done well.
Kudos for having a great learning attitude :)
Probably the best motivator (for a team or an individual) is to set goals early and often.
One of the best methods I've observed in project management was the introduction of "feature themed weeks" - where the team (or an individual) was set goals or deliverables which aligned under a general flavour, e.g "Customer Features", "Reporting and Metrics" etc. This kept the team/person focused on one area of delivery/effort. It also made it easy to communicate to the customer where progress was being made.
Also.. Try to make your (or your team's) progress visible. If you can establish an automated build process (or some other mechanism) and "publish" incremental implementation of work over a short period of time you can often gain traction and early by-in which can drive results faster (and help aid in early course correction).
1) I leave a utterly MASIVE trail of unfinished stuff, all side projects of course.
2) When I need motivation to work I open my wallet... That usually does it for me.
I'm building an app I plan on selling and see it as a way of making extra money or reducing the amount of time I spend working for other people.
My wife likes this idea and her encouragement has managed to keep me focused longer than normal as it's now "work" rather than "play"
I find that getting involved with the "business" side of the equation helps tremendously. When you see how much benefit the actual users of your program can get out of your creative solutions to their problems - it's an extreme motivation to provide those solutions to them. :-)
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.
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 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Like many here, I am a one-man development team. I'm responsible for everything from gathering project requirements, designing concept-screens, planning and developing databases, and writing all code.
Being a one-man team is nice, but has its negatives. I don't have the ability to quickly consult with other developers, I rarely get a second set of eyes for my code, and I'm sure you guys can come up with many other negatives too.
To make the most of my time, and commit myself most efficiently to my work, what tips or practices could I implement into my day-to-day routine to be the best one-man team possible?
Daily list of what I am going to do.
Remove as many distractions as possible to focus on tasks. Turn off
email, turn off IM, etc... even if
for a set period of time and then
during a break check them.
Take time to learn about other coding techniques, tools and programming wisdom. This I have found to be crucial to my development. It's to easy to just code away and feel productive. What about what could be if you just had some more knowledge / weaponry under your belt to bang out that next widget. I know this one really sounds counter productive but it really isn't. Knowledge/know how is our real currency. The more we know the more we can make a better decision about how something should be done and do it faster.
Take breaks and be aware of your
body. When we are tired we don't
think as well and will make more
mistakes, become frustrated more
easily, etc...
Learn to use the 80 / 20 rule to your
advantage. I don't mean skimp or be
lazy. Often though we will work our
tail off for that 20% when it wasn't
necessary.
Set goals for yourself (daily,
weekly, bi-weekly). Make sure the
goals are also in line with those you
are coding for or you may find you
have wasted some time.
From a technical aspect consider:
Consider Unit testing / TDD. I have found in
my own work that this actually saves
time. It takes a while to get the
hang of but with anything you will
get better.
Care for your code. Refactor it
(especially if you start unit
testing). The better your code is
the easier it is to maintain which
takes less time. The easier it is to
understand the faster you can change
/ implement features.
I'm learning to spend a lot more time planning out my day than I used to. This includes planning out projects, down to writing psuedo-code for the programming I need to do. I find that with all the interruptions in my schedule, it's difficult for me to get started at something. Having everything broken down into small tasks makes it much easier to start after an interruption.
According to operational research, shortest job first is the best scheduler to get most amount of things done.
I write and run integration and system tests, but no unit tests, because I've no need for early (pre-integration) testing: Should one test internal implementation, or only test public behaviour?
A corrolary of Conway's Law is that you need to test the internal software interfaces which separate/integrate developers, whereas a "one man army" don't need to explicitly test his internal interfaces in this way.
A lot of the other tips are good but they equally apply to developers working in a team as well as a lone developer.
I think the hardest thing as a one man team is effective communication with the rest of your company. You will always be a lone programmers voice in any meeting or discussion around how best to build software.
As a result I'd advise trying to improve negotiation skills and focus on improving the way you describe technical concepts in terms a non-programmer can understand. Reading books such as Getting to Yes and How to win friends and influence people are a good way to start.
When there is more than one person agreeing on a viewpoint, the viewpoint automatically gains credibility with those you are trying to convince. In the absence of this possiblity you need to work extra hard at preparing your arguments with well-researched evidence and a balanced view.
I'm in the same situation. There's already a lot of good advice above but one thing I'd add is find when your best coding times are and make sure you're coding during that time. I have a few hours in the morning that I seem to be at my best for coding. I try to keep that time free of all distractions. Plan things like meetings, writing documentation, testing (at least the tedious, repetitive stuff), and all that other stuff for your less productive time. Keep those coding hours when you're 2 to 5 times more productive for coding.
Make sure you refactor early and often. That serves almost like a second set of eyes (for me, at least).
Don't work insane hours (especially tricky if you're working from home). Actually, working less hours often proves more productive as the impending break/end of day pressure increases your efficiency.
You may want to look up Parkinson's Law for work/time management.
I use a text file to collect all the things I do every day. Every time I run into a problem or have a question or find a solution, I add it to my file. It's very low-tech but it provides a wealth of information, like "where am I spending most of my time?" or "how did I fix that problem before?". Also makes it super-quick to give your client a list of hours at the end of your billing cycle.
I also use another text file (per client) that contains all the work items on my plate, arranged in order of priority, and updated frequently. It helps both me and my clients focus on what I should be working on next, so the pump is always primed.
Eventually I'll move away from flat text files to using something like FogBugz, but for now I can't beat the price, or how easy it is to search, or how easy it is to e-mail.
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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I posted this question on Reddit Programming and did not get a single response. So I am hoping that Stack Overflow community will have an opinion.
Have any of you ever been on a software project that had fallen behind, where 'Crashing' or 'Fast-Tracking' the project schedule actually brought the project schedule back on track? I have never seen either of these project management techniques actually work. And all the articles on software development that I have read all state that these 2 techniques do not work and actually pushing the project further behind (for example literature on the Mythical Man Month). So who has seen it work?
Thanks Bill.
I have only ever seen it work once. It was a three or four month long project that was projected to run an extra two months over the original delivery date. The project got fast-tracked and things ended up getting back on track for the release.
...keep in mind though, that was only once. I've been on many more projects where the PM tried to use one of those two methods and they failed miserably and dragged the project out for months beyond already extended date.
It can work. But there's a price to be paid: lower quality (more bugs, less testing) and turnover of burned-out programmers.
And in many cases, a fast-tracked project will both fail to deliver on time and will still pay the full negative price, for the reasons stated in Mythical man-month.
I've seen it work but it's not the norm.
Things I'd want to see before I thought it might be feasible:
1) Staff available with suitable skills and approach. By that I don't mean ".NET programmer", I mean detailed technical skills, business domain skills (so they understand the problem), personality fit and understand the tools and the approach (source control, methodology and so on). This can happen in large companies where there are common tools, standards and knowledge but you need to be sure that they're ticking pretty much all the boxes.
2) Tasks must be nicely divisible. The best situation is where there are whole modules, applications or tasks unstarted and you can put new people on that. It minimises upskilling, additional communication and so on. If you can't separate out what the new people will do you're likely to majorly disrupt the existing team.
3) The whole team must have bought into the approach. If the existing team don't agree that bringing people on board will be right they'll likely fight it and you're doomed.
4) You need to be sure you've addressed why it was running late in the first place. If it was just bad estimates then are you confident the new estimates are good? If it was scope creep have you got the scope and change control in hand now? If it was because the deadline moved, are you sure it won't move again?
If you can't tick all four of those off, it isn't going to work.
Crashing and Fast-Tracking are two very different things...
Fast Tracking is where you take something (tasks or work packages) out of sequence and do it early. This may because of hardware delivery lead times, availability of resources, risk or whatever. So you might do things in parallel where originally you had planned to do it sequentially. I've fast tracked a lot of projects.. and yes it works.
Crashing a project is different in that you typically throw more resources at a problem to get it done quicker... this can be tricky. If it's done as a crisis response it can be painful adding extra people as you are already under the pump. In some situations you just add more problems.
Another alternative to crashing is to reduce scope. This is not always possible, but it should be considered.
With fast tracking or crashing... the sooner you know when you need to make a schedule change the easier to manage. This is why early deadlines are so important, they indicate how the rest of the project will go.
Both of these project management techniques work well to maintain a schedule, but they should be used intelligently by judiciously analyzing the network diagram:
study the variance,
study lead and lags;
decide what suits to your project: ‘Crashing’ or ‘Fast-Tracking’.
There is a software management principle that says adding manpower to a late project makes it later.
That said, as long as the measures taken are sensible it should be ok. Don't expect too much of your staff and provide reasonable incentives and don't take short cuts. It won't make miracles happen but if you're practical and want to push things just that little bit faster it can definitely be done.
When people have a stake in the potential success of something it's amazing how much more effort they're willing to put in.
It depends on what you mean by "work". I don't think I've ever seen it make a way late project deliver on time, if that's what you are asking.
However, I have seen it make way late projects deliver only a bit late. From the fuzzy perspective of management, that might be called "working". I've also seen it significantly lower the customer-based pressure on the company. Some might also call that "working".
Of course the price is rather high. Employees burn out, develop health problems or big problems in their neglected personal lives, etc. All of that has large financial repurcussions to the company. So I doubt the company comes out ahead in the long run. Is that "working"?
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 have been in the IT industry for 10 years now but have worked in "traditionally" managed project teams (both well managed and badly managed ones).
I have heard of the "new" scrum or XP type of project management and yearned to be part of one (as s/w folks we always like anything new I guess) but have not got an opportunity.
My question is this - what are your experiences in moving to the "new" way - was it significantly better or worse or not any different? Has there been any project success rate improvement when using XP way of development or it is same as any well managed traditional projects?
This should not be a political question but just your experiences as you have moved to the new world or experienced at least once and back.
Thanks in advance
Before I ever heard of XP, I had a really good manager (Mike) at an early job I had. He was used to managing engineers and transitioned to managing software. After a few bad working experiences I looked back at his style versus typical project management I had before and after working with him.
Met with everyone at least once a day but gave us space to work
Used a whiteboard with two columns, people working and what they are working on anyone could look at that board and see if something had been done or was being done
Had everyone cross-train. I learned rcs and then cvs there and how to use make files
Ran productive "post mortum" when a task was completed. He would ask question like "would it have helped if X?" or "next time, can we try to..."
Kept everyone working on short tasks and managed our time so we always working on something but never had a ton of stuff piled up
Mike did everything on paper. He would keep notebooks and index cards with him. He insisted that anything asked of him by management be converted into manageable tasks, often written on note cards. He refused to have anyone work on anything that couldn't be clearly explained or had a clear objective. He would ask the VPs "what do you mean by faster?" "What kinds of metrics are the reports meant to show?" "Why should this be a priority?" He seemed to have near infinite patience in writing out what needed to be done and what was meant by "done"
When I first read the XP book, I was amazed by how much was familiar as "the way Mike worked"
It seems that Agile is just about implementing a set of best practices and evaluating how they work in your environment. When they don't work, change them. When they do work, stick to them.
I think the real problem with traditional project management is that more often than not, it doesn't really exist. I'm amazed by how many shops claim to use RUP or Code Complete or even Agile and don't actually have anything recognizable as project management. Sure, there are meetings. And people called project managers. But ask a simple question like "what has been done on project X" or "what is left to do on project Y" and no one has an answer. They have to dig though emails or point to a comically inaccurate MS project file.
If a person claimed to be on a diet and couldn't answer questions on what they were eating or how they were exercising; would you accept that they were really on a diet?
You take your old baggage with you when you go. Meaning that any project management bad practices you had before will still linger.
However, I will say that things improved greatly when we began to close the loop between us and the customer. Greater and more frequent feedback and prototyping with the customer means far fewer moments of the customer saying, "This is not what I wanted."
I've used (a slightly modified) Scrum before at work and here are my thoughts:
The daily meetings and burn-down provided motivation to make progress on tasks.
Our manager could talk to colleagues across the pond and show them "this is what we're working on this month."
You knew exactly what tasks you needed to get done, and had already estimated the time required to complete.
When priorities changed (new tasks, important bugs added), there was a well-defined process to handle adding them to the sprint or simply pushing them to the backlog.
These are lovely answers, but I think everyone's confusing project management with development/design methodologies.
I'm on a team that started Scrum a few months ago and we seem to be getting things done faster and with much less "waste" (projects that are scrapped). Just my observations from our small team (4 devs).
I've found the overall move to Agile/XP practices very positive, in many ways it front loads quality into the project/development process. You'll need buy-in from management and from the team to really see success...a few suggestions:
trial any change with a small project (2-3 people)
understand what areas your current team can most improve (quality? productivity? time-to-market?) and incorporate a few Agile/XP/Scrum (what ever) processes in...don't incorporate them all in at the same time and understand which processes address which issues prior to any change
if possible - track those areas you're looking to change and compare to another project running at the same time (the mere focus of improving something often is enough to improve it ,there's a study/term for this, but I forget what it is)
sometimes you'll see a dip in performance as you begin a new process, this is part of the learning curve
never assume that a good change today will remain a good change tomorrow, always review your project areas and be ready to change any process at any time
no change remains good forever, just like refactoring code, refactor your processes
ensure you get buy in from the team and management, you can't force success
I like some of the things the agile approaches do, but I also value some of the things traditional approaches do.
Both can work, as can a mixture of the two, which is what I find works best for my team now. I have implemented incremental development and it really helps us; iterative development is a little harder and we're still working on that. However, we have a variety of constituents, and many of our stakeholders (and PMs) prefer traditional artifacts and milestones. So we have to keep finding the right balance.
I have also found that even more important than the methodology is the people implementing it. Good people find a way to do good work and get things done regardless of the methodology, although certainly the methodology can have effects on efficiency (and morale :) ). Poorly aligned resources, however, can use the finest methodology and find ways to deliver poor results.
For developers, the great lessons of XP & Co. are shorter release cycles, and a more evolutionary approach - in the sense that change of requirements is accepted as a natural part of any project. Also, Customers suggest solutions, but designers and developers need to understand the problems.
Lessons for managers: Developers are not exchangable spec-to-code-converters, their individual strengths and weaknesses can make a productivity difference of 10 or more for a given topic. Knowledge and experience are the most valuable skills in your team, and developers can teach each oterh. Managers need not understand what developers do in order to enforce desired results.
XP & Co. are usually mixing solutions to these with the problem to make a company change. The heroic XP consultant singlehandledly saving a doomed, delayed and derailed project acts as large part as a buffer between development and management. But if you are looking at what to learn, you have to separate these aspects.
What I learnt in the recent years is that bugs aren't a personality fault, and that the sky doesn't fall when specs change. I've learnt that while design errors are still the most expensive to make, there isn't a single "perfect" design. Instead of getting one thing right we need to implement safeguards that of all the many details none goes wrong - and I've learnt to use the leeway between "right" and "not wrong" to our advantage.
My experience has been that I prefer to use Scrum over traditional approaches as it hasn't happened often that requirements could stay unchanged for the length of a project where usually projects seem to run at least 6 months to my current one that is over a year.
There can also be the case where there isn't any project management and everyone just scrambles to "make it work" so having some formal structure is good over nothing. There is something to the question of how well does the team come together and egos rarely appear as it isn't someone's code but rather the code of the team and there is a kind of group think where while each person has their view, no one tries to make everyone else see things that way.
At times it seems to me that some Scrum and Agile approaches I've used end up being like rapids instead of a big waterfall. What I mean is that the cycle of gather requirements - Analyse and Design - Implement - Test - Deploy and get updated requirements seems to be repeated over and over so that what comes out in the end would be extremely hard to state at the beginning of the project unless the project sponsor could give very detailed requirements that would never change.
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 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I am currently a grad student, but I was in the industry for a few years before going back to school.
I am in a class which involves teams of 4 working on fairly ambitious projects. As a result of having been in the industry, I have a lot of "software engineering" experience my fellow teammates lack (they are using SVN for the first time this semester). They are all very good programmers; but they don't have a lot of experience in building "real stuff".
Since I had a fairly concrete vision for a project, and my teammates did not, my idea is the one we will spend this semester working on. On top of that, as a result of my experience, plus the fact that I admittedly have a somewhat strong personality, I've become a de-facto team lead -- established weekly meeting times, assigned initial tasks, etc.
I want to avoid the trap of being so forceful with my ideas for what we should be doing and how we should be doing it, that my teammates feel like they have no say and become uninvolved and detached.
So here is the question:
How can I keep my team of undisciplined but talented programmers motivated while enforcing basic best practices (version control, milestones, etc) and a coherent project vision?
Edit: Thanks to everyone who answered so far. I think I've overemphasized the "software engineering" aspect of things; I'm also looking for ideas for how to encourage my teammates to contribute to the design, and feel ownership in the project which is at the moment a little bit "The SquareCog (and friends) Show!"
The best method I've found has nothing to do with code: team lunches.
Get together in an informal setting where you each talk about your problems, concerns, ideas, etc. This helps team unity in a way that very little else does.
As for the actual code side of it, minimize the amount of work they have to do to work inside the framework you want them to. If you want them to use tickets, do the actual management side of things for them -- have them tell you what the ticket is and have you do the actual legwork of managing these things. This seems like it'd take a long time, but overall it's minimal compared to the cost of poor communication and coordination. It pays off very quickly.
For version control, show them why it truly benefits them. Programmers pick up on ideas and run with them when they see they actually help them rather than just being a PITA.
I think developers are really practical people.
Play with those traits of typical developer personality:
1. Creativity
2. Curiosity
3. Practicality
Following your direct example, source control:
Most of us (I mean by my own experience) will fail to see the point in source control in the beginning (just because), so always keep them aware of the reason behind using source control.
Another thing is.. who decided to go on SVN? There are alternatives, I for one would fight to the teeth not to have SVN because I am a Git! (pun intended)
Instead of pulling them by the nose, you should/could have explained to them:
We need source control, find one you like and lets vote it out what we use to control the source.. this way there is a common ownership..and not just a follow the leader exercise.
Another thing is, be flexible in what you implement.
Draw out a plan on necessities, but try to be ready to implement them as the need arises, or as it becomes obvious to all that x, y or z practice should be implemented.
Have them need to implement the tools and resources and planning techniques you know by having them come to you for advice. (this doesn't mean you can't lay out a best practices blog internally or some other way of giving them access to this information beforehand)
Developers like to learn and grow, but we need ownership and understanding in the direction we are going.
If you try to force feed and drive them too much, both you and them will just lose motivation, enlightenment requires self driven forces.
How about the Scrum (even if you don't call it that). Gives everyone a chance to have their say, and you listen. As the forceful personality giving the others a real chance to communicate what's on their mind (not yours) is a good step towards harmony.
On top of that they will learn from your tech experience, you will learn from their ideas and enthusiasm. A good leader is always open to communication, you set the direction and vision (and you did choose the project) they come up with the clever ways of doing it.
I've been in a similar position a number of times.
Sometimes I just take charge, and be damned. Fair enough.
And many times, I resist the urge; I try to encourage my colleagues to take the lead. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.
And sometimes, I just come clean. "I seem to be taking over, as is my nature. But I don't want to railroad you guys. Anyone else fancy taking the lead? If not, are you happy with what I have already suggested? Speak up if you have any good ideas...". Again, sometimes this works, but not always.
Ultimately, you can 'lead the horse to water'... Projects need the lead, if no-one else rises to the challenge, it is better that you do.
Once you have the lead, lead by example...
The project should be interesting enough to keep them involve
the technology should be also recent
let them know this is how the industry moves and that they will gain the necessary experience to be in top of other programmers
offer prizes and punish those who break the build
rotate the positions let them test their ability to lead
offer non-monatary prizes or awards
Give them their own areas to "own." Even though they may not take pride in the project, they will want to make their own areas excel. Make they question, can their area be refactor or improved. It will make them learn new techniques or practices.
Allow them to learn by fire (in small phases) and then show them the correct way. Let them fail doing it their way, but allow time for them to do it the proper way.
Update:
Sorry to make the above sound like the team-leader would be the one in control of what is correct. It is mean to be more of a code-review that can be done by any one on the teams. They can move forward with the changes/refactor together as a team.
I am doing my masters degree currently and have had frequent group projects. It is not unusual to have only 1 or 2 members of the group doing the project. Not just from my projects but talking with other people. Basically what you said about the "SquareCog" and friends show is not unrealistic.
Really the more people you have on the group the lazier people will be. Also the more time lost communicating with them as they invent tons of ideas that they have no intention of following through with. It is well known that there is a point where extra programmers do not help the project anymore. There is only so much you can break something up. Over doing it will slow things down more than just giving a part to one person and create more dependencies.
Also the average student has a comfort zone, so even if you can get them to do some work, the will stay within their comfort zone. Someone has to leave their comfort zone for most projects (unless someone already knows the information in the class) to succeed. Most of the time I find that I am the only one willing to do that in my group, and some groups have no one. The most radical example was a 7 person project where almost no one did anything. One other guy was willing to do some light sys admin tasks and then the web design, that were within his comfort zone. One girl did some database design (and I do mean some because I basically did the design as a high level outline that she formalized with column names/data types). The rest did absolutely nothing. The class was distributed systems, so someone needed to learn JBoss (and Enterprise Java Beans), Amazon Web Services, etc... But it doesn't matter the class. In a data mining class, someone will have to figure out which techniques to use and how to use the toolkit.
Also many students are not good programmers. In fact there was someone in one of my groups who couldn't program at all. Really based on his description an MBA sounded like the right degree for him, but anyway he went through with the Masters in CS by farming out his programming to friends/contractors... Many are just terrible programmers and not just in style, they couldn't debug hello world with visual studio.... Rather than understand what went wrong they will just keep adding code until it works by coincidence.
One thing that happens quite often is that people come up with fairly ambitious projects that are not realistic for a semester. Usually I end up taking he scissors and cutting it to a barebones project and offer that once we finish the barebones part, then we can refine it and add the more advanced stuff. What almost always ends up happening is that people drag out finishing it and in the end after we get the barebones done no one wants to do anything additional.
There are 2 types of grad students. Full time grad students who take 4-5 classes, in which case they cannot afford to spend 40/80 or even 20 hour work weeks working on the project. Or part time grad students who have a day job, in which case they take 1 or 2 classes and have a full time job so they have even less time. I would say as a general estimate you can figure 6 hours of homework per graduate class (most will spend less). Assuming a normal class, probably 3-4 or that needs to be spent on studying/reading for the class. This leaves 2-3 hours per week per person to work on the project. Even getting that much would be good.
Some of the ideas floated like team lunches are not realistic at all. Many grad classes have group projects, and the full timers can't do 4 or 5 team lunches per week, that is like 5 hours of wasted time per week that could be spent on a rpoject. Also there may be money issues if you go to restaurants and expect all to buy lunch. And for someone who goes part time like me, I'm not going to do a team lunch because I work 9-6+ or 8-5 on college nights.
Probably your best bet is to find people's comfort zones and figure out tasks you can assign to them. Also to identify the freeloaders and not waste your time with them.
Also using version control for a school project seems like overkill. If the whole class is just the project maybe not. But assuming it is a normal class with lectures, exams, and homework assignments with the project done on the side, then any time spent on infrastructure is time you are not getting the project done. Really, though unrealistic for a professional environment, school projects are like start ups. Get them done, even if the code is a mess. You can always clean up later. But if you don't get it done, your grade will suffer. And in reality once it is done, I don't want to clean it up and no one else does either.... Getting everyone to use source control (unless you share a machine) would waste a lot of time with set up issues, and adjusting people to using it. i don't know what your project is. But with many graduate projects you have to do some research/experimentation and then the programming code is relatively simple. One class got me with a 5,000 line project, lucky it wasn't a group project.
Again on the project keep it simple. You can just coordinate the parts, assign the different parts and as they are done check/test it and then integrate it with your version control and leave them free to work on the project whatever is most comfortable.
Many will be happy to let you design the thing, implement the thing, and then learn absolutely nothing and just get the grade. It is their loss because they won't get the lessons of the project. But they are quite happy with squarecog and friends being just squarecog. Some will want to contribute something, but they are in the minority. If you get one of them great for you!!! Also watch out for over engineering. You have to look at things realistically. 3 hours per week per group member would be great, but I find even that is unrealistic. When a project is due sometimes you might get 5 or 10 hours per week from someone who slacked off. But you can't expect more.
How to Win Friends and Influence People has the following suggestions:
Fundamental Techniques in Handling
People
Don't criticize, condemn, or complain.
Give honest and sincere appreciation.
Arouse in the other person an eager want.
Six Ways to Make People Like You
Become genuinely interested in other people.
Smile.
Remember that a man's Name is to him the sweetest and most important
sound in any language.
Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
Talk in the terms of the other man's interest.
Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely.
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way
of Thinking
Avoid arguments.
Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never tell someone
they are wrong.
If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Start with questions the other person will answer yes to.
Let the other person do the talking.
Let the other person feel the idea is his/hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
Sympathize with the other person.
Appeal to noble motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge & don't talk negative when the person is
absent, talk about only positive.
Be a Leader: How to Change People
Without Giving Offense or Arousing
Resentment
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
Call attention to other people's mistakes indirectly.
Talk about your own mistakes first.
Ask questions instead of directly giving orders.
Let the other person save face.
Praise every improvement.
Give them a fine reputation to live up to.
Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct.
Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest.
In addition to this, "Top Three Motivators For Developers (Hint: not money!)" notes the Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose ideas that can also be great motivators for people when it comes to creative work.