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
From time to time, there will be student attached to our projects, i would certainly like to assign him/her many things to do so can learn more. But alot of times we are resigned to assigning stuff like documentaiton, updating of ui mockup screens etc. As problem is that is it bit hard to trust the quality of work provided by students and another thing is that they are still young and their enthusiam may not be there.
How do we better utilize them such that they really cut down our workload and also in turns mean learning more stuff which will aid them in their future job opportunies?
I am afraid it might sound disappointing but it is not the best idea to utilise students to cut your organisational unit workload down. Probably, if your goal is cutting workload the best thing is not to take students. Read on to understand why.
Though you haven't specified the level of work-related expertise the students possess, nor did you mention the duration of their attachment, I assume from the tone of your question that their expertise is not sufficient to hit the ground running. It is also reasonable to assume that they are not staying for longer than 2-3 months.
The essential benefits your organisation can extract even given the limited timeframe are:
Notice and grab talented workers before they even get to the job market. Later in their working life they are likely not to be that easily available.
Turn every student into your organisation salesman. Let them tell everyone how good your product is, bring you in contracts in the future or make their peers envy their work experience increasing the pool of good candidates for your company.
Outsiders can help cast a fresh eye on your processes, procedures, product, expose inefficiencies etc.
Learn from them the latest stuff taught at universities.
Boost your time morale: Maslow theory, "esteem needs". Even the most junior member of your team becomes somewhat more senior, since these students have yet to achieve that position.
Cutting down workload means that you'd need to find a set of tasks which is fairly independent, does not require knowledge or skills that the students do not have and needs much of your team's time to transfer. The tasks cannot be strategically important in case they cock it up, not can it be operationally important. Hence you left with some dusty requests for management reports or research and development projects.
Chances are that R&D considered to be more desired work within your organisation and if you give exclusively to students some people feelings are going to get hurt.
How long are the students around for? When we have had students on-site for up to two weeks there was not much other then testing type work we could give them.
If the student has enthusiasm you code do some pair programming through a bug and let them write the unit tests for verifying the fix.
Even if you don't normally do pair programming, I find that with a junior dev it is sometimes productive to have him/her do pair programming with a more experienced developer, for the following reasons:
I wouldn't assign coding tasks to the junior developer alone, because his code would have to be closely reviewed by someone else anyway and quite probably rewritten or changed substantially.
On the other side, how can a junior developer learn if not by programming? So, you want him participating in some way in programming tasks.
You get some of the advantages of pair programming: the most experienced dev is less prone to make silly mistakes (even a very junior programmer can point things like 'hey, you made a typo there') and less likely to goof off checking stackoverflow.com every 10 minutes during the pair programming session.
Of course I also would rotate the junior with several seniors during the day, so they don't feel 'slowed down' or annoyed by the young guy for extended periods of time.
Why not assign one or more engineers as "sheperds" to the student and let them oversee their work or even better pair with them. The student will gain a good understanding of your project and real work and have a known fallback when in trouble and someone who can give provide direction.
The sheperd/mentor gains a fresh perspective, and the joy of teaching.
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 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
If you are the lead programmer at a company and you need to complete a project that would require skills/knowledge that no one at the company currently has, what do you do?
I am not talking about something simple you can ask for help on stack-overflow for but for complex problems that you do not feel comfortable tackling and would take a significant amount of learning to be ready.
So at the point whats the best step to take?
Be honest with your management team, make sure they know. Don't ever try to mislead people about the scope of your knowledge - it doesn't impress them and only causes you problems.
Work with your team to evaluate your options - it may be possible to change technologies, or perhaps someone else in the organization can help mentor or support you. Changing course earlier on is easier and less expensive than later.
Adjust your project timeline to take into account the potential risk and delays caused by working beyond your core strengths. If you don't have enough knowledge to estimate the risk, be very conservative in the confidence factor of your estimates and timeline.
Look for an expert in the domain/technology and see if you can engage them either as a consultant or advisor on your project. Nothing makes a bigger difference than prior experience in a domain.
Take some time to try to create a simpe prototype or proof-of-concept in the domain/technology you will be working on. Look for possible issues that could emerge. Sometimes unexpected problems surface when you try to create a simple prototype - this can help steer the effort when working on the real thing.
See if the scope of your project can be scaled back. If you are already "behind the curve" the best way to improve your odds of success is tackling something smaller, rather than larger.
Seek out advise from people you trust. Especially people whose expertise and knowledge has some bearing on the problem or technology you're taking on. They may be able to give your more specific advise or ideas.
You have to take it outside the company to someone (person or consultancy) that can complete it. This means a contractor/consultant that will be with you for a temporary period of time. If possible have them work in house with your and your team and make part of their responsibility to train you.
You may have to explain to management that without this, the project could fail and will probably be late and over budget. Don't worry about outsourcing some projects - you and your team will still have lots of work.
Temporarily hire someone who has the expertise you're missing, and make sure they're prpared to transfer their knowledge to others in your team as well as work on the problem at hand. Be prepared to pay serious money; but if the problem really is complex, chances are you'd take much longer, get a much worse result, and pay more overall if you try to figure out out without any help.
First, +1 to Borgwardt, Oded, Bushkin. Great answers here. Now my two cents...
Your path forward should consider whether this is a skill/technology i.e. "capability" that your company needs to have internally. Depending on this, take the advice of either #Oded (Outsource) or #Michael Borgwardt (hire a contractor to do some knowledge transfer), or spend a lot of time (if you have it) and develop the capability on your own. For example, suppose you're going to interface with some purchased package that spits out magic numbers in some binary format. Hire a contractor to write the interface. Suppose your VP of fulfillment wants you to interface with a FedEx web service, and nobody at your company knows SOAP. And you know that more SOAP is coming, for all suppliers and partners. You'll need SOAP skills in-house, so get some training, do a prototype, and maybe bring in some outside help.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a first time intern at a large corporation and I created a GUI tool that lets my coworkers visualize the log file that their product produces. The tool, known as MRI, is nearing completion and I face a conflict.
One party, (Two ambitious Indian guys that live in California) want me to adapt MRI to a new format and to display much more detailed information. The current version of MRI is built around the idiosyncrasies of the 20 year old log file format. In my opinion it is a bad idea to attempt to grow a more powerful, more universal tool out of a less powerful and idiosyncratic one (Better to start from scratch; something I probably don't have time to do).
The other party is composed of several marketing types and my father. They are drooling over the shiny new GUI that I slapped on top of their crazy old log file, and every one of them wants some feature that would help them with their day to day work.
Whom should I please? I just want to code. Which path will lead to less dumb conflicts like this?
Sounds like you are getting your first taste of the world of a manager! I'm doing exactly the same thing 10 years later, with a much bigger budget and head count. So it never really ends.
I love the answer about doing some time estimates for each requested addition, and then sitting down all parties and working on a negotiation that gets the greatest degree of satisfication. I'm betting that since you are an intern, and many of the people you mention have seniority, that they will be able sort out amongst themselves who has the biggest stake and most power in the situation. But if not, don't hesitate to act as moderator -- after all, this is your project.
Other things to think about:
Types of stake holders:
Customers - the person who controls the budget is often the most powerful of stakeholders, after all, they control your ability to do the work by controlling your funding. For an internal tool, this is probably an internal stakeholder, but it may be someone from a non-engineering group, if this tool is for a non-engineering purpose.
Users - in the long run, users often make or break a tool. They definitely determine the tool's longetivity. It's not unusual, though, for users to lack advocates. And in a big internal project, it's entirely possible that users are not the customers.
Technical Management - particularly when you are an intern and when you are working on an internal project, technical management is the group that's most important for you (as an individual) to please. They may have their own stake in the feature set, as they may be looking for a certain feature path for the product that fits a long term technological end game. Ideally, they should be on your side, and helping to figure out the best feature set.
In a big company, hopefully these roles are really well defined. Probably with an org chart. But not necessarily. And in a group that's used to working together, they may not make it really clear to a new comer exactly what the official roles are. As the guy doing the work, you're job should be to accurately and honestly tell them your best guess on what effort it will take to get the feature done. And to be open to ideas for making it cheaper/easier.
Negotiation:
The best negotiation advice I've ever gotten was "A good negotiation is one where everyone thinks they won". Sadly, the frequent outcome is that everyone feels equally screwed. The trick between every stakeholder leaving happy and every stakeholder feeling beaten down is to see the big picture and be innovative about getting everyone's needs met. In the end, no one really cares how you do it, if you can make their jobs easier, they will be happy. So finding features that serves everyone well can be the key to resolving the conflict.
Being able to do this well will really make a positive impact on your bosses. This is an extremely rare skill, and this type of finesse does get noticed.
Not having it does not mark you as a pariah, however, not many engineers enjoy negotiation. And it's never worth making every engineer be good at it. It's far better to find an engineering manager who is good at negotiating and to let them be the "speaker for the geeks", so the rest of the engineers can do their work in peace. :)
Sit the two parties down in the same room. Show them a list of the features each has asked for and how long you think each will take. Then explain that all of it is possible but all of it takes time, and ask them to come to agreement on what they would like when. Note down what is agreed and mail it to everyone afterwards so there is a record. Don't forget to pad your estimates to allow for testing and debugging time.
Alternatively, work out who the person directly responsible for managing you is, implement what they tell you (feeding back estimates of how long each thing will take) and tell anyone else who asks you to implement anything to go talk to that person to get it on your schedule; then doing the above management work becomes their problem.
Explain, if doing one of the above does not cause the matter does not resolve itself, that the Californians' features would require a refactor, and if you are going to do that you would rather hold off implementing any features for the other party until that is complete since doing the same work twice is wasteful.
Closed. This question 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
We are a small team (3 developers) and one of our main clients is about to submit a bunch of new feature requests and a follow on project to us to get estimates on cost and delivery times. Our last project with them was a 'success' in that they are coming back to us but I know we could have done a much better job (we used waterfall... testing was an after thought and as a result unit-testing code coverage is significantly lower than we feel comfortable with, not to mention the never-ending 'we are ALMOST done' problem).
I have just finished reading 'Art of Unit Testing' and 'Working Effectively with Legacy Code' and I have used TDD on a pet project of mine outside of work and now I can never go back to waterfall and testing after the fact.
What I want to know is are there are good 'easy to digest' videos for non-developers that clearly show the benefits of TDD along with Agile practices in a business sense? I'd be super happy if there are any sub 10 minutes videos but I'm also OK with longer videos (and I will reference them to a time index in it). If there are no good videos then a written source is next best thing.
I want nothing more than for them to be on board and really excited with the transition.
For me it is not an option to 'just do it' as there will definitely be a learning curve for the other two developers and without doubt the first number of iterations may be stressful and bumpy and that needs to be communicated to our client.
[I have answered my own question below with a number of videos I found since asking the question... they are not perfect for my use but definately my plan B if no-one else knows of a better one]
Technical debt kills velocity. Thus, I like to include "No increased technical debt" in the Definition of Done. Without this, you can't achieve sustainable pace. This is illustrated by the picture below (borrowed from the Technical Debt - How not to ignore it presentation from Henrik Kniberg):
alt text http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/329/screenshotkq.png
To me, all these things are obvious and you can even prove it with numbers (by measuring the velocity over time). Explain these concepts to your client, explain him that TDD is one of the techniques allowing to control technical debt. Then, let him choose (or choose for him).
How you run your project internally is your business. Don't involve them in this decision. They are not experts in software development processes. Ask them about business requirements and things they know about.
Sound like you are doing this to improve project quality. Do you think it will cost more to do TDD? Why work to convince them of something and then ask their approval? Did you ask if you could do waterfall on the last project?
Why would your client even notice the transition to TDD? Stressful, bumpy; how so?
Tell the client why you are upgrading to TDD. I'm sure the reasons are as compelling to them as they are to you. To me, TDD first of all means a much greater sense of reliability on what you produce.
Surely your client remembers all the regressions and manual testing from your last project?
I don't know of any specific illustrations for you (the web is full of articles and blogs, but I'm not aware of any videos), but you pretty much answered your own question...
we used waterfall... testing was an after thought and as a result unit-testing code coverage is significantly lower than we feel comfortable with, not to mention the never-ending 'we are ALMOST done' problem
You just need to be honest with your client. Explain to them what the project methodology you used on your last project cost them in terms of flexibility, maintainability, and your ability to confidently provide them with quality code. Explain to them how TDD addresses that, and explain that you anticipate a slower start due to using a new methodology.
Illustrate for them, as concretely as possible, what they will gain, and it should be an easy sell. I would, however, approach it more from the "this is what we're planning on doing" angle, rather than the "can we please do this?" angle. Give them the impression (without being dishonest) that you are already planning on going this way and any change to that plan will be an inconvenience to you and your team, and will likely cost them productivity.
I'm not aware of any videos, but explain to them that it took you N man-hours to redesign a certain feature on the last project due to original design not being correct taht was not caught until you started testing; and with TDD it would take M (<<N) man-hours since you would not spend the extra hours working based on a bad design/bug as happened last time.
Also, explain that the confidence level of having less buggy software will be raised by Y percent due to thought-out tests.
Then explain you estimate X hours for learning curve on the FIRST peoject, and ask them if the given benefits on ALL future projects will be worth it, when the initial time investment is depreciated across those.
Firstly, unit testing isn't unique to Agile methodologies; I've been around a while and have seen it used on waterfall projects. In fact, I heard of unit testing long before I heard of Agile!
Afraid I can't point you to any videos that will help convince a client to switch development methodologies. Google may help though; if not with videos, then maybe with studies, blogs, etc.
Anyway, one suggestion for improving the chances that the client will accept your reduced productivity during your learning curve is to reduce his costs somehow. E.g. if you're billing by the hour either charge less by the hour for time spent learning, or just don't bill for those learning hours.
I spent the time since asking this question looking for the best videos I could and I've come across a number that are very close to what I need. I will post them here so that others will find them if they are in a similar position to me.
I realise that I asked more about TDD - but these videos capture a good portion of the message I'm trying to drive home... especially 'Why does Agile Software Development Pay' and 'Scrum in under 10 minutes'... it is the process of being responsive to change, producing higher quality code, having fewer defects and faster development cycles.
Agile vs waterfall: A Tale of Two Teams (8:20)
Why does Agile Software Development Pay? (5:03)
Scrum Basics (5:50)
Scrum in under 10 minutes (7:59)
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 lead a small group of programmers in a university setting, having just moved into this position last year. While the majority of our team are full time employees, we have a couple of people who are traditionally graduate assistants.
The competition for these assistantships is fairly intense, as they get free graduate school tuition on top of their salary while they have the job. We require that they sign up for at least a year, though we consider ourselves lucky if they stay for two. After that, they get their master's degree and move on to bigger and better things.
As you can imagine, hiring and re-training these positions is time- and resource-intensive. To make matters worse, up to now they have typically been the sole developer working on their respective projects, with me acting in an advisory and supervisory role, so wrangling the projects themselves to fight the entropy as we switch from developer to developer is a task unto itself.
I'm tempted to bring up to the administrators the possibility of hiring a full- (and long-haul) developer to replace these two positions, but for a school in a budget crisis, paying for two half-time graduate assistants is far cheaper (in terms of salary and benefits) than paying for one full-time developer. Also, since I'm new to this position, I'd like to avoid seeming as though I'm not able to deal with what I signed up for. For the forseeable future, I don't think the practice of hiring short-term graduate assistants is going to change.
My question: What can I do to create an effective training program considering that the employees may be gone after as little as a year on the job?
How much time should I invest in training them, and how much would simply be a waste of time?
How much time should they take simply getting acclamated to our process and the project?
Are there any specific training practices or techniques that can help with this kind of situation?
Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before?
Do I worry too much, or not enough?
By the way, and for the record, we do the vast majority of our development in Perl. It's hard to find grad students who know Perl, while on the other hand everybody seems to have at least an academic understanding of Java. Hence this question which I asked a while back.
Why don't you ask the students what they find difficult and make cheat sheets, lectures, etc. for the parts of the job that they have trouble with? Maybe you need to create some introductory Perl lectures or purchase some dead trees. How about a Safari subscription at O'Reilly? I'd ask the students how they prefer to learn, though, before embarking on a training project. Everyone has different learning styles.
I'd also spend some time and capital creating a culture of professional software development at work. It'll be tough since academic programmers are often neophytes and used to kludging up solutions (I'm an academic programmer, btw) but the students will thank you in the long run. Maybe you can all go out to lunch once a week to discuss programming and other topics. You might also want to take some time to do code reviews so people can learn from each other.
With high turnover you definitely need to ensure that knowledge transfer occurs. Make sure you are using source code control and that your students understand proper commenting. I'd also make the students create brief documentation for posterity. If they are getting credit, make them turn in a writeup of their progress once a semester. You can put this in a directory in the project's repository for anyone who inherits it. As mentioned in other posts, a group wiki can really help with knowledge transfer. We use Mediawiki in our group and like it a lot.
One last thing I should add is that I find it helps to keep a list of projects for new developers that relatively easy and can be completed in a month or so. They are a great way for new people to get acclimated to your development environment.
This is a relative question, and should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If the new hire already knows Perl, you don't need to go over this piece of training (yes, you could put Perl as a mandatory prerequisite, but that would significantly limit your applicant pool), and their first bit of training should be something like fixing a bug in an existing application or walking them through an application they will maintain. Though, given that the developers are only there for a year makes me think the development styles are going to vary some (if not a lot).
Getting the new person up to speed with your process is very important, as long as your process works. In this high turnover environment, you should put a strong emphasis on documentation in your process. A Wiki is a great thing to have for this documentation, since it's centralized and any of the developers can access it. Having them try to figure out how a project works by themselves (with little to no documentation) is a waste of both their time and your time.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into the question, but if your university teaches java, why are you using Perl? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the tools that your students already know? This alone would cut the learning curve significantly. [once you eliminate the legacy code of course]
other than that, try:
break the projects up into month-sized bites
overlap the internships by at least 2 months, if not 6, so the new guy can work with and be trained by the old guy(s)
document whatever repeatable processes you have (as was suggested by Mark Nold)
if the grad students are cheaper than full-time pros, quit whinin' ;-) If not, go for the pros.
Have you considered making a "three ring binder" like Macdonalds and many other high turn over industries have? Have one folder which you can print out and hand to the new hire which shows the new hire some basics of getting up and running with Perl in your environment. This should be a "hello world", plus some basic regex and array manipulation. Lastly your manual should go on to show examples of the 5 things you find yourself doing all the time.
The example code may be authenticating users against an external security system, walking through recordsets or using ghostscript to create PDFs. Whatever they are, they should cover the basics of what you meet 80% of the time. More importantly the examples should show users how you expect the code to be written for clarity (eg: naming and approach), and give them some insight into servers and software in use and other practicalities which a generic book won't show them.
You won't get the binder right first time, but since you have a high staff turn over, you'll have plenty of time to test and improve it.
On top of this i would pick a single Perl programming book and give the new user their own copy of your three ring binder, plus "Programming Perl" to keep on their first day. At a cost of $50 per hire i'm sure it's a lot cheaper than the alternatives and you'll have them flipping burgers.... i mean cutting code in no time.
My initial couple of thoughts are that you should:
hire for the position, i.e. it's Perl-centric so make that a big part of the pre-requisites. That way you don't need that piece of training as well.
invest time in the on-boarding process, maybe use a wiki so that you can easily update it to help bringing them on-board.
Edit: Some extra points:
maybe have a chat and see if Perl can be introduced into the curriculum? If not, then make it known six months before the ads go up that applicants need to know Perl. This way you'll get people who have Perl experience and who have actively demonstrated their motivation.
can you open up some small projects so that they could be done by potential candidates during this six months?
approach the design of your large-scale projects so that they can be done in a piece meal manner. This is how The ACE Components have been done iirc.
allow a specific period for documentation and review of the work done by the departing grad student.
allow an overlap period of at least a couple of weeks where the new grad student can work with the departing grad student. They can learn the development environment and they can be guinea pigs for any updates to your wiki.
Still more to come...
HTH
cheers
That is a pickle, but it is not as uncommon in the commercial sector as you would think. I heard a statistic once that the average tenure of a programmer industry-wide is about 18-24 months. Normally I would suggest getting more experienced programmers who would require less ramp-up time and only need to be trained on the problem domain/technology updates and not the basics
I think your best bet is just to ask for about 30-50% more grad students than it will take to actually perform the job to account for the learning and ramp-up time and invest in some additional resources for testing as this environment is a recipe for mistakes since everyone is learning on the job. Also, this is probably difficult given the academic schedule, but try to stagger the start dates as much as possible to maximize the overlap between employees. Pair-programming teams of new-hires/old-hires might also help increase consistency and supplement the training without sacrificing too much productivity.
How much time should I invest in training them, and how much would simply be a waste of time?
Answer: It's not the amount of time or the amount of waste, but perhaps the approach. Would it be possible to video train - video yourself training one person and provide it as training for subsequent students/developers. You can add over time, but it does reduce your time needed to go through the same process.
How much time should they take simply getting acclamated to our process and the project?
Answer: This is all dependent on the person...min. of a day max of 2-3 weeks I would guess on avg.
Are there any specific training practices or techniques that can help with this kind of situation?
Answer: Video training (home made), having the current student/developer create/update a wiki of needed info, points of interest, etc.
Has anyone dealt with a similar situation before?
Answer: Use to be a 12-18 month avg. turnover - I would imagine that it's changed now (longer), but every company has turn-over, but perhaps not forced like yours due to the resource being students.
Do I worry too much, or not enough?
Answer: Knowledge lost through transition is a key risk area...
Is the application something you could consider open-sourcing?