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 11 years ago.
As a ASP.NET developer with 5+ year experience. I like to measure my competency level in ASP.NET & SQL Server. Basically my goal is to raise my competency level and skill-set in ASP.NET; before that I need to know what is my level considering current ASP.NET and related technologies...
So, please provide some pointers...
Is there are any skill-set measuring Quiz or exam, which account experience and technology ?
How do you measure your or your junior developers skills or competency?
I guess I could rattle off some exams, like the MCP exams, or BrainBench, but you have to pay lots of money for those.
If you were really sold on taking an exam to gauge your competency, you could get a one of the MCP exam prep guides for ASP.NET, C#, and SQL Server and see how well you comprehend and take in that material. I'm not sure that it's the most accurate way of measuring competency though.
You can get a good qualitative evaluation of your SQL Server skills by simply reading Itzik's or Kalen's books and seeing how you comprehend them. For .NET, read Richter and critically evaluate yourself against the concepts you find in that book. Do those concepts make sense?
Probably the most valuable way to get feedback is to ask your senior developers for a frank evaluation of your skills.
If you're asking how I evaluate my junior developers, it's pretty easy once I see their code and they get a track record for a few months, but I don't believe quantitative analysis is the best way. Instead, I ask questions like:
Can they deliver?
Are they writing good code?
Are they taking the initiative to learn more?
What have they brought to the table?
Do they understand the software development lifecycle?
Do they break builds?
Are they good team players, or do they code in solitude?
Do they make suggestions?
Are they open to others' suggestions?
Do their design decisions make sense for the projects they've been on?
Ask yourself how your leaders would answer these questions about you. If you are seriously confident that they will respond positively, you will have an easier time "grading yourself".
Honestly, it's all relative. I've worked on teams where the junior devs from one team out-class the senior devs from the other team in every way. Different environments are going to value different skill sets in different ways.
As for a "test" of your skills, a pretty handy one would just be right here on StackOverflow. Look for .NET questions, try to answer them. The ones you can't answer, learn from those who do answer them. Rinse, repeat. It's not very structured, but it can definitely be helpful.
It's also good just to follow some of the major blogs and see if you can keep up with what they're talking about and try to implement some of it on personal side projects just to learn and practice.
The only way to really measure your skill level is to push it forward. Find stuff you don't fully grok and learn it. A truly skilled developer is never an expert, but rather just more of an expert than he was yesterday.
When asked on similar lines , I read it from somebody here on SO that
he will try to answer the questions on SO.
Let me rephrase it,
I will try to measure my performance with somebody's questions and answers.
Having said that i won't compare my competence with collective knowledge here on SO.
This is usually pretty specific to the company. There will be a bunch of criteria that the developer must meet before they get a promotion or advance to a higher level.
The hierarchy is usually pretty similar; with general (cumulative) criteria for progress to the next level. In my experience it is something like the following:
1 Graduate/recent work experience
Fair understanding of basic language concepts (agnostic).
Good all-round technical knowledge. Demonstrable
Problem solving skills. Numeric and verbal skills. Generally competent
Shows passion for a certain part of the domain.
Not a crazy person.
2 Junior/Trainee Developer
Good understanding of the primary language they use.
Makes use of de facto tools and technologies to deliver software.
Has delivered software on time and schedule.
Trusted to deliver components with guidance from more senior developers.
Can (and does) participate in design meetings and code reviews.
Has a good understanding of how the company works as a whole.
Understands unit testing and test driven development.
Fair understanding of source control and continuous integration.
3 Developer
Advanced understanding of the primary language.
Demonstrates skill in at least one other language.
Demonstrates the passion to learn more about their language.
Makes good use of design patterns when developing software to write maintainable code.
Actively seeks to improve process and efficiency.
Delivers components to a high level of quality.
Has the ability to lead a small team of developers to produce components.
Good understanding of test driven development, unit testing, mocking and stubs.
Good source control management knowledge: branching, merging, tags.
Can lead a code review with a junior developer and supervise their work.
Requires minimal guidance from more senior developers.
History of delivering quality software, on time
4 Senior Developer
Excellent understanding of their primary language
Good skills in other useful languages in the domain. In general, has a passion for learning about other languages and how the company could benefit from employing it/these to aid development
Great understanding of the domain, all of the components within it and all interactions between. This knowledge can easily be transferred to less senior developers.
Can design beautiful software
Actively seeks to improve development process and efficiency. Demonstrates languages and technologies in this area.
Fully understands the development process from start to finish.
Can lead a large team of developers to successful and timely project completion.
History of delivering excellent software and designs.
5 Lead Developer
King
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
We are acting Scrum in our department now. But the up level management structure is traditional, such as Project Manager(PM), Development Manager(DM), Team Leader(TL) and Test team leader(TTL).
Team Leader act as a Scrum master, he controls all the things in our team: communicated with PM/DM/TTL, development management... Our PO's responsibility is just maintaining PBL.
Our managers and team member are accustomed to the traditional management type, they do not care Scrum, and they said some Scrum rules are hidebound.
I act as another SM, I want to change the current status.
But I haven't any headship, just is an ordinary developer in our department. Does anyone has this kind of bother too?
Thanks in advance!
I heard a lovely saying once and can't remember who said it. "They want Agile but they don't know what it is - so we give them Agile but we don't know what they want."
It sounds as if this is happening in your company. Someone, somewhere wants the team to use Scrum, but it's not the team.
That must be a difficult job for an SM, especially if you're doing it unofficially! There are some things I can suggest for you. First, learn some basic coaching techniques: positive language, GROW framework and giving and receiving feedback. This will give you some additional tools which are outside of Scrum and support someone in a leadership rather than a management position (even an unofficial SM can become a leader).
Then, don't worry about the actual practices. If someone has mandated Scrum then the team will be forced to do this anyway. Instead, concentrate on the values and principles of Scrum - particularly collaboration, communication and transparency. Help the team to work with each other instead of being silo'd away. You will have to be an example for them. Don't mandate pair programming, but do go over and pair. Don't mandate stand-ups, but do have conversations first thing in the morning and draw in as many people on the team as you can. Look at the principle of "Continuous Improvement". Learn how to do root cause analysis and the 5 Why's so that the team can understand better why things are hard and take action themselves.
I also recommend Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising "Fearless Change". This will help you to work out who else could help you.
Finally, I will echo #sjt. Don't commit Scrum suicide. However, if it's something you really want and your company aren't doing it in the right way, don't be afraid to look elsewhere. Learn some of the fundamentals, practice TDD on your own and find a new job.
Whatever you do, good luck! The first step to change is desire.
If you don't have buy in from your other developers its not going to work. Period.
Scrum requires a heap of discipline, especially during the early adoption phase.
I wouldn't be bothered that management don't care for it. If you're free to do the work of developing the software, and all they care about is results, then it shouldn't matter if you happen to have a 10 minute stand up each morning, and plan small chunks of the work into manageable bits, as long as you're hitting the targets they want you to hit.
If you're team isn't on board though, you're going to have a really hard time getting it working, and it will probably fail and cause more impact that not having tried at all.
If you can try to start it in a small project, with a few developers who are on board with the idea, then you can report back to the rest of your development team on how you found it works, what were the benefits and what were the negatives (reflecting is after all an important part of Scrum).
If you want to get your management on board, you might find that after doing a few projects this way you're much better at estimating the time it will take to develop the requirements you've been given by the PMs, hopefully being able to hit deadlines with more accuracy.
Remember, the PMs and BAs can still work in their normal way, once they've handed requirements to you, you're able to build them using Scrum. Its not ideal, but short of having the buy in of everyone, and the ability to speak directly to users and get them to help write user stories, it will be the best you've got.
When asked to estimate the time it will take to complete the project you can apply Scrum techniques. You can break the specifications down into smaller chunks, group them into sprints and develop them accordingly, hopefully yielding better results.
"I act as another SM, I want to change the current status"
Well, that's a good start right there, wanting to change the situation. Although I must say that without the management buy in, it will be tough. Try and arrange an experienced Scrum Speaker or Agile Coach come and do a presentation or workshop at your company which involves all the upper management. Once you have the management believing in Scrum, it will be all downhill from there.
"Team Leader act as a Scrum master, he controls all the things is our team"
This goes against the Self Organized and Self empowering Teams principle in Scrum. A good Scrum Master would empower the Team in a disciplined fashion within the Scrum Rules, to that appropriate level that, the Team should be able to run on it's own. One suggestion is that the Team Leads need to have a different mindset when working as a SM and different one while working as a Senior Developer, there are no Team Leads in a Scrum Team, only Scrum Team members. You cannot assign true leadership, that is a mutual role which can be earned by creating a reputation of helping others and mentoring others. Have them spit time between SM and development duties 30%, 70% or 50-50 or whatever you find appropriate. Command and control could be counter productive for the Team.
Our managers and team member are accustomed to the traditional management type, they do not care Scrum
A Scrum Trainer had told once told me, "Do not commit Scrum Suicide". If your managers do not care about Scrum, don't get fired trying to convince them. Whatever methodology you guys might follow or "not" follow, you have to realise that all this is a business. Your pay check is dependent on your boss's approval, if your boss or manager does not care about Scrum, then don;t do it. If they care about waterfall, Switch to it, do it like you care, but don't do Scrum halfway and call it scrum.
What has worked for me in the past is to identify and communicate pain-points. Certainly, you should never do something because Kent Beck told you to, especially something that will just get you fired. However, some smart people worked at figuring out a set of practices which is cohesive, and divergence from these practices almost always leads to pain points.
As just one example: if you do Scrum where you have a requirements iteration, a design iteration, an implementation iteration, and a testing iteration, this in theory could work but in practice never does. (When it does, it ends up being Waterfall, and the "iteration" notion becomes meaningless.) Pointing out to your boss that you learned something about the requirements while QA was testing might help him realize there's value in getting QA involved in requirements. Or finding risks in the software design by doing a small prototype may help to show why it might help to collapse the design iteration.
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 11 years ago.
I would prefer if those who answer this question state whether or not they have experience developing in an Agile Environment or if they are speaking from a theoretical standpoint.
Backstory:
Let's say there is an opportunistic company that develops technologically innovative products (multi-touch interfaces, speech recognition devices, etc, etc) all of which are fundamentally unrelated. However, as one may see, the key advantage of working on products like these are that libraries can be created / extracted from the product and sold to other companies, developers, etc. Thus, working in an incremental fashion is advantageous as it allows the milestones to be separated from the final product.
Question1 : Is this advantageous from a business standpoint? Have any of you encountered the separating of libraries into individual products within your company?
Question2 : If products are indeed created in such an incremental manner, does Scrum seem like a valid methodology to apply?
Let's assume that this incremental process of creating components to piece together into a final application is set in place. The development team is initially very small, 6 or 7 people. For the fun of it, let's call this team a Guild. The company is just starting out, and they need to make something profitable. For argument's sake, let's say the Guild developed the FaceAPI Library. All of this was done within the Scrum methodology, let's say in one sprint. Now, the company has enough funding to employ 7 more people. These new 7 people are put into their own Guild, and their skills mirror the skills of the original Guild.
So now, this company has 2 Guilds, and 1 library off which to develop. Let's say that the one Guild is tasked with creating Product1 using the original library, and the other Guild is tasked with extending the library with more features. These two "sprints" would be carried out concurrently, and at the end the updated library would be merged into the application. As you can see, it is possible that some modifications might need to be made to the library by the team working on Product1, in which case the merge will be non-trivial.
In any case, this is the general idea. The company would have individual Guilds, or teams of people (Question 3: What do you think of this idea? Since teams are smaller, they would want to hire members that have good synergy. Is this likely to increase overall morale and productivity?), which would carry out sprints concurrently. Because of the nature of the service the company offers, the teams would work with more or less the same components, and parts of the applications, however their sprints could be created so that the teams could always carry out work without impediments. Each Guild would be a self-enclosed unit, having testers, designers, and QA's.
Final Questions:
As developers or testers, what are
your opinions on a company that
functions in this manner? Does it
foster leadership skills in
developers? Does it sound appealing?
Does it sound destined to fail?
Anyone with knowledge or experience
with Scrum, does it seem to apply
naturally in this kind of
environment?
Has anyone worked for
a company that functions similarly to
the above description? If you don't
mind answering, what was it called?
Was it successful?
To start with, I have been working on 3 more or less Scrum projects so far.
There are a couple of unclear things in your story. What is the company aiming for - developing libraries or final products? To me the two seems fairly conflicting, especially for a small company.
Another thing is, starting development with a library itself without any real users doesn't sound very agile to me. IMO an agile setup would start the other way around: develop a concrete product first, refactoring the design as dictated by the concrete situation, to possibly arrive to some sort of layered architecture, in which the lower layer(s) could be extracted into a reusable library. Then start developing more concrete products, looking for possibilities to reuse code between the projects, and evolving the design of the common library - again, as dictated by the concrete usage and needs of its clients (the product development teams).
At some point, library development would probably require its own team - in the beginning, it might suffice to have its design and its backlog coordinated between the different teams.
Regarding your question about teams treading on each other's code - this is what source control is for. Fork for the new stuff, then in the next sprint reintegrate and stabilise.
Regarding q2, scrum is an incremental approach so if the design lends itself to incremental segments of work then of course it's appropriate.
Regarding q3, how could it ever be a bad thing to hire "people that would work well within them and that they would want to work with"?
Team organization and system structure are highly dependent. See Conway's Law
This means that for you to have two separate teams working on two separate code modules (the Library team and the product team) you will need to have a clearly defined communication channel between the teams and thus, the code developed will reflect those channels in the design. Traditionally what this means is you end up defining an API or interface for the library which acts like a contract to which each team can develop. Agile practices normally adopt a more emergent design philosophy so it can be difficult to create an API that makes sense.
The way most agile teams get around this is by time boxing development to manageable increments. So while it might be unrealistic to design the entire API, the product team and library team could probably agree on an API design enough for 2 weeks of work. Write the code, deploy, design for the next iteration, and repeat. This way communication paths between the teams and code modules are established so the two teams can work independently without stepping on one another's toes.
Another option I've seen used recently is to have larger teams managed with a Kanban/Limited WIP process. Having everyone on the same team managed by a Kanban allows for more organic and flexible self-organization which means your system will be able to evolve more easily. By keeping work-in-progress highly visible it increases communication and by limiting work-in-progress you constrain developers from clobbering each other by keeping the system from evolving too far in any one direction. Combined with a solid VCS you should be good to go.
Finally, another option is that you take some time to really think about your architecture before diving into development. Using a software architecture design process such as the Architecture Centric Design Methodology (ACDM) in a limited "spike 0" kind of role could help you resolve many of the issues commonly encountered when allowing emergent design. By the end of the design sprint, you'll be able to lay out a plan that makes much more sense for what you need to do. And remember, just because it's a design phase doesn't mean you don't write code - quite the opposite. ACDM advocates strongly for experimentation.
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 11 years ago.
G'day,
I'm always trying to improve my performance as a developer and, after listening to this interesting podcast on the topic, I was wondering if people think it is worthwhile asking for feedback from colleagues.
I am thinking of obtaining feedback anonymously in the manner suggested in the podcast by using the Rypple site. And by asking one single, short question that directly addresses a specific aspect of my work or behaviour. For example, I'm looking at questions such as:
What can I do to improve the way in which the development team and the operational work together?,
How can I help you be more effective in your job interfacing with our major client?,
What parts of my technique could I improve based on the presentation I gave today?
etc.
Edit: I am not talking about general aspects, but specifically about how my performance as a developer can be improved. Communication and working with others is a large part of working with others in a company.
Edit: These additional questions are in response to a comment to my original question by JB King.
Further examples of possible questions that could provide useful feedback to help you improve as a developer are:
Am I becoming too focused or obsessive in my solution toolset?
What technology do you think I should learn to expand the team's capabilities?
What technology do you think I should focus on to improve the team's overall capabilities?
All of these directly address my personal progress as a developer.
cheers,
If you want to get honest feedback about what you are doing, you may want to find someone that observes what you do, and just ask their opinion, perhaps while having a beer. :)
But, it is important that you don't get defensive in any way, as you are asking for honesty.
And, you should consider making changes based on what they say, as that will help others to see that you are not only open to criticism, but willing to adapt, to become a better developer.
But, ultimately, you need to get an idea what type of programmer you want to be. Then it is useful if you have someone that you work with that exemplifies those qualities, then you can develop a relationship to see if they can help you become a better programmer.
For example, I knew an architect who would always pull a chair over and sit down when answering a question, so he was always on the level of the developer. That little action was so impressive to me, as it was a simple action, but it showed a willingness to bring himself to the level of others. That is how I want to be seen as I mentor others.
I think asking for anonymous feedback is bad, in part because it shows that there is a communication problem on the team, where people are not willing to be open with their feelings and opinions. The team lead should deal with that, as it could eventually be damaging to the team, if people keep their true opinions bottled up rather than expressing them, in order to help the team to be better.
I'd actually recommend not being anonymous when asking for criticism. One of your stated goals is to improve communication with colleagues; I think you might improve this better by actually talking with them instead of using a tool.
Being able to take criticism in person will show people you are confident and serious about improving. Face time is unfortunately underrated in our industry.
Yes, asking for feedback from colleagues is worthwhile. Often you don't know what you are doing great and where you could improve without getting at least a second opinion, if not a third, fourth, and so on.
Anonymity gives the benefit that those answering don't have to fear retaliation. Sometimes this works well and the result is honest feedback and sometimes people may enter stupid things trying to be funny. Que sera, sera.
I am not sure much good will come of it. I kinda agree with James on this one.
What might be better is to have some development workshops in your team. You could do it in such a way that each week 1 developer has the floor for an hour. Find a meeting room and a projector (if you have one) and let this developer present his / her discovery to the rest of the team.
At any point in time there are huge changes happening in the industry, so there should be a lot of areas to cover, for example - one week a certain developer could talk on up and coming changes in .net framework v4 (just an example), while another week yet another developer can talk about the benefits of shorter scrum iterations (again just an example).
The idea is the developer shouldn't be forced into presenting, and he/she should decide his or her own topic of interest.
This exercise might help strengthen communication in your team, and in this way the whole team is geared towards improving development skills.
This is the good idea, bad idea which I've seen is to take this idea too far, and expect developers to go away for weekends to so called coding dojos - yeah how fun (not).
Make sure these presentations are happening during normal paid business hours, or you'll have a riot.
"How can we do our jobs more effectively?" is a great question, and well worth asking!
But you should always discuss it openly. It's about as innocent a question as one can ask in the professional world, so if you tell people to discuss it anonymously, they'll think something funny is going on, even if that's not the case. And if you can't discuss such an innocent topic openly, your organization has serious problems.
Also, if you're going to ask questions like that, you need to pay attention to the answers, and either act on them or explain why you won't. People can handle, "Good point, but we're not going to do it that way, here's why." But it's pretty demoralizing to answer a question like that - especially if you made a lot of effort - and then feel like you've been ignored.
A good question that I've found to ask is: "Would you recommend this app to someone else?" and start the conversation there.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I work with scrum about 2 months and don’t have all the experience I wish, so I would like to hear some inputs about it.
My concern is people never say about drawbacks for the two sides; company and workers.
I know the benefits of a cross-functional team but which are the drawbacks? What is hidden beside the amazing Eden Garden?
I'm confused because as a company benefits of replaceable people, for the team is good because the opportunity of having knowledge and share experience (besides all teamwork benefit).
Again, I know all the benefits but I want explore the drawbacks just because in the middle there are the ordinary people.
Normally these people dedicate heavily to gain knowledge. They buy books, courses, attending seminar and so on.
In every company when someone knows much more than everyone else, people and managers get desperate wishing or even demanding that these ordinary people share all their knowledge.
And that’s strange.. Because these are communism thoughts and we live in capitalism society and since I was born, everything was so competed and now people say about collaborative.
Can Scrum and Lean principles ruins (or making hard) the professionals' life?
Scrum and Lean, in and of themselves, cannot ruin anybody's life. Nor can they, alone, make your life.
The culture of your organization will always be a far more dominant factor than the particular product management or development management method in place. Scrum can be misused. Lean can indeed make workers feel replaceable and pressured to perform all day, all the time.
On the other hand, both tools (they are just tools) can be used to create high-performing teams where all members value each other and each others' contributions. Being on a team that delivers consistently good results at high velocity feels great.
You will also find every result in between. It depends much more on culture than process.
I believe that culture flows from the top. Therefore, look at how the company leaders treat each other, their subordinates, their vendors, and their customers. That will tell you much more about what your life will be like than which methodology the company follows.
I'm only going to address your comments about sharing knowledge reducing your own value. In an ideal team culture, knowledge itself isn't as valued as someone's ability to acquire new knowledge and solve problems they haven't seen before. When I think about the star engineers I have known, it's not because they know this or that, it's because it's obvious they could be on nearly any task, on nearly any team and they would both begin to solve the problem and raise the level of the entire team.
There are a few things I've seen from agile methodologies which I'd put against it when you're weighing it up.
From a developers perspective there are two things:
1) The short sprints often lead to short term decisions - which is as intended but can be frustrating for some developers. While delivering "just enough" is great for the project, asking a developer to do something that they know that they're going to have to very heavily refactor, if not rewrite, two sprints down the line can be demotivating.
2) Where you've got opinionated developers (and is there any other sort) I've seen conflict over prioritisation. Adding not only what should be done but how important it is and therefore when it should be done brings on a whole other level of disagreement. In theory the developers don't have a say here but hard delination never works.
From a management point of view they don't like the uncertainty. "When's it going to be ready?" "No idea, when we get to the point you say you're happy". Essentially for them it's a leap of faith - if they do it once then generally they're sold but getting them to do the first time is hard.
I will assume, that as one commentator suggested, you meant to ask: "What are the drawbacks of Scrum?"
I think that the biggest problem with Scrum is that it is easy to understand - but very difficult to implement properly. Scrum, like XP, like most methodologies is not built on individual atomic practices, each capable of improving an existing process.
Scrum requires a shift in the organizational mindset. It requires a shift from ego-centric to communal behavior. The entire organization should focus on bringing the most value, constantly, and do so over perceived self-interest.
For example, a cross-functional team member may be required to do things out of his comfort zone (the flip-side of being able to experiment with new interesting tasks), because it needs to be done by somebody.
Team Leaders and project managers need to relinquish authority when they are called to take on the role of servant-leaders, and when they are asked to stop telling team-members which tasks to pick, instead relying on the team to manage itself.
Stakeholders are forced to face the reality that they can't eat the cake, and have it whole, when they are forced to choose between having all of the scope they want or having it by the date they want it done (this is always true, but Scrum is really in-your-face about it).
Most of all, the drawback of Scrum, is its tendency to disillusion beginning practitioners. This comes from people expecting something from it that it can't deliver: A solution to their problems!
That's right! Scrum does not solve an organizations problems. It highlights them. It is up to the organization to step up to the bat and do something about them. Incidentally, this is done with what I consider to be the single most important ceremony of Scrum - The Retrospective! If you do nothing else in Scrum - do the retrospective:
Find out what you did well, and continue doing it.
Find out what you need to improve and do something to improve it.
Rinse and repeat!
In a presentation by Ken Schwaber to Google on Scrum, he once said that Scrum isn't necessarily good for the organization. It could tell you early on that your project is doomed to fail. If you avoid Scrum, you may have a few more months of ignorant bliss to prepare you for the day you lose your job. Funny, but true. Think on that.
Hope it helps,
Assaf.
I'm no expert in any particular methodology (Agile, Scrum, etc.) but I empathize with your feelings. One of the biggest issues I've seen is that a team that really isn't interested almost unanimously in the methodology will tend to have problems. A few outliers isn't a problem, but if 1/3 or more of the team isn't interested, it becomes a nightmare. Writing good software is important and a company should hire professionals that help them meet that goal, but if the team is forced to meet that objective without finding the experience rewarding the quality will soon drop off.
No, I don't think it will ruin your professional life, but it can be pretty miserable if a company is pig-headed and doesn't realize that they need an environment where their workers are finding rewarding work.
I'm not totally sure of the question because it was kind of hard to follow.
Basically... no? I fail to see how an agile principle could 'ruin a professionals' life'... if implemented incorrectly it could waste some of their time, meaning a small lack of experience gained. Other than that, if the methodology fits the business and is implemented correctly, then is is a powerful tool that is useful to everybody.
Any methodology only works if the people are competent.
Silly question imo.
I've certainly seen things packaged as Scrum and Lean make the development process more difficult. Usually the result of managers picking and choosing the aspects that support their purpose, without buying in to the underlying spirit. Any process can work if properly applied, and process can fail if applied poorly.
Cross-functionality isn't a means to make people replaceable. It's a means to solve flow bottleneck problems that decrease productivity.
Cross-functionality doesn't mean that everyone can do everyone else's job, it means that people are capable of assisting with the work step that come (immediately) before their work or (immediately) after their work.
A better term for this is "Local Generalization", or "Special Generalization". And again, the goal has nothing to do with making people more removable from the organization. Creating the kid of people who can use Local Generalization to their advantage costs a lot of money in teaching and guidance. Once an organization makes such an investment in a worker, they're even less motivated to remove them. And organizations tend to only make such investments in people that they already want to keep around.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Yesterday I had a team leader of another team say that they took a while to figure out something I wrote on a wiki page because I referred to obtaining code from source control as "checking out" which apparently confused them. They said that they were use to Clear Case and had only heard of the term "joining a project" and said that they haven't really programmed much for a long time.
While this is fine, what it then made me think of is the different types of team leaders I've had over the years. I've had some that have been almost purely managerial and I've had those that are programmers that do managerial things at the same time.
Do people have a preference as to what kind of team leader they have? How do you care if your team lead is active in the development of your product? I find team leaders who actually sit and code like the rest of the team more likely to understand things like (from my experience):
things aren't always as simple as they sound. Team leaders I've had who don't code or rarely code at all believe everything is a piece of cake and shouldn't take much time at all (which perhaps might be the case if you want to hack it together)
they are more understanding that developers don't always like sitting in long meetings and do their best to avoid getting their team into as many pointless meetings as possible
they understand what you say from a technical point of view. Those that might not have coded for a while might not be up to speed with a lot of the new technologies, techniques or lingo
I find it much more satisfying to have a team leader who has the mind of a developer and likes to get their hands dirty in the code as well. Perhaps there are some people out there that like team leads who distance themselves from the actual coding side of things and simply doles out the work, or perhaps another type of team leader that I haven't mentioned?
A team leader has to be a coder -- they can't lead the team unless the team respects them and where they're taking everyone.
A team manager, on the other hand, can either be a coder or someone who is just well organised and knows when to ask questions and interface to other management.
It is possible to find both a manager and a leader in the same person, but more often the roles (should be) separate and distinct.
You should read the book Managing Humans. I am of the opinion managers should keep their hands out of the code. They have more important responsibilities like keeping people away from developers, so they can do their job. Having them jump into development creates confusion as they aren't in it enough to know what's going on and have their time divided between that and other things, so it is difficult to count on them for major pieces of functionality. Plus, it really sucks when you have to tell your manager that something they just wrote needs to be changed, and you have to go back and redo it. Managers are really their to jump on the grenades for the rest of the team, so they can focus on accomplishing the task at hand.
That being said, should manager's know about software engineering? Yes of course they should, that's the field they are in. Should be know how to code in the latest and greatest whiz bang technology? That shouldn't really matter as long as they get how software development works.
I have no preference, I can't, I have to work with all of them, even though too many cooks spoil the broth. On a multi-developer typical project I have a technical lead, project manager and a non-technical customer. Of course, divisional and programme management will each stick their head in.
There are a number of types of leader, each have their own traits:
Non-technical customer: "The customer is always right." Often wants a moon-on-a-stick. Will call both the management and the technical bods and take the best answer as gospel.
Team manager/line manager: Somewhat pastoral role. Not particularly interested in the project I'm working on right now. Steps in when there is a decision to be made between project priorities. Probably really wants to be a coder, and delegates all the rest of his work that he can to his subordinates.
Project manager: Varying degrees of technical know-how. Is concerned only with timescales and costs. Does not understand, "I don't know how long its going to take, I need to play with it for a couple of days first to get a feel."
Team leader/technical lead: Just another developer, but with more experience. Responsible for technical decision making that will affect the whole project. Often fighting with the project manager to carry out good engineering practice, even though it will take longer in the short term.
Team leader/glorified secretary: Someone who is supposed to lead the team, but acts as more of a secretary. (Usually a grade above the team). Answers the phones, insulates customers from the technical bods. This works fine until they ask a technical question, where the glorified secretary tries to blag his/her way out of it, and eventually they work around the secretary and talk direct to the team.
We typically have a PM (non technical) who manages the project from an admin. viewpoint and a Tech Lead who manages the technical aspects and provides technical leadership to the team.
The Tech Lead will code parts of the project and will probably be the main (only) developer for the "Proof of Concept" stage.
On some smaller projects, they are the same person but it's a rare combination.
The absolute worst Software Leads/Chief Software Engineers that I've worked with were the ones that wanted to be intimately involved in the technical details. Too many important tasks were either missed or just not done. Managing a team is a full-time job. If the lead wants to get involved in the technical aspects it will certainly come at the expense of the managerial aspects.
I’ve only had 2 Software Leads/Chief Software Engineers out of dozens that I thought were worthwhile. While both were previously software engineers, those days were long gone for both of them. They knew it. They didn’t even try to pretend. Their job was now to manage. Their job was to make sure the developers had every chance to succeed. They did their best to remove all obstacles and make sure everyone was making progress.
I have a theory, but have never seen it in action, that the best software lead would be someone who is not, nor ever has been a software developer. They specialize in the true spirit of management, specifically that of being a facilitator. Unfortunately, most managers are more politically motivated or are just in the job because they've reached their pinnacle technically.