How Plans Kill Productivity
assistwindow.com
assistwindow.com
If I don't have "You are to save your employer and your management from consequences of their stupidity." written in job description then I don't see why should I provide them with my insight unasked. Especially since no good deed goes unpunished.
For example while working at corporation I may have an idea of how to do some things simpler but I can't take for granted that making things simpler is beneficial to my supervisor or the team he supervises. Voicing my idea could put my supervisor in awkward situation.
I suppose start-ups are more straightforward.
I'd really hate to ever be in a position where an overall improvement is treated as a bad thing because of politics.
You've never worked on an assembly line or talked to anyone who has, have you? Assembly line workers come up with ideas for improved efficiencies on the line all the time. They aren't generally welcome to share them, however; it's usually better for their job security to keep them to themsleves in fact. In that respect, much like many office jobs.
But in the employer's defense, once these guys are in the driver's seat, it can frequently be hard to distinguish the signal from the smart guys from the rantings of particularly vocal morons.
I think the take home lesson is to be very careful choosing your co-workers and manager.
As for the subject of this thread, there are no magic bullets, right? Sometimes a plan is awesome when the target is clear. Other times it only gets in the way when one is doing a significant amount of research in parallel with the development. And everything in between...
But know what's even worse? Having no plan at all, or just a vague mission statement. Because then you have no way to answer the question "what do I do next and how do I know it's finished?", and you end up yak shaving, turd polishing, working at cross purposes and just plain killing time, often way past the point where the project cannot achieve its goals any more and just lacks someone with the courage to kill it.
To be useful, a plan has to be updated regularly.
To my mind a good plan is one where it can provide context for an entire team about where and what (to some level of accuracy) needs to be done. Part of planning is to reduce the principle-agent type problems that come with software. Individual developers are responsible for their own plan and it isn't too constrained so at their own liberty people can swap or modify what they need to do without centralized agreement.
Planning isn't easy, and I agree that sometimes the best plan for some types of work is to be very short term and iterative.
A more accurate title would be "How Bad Project Management Kills Productivity". It's like the author has never heard of Rolling Wave planning [1]
It grinds my gears how we get articles along the lines of "I worked somewhere with pathological project management. Therefore all project management is stupid. YAY DEVELOPERS!!"
I mean it's cool to have some rough estimate but you can never be accurate, especially when a project involves doing things for the first time (ie. innovating)
One of the key was to create an environment where developers are free from distraction and able to efficiently develop is to have someone plan, and to communicate.
Here's my (somewhat brutal) response to your article: http://beardedinventor.com/blog/2013/01/23/plans-dont-kill-p...
TL;DR - I agree, and highlight how the short-term planning process baked into most agile approaches addresses this problem.
Problem of project plan generally is the divide and conquer approach. Work is divided in various independent streams, but plan very often fail to consider that the final product need to be whole and underestimate the merging side of stuff.
Getting the balance right is always the problem. Applies not only to planning, but to testing, designing, documenting, certifying, optimizing, supporting, ...