Quarter 5 - Week 2

Maybe it's the one month vacation, maybe it's the fact that we're strutting like proud peacocks since we've finished a year, or maybe it's just that the workload from college and work was less last week... I dunno, I haven't figured it out yet, but I actually got some time EVERYDAY to read articles for my readings for this week. I'm so proud, I can't stop holding my nose up in the air for the entire time I'm writing this blog. Fancy that, I was able to read almost all the required readings for the week BEFORE Friday's class. Hah! I think I know what our class toppers feel like... or atleast what they feel like when they come prepared to class. Moving on...

MSP - This week we had some continuation from last week on the classic mistakes that can be made while handling software projects. I particularly got hooked on the 'project heroics' point, where it talks about how consistent performance are not being rewarded while those once-in-a-while-blitzkriegs are being given accolades and called the grand-chimps-of-the-company. And we've all seen our fair share of these kind of people, who knows maybe we've been grand-chimps as well. There were more points that seemed to point towards estimations, coding techniques, architecting code etc., so a good primer for what we were to see. This week was more in terms of risk management. We discussed how companies are now able to quantify the risk that they might face on projects. Apparently, most companies have such a huge graveyard of projects (both successful and unsuccessful) that they have enough data to determine how effective their estimations are, and how risky elements affected their estimates. They then use this to figure out the possible deviation that their upcoming projects can take, based on severity of the risk. So we started studying the Waterfall process, the Spiral model and we stopped on the Unified Process (?) model. Maybe we'll continue on that next week. But in any case, since I don't have a good idea of project management, and have never done it before, this course appears to be sufficiently enticing and smacks of being an eye-opener.

LOC - This week we focussed more on the differences between leaders and managers. We also tried to understand the funda behind a soft manager. The readings for the sessions talked about the importance of sufficient emotional intelligence in leaders, and that being a soft manager might just be quite important in today's world. It seems that managers are more often focussed on the short term, their goal is to meet the targets. Leaders on the other hand prefer looking long term to see what really needs to be done to "grow" the organization. There were three aspects to a person's personality, his need for: achievement, affiliation and power. Managers are those that have a strong drive for achievement and a medium drive for affiliation. That means they really like to meet their targets, and they really like hanging out and working in groups. Leaders on the other hand have a strong drive for achievement and a medium drive for power. Which means they REALLY like to meet their targets, and they like being in control and choosing directions where the company goes.

Our first session revolved around a case study called Linus Carver. Apparently Linus was this really awesome gem, who knew how to deliver his projects well within time, was able to think up of new projects that really brought money to the company and almost singlehandedly takes the company to new heights. (In short, he doesn't exist for real - that's why this is a case study... I mean, where do you really get such gems?). But the problem was the guy was a douche with his team. That seems like a given. If you get to act like God in a company, what's going to stop you from getting a God complex? His boss tries to convince him saying that "Your team is important, bring them along. Dont be an ass." etc. etc. But Linus tries to act cool and says that "Our figures are going up. If we go all sentimental, and do these group therapy sessions, then we're going to lag our targets. You brought me here because you know I'm a star, so let me light the way, and let's forget about these meager planets." (You've probably figured by now that I paraphrased it all). So his boss apparently is having a fit. He doesnt know whether to fire him, or hand over his current team to a different manager or create a new designation for him. Because you dont get these Linus' everywhere. You dont want them to go somewhere else! And you dont really like them talking cockily to you, but do you really have an option? As it comes about, it seems there are options. Which deal a lot with commen sense.

For example, give him an option that if he wants to move further along managerial responsibilities, then these are the additional skills he needs, else he can be an architect. And in some cases, you can send him for soft training and gain a commitment from him that he will try to work on his attitude. But in any case, that session saw a lot of interactivity from people in class. It was funny actually. First everyone was baying for Linus' blood... 'Throw him outside' they said, 'Hand over the team, make him an architect' they said. Then after the prof mentioned that maaaaybe the problem was higher up.. we went after his boss' blood. I'm sure if the prof mentioned 'Oh incidentally, Linus had a brother.' , we'd probably go after that as well and find reasons for the brother to pay hell. The second session was more on the lines of being a soft manager isn't about being wimpy, though everyone considers that. A soft manager is one who keeps his eyes on the goals and schedules and other technical jargon, and then when discussing issues with his team, he actually opens up to them. He's the i-bare-my-heart-to-you type. So people feel more themselves around him, and trust him. Which is the foundation of every successful group. Well, I'd love to say there was something CONCRETE I learnt here, but I am not sure if it was. I mean, this is stuff we really already know, right?

PM - Today we discussed about how new innovative products need to be introduced in the market. It actually was quite interesting. It seems that in the 70s, people spent 25% on product, 50% on marketing and another 25% in other such stuff. However, today, in the 2010's, the companies are focussing 50% on the product itself, and the focus is decreasing in marketing. This points to the fact that today's companies are doing their research before they begin on such projects. Atleast the somewhat stable ones. We also studied how products that are doing well in a sector, might try to find new markets so that they can avoid the cost of ballooning towards the end. Sensible enough stuff.

Then we actually saw a few ads mainly of 'Rasna' where we really saw how the environment, the message etc. changes as the product evolves. Since we saw the ads in a span of 10 minutes, we had the luxury of sitting back and saying "This is the problem we're facing, here's a possible solution". This course too seems to be full of interesting options.

All in all, a good week. My necks's hurting, think I better keep myself level headeed. :)

Quarter 5 - Week 1

A month ago we were in the midst of exam frenzy. For the first time, we received an actual one month holiday. I had completely forgotten what freedom was like. Finally, to be able to sleep as late as you want, wake up as late as you want was... well... pure joy!

But it's funny how fast a month goes by, 'cos hey! Here I am plodding away at a keyboard about what happened this week. Before we do that, let's spend two blank lines (I couldnt find an equivalent for 2 minutes of silence) in the memory of the togetherness of the students of PGSEM 2009.

The thing is... for the first time since we joined together in May 2009, our class split up as we chose different electives. Some of your favorite mates and buddies in chaos were no longer around. Such is life, and electives. But at least we get to drop what we find to be god-awful-topics! And we can actually choose how many subjects we want to pick in a quarter, or whether we want to do the quarter at all in the first place! I hear we have some brave people who just dropped the quarter since they didn't get subjects they wanted. Anyway, on to my fav subjects.

MSP - Managing Software Projects. This is being handled by a known devil, one of our previous profs well known for his sense of energy and theatrics in class. An unconventional prof by any standards, he bring youtube videos, varied cases and interesting points of view to class. The subject by itself is considered by many to be a well-beaten dead horse, but our prof got it to romp around the lawn for us (dont spend too much time understanding what I said, basically I'm saying he made it sound interesting). This week we discussed how without requirements planning, enterprise architecture, acceptance criteria etc. large projects involving humongous architecture can definitely fail. And what case did we study? None other than the FBI. Apparently they made a big goof up with a system that was called the VCF (Virtual Case File). Try looking it up. Now, I did feel that since the project failed, everyone has something or the other to say about it. Apparently now they have something like a version two that is supposed to be a lot better and stabler, but I'm guessing that if it fails, people will have a whole new set of reasons to explain it. It's just so easy to do post-mortems.

LOC - Leadership and Organizational Change. Honestly, I was expecting this class to be dull. I mean, who doesnt have their two bits / twenty paise to talk about leadership. And to top it off, we've seen this professor previously too! In fact, the profs from both these subjects taught us in the same quarter previously. So, our expectations weren't way too high on this subject. I must say, I am pleasantly surprised. While half the fundas seem straightforward (Yes, I know enough of leadership, give me my MBA now, thank you.) this prof does tend to have a small surprise in each of his lessons. Some twist seems to be inherently present all the time. For e.g., a small anecdote from this week. He was talking about a theory drawn up by Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg believed that MBA schools are useless and in fact dangerous. He said that true leadership comes about as a result of reflection on past experiences. And if you pick fresh engineering grads, pump them up with MBAs, fluff up their feathers, that doesnt help in any way! You're just giving them the technical education to try and game the system, not really helping. So give MBA education only to people atleast eight to ten years old in the industry. Apparently none of the MBA schools are happy and a huge uproar was unleashed. Obviously! You try coming and telling a prof that he should stop taking in the cash cow set of students who're coming in every year! However, it seems that people and companies are indicating that they'd like to give his theory a serious run, to see if he is indeed right. Good luck to him, I already made it through the door anyway. The rest of the week was primarily taken up by the difference between leadership and management (Yes, there's a difference), and how the PAEI model can point to which are you're more oriented towards. Good stuff.

PM - Product Management. I'm still a little undecided about this course. I have never met this prof before, but something tells me that further observation will be required before I can truly claim if this subject is as applicable as the syllabus dictates. Theory is one thing, practice yet another. Anyway, this prof started the class with telling us that the world is evolving... blah blah... the time for meeting people's needs is over... blah blah... now people don't know what they want. Wait, what? Yea, you heard right. People no longer know what they need! If I invented a flying car today, people might well take it tomorrow! I could invite singing shoe laces for all I care, people MAY get interested and take it! So what he continued on to do, was to describe a new product, figure out what goes into it, and drill it into our heads that case studies are good, but remember that they are written AFTER the shenanigans around them. In hind sight, you can always analyse what went right and what went wrong. But a product manager tries to figure out what the audience wants BEFORE they reject the offering and decide what can make it more of a success. and all this by following some sort of repeatable process. The class had its ups and downs, and the initial predictability. I hope it springs more surprises, good ones at that, as the quarter goes on.

It was also our first distributed session, so it was a little cool. We had a few guys from Chennai VC-ing in from what I think was the Infy campus. So questions and thoughts came in every now and then over the mic. A little disconcerting at first, but hey, it worked pretty ok. Atleast from where I was sitting! Now to see if we feel the same way when the prof conducts a few classes from there!

All in all, a good start to what appears to be a promising quarter. The second years have arrived.