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. :)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment