 |
|
 |
Martikeh Khar olagh GHatel,Bacheh Kosh(Kid Killer)
Kasafat
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Is this like graphing the importance of a piece of poetry? I don't think I understood.
hit next and pray
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Politicians inside companies engage in these sort of exercises to see how much power they can garner and flex.
It is one way they squelch free thinking while at the same time muzzle the rest of us into towing the line.
Managers who have nothing better to do with their time, are the ones who usually come up with these kind of "cooked up" ideas to bolster their image and sense of power.
They are the ones who least understand technology, and believe they know all the answers because they attended business schools. They are politicians!!
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
-- modified at 9:47 Friday 14th October, 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Perhaps if more developers could be trusted to produce sensibly designed systems then this type of approach wouldn't be needed!
There are a lot of good developers out there who will produce robust and scaleable applications which help the business. But equally, there a lot of crap developers out there who produce flaky and slow applications with weird architectures that don't meet the needs of their users.
This monitoring approach does not "squelch free thinking" or "muzzle" anyone, but seems like a good way of highlighting the projects which are being poorly developed.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
If that were the case, then every company, every department, and every place where people are supposed to produce something, would have them (because they would be accepted for the greater good of the workplace).
The fact is, they're not there. And the reason for that is because the greater good of the workplace is defined by those who seek out power and control without making it look like that's what they're doing. So they resort to these little tools and gimmicks to give the appearance that their actions are for the greater good of the company, when all along, it's the politics they're playing in their own little deceptive and insidious ways to gain favorable recognition.
Notice also how they publicize it for all to see (with the aim of using peer pressure) to affect control.
They know what they're doing, and they'll use every trick and undercover means to cloak their real intent.
Have you ever met a politician who'll tell you that what they're doing, has NOTHING in it for them?
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
This method is part of a process called Enterprise architecture. it aim is to architect the enterprise so all of it IT projects could work togather. this process is very similar to city architecture. without common request that each bulding architect should address (such as how many feet to leave for road and pavement), can we move with our car between the streets? .It might look trivial today but it sure wasn't the same way 100 years ago. the city architecture dosn't destroy any architect creativity or thinking (mine, there are so weird buildings), but there are several rules which architects need to obey. And as always there's a bald bureaucrat who monitor and record tose city architecture rules. the same goes to the suggested method. it just a way to monitor, record and encourage Project managers to be complaint with the enterprise architecture. it's not a method to kill creativity or gain political force.
just for the record I'm an enterprise architect but befor that I've been developer, PM and technical leader (you can read some of my articles here on thecodeproject). while doing all those duties I saw how much vital enterprise architecture is. think about EIA, if all of those legacy system were build with integration requirments that someone would monitor wouild we need all of those EIA products?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
A rose is a rose, is a rose, and by any other name it is still a rose.
A politician is a politician, is a politician, and by any other name he/she is still a politician.
Typical of them to make it sounds as though what they're doing is for the greater good, when all along they know what's in it for them. One way they bolster their image, is by publicizing their work. They don't wait for others to discover and promote their works. They do it themselves.
Here's his statement, "Displaying the scorecard results also help managers and enterprise architects to see the progress of the enterprise architecture process."
Why couldn't the information be sent PRIVATELY to the other people? Nooooo! That's NOT the way politicians do things. They look for every way to gain power through recognition (and the more the merrier).
If there's any "greater good" in their actions for the workplace, it's a small portion, because the greater portion is for their own "greater good."
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
If you're against publishing why are you publishing in public your criticism on others? maybe because your are politician who seeking POWR and Publicity?
I don't think so, and I encourage you to do so. publishing in public is a way to share others with ideas and mistakes and move forward as a better person/professional and yes, Politician...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Aha! I must have touched a nerve, because the one thing politicians DON'T like, is to have their guilt of aggrandizement exposed.
They ALWAYS like to be seen as 'Good Samaritans" while aggrandizing their interest.
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
No its not. Without feedback there can be no improvement. Without a differential there can be not change. Public scrutiny provides a very powerful incentive to promote change. To publish the results are apolitical. Defining what the metrics are is where the politics begin. If the metrics are all agreed to support the betterment of the company then fine, let the Darwinian survival of the fittest commence. As long as the people being measured agree to the yardstick being used to whack them with so be it. BTW all of society is a political arena get use to it and adapt or else quietly allow natural selection to run its course.....
Keith
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
I have nothing against 'feedback'. I am all for it.
The manner in which it's done, and the hidden agendas involved, are what I question.
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Actually, from what I have seen over the years is that those who shun the light of day are those who harbor alternate or hidden agendas. Whenever I have encountered a project manager or developer who wishes to keep things undercover and not engage in public discourse about a project I have found it is they who are the most dangerous. They are the ones who engage in bad design and ill conceived systems, typically taking the short term / short sighted approach to the problem at hand. Taking the "glory" for getting it done fast and then moving on to allow someone else to clean up their mess, hoping to never be associated with the negative long term consequences of their actions. This same reasoning is one of the tenants of open source development. Everyone does a better job when it is out there for all to see.
What you will do in public is far different from what you will do in private...
So I say Let the light shine brightly!
Keith
-- modified at 13:24 Tuesday 18th October, 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Managers manage, and developers develops. Viva la difference!
Managers hand out to developers, assignments that developers are supposed to fulfill.
It is the manager's responsibility to oversee proper fulfillment of those assignments and to deal with situations he deems unacceptable by any of his developers. OK. He deals with situations INSIDE his department. There is no need for publicizing anything, and I fail to see where any is required OUTSIDE his department.
If a developer is doing shoddy work, and the manager fails to catch it, then we have more than one failure occurring. But there is no need for the manager to publicize anything that's happening INSIDE his department, OUTSIDE the department (especially if it's to influence company policy).
Where inter-departmental matters are concerned, those are matters for managers to handle, respectively in their own appropriate ways. I fail to see the need for one manager to publicize anything for public scrutiny as a way to implement company policy. That's the job of the president or the CEO (or somebody higher up) to do, and when someone who is NOT the president or the CEO (or such other person) take on to him/herself that kind of role, their action deserves questioning, even if they call themselves, "Enterprise Architect".
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
You seem to be taking this far too personal.
As this process has been discussed no "person" has been named only "systems", and as described it seem to me to be a peer review process at the management level, not the developer level. As a practicing electrical engineer for 25 plus years while operating at increasing higher levels within the companies I have been associated with I absolutely seen nothing wrong with open metrics. If companies operate with the strong opaque dividers you advocate the result is a collection of weak fiefdoms none of which contributes to a healthy company (organism) as a whole. And given the competitive environment that business's must survive in, it is better to part of a strong and dynamic system that learns from itself (and others) how to optimize its parts, as opposed to lets put the blinders on and march quietly to the rendering house.
nuff said, next topic...
Keith
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Sure he named persons!
He named, program managers, project managers, programmers, and (of course) enterprise architect. It is clear he's talking about who the people are that are supposed to be his participants.
As far as being a peer review at the management level, and not at the developer level, this is what he had to say, "That scorecard should be published across the enterprise to let every program manager and programmer know how much his responsibilities comply with the enterprise architecture."
Maybe I'm seeing things you are missing.
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
But I bet if you did a really good job on a project and the manager didn't publicize your role OUTSIDE the department but instead kept your name INSIDE, you'd be the first person to start complaining about management always taking the credit!
And if you do a really bad job, then you probably expect your manager to cover for you, keep the bad news INSIDE and not let your name be associated with the disaster. Am I right?
(capitalisation yours)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Wrong on both speculations.
William
Fortes in fide et opere!
|
|
|
|
 |