Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««123

Doing What It Takes To Get The Job Done Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:14 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:51 PM
Points: 3,199, Visits: 7,503
Jim P. (4/15/2014)
I've introduced more manager to the following:

You always have choice:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Good
Pick any two.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with my last manager about that. She couldn't break the logic anymore than anyone else I've explained it too. But once a manager gets it down over scheduling seems to go down.


Cheap (budget) and Fast (deadlines) are quantifiable and arbitrary; we either the hit mark or we don't. Good, however, is more subjective. We can add features to a product, because the end users (or just some of them) requested it, and in the process create headaches for operations and management. If management ultimately thinks it was a bad idea, then that may not be "good" for us in IT, even if the end users love it. There may also be features that are perceived as a good by half the users and bad by the other half. If we choose to throw out that feature, are we compromising good in favor of time and budget?



"If you break a few eggs, then make an omelet."
Post #1562282
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:22 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:02 AM
Points: 6,928, Visits: 4,837
Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)
Jim P. (4/15/2014)
I've introduced more manager to the following:

You always have choice:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Good
Pick any two.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with my last manager about that. She couldn't break the logic anymore than anyone else I've explained it too. But once a manager gets it down over scheduling seems to go down.


Cheap (budget) and Fast (deadlines) are quantifiable and arbitrary; we either the hit mark or we don't. Good, however, is more subjective. We can add features to a product, because the end users (or just some of them) requested it, and in the process create headaches for operations and management. If management ultimately thinks it was a bad idea, then that may not be "good" for us in IT, even if the end users love it. There may also be features that are perceived as a good by half the users and bad by the other half. If we choose to throw out that feature, are we compromising good in favor of time and budget?


I think that is why most times I have seen this list it talks in terms of quality, e.g. defect free, performant etc., as opposed to good in a commercial sense.


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1562335
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:10 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:51 PM
Points: 3,199, Visits: 7,503
Gary Varga (4/16/2014)
Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)
Jim P. (4/15/2014)
I've introduced more manager to the following:

You always have choice:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Good
Pick any two.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with my last manager about that. She couldn't break the logic anymore than anyone else I've explained it too. But once a manager gets it down over scheduling seems to go down.


Cheap (budget) and Fast (deadlines) are quantifiable and arbitrary; we either the hit mark or we don't. Good, however, is more subjective. We can add features to a product, because the end users (or just some of them) requested it, and in the process create headaches for operations and management. If management ultimately thinks it was a bad idea, then that may not be "good" for us in IT, even if the end users love it. There may also be features that are perceived as a good by half the users and bad by the other half. If we choose to throw out that feature, are we compromising good in favor of time and budget?


I think that is why most times I have seen this list it talks in terms of quality, e.g. defect free, performant etc., as opposed to good in a commercial sense.

It is possible to create a solution quickly and cheaply and also not sacrifice quality, so long as the scope is constrained. For example, I consider Chipotle Mexican Grill to be Fast, Cheap, and Good Enough (taste, quality, and reliability). Of course, I have to stand in line, choose from a limited menu, and clean off the table when I finish. It's not my favorite, but I've also tried more expensive restraunts with a more elaborate decor and service that failed to meet my personal expectations. I guess my point is that quality and richness of features are two seperate dimensions.
So it would be more like:
Fast, Cheap, Quality, Scope; pick any ... three?



"If you break a few eggs, then make an omelet."
Post #1562378
Posted Saturday, April 19, 2014 4:00 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:24 PM
Points: 39,671, Visits: 36,806
Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)
It is possible to create a solution quickly and cheaply and also not sacrifice quality, so long as the scope is constrained. For example, I consider Chipotle Mexican Grill to be Fast, Cheap, and Good Enough (taste, quality, and reliability). Of course, I have to stand in line, choose from a limited menu, and clean off the table when I finish. It's not my favorite, but I've also tried more expensive restraunts with a more elaborate decor and service that failed to meet my personal expectations. I guess my point is that quality and richness of features are two seperate dimensions.
So it would be more like:
Fast, Cheap, Quality, Scope; pick any ... three?


Absolutely agreed except for one thing... people. If you don't have skilled people that actually know what they're doing, then expect multi-colored poop and feathers at all 3 dimensions. That's a pretty big problem for some of the companies that I've visited. For some reason, they think that anyone can write quality code especially when it comes to database interfaces. Between ORMs and some "developers" that don't even know how to get the current date and time using T-SQL and the idiotic schedule expectations that some managers have, none of the dimensions actually stand a chance no matter what you pick.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Favorite Quotes:
"Has anyone ever told you that a query you have written runs too fast?" - Dwain Camps - 6 Mar 2014

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1563298
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:51 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:02 AM
Points: 6,928, Visits: 4,837
Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)
Gary Varga (4/16/2014)
Eric M Russell (4/16/2014)
Jim P. (4/15/2014)
I've introduced more manager to the following:

You always have choice:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Good
Pick any two.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with my last manager about that. She couldn't break the logic anymore than anyone else I've explained it too. But once a manager gets it down over scheduling seems to go down.


Cheap (budget) and Fast (deadlines) are quantifiable and arbitrary; we either the hit mark or we don't. Good, however, is more subjective. We can add features to a product, because the end users (or just some of them) requested it, and in the process create headaches for operations and management. If management ultimately thinks it was a bad idea, then that may not be "good" for us in IT, even if the end users love it. There may also be features that are perceived as a good by half the users and bad by the other half. If we choose to throw out that feature, are we compromising good in favor of time and budget?


I think that is why most times I have seen this list it talks in terms of quality, e.g. defect free, performant etc., as opposed to good in a commercial sense.

It is possible to create a solution quickly and cheaply and also not sacrifice quality, so long as the scope is constrained. For example, I consider Chipotle Mexican Grill to be Fast, Cheap, and Good Enough (taste, quality, and reliability). Of course, I have to stand in line, choose from a limited menu, and clean off the table when I finish. It's not my favorite, but I've also tried more expensive restraunts with a more elaborate decor and service that failed to meet my personal expectations. I guess my point is that quality and richness of features are two seperate dimensions.
So it would be more like:
Fast, Cheap, Quality, Scope; pick any ... three?


I am sorry but although I get your point I do disagree. Fast, cheap and quality are all attributes of how the work is completed. These all affect the work done. The amount of features does affect the time taken and is part of the decisions of what is in or out but the scope does not affect the output in the same way i.e. adjusting the scope effects duration not speed nor does it affect quality nor cost (directly).

Also, scope is often decided independently.


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1563734
Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:54 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:02 AM
Points: 6,928, Visits: 4,837
Jeff Moden (4/19/2014)
...If you don't have skilled people that actually know what they're doing, then expect multi-colored poop and feathers at all 3 dimensions. That's a pretty big problem for some of the companies that I've visited. For some reason, they think that anyone can write quality code especially when it comes to database interfaces. Between ORMs and some "developers" that don't even know how to get the current date and time using T-SQL and the idiotic schedule expectations that some managers have, none of the dimensions actually stand a chance no matter what you pick.


Some developers are more equal than others


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1563735
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««123

Permissions Expand / Collapse