SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Doing What It Takes To Get The Job Done


Doing What It Takes To Get The Job Done

Author
Message
Eric M Russell
Eric M Russell
SSChampion
SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 12302 Visits: 10662
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?


"The universe is complicated and for the most part beyond your control, but your life is only as complicated as you choose it to be."
Gary Varga
Gary Varga
SSCoach
SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 16489 Visits: 6534
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!!!
Eric M Russell
Eric M Russell
SSChampion
SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)SSChampion (12K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 12302 Visits: 10662
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?


"The universe is complicated and for the most part beyond your control, but your life is only as complicated as you choose it to be."
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)SSC Guru (86K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 86374 Visits: 41098
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.
If you think its expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. -- Red Adair

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Gary Varga
Gary Varga
SSCoach
SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 16489 Visits: 6534
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!!!
Gary Varga
Gary Varga
SSCoach
SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 16489 Visits: 6534
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 :-P

Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search