Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:36:03PM -0800: >> Bob La Quey wrote: >>> While I too like working with "good" people and am >>> sympathetic to what you and Gregory are saying there >>> is still a voice inside that says, "Anbody can get the >>> job done with 'good' peiople. No challenge there. The >>> whol eproblem is how to get the job done with people >>> who are 'not so good' ." (how the hell do you punctuate that?) >>> >>> If all of our processes and theories are unable to help us >>> do better with less then what good are they? Have we >>> actually learned nothing? >> I don't see the promotion of team development as a need/desire to get >> things done with below average people. > > But that's not Bob's question.
Yup, guilty, I was shifting the thought to include words used elsewhere. > > As Bob's Little Voice says, "Anyone get get the job done with good > people." > > That's not the promise of all these methods and schemes and processes, > as normally sold. Every method and scheme and process that comes along ends up being pitched (or caught?) by _someone_ as the solution to all the world's problems. None of them are, of course. The challenge is to discover what is useful, where. Pardon the generalized handwaving, but I really do think a yin/yang approach works better than a black/white one. > >> I see it as a recognition that no one is an expert at everything. It is >> further complicated by the fact not everybody who might be expected to >> be knowledgeable in a given area will agree. There are even terminology >> differences that always seem to crop up. > > Differences between good and not-so-good people isn't a matter of > knowledge or expertise. > > Ignorance is easy to cure. Stupidity is not. Yes, indeed. But, having agreed, I have to admit that my own quotient on either of these axes varies +/- over time and situation. Yes I am stupid about X. Sometimes I do get over it. Certainly, as you say, not as easily as correcting ignorance. > >> One might say that it should be possible to divide things up so that >> each area of work can be performed by someone who has "sufficient" >> expertise in that area. > > It is possible. One of the better teams I've worked on had just > that... to the point where I have little role titles in my head. > "The GUI Person", "The Algorithm Guy", "The Tool Builder", "The > Optimizer", "The Tester", "The Incompetent Roadblock", etc. > >> I suggest that there are lots of work >> environments where that is hard to pull off -- especially over any >> significant time scale. > > Such as? I was thinking of small companies, with extremely small (or slowly changing) teams (say ~ 5 technical people), which undertake (wisely or not) multiple development projects (serially). Sometimes the expertise resides partly in one person and partly in another -- I don't think that's uncommon. > >> People need to communicate and negotiate. And try to appreciate >> conflicts, and know when to compromise. > > Oh, indeed. > > So what do you do with the people who can't or won't communicate, > negotiate, appreciate conflicts, or compromise? That is a real problem. The people part of management is probably the hardest part (or, would be for me, anyway). Clearly, a person like that can't (shouldn't) be included in any project depending on rich communications, etc. Even worse, the ones in that category frequently cannot be trained, either, because they often have some real expertise in some area, and believe themselves infallible in any subject matter. > >> They didn't even touch on any of that back in my dark ages education. You know, I probably shouldn't have said it exactly that way. Probably all of it was touched upon -- I was just not smart enough to formulate the lessons learned as conscious guidelines. > > Most of the valuable lessons I learned in school weren't on the > curriculm. Does it have to be that way? I've found myself wondering if the traditional 4-year undergraduate program is the only/best way to train people in (various) fields where the horizon is ever-expanding. Maybe there are other ways worth exploring. - For instance, how about an intensive programming mechanics year followed by a 2-year apprentice/intern program, followed by more studies, a bit more theoretical, ... then? Probably _not_ one size fits all, I suppose. On reflection, I probably would toss in a mix of general education things, too, Maybe 2 years before entering the real-world? Hmmm, would anybody go for something wilder? Maybe a one(or few)-on-one 4(?)-year mentoring program with real world work, too. Is anyone questioning the usual education process in _real_ engineering? Or medicine? Or whatever? > > The thing to do with dead weight that can't or won't come up to speed > is to cut 'em out of the critical path. And that explaining something > to someone else is almost always worthwhile. And, and, and... > In theory, everybody's good at something. In practice .. ? Err, I do tend to go off rambling, don't I. If anyone wants to "call ramble" (or something :-) like that), on me, I'll go away and shut up (at least for a while). Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
