Because it's a people problem.
When i work with a good engineer who wants to get things done like me, we could easily solve all problems and get things done.
We Still Don’t Get Things Done
171–180 of 183 posts
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah a lot of companies go like "we're going agile" and just do the tools bit with Jira and its Kanban and rigid time management. It's more like ticking boxes and pretending to know what they're doing than actual agile project management. So now we're stuck with a lot of overhead crap and even more workload. And the system actually slows us down when we try to adapt to a changing environment. Problem is mainly that t…
Jira to me is a mostly a tool for managers to coerce developers into a more manager-friendly interpretation of “agile” than anything else rather than something developers would use out of choice. When you’re doing something for the sole purpose of keeping someone off your back about it then you inevitably half-arse it, so in reality we’re paying Atlassian a small fortune for nothing more than a wall of fairly bullshi…
Yeah and the thing is... I'm not even a developer. I'm an IT Architect. It's just a really poor fit so they 'bend' all the development stuff to make it mean other things (like the epics). When you do need that you know the methodology is just a poor fit. But anyway... they want the entire Enterprise IT team to work off Jira because "we need to be agile". And because of the cool reports. So the director can sit at his desk and see the cool graphs and pretend they actually show him what's going on. Obviously they don't :) For example, some of the stuff we're not recording is how teams work together on inter-team stuff (like endpoint architects working to enable something for the network team). Everyone just makes up their own labels. It was a mess from day 1.
And yeah it's slow but not super slow. Pretty sure we have onprem though. Because I can only access it on VPN. Unless they fiddled with some port forwarder which I wouldn't put past them.
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#173I think this article was very good. It captured the same though process I went through: from trying different apps, to trying to build my own, to realizing it’s all about human condition after all.
I do think, however, that software for TODO lists sucks, and should support humans better https://blog.frantic.im/all/todo-apps-are-meant-for-robots/
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#174This piece focuses on how organizing tasks doesn't increase much the chance of doing the tasks, and suggests that other techniques than digitalized to-dos yield slightly better returns. One thing I think this is missing is that work is hard and time consuming, and brain juice and time are limited resources. 1) You cant do everything. The more I advance in my career, the more comfortable I become with abandoning thing…
I generally agree with your points, but 1 to 2 hours? When I'm off-rotation I still find the time for at least 3-4 hours of intense productive work in the day, and on-rotation I am focused oftentimes for 10+ hours in a day. Perhaps it's different levels of mental engagement but I'm curious why you say, what seems to me to be, such low amounts.
Most of the deep work I do nowadays is figuring how to navigate politics, pitch features, review designs made by others and such. It features a lot of context switching as well, and it's contained between a host of meetings. I find interest in the overall outcome, but it's mentally taxing. True, when doing an activity that I enjoy by itself (e.g dev), it's not a hassle to stay focused and remain on the task longer
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say what you will about Amazon culture in general (I’ve never worked there)… but one of their leadership principals is Dive Deep > Leaders operate at all levels, stay connected to the details, audit frequently, and are skeptical when metrics and anecdote differ. No task is beneath them. IMO this particular trait correlates well with a need for less process / project management software. I really believe if more peopl…
I worked for two years at Amazon. My managers were not diving deep at all. At least not more than any other average manager in any other average company.
I worked a contract at Amazon. If the managers were doing anything other than lying about timelines, I couldn't see it.
Also the dev stack was horrifyingly opaque. Every time an Amazon recruiter contacts me I have to push down the urge to explain how awful it is to work there and no thank you.
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#176The more project management tools I have to work with, the less likely I am to work for or with a company. I have a somewhat similar stance on software architecture. Sure, I’m TOGAF certified but if you actually expect me to work with notation correct Archimare/UML/whatever and not just draw boxes on a napkin you’re either insane or sell a product with no competition. This is anecdotal of course, but after 30 years o…
It looks like what you're describing is so called "Agile" (with the uppercase "A") methodology of SDLC[1], not true industry best practices. Agile was invented by consultants who's agenda was to maximize their profits first, not just to improve SDLC. Also, there is no silver bullet, and everything is a trade-off, so each best practice has to be adapted to a particular project. Last thing: sometimes any process, even…
Agile was invented to try to get contracts (both faster, so as small lead time as possible, which is important for smaller companies, plus smaller upfront price tag, which is again very important for smaller dev shops in order to make deals). Less time spent on specifying the what. Just pay us in time & materials, and we'll figure out, plus the requirements are constantly changing anyway. Hence Agile was seen as a big win-win-win.
And I've seen it done well.
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#177I still think David Allen nailed it in Getting Things Done . Not the system necessarily, but he nailed the diagnosis of why we fail to get things done: an inability to be honest with ourselves about (1) the full scope and scale of the commitments we make, and (2) just how little time and attention we have at our disposal in meeting those commitments. Really, it’s the same sort of problem that is described in The Goal…
For what it’s worth, we (Reclaim.ai - I’m quoted in the article), have a lot of ADHD customers who tell us that we help with time blocking on their calendar. In particular, the fact that we do it automatically seems to be the thing they appreciate. Edit: First time I’ve ever been downvoted into negative territory. Clearly I’ve embarrassed myself ;P Is it because of self promotion? I guess… seems weird though I/my com…
Because many with ADHD see a task in their calendar, know they should work on it, but then... 1hr is gone, and nothing got done towards the task... nothing. Because they were doing something else. Now you feel bad. You reschedule it again... and it happens again.
Yes, I see this helping with the over commitment factor. But it doesn't help with doing the thing you need to do.
You need other strategies, such as actually scheduling time to get stimulated prior to tackling that big gnarly task. Or breaking it into just a 5 minute "do the first step" task, so that it's not 1hr of doom scrolling - that maybe a 5 minute chunk of it gets done.
This is my anecdata, though.
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#178I'm always curious how others "work." I use the Pomodoro technique myself, where I do a minimum of 8 sessions per workday. I try to do 10, but usually, I'm somewhere in between. I do not count meetings. Every day at work, I show up and do a minimum of 4 straight hours of concentrated and focused work. I often get told things like: "I'm killing it", "I'm a high producer", etc. To me, I feel like I'm cheating the syste…
During school I'd immedietly do all of my assignments. Id spend anywhere from 2 to 6 straight hours getting the entire week of assignments done. By the time I got tired I was done with most of it and had time to do what I wanted. Worked wonders, while everyone else was struggling I was able to get straight A's and work on side projects/video games. Is the "real" world supposed to be different than this experience?
The problem with work is that if you get done, there is always more work to do. So the sprint never ends in a way. In college things are pre-defined and you just have to keep in sync, if you do it early like you or late, the tempo stays the same.
With work there is no tempo. However what happens in reality is that for agile teams there is a little bit of a tempo. A Sprint, which is usually two weeks. In my experience there is always more work in a Sprint that can be done.
The only solution I have found is working, and then letting things settle. If a story takes 3 days and you get done in 4 hours, what do you do?
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#179Should be "We Still Don't Get Everything Done". Obvious point, but it is crucial to recognize. Lots of stuff gets done, just not everything you thought would. Which is why TODO lists can be useful (for me, anyway), but don't get any more complicated than just a list (I use a chalkboard for non-work and a txt file for work). 1) I need to not forget to do this thing 2) but I can only do one thing right now 3) put the o…
Agree. Misaligned expectations. A todo list is an overhead. It is only helpful if it actually helps you remember / plan / coordinate / communicate more than the cost of maintenance. Common misconception / misuse: a todo list is a hard set plan of things that have to get done. For most, this is simply not reality. Reality, for most ppl: it is a wishlist. It is better to have that realisation from the start and avoid t…
I really like this example. If it's not worth the effort to re-write on a Post-it, it's probably not worth doing.
Re: We Still Don’t Get Things Done
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not unusual. Something like ISO9001 Quality Management is literally a checklist of pleasant aspirations which leaves companies to define the details for themselves. So as long as you define what "leadership" or "customer satisfaction" (and the rest) mean to you, and you have a vaguely plausible but not necessarily effective process that ticks each of the boxes, you have a quality management process. And you c…
My shorthand for that is “Bureaucracy allows us to ignore reality”. If we ignore reality enough, bureaucracy / following a process will give us predictability and control, and will shield us from unwelcome challenges. Reality, otoh, is unpredictable and merciless in confronting us with challenges. The more mandatory we can make that process, the more “following process” becomes the sole criterion for “doing it right”…
So unbelievably well said, I've got chills. Exactly the thoughts I've been harboring for the last decade or so. Just my 2c to add:
- Abstractions/models tend to completely replace reality. We, software engineers, are very prone to that sort of thinking. Another prominent category are accountants: leaders drive their businesses only looking at the "map" of accounts; governments do the same with their constituents.
- "Paralyze" is exactly the right term. Excessive bureaucracy actively discourages any creative action, for the sake of illusion-of-control.
Cannot upvote this post high enough, you made my day. Maybe humanity is not completely hopeless yet.