Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot |
|
PerlMonks |
(Ovid) Re(3): Insubordination or Exploitation?by Ovid (Cardinal) |
on Mar 26, 2002 at 20:56 UTC ( [id://154510]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
For smaller, ill-defined projects, I think that agile development models are a Good Thing. However, the part about getting the boss to sign off is purely a CYA maneuver. I think this person is in an awful situation and as soon as the boss says "why the heck did you do that?", the reply is "well, here's your signature". Almost invariably, unless the project is very small, once I turn in a specification, the boss always changes something. I know of some people who deliberately put glaring problems (typically cosmetic) in specs merely so that the boss will hone in on those glaring problems and not screw up the core. Once the boss changes something, he or she has said "I've read this and approve, so long as these changes are made." It's tough for the boss to later turn around and shift the blame away from the signature. Frankly, in a dicey "me versus the boss" situation, I don't want the uncertainty of an agile model. I want good, clean specs that I can point to. I've had to hold up signed specs before and the result has always been something along the lines of "my signature? Oh, yes. Of course I read that. But requirements changed. Could you please work this in?" I still have to do the work, but I no longer face the heat. Mind you, if this were a normal situation, I think your advice would be spot on. Cheers, Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.
In Section
Meditations
|
|