April 15, 2014 at 11:02 am
Unfortunately, for me GTJD has come to mean "work yourself to death to meet that deadline". I have worked at a couple of companies where this phrase has taken a negative connotation because it seems to pop up when there is an extremely aggressive deadline. I agree with Stephanie's list that it should mean item 4. However, it seems that due to poor estimates and even poorer communication across groups, it keeps meaning "work until it is done with some reasonable quality, not until it is perfect and something that you are proud of". Basically, get it out the door by the deadline regardless of what else is on your plate and cross your fingers that it works as expected...
April 15, 2014 at 11:03 am
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.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
April 15, 2014 at 11:07 am
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.
We had a triangle on a whiteboard with this same explanation and would point to it at meetings when we were asked to do it cheap fast and with 100% quality (that in itself is usually problematic). You pull one end of the triangle down and it pushes another end out.
April 15, 2014 at 4:55 pm
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.
Tom Thompson wrote about that old saying and justified how one of the two should always be #3 (good) and then there's a very strong possibility that the other two will actually follow. I strongly agree with Tom's sentiment on that subject.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2014 at 1:56 am
Jeff Moden (4/15/2014)
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.
Tom Thompson wrote about that old saying and justified how one of the two should always be #3 (good) and then there's a very strong possibility that the other two will actually follow. I strongly agree with Tom's sentiment on that subject.
Especially if cost is defined in the longer term!!!
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
April 16, 2014 at 7:14 am
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?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 16, 2014 at 8:22 am
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!!!
April 16, 2014 at 10:10 am
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?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 19, 2014 at 4:00 pm
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
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 22, 2014 at 3:51 am
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!!!
April 22, 2014 at 3:54 am
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!!!
Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply