linaro-project-management team mailing list archive

[James Westby <james.westby@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:44:43 +0000, Jamie Bennett <jamie.bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The idea of this pilot is to try to use traditional tools and methods to monitor
> our projects. For this we need a little more up-front from the engineer, usually
> around estimation and specification. After that, the only thing the engineer has
> to do is keep the PM up-to-date on the project.
> 
> So the steps above in the original email constitutes the loose plan, the success 
> criteria is if the pilot proves to be an improvement to our tracking efforts, 
> allows up to produce better reports, especially to non-technical management and 
> does not disrupt the engineering effort too much. I can write up a proper 
> proposal tomorrow to explain the exact requirements, implementation and goals of
> this pilot. I'll send a link when its ready.

"better reports" is where I have the problem. If we don't know what we
are trying to get out of the project, then we may not be tracking the
right things. For instance, we want to ensure that there isn't too much
overhead on the engineers. How much tracking overhead do they have now?
How will we know how much it increased? We don't want to be entirely
subjective about this, as a tripling in overhead may not be the right
choice, even if engineers don't feel that it is an increase as large as
that.

It sounds like the project is primarily for the benefit of
management. At which levels of management do we want this to be used?
What do they value? Presumably they want accurate information, but there
is a tradeoff between the amount of information that can be given, and
the accuracy that it will have.

I look forward to reading your full proposal.

Thanks,

James