How can I persuade the boss to do things differently? (VERY LONG WHINGE)
-
I've been in the real world for more years than I care to remember, young man! You're right, of course, it is a matter of degree. But this chump takes the whole packet of biscuits. He is likely to bring the company down due to his childish incompetence. In the past I have done the usual: document interactions so I can't be blamed subsequently, Suggested improvements to process piecemeal so not to frighten by 'too much new'. But in this case nothing seems to work. And it's not only me - other developers feel the same to some degree or another. We're sitting on what could be fantastic software that is going to be one almighty heap of junk if something doesn't happen.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I normally go for a "tell it like I see it, but you're the boss and in the end I'll do what you ask" approach.
Steve
-
I normally go for a "tell it like I see it, but you're the boss and in the end I'll do what you ask" approach.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
tell it like I see it, but you're the boss and in the end I'll do what you ask
Yep, nice paraphrase of my first-reply rambling... Always provide the advice you are being paid to provide, but ultimately you do what the person paying you to do asks you to do!!
Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
I probably cant offer much more than has already been suggested. Essentially what you have is a "feelings" problem not a technical problem. He "feels" that his way is best and he "feels" that he knows better. As programmers we are typically bad at solving these problems and in an ideal world you would have someone like a tech leader or BA who would have a foot in both the technical and business camps who you could approach with this but Im guessing its a small place and there is no such person. I reckon the question to ask yourself is do you care enough to go down the path of challenging his authority and arrogance?
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
This guy sounds interesting to work for. If you do leave can you hand him my CV on the way out? :-D
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
As Napoleon said: Never correct your enemy when he is making a mistake. Be patient and collect some WTF snippets for us :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
I suspect you're more motivated by how a project is done rather than by its commercial success, there's nothing wrong with that. A products commercial success might be measured by the size of its user base, customer satisfaction surveys etc, or it might be that the competition perceive it as a threat and are willing to make an attractive offer to get it off the market. The likes of Cisco, Oracle, GE, Microsoft, IBM, Google and Pfizer have done this many times; and lots of people, like your boss, have made their fortunes as a result. Your boss probably used his ad-hoc approach in developing the products from which he's made his fortune. Given that, why would he change a winning formulae. As for leaving a text on his desk on "why projects go bad", that's probably a waste of time, I suspect that as far as he's concerned his way works and he's got the money to prove it. His prior commercial success may be the reason your company has hired him. The terms of his employment might provide him a healthy bonus if he can get the product to market quickly with the aim of attracting a lucrative takeover offer. It's not clear to me whether you have equity in the company that's employing you, if it goes "toes up" will you be bankrupt? If not and you're young with few commitments then it maybe better to find another job, even if it means earning less money and/or relocating to another city/state/country. If your over 30 and/or you have significant commitments then bite your tongue, get on with the job whilst you try to find a suitable job in a work environment that better suits your temperament. If you have equity in your employer then try talking to someone on the board to get their perspective.
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
Have you tried beating him half to death with his own shoes? lol :laugh:
-
This guy sounds interesting to work for. If you do leave can you hand him my CV on the way out? :-D
-
As Napoleon said: Never correct your enemy when he is making a mistake. Be patient and collect some WTF snippets for us :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))ere are already far, far too many. e.g. He honestly actually said the following in a meeting. "I agree I said that, but that's not what I meant." What he actually said was "The service will run on the server". What he (apparently) meant to say was "The server will run on the client".
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
I suspect you're more motivated by how a project is done rather than by its commercial success, there's nothing wrong with that. A products commercial success might be measured by the size of its user base, customer satisfaction surveys etc, or it might be that the competition perceive it as a threat and are willing to make an attractive offer to get it off the market. The likes of Cisco, Oracle, GE, Microsoft, IBM, Google and Pfizer have done this many times; and lots of people, like your boss, have made their fortunes as a result. Your boss probably used his ad-hoc approach in developing the products from which he's made his fortune. Given that, why would he change a winning formulae. As for leaving a text on his desk on "why projects go bad", that's probably a waste of time, I suspect that as far as he's concerned his way works and he's got the money to prove it. His prior commercial success may be the reason your company has hired him. The terms of his employment might provide him a healthy bonus if he can get the product to market quickly with the aim of attracting a lucrative takeover offer. It's not clear to me whether you have equity in the company that's employing you, if it goes "toes up" will you be bankrupt? If not and you're young with few commitments then it maybe better to find another job, even if it means earning less money and/or relocating to another city/state/country. If your over 30 and/or you have significant commitments then bite your tongue, get on with the job whilst you try to find a suitable job in a work environment that better suits your temperament. If you have equity in your employer then try talking to someone on the board to get their perspective.
urbane.tiger wrote:
t's not clear to me whether you have equity in the company
No - thank the lord!
urbane.tiger wrote:
If not and you're young with few commitments
Damn, one out of three :(
urbane.tiger wrote:
I suspect you're more motivated by how a project is done rather than by its commercial success, there's nothing wrong with that.
interesting point. And partly true. But, more than anything, I am keen not to suddenly find I have no income because the owner has run out of cash. the success of his previous product was good from his perspective - he sold the company for a bundle. The purchasers subsequently found what a croc they had bought, but it was a strategic purchase so they didn't mind too much, I think. As an example of the situation, they had so many outstanding bug fixes (1700+) that they had already resigned themselves that they would not fix any that weren't critical; with the new company, it was argues, there was no need to prioritise change requests or bug fixes, as if they weren't critical we wouldn't do them - This is for the NEW product UNDER DEVELOPMENT. sort of admitting defeat before you start the war, if you ask me1
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
ere are already far, far too many. e.g. He honestly actually said the following in a meeting. "I agree I said that, but that's not what I meant." What he actually said was "The service will run on the server". What he (apparently) meant to say was "The server will run on the client".
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
What he actually said was "The service will run on the server". What he (apparently) meant to say was "The server will run on the client".
My team leaders favourite sayings are: - Generate the code - ... or something Either or both occurs every 5 minutes during conversation.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
urbane.tiger wrote:
t's not clear to me whether you have equity in the company
No - thank the lord!
urbane.tiger wrote:
If not and you're young with few commitments
Damn, one out of three :(
urbane.tiger wrote:
I suspect you're more motivated by how a project is done rather than by its commercial success, there's nothing wrong with that.
interesting point. And partly true. But, more than anything, I am keen not to suddenly find I have no income because the owner has run out of cash. the success of his previous product was good from his perspective - he sold the company for a bundle. The purchasers subsequently found what a croc they had bought, but it was a strategic purchase so they didn't mind too much, I think. As an example of the situation, they had so many outstanding bug fixes (1700+) that they had already resigned themselves that they would not fix any that weren't critical; with the new company, it was argues, there was no need to prioritise change requests or bug fixes, as if they weren't critical we wouldn't do them - This is for the NEW product UNDER DEVELOPMENT. sort of admitting defeat before you start the war, if you ask me1
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
urbane.tiger wrote:
t's not clear to me whether you have equity in the company
No - thank the lord!
urbane.tiger wrote:
If not and you're young with few commitments
Damn, one out of three :(
urbane.tiger wrote:
I suspect you're more motivated by how a project is done rather than by its commercial success, there's nothing wrong with that.
interesting point. And partly true. But, more than anything, I am keen not to suddenly find I have no income because the owner has run out of cash. the success of his previous product was good from his perspective - he sold the company for a bundle. The purchasers subsequently found what a croc they had bought, but it was a strategic purchase so they didn't mind too much, I think. As an example of the situation, they had so many outstanding bug fixes (1700+) that they had already resigned themselves that they would not fix any that weren't critical; with the new company, it was argues, there was no need to prioritise change requests or bug fixes, as if they weren't critical we wouldn't do them - This is for the NEW product UNDER DEVELOPMENT. sort of admitting defeat before you start the war, if you ask me1
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
This is for the NEW product UNDER DEVELOPMENT. sort of admitting defeat before you start the war, if you ask me
Depends on what the company owner and his/her backers have in mind? Why not talk to owner and/or if there's a VC involved why not try to get an insight into their strategy. I see your in Aus so you should be able to do that, if not then .... Good Luck Cobber
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
Quit and start your own company, free of idiot bosses.
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
depends if you want the money he pays then just go along with his whims and smile all the way to the bank if you want a job where you are in a disciplined engineering environment then quit it sounds like it's just a game for him btw i have worked with people almost exactly as you describe and it frustrated the hell out of me and i eventually stopped working with them and felt so much better it was worth the financial hit until something else came along
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
I think you should look at this as an opportunity to improve your design skills. If his changes are a pain to change in your current design then your design can use some improvements. Don't just get it working with his latest and greatest idea, improve the design with each iteration to make the changes trivial. Learn what worked and didn't work each time you need to change the design. You will learn a lot taking this approach. It is not too often that developers have the opportunity to redesign things as frequently as it sounds like you are getting to do.
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
You can't! Quit, quit now, quit before it is too late and your brain melts.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
The MD previously ran a company that developed similar software to what we are developing. That company was 'successful' in that it was bought by another company, giving him enough money for a while. With this new company, there is an appalling lack of any design whatsoever. The process of developing the software package is: The MD designs some user controls USING THE LIVE SOURCE. Just GUI no code. Sort of like prototyping if it was done by a duck. He commits to SVN then tells someone to develop it. No other details unless you ask - so it can take a while to get information about it (like what does that button do - will there be a list of these or a single one, is it updatable etc. etc. and quite often he hasn't thought enough about it to answer) When something has be developed, he'll take a look, then change his mind about what he wants, and get it to be redeveloped. If he is asked to spend some time designing it before putting mouse to screen, his response is always "I can't give you 100% of what we need, because things will change" and "I know you want to do things differently, but I have developed successful software before, so I won't waste time specifying things unnecessarily." I tried to develop a framework for the latest part of the development, after several meetings being able to decide approximately what he wanted. Now he wants to develop new user controls within the framework - but he's brought in new requirements that, at worst, break the framework, and at best compromise the design (i.e. had I known about these requirements, the framework would be different). So, I asked that he define these requirements, then I could modify the framework to suit, then he could do the GUI design. Nope - he "can't work like that". So - he's designing using a framework that won't support the requirements. If he would finish the design before wanting me to start developing, at least I could modify the framework once I know what it needs to support -but he wants me to start now - with only one or two parts designed. As a real example: On the left is a list of some 20 link labels. Click on one and to the right a User control will be instantiated, containing a list of items. Select an item from the list and another user control will be instantiated showing the details of the selected item. The framework was designed to support this. Now three of the options don't show a list but show an editable view, and at least two (possible more, he hasn't thought it through yet) will show one of two diffe
D*mn I don't know who you are, but clearly we work in the same company. Only difference is that my requirements come from one division and my tools come from a different division. The two divisions don't talk with one another and generally disagree. My job is 'easy' all I have to do is write code that makes it 'pretty', keep the customers happy, mates two contridictory goals, and attend meetings where we ... um ... we ... well ... um ... anyway attend meetings. :-)
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
What he actually said was "The service will run on the server". What he (apparently) meant to say was "The server will run on the client".
My team leaders favourite sayings are: - Generate the code - ... or something Either or both occurs every 5 minutes during conversation.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))leppie wrote:
- ... or something
I'll be damned. I didn't realize my teenage daughter was your team leader. That can work to your advantage. "Do blah blah blah or something." Then you can do whatever you want. "I chose 'or something.'" ;P
BDF People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous. -- Moliere
-
leppie wrote:
- ... or something
I'll be damned. I didn't realize my teenage daughter was your team leader. That can work to your advantage. "Do blah blah blah or something." Then you can do whatever you want. "I chose 'or something.'" ;P
BDF People don't mind being mean; but they never want to be ridiculous. -- Moliere
Big Daddy Farang wrote:
"Do blah blah blah or something." Then you can do whatever you want. "I chose 'or something.'"
:) Almost sounds like Trainspotting; I chose not to do blah blah, I chose 'or something'!
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 2 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))