Would you be angry?

[Ancalagon44]

Hey guys,

I'm sitting with a situation at work and not sure whether I am justified for feeling as angry and upset as I am. I might be overreacting.

So... I'm a senior software developer and I work for a small software consulting firm. About 14 months ago, a client, G, approached us to do a project for him. The company decided to form a partnership with him, taking an ownership stake in exchange for reduced fees. One year later, and the project is way over budget and late. From discussions I have had, I believe this to be because G and his partners did not have a concrete idea of what they wanted. They changed their minds often, and we did not do a good enough job in terms of project management to stay on track. Anyway.

January this year, the project gets its first client. The client wants a VERY aggressive roll out. We are to complete the enhancements necessary so that go-live can happen on March the 15th. This was the earliest estimate for completion that we gave them. At the time we did not know how the go-live was to happen. When we heard that the client wanted to switch off his old system and switch ours on literally overnight, we took our concerns to our project manager (over 2 months ago) and said this was a bad idea. It was too risky, a phased approach would lower the risk and raise the likelihood of success.

The project manager took those concerns to both the client and our boss, the director of the business unit. The director and client understood the concerns, but the client still wanted to go ahead. As with most entrepreneurs, he is very stubborn. We could have come up with a better plan that not only reduces risk, but also improves his bottom line (he halted expansion plans, which I don't agree with), but the client was insistent upon getting it as early as possible. Despite knowing the risks, the director agreed to go ahead because the project was months late and over budget, and was starting to look very, very bad on his balance sheet. They needed a client or else the project would be a failure. The director's boss in fact wanted to can the project last year when it went over budget, and perhaps the director thought cancelling it now would be an admission that the CEO was right (and I think the CEO was right to want to cancel it).

So to save his own skin, the director went along with the plan. Here is the part I disagree with though. We, the software developers, were the ones that had to do the actual work. We warned them about the risks, but did the work anyway. The client was fully informed of the risks and chose to go ahead. When we go live, the inevitable happened. The system was not stable, and it has frequent problems. It is still not 100% stable. This is now in production. The client's business now depends on it, since he switched the old system off. We are barely, barely coping, and have had to pull long hours to get it where it was, while being shouted at by the client.

The first I heard of the reasons why we went along with this aggressive roll out was last night. The director told me why he had done what he had done. It actually made me angrier, to know that he made his decision without consideration for the resources necessary to do the job. So, he makes the decision, we have to do the work, take the strain, and get shouted at by the client when things to the way we said they would.

I know sometimes businesses need to make unpopular or difficult decisions. I know that getting the client to wait might have resulted in a lost client and possibly a cancelled project. However, what makes me angry, other than the fact that we are the people who sit with the mess, was that it could have been done so much better.

If I took a gamble like that, you can bet I'd make sure the staff understand the gamble and the reasons for it. You can bet I'd want to inspire them to work harder, to give them a sense of purpose for what they do. I would structure work so that they have nothing else to focus on other than this (we all had other tasks to do as well as this aggressive roll out). I would try to get the staff to do more work upfront, even working weekends, so that the last week would not be such a screw up. I'd even look at financial incentives - its cheaper than having a lawsuit when your system sinks your clients business.

Would you guys be angry or would you get over it?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Would you guys be angry or would you get over it?

Almost all projects, in all sorts of fields (NON-SOFTWARE), can often be professionally project managed, and be on-time, in-budget, with a 99% Happy Customer, meeting all/most of its initial deliverables.

But software projects are characteristically, way over budget, very late, under performing, potentially very buggy, and highly problematic in all manner of measurables. And often/sometimes fail to meet many of the initial objectives.

It CAN be done right (software project management), but for various reasons, it does not always happen. By the sound of it, the customer made it harder for the project manager(s), to do things right, in the first place.

tl;dr
It's best NOT to get angry, it is NOT all that uncommon, in the real world of software development.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I think what makes me feel so angry is that it seems so callous. Sign your employees lives away basically, knowing that it will be very difficult for them to deliver, and if they don't, they get all the blame.

Next question - what would you do about it?

The CEO of the company has been holding a series of meetings because he is not happy with the business unit and wants to revitalize it. Specifically, he wants to raise the standards of software development in the company, including quality. He wants to not be afraid to tell a client no, if it is in the best interest of the client that we tell him no. He wants to build a brand based on excellence and quality - not on rushing half finished buggy software out the door to appease the client.

So this is definitely not in the CEO's vision.

I'm thinking of sending the CEO an email outlining my concerns with the way this was done, WITHOUT pointing fingers at anyone, including my boss. Good idea/bad idea?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I think what makes me feel so angry is that it seems so callous. Sign your employees lives away basically, knowing that it will be very difficult for them to deliver, and if they don't, they get all the blame.

Next question - what would you do about it?

The CEO of the company has been holding a series of meetings because he is not happy with the business unit and wants to revitalize it. Specifically, he wants to raise the standards of software development in the company, including quality. He wants to not be afraid to tell a client no, if it is in the best interest of the client that we tell him no. He wants to build a brand based on excellence and quality - not on rushing half finished buggy software out the door to appease the client.

So this is definitely not in the CEO's vision.

I'm thinking of sending the CEO an email outlining my concerns with the way this was done, WITHOUT pointing fingers at anyone, including my boss. Good idea/bad idea?

Good software project management, would go something like this:

Early on the software project manager(s), would find out what needs to be done, and come up with plans, and hence timing and resources needed.

If customers/management/CEO's want a shorter time plan, then the project manager(s) need to point out that more resources are needed, or it can't be done (rare).

Ideally everyone needs to agree to the above (sign it off, or whatever).

Then over the course of the planned project, the project manager(s) should keep a careful eye on its progress. If the customer/manager/CEO comes along and tries to change something. E.g. Add/change functionality. Then ...

A good/effective project management team, will insist that either more resources are provided, the timing of the deliverables is suitably extended, the new functionality is dropped (not done), or one or more of the previously agreed features (goals) is postponed or eliminated entirely from the project.

If the above is NOT done (which it sounds like, in your case). The project usually goes awry, in a similar manner to what you have described in the OP.

tl;dr
Feature creep etc

Sending the email, (my opinion, others may easily think differently), is not necessarily a good idea. But it might be.
It sounds like you are going above your immediate team-leader/managers head (but I may be misunderstanding how you fit into the management structure, from your description). This is usually a bad idea (my opinion).

I.e. Unless the CEO specifically asks/contacts you. You should probably be dealing (discussing possible future improvements), with your immediate team-leader(s)/manager(s), who you meet and deal with, on a day to day basis.
I appreciate that you said you would NOT mention, specific names etc, but people in practice, can usually guess who you mean. Or ask other people, and find out that way.

tl;dr
In the longer term, it is probably best to not try and go over peoples heads. As it would tend to end up (bad Karma) causing you issues, with other people at the company, in the future.

 

[Ancalagon44]

We did pretty much none of the best practices you described. Our project manager was constantly fighting scope creep, and I think he was in a losing battle because it wasn't up to him. The powers that be wanted this deal ahead, so they were more willing to accept scope creep.

We did get an extra resource to help cope with scope creep at an exhorbitant rate (more than double my salary). Extra resources were just not availble - we have lost 4 senior resources in the past year, and hired one senior (me) and one intermediate. We have been looking for new hires since last year and have not found anyone, so the people we lose are next to impossible to replace. This means, when scope creep occurs, we cannot throw money at the problem. Exhorbitant contractors aren't even that common.

It would be going over his head. I have raised my grievances with my direct boss, who brushed them off. The only reason I am thinking of it is because we are in the middle of this restructuring/revitalizing process, which the CEO is leading. That is, the CEO wants to restructure the business that my boss leads. That is the only business unit the CEO has a problem with, and now I am starting to see why.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

We did pretty much none of the best practices you described. Our project manager was constantly fighting scope creep, and I think he was in a losing battle because it wasn't up to him. The powers that be wanted this deal ahead, so they were more willing to accept scope creep.

We did get an extra resource to help cope with scope creep at an exhorbitant rate (more than double my salary). Extra resources were just not availble - we have lost 4 senior resources in the past year, and hired one senior (me) and one intermediate. We have been looking for new hires since last year and have not found anyone, so the people we lose are next to impossible to replace. This means, when scope creep occurs, we cannot throw money at the problem. Exhorbitant contractors aren't even that common.

It would be going over his head. I have raised my grievances with my direct boss, who brushed them off. The only reason I am thinking of it is because we are in the middle of this restructuring/revitalizing process, which the CEO is leading. That is, the CEO wants to restructure the business that my boss leads. That is the only business unit the CEO has a problem with, and now I am starting to see why.

My gut feeling, is that you should definitely NOT go over your bosses head. There are all sorts of ways, it could go badly for you, if you did. As your immediate boss, would probably find out, sooner or later.

Also, the CEO may well be claiming that he is going to do "this" and "that" to fix the situation. But in practice, you may find that it was partially talk to keep you happy, and sound like they are going to fix things. When it is NOT a big priority in their eyes (the CEO).

Not only are you risking bad things with your immediate boss (and maybe the CEO as well), but there is a big risk, that doing so would have little or no effect, in practice. As the CEO is much more likely to either do what he (the CEO) thinks is best and/or the opinion of your immediate boss, rather than consider your opinion.

Because you said "I have raised my grievances with my direct boss, who brushed them off.", it further makes me think that you are best NOT contacting the CEO.

If the CEO asks you for your opinion, then that is a completely different matter. BUT even in that case, it may still be prudent, to say that you would prefer that they do it through your immediate boss. To keep everyone happy.

tl;dr
It is very easy to break the working relationships you have with your immediate boss (and others). Once broken, it can be a real nightmare, or even semi-impossible to repair the damage.

Sometimes things go badly. That is life. You need to keep your working relationships, in good working order, both through good times, and bad.

 

[Markbnj]

Get the entire team to walk out the next time the client yells at you. That will wake the prick up.

Seriously, though, if you stay in consulting you will see this outcome often. The business model is damn near guaranteed to produce this result regularly. You have a client who just wants the lowest number, a few competing providers that just want the business, and none of them are going to win by being realistic with the client, or suggesting that he pay them to think the project over and give a workable estimate. So, back of napkin, pat on the back, nice dinner, roll the dice, you're screwed.

Imho, of course.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Thanks guys.

I haven't sent any angry emails. I'm a little calmer now, and I don't want to send an email I will regret later. I still think the CEO needs to know. This is exactly what he does not want in his business. Markbnj, what you describe is exactly what the CEO does not like about the software consulting business, and I agree with him. It would be difficult to follow through with such ideas, admittedly, but if possible, it could be a game changer. Nonetheless, while I believe the CEO has a right to know, I believe the best time to inform him may be at the next session we have. We aren't finished with those sessions, and it may be that this project will come up.

I've also been thinking, there are several decisions I need to make in the near future, and they have both short term and long term consequences. I've decided I need a more logical, structured way of making these decisions, so I've decided to list my thoughts here, as ordered as I can make them.

First, my desired outcomes, and their timelines.
Short term, I want to be off this project. This project has all of the hallmarks of a failure in the making (more on that later), and I want no part of it. It will be a stressful ride to the bottom.
Short to medium term, I want more interesting and challenging work to do. My biggest hope is that this involves a move away from programming into something like business analysis or project management. Or something else similar. It isnt that I hate programming, it is that I hate boring business programming, unfortunately the kind we do around here. There are two possibilities here, which I will elaborate on later.
Medium to long term - I want a more fulfilling career. I'm prepared to put the work in now to get it, which is why I have been studying a graduate degree for the past year or so. Plus I am also studying to write CFA1, which I write in June.

Short term - why the project will fail and what failure means

In this instance, I take failure to be continued existence but poor margins and high employee turnover. Employee satisfaction will be low, duration of employee stay limited, and the customer will steadily squeeze until we are making almost nothing - we might end up making a loss. This has occurred at several projects in my company, and I believe this project has several criteria that place it in this category.

Number 1 is that the relationship with the client is adversarial, not collaborative. The most successful projects we have all involve, without fail, an understanding client with whom we can work with to achieve a common goal. This client is not like that - he is not interested in our advice or proposed solutions, and instead wants us to dance to his tune. We are willing to do so because we need the money. This will not be the last time work is pressured to go out and deadlines are tight. He isn't suddenly going to relax and collaborate with us because we delivered this time (albeit a broken piece of buggy software). He is going to squeeze tighter because he knows he can. He is not interested in a sustainable partnership, which is sad because it means the results for him will be worse.

Number 2 - Successful project teams need success to be successful
It may sound silly, but without success, teams have a failure attitude. I do not count this launch as a success. It may be a success in terms of the business deal, but I do not count it as a success. I count it as a failure. I am sure I am not the only one of the rank and file staff to do so. In fact, 2 staff members have already resigned due to this project, 1 asked to be reassigned to another project, and 2 others have resigned having also worked on it. It is now months overdue and has never had a success (in my books). Thus, I believe the culture of the team will be negative and not positive, which will mean they will never give their best. I for one am now very negative about this project. Without a positive team expecting success, I simply do not see how you can succeed. As new staff members join, they will be inducted in the culture of negativity and expecting failure, and will then propagate this to other new members.

Options for dealing with this:
1. Ask my direct boss if I may be reassigned to another project
2. Ask my direct boss if I may be reassigned to another project in a capacity other than as programmer.
3. If no 2 is not possible, ask him if I could have his permission to approach the CEO in search of number 3 below.
4. Ask the CEO if I may be reassigned to a different business unit in a different capacity other than as programmer
5. Leave the company and join my brothers company

Number 1 would be a short term solution at best. I still don't want to be a programmer, so it wouldn't accomplish all that much. My boss may refuse my request, because we are so short staffed. However, this would put him a difficult situation. He is already aware that I disagree with the implementation. He would now be aware that I disagree with it so strongly that I wish to be disassociated from it. He would probably ask why, and to be honest, I'm not sure what I would say. I may say that my negative attitude towards this project prevents me from adding significant value to it, which is true.

Number 2 is slightly different, and in theory, if he would be willing to grant 1, there is no reason he should refuse 2. I will be more effective in a role other than programmer, because I would be more passionate about it. Much of what was said about 1 applies to 2, in that we are very short staffed at the moment.

Number 3 is where it starts getting interesting. I do have a good working relationship with the CEO, and in fact I do share in his vision of what we can do with software consulting. I am not sure what possibilities exist. However, the company I work for does more than just software - they do other kinds of consulting and analysis. I could end up in one of those fields, which could be quite exciting.

Number 4 is similar but goes over my bosses head. Probably not a good idea.

Number 5 is different. I'd be taking on a very exciting role as head of IT (I created a thread about this somewhere). I'd be in charge of managing the relationship with an IT vendor to build the product we need, as well as developing a forecasting engine. That sounds like interesting work to me. Another positive is exposure to working more closely with a venture capitalist that I have a lot of respect for, as well as other connected industry players. Plus, I would be meeting them not in the capacity of programmer, but manager. There is are one two downsides though. The first is that there is an element of risk and uncertainty involved. First I am not 100% it will happen. I'm about 90% sure, but not 100%. The second is that it is still an IT role. Sometimes I think I would like to move away from IT altogether. This would get me out of coding, but possibly cement my role in IT. Then again, I would be a manager, not a coder. I would eventually have people reporting to me.

Regarding the comparison of #3 and #5, there are some complications. The first is that, I believe it is an employee's duty to tell his manager when he is not happy, to give his manager a chance to rectify the situation. I guess this answers whether I should request to removed from the project. The second is that, I don't want to request special consideration (ie a new role) from either my boss or the CEO, and then turn them down for my brother. However, making a good decision as to which role to take means I do need to have all of the facts on hand, and that includes any other roles in my current company, if any. Due to the uncertainty over whether this business with my brother will go off, I don't want to mention it until it is a certainty.

Therefore, requesting special consideration for a role and then taking my brother's offer is wasting their time. Not letting them know that I am unhappy before I quit is being unfair to them and basically ragequitting.

I think I know what I need to do. I need to do the following:
1. Send an email to my manager asking to be removed from the project, but not requesting anything else. Not requesting a different role or whatever. Just remove me, don't care where you put me.
2. Wait until - or if - I receive the offer from my brother's new company (a start up that is in the process of forming). If the offer is simply not tenable (ie salary too low, risk too high, responsibilities not what I want to do), then I do not even mention it to my boss. If the offer is good, I make sure that my brother understands I need to make the right career decision (ie consider all offers), and then inform my boss of the offer. If they can put me into a role worth considering, then I consider both on their merits. If not, the choice will already have been made.

Sidenote: I am massively loyal to my brother, but in this case, I think it would be fairest to both of us if I consider his offer like any other. I will promise to not go back and forth on money (ie take a better offer from my current employer to my brother). I do want to help him and make his business succeed, and I believe I can add value there. However, if I am not 100% committed, I don't want to work on it. I wouldn't want someone half committed and I don't think he would either.

Thoughts?

 

[purbeast0]

just sounds like you work for a terrible company. working long hours regularly is one thing i simply will not do. i'd be angry too but i would also be looking for another job.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Past a certain point I'd just say no to the death march.

"Sorry, providing the 100 features you say are all "mission critical" is not going to happen this week, and I'm not going to work on this on my own time this weekend.

We can realistically deliver 10 of those features by Friday. Pick the ones that are most important."

It helps to have enough in savings that I could walk away from my job if I wanted to. It helps even more to be working for a good company where mistreatment like this doesn't happen.

In your shoes I'd try to have the team / manager do triage on the system to figure out what really needs to be fixed and when, and what bugs or features can be pushed back until later.

 

[brianmanahan]

i worked for almost a year at a consulting company like that. the sales staff promised that we could finish a project in half of the time that we estimated (9 months instead of 18). the contract was signed, sales staff got fat bonuses for "reeling in the big one", and we got to work.

during the last 6 months i averaged just under 80 hours per week, and at one point after working 30 days without a day off, they had us work 36 straight hours.

so i quit just as the "final push" was being made. management was shocked and angry, but i couldn't care less. companies that behave like that deserve to fail imho.

 

[Fallen Kell]

i worked for almost a year at a consulting company like that. the sales staff promised that we could finish a project in half of the time that we estimated (9 months instead of 18). the contract was signed, sales staff got fat bonuses for "reeling in the big one", and we got to work.

during the last 6 months i averaged just under 80 hours per week, and at one point after working 30 days without a day off, they had us work 36 straight hours.

so i quit just as the "final push" was being made. management was shocked and angry, but i couldn't care less. companies that behave like that deserve to fail imho.

You should have quit long before, as in, the second week at 80 hours. If they have that much work, they needed to hire double or triple the staff (except that never really fixes things in a software project which is one of the things all the sales staff simply do not understand and why the "mythical man month" should be required reading with tests afterward to any sales staff for any new software product).

 

[beginner99]

Question is how much you earn. At some point especially in this industry doing over-time is already compensated for in your salary. If this is not the case, demand for the overtime being paid (or compensate it). Else look for greener pastures.

 

[Ancalagon44]

South African labour law means I am exempt from overtime because I am too highly paid. I think the limit is R200 000 per year - around $16000 US. I earn 3 times that.

It isn't that I mind occasional overtime. When justified, I have no problem with it. For instance, on another project I am assigned on (for a large bank), we have a deployment coming up and I am required to be on site at the bank on a Saturday afternoon for a couple of hours. I don't mind that. I won't be on site because of somebody else's screwup, I'll be there because the client requires it and only on that day.

However, in this case, the reason overtime was required was because the manager made a decision without taking into account whether his employees could cope with the load. Then, he did nothing to ensure that this deadline could be met. He didn't move other obstacles out of the way. This is why I am angry - I don't want to overtime because of your bad planning.

Probably going to request to be moved off the project today.

 

[DigDog]

i worked for almost a year at a consulting company like that. the sales staff promised that we could finish a project in half of the time that we estimated (9 months instead of 18). the contract was signed, sales staff got fat bonuses for "reeling in the big one", and we got to work.

during the last 6 months i averaged just under 80 hours per week, and at one point after working 30 days without a day off, they had us work 36 straight hours.

so i quit just as the "final push" was being made. management was shocked and angry, but i couldn't care less. companies that behave like that deserve to fail imho.

1) quit your job
2) join the sales team

 

[greenhawk]

we have lost 4 senior resources in the past year, and hired one senior (me) and one intermediate. We have been looking for new hires since last year and have not found anyone,


It would be going over his head. I have raised my grievances with my direct boss, who brushed them off.


The only reason I am thinking of it is because we are in the middle of this restructuring/revitalizing process, which the CEO is leading. That is, the CEO wants to restructure the business that my boss leads.

On the first, it sounds like they either could see the writing on the wall (crap projects are the way of the place) or they got better offers else where.

Not being able to find any replacements for the 4 that where lost seems unlikely to me. People are not that hard to find. And if they are, you train them yourself. Sounds more like the asking requirements are too high for the offered pay. No one that has a choice will work for peanuts.

As to the letter, I feel it is already too late. You should have done it when you first felt the project was going to fail and your boss said "live with it". Doing it now after the project delivery date just makes you seem to be trying to move the blame, no matter how accurate it is.

As to the last, sounds more like a good time to see what other options are around. Things might get better, but I feel they are more likly to get worse. either being let go (scape goat) / clean slate, get "focused on" / mico managed, spent half your time in meetings / doing time tracking logs, or the possibly best option, your boss is fired and you get a new boss.

Someone else might have a better understanding of what might happen, but I feel from my limited experience it is the people at the bottom / coal face that ware any "restructuring".

 

[purbeast0]

Question is how much you earn. At some point especially in this industry doing over-time is already compensated for in your salary. If this is not the case, demand for the overtime being paid (or compensate it). Else look for greener pastures.

not sure what you mean with this. i've been in the industry for 10.5 years and i've worked more than 40 hours a week exactly 2 times. and it was coming in on a saturday to get some work done because of piss poor project management.

and that is exactly why i no longer work for that company.

if you truly believe that overtime is "already compensated" for you in your salary, you are working for a terrible company who is paying you a salary for more than 40 hours a week.

 

[Tweak155]

My company can pre-approve you for overtime pay, but I am considered exempt at this point and it is not guaranteed.

That said, I too work in software development and have not worked all that much overtime... last year was maybe 20-40hrs? All of which was either paid or provided comp time for.

This is the first time I've been a strictly salaried employee in my career. I told them before converting that if I get worked more often I am out of here. So right now it is just better benefits and more money. Not many places give you 40+ days paid time off (including holidays in that figure).

EDIT:

Also I would be angry, but sounds like you should have left long ago.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Hey guys

Thanks for the advice. I sent an email to my boss yesterday. I didn't ask to be reassigned, I just outlined my concerns. I was feeling emotional, but I didn't bring emotion into it. I just talked about the concerns I have with the project, the problems I foresee in the future, and that I was not happy with how we did. Honestly, that I think is a big part of it - I'm not happy to release production software that I know is not ready, and this is not ready. It isn't how I want to work.

So we had a meeting yesterday, the entire team, to talk about it. Basically it boils down to that it was a calculated business risk that admittedly was handled a little bit badly, but still turned out okay. We are semi live at the moment - not everything is pointing to us yet. There were talks about how to manage the client in future, given that the client is stubborn, used to getting his own way, and doesn't understand IT projects (really).

In a nutshell, this is what happens. The risk takers and decision makers, those with money invested in the project, made a decision that affects the labourers - us. The labourers then had to to do the work, because we are not the decision makers nor are we the risk takers. In future, we will be involved in more planning sessions so that we can do integrated planning, to try to ensure that we can provide technology to meet the business's needs (which was part of what made me angry, what little planning we did didn't look integrated at all).

It reinforces my need to get out of programming ASAP, because as others have said, this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last time.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It reinforces my need to get out of programming ASAP, because as others have said, this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last time.

It depends on the company. At a good company here in the US developers work normal hours most of the time.

There are bad companies like many game publishers that demand that employees work a lot of unpaid extra hours. They get away with it because the employees are easy to replace -- too many people want to make video games. In any other field if you are a good developer you can always find a job so there is no reason to put up with abuse.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I can't say if it was a good move or not for the company. Just know you did your part and no matter how much yelling and screaming, remember...it's just a job. Had you not stepped in to implement that project, another company would have gladly taken their money and likely been in the same situation.

 

[Ancalagon44]

An update.

A had a chat with my director yesterday. He wants to setup a series of meetings where we talk about software engineering processes. Basically to enhance solution delivery. In these meetings, we will discuss the current status of projects as well as lessons learned from bad projects (such as this one).

He asked me what I thought about the project from a technical and a business perspective, and I gave him honest answers. He also asked if I was happy working on the project, and I told him not really because I am not happy as a programmer. I didn't want to lie to him.

So we had a long discussion about that - about my career options etc. I said I didn't enjoy programming, but wasn't entirely sure where I wanted to go. The things that excite me are data analysis, more structured business analysis (ie in depth analysis) and management.

We discussed some options, and he listed 6 opportunities that he could see for me. I'll list the 4 most promising ones below.

Data scientist would be doing data analysis as I mentioned above. I'd have to transfer to a different business unit. My job would be using various tools to analyse data to look for trends. So using statistical analysis basically. I know a little bit about stats, but I do find data analysis interesting. I think I'm fair at it and would learn quickly.

Business analyst is another possibility, although in this context, the specific type of business analyst would be someone that does more structured and thorough business analysis. See, our CEO is concerned that our business analysts end up becoming glorified waiters. They take down the clients requirements and get the client to sign off. Then they hand that to us. The CEO's vision is of BAs that use a lot more analytical thinking to get to the bottom of what is causing a business problems. A very interesting field - one which many consultants do. While it is very interesting, it might take a little longer to come to fruition, because the company would have to build up the skills to do so. That would include me. At least, the CEO thinks we can start doing it immediately, the director and I think we'd need a pilot project for reduced or no fees in order to learn more. Its analysis we haven't really done before.

Another possibility is development manager. A development manager would be an internal facing role, who may or may not have programming responsibilities (not sure on this yet). A development manager basically oversees all development methodologies and processes. It's not that he would be a scrum master or anything, he would just make sure that the right methodology is used for the right project, and that development is going smoothly. Not sure what the difference between that and a project manager, except that a development manager is internal - ie no meeting with clients - and will oversee multiple projects. This stuff is very interesting to me, I mean I find team dynamics, vibe and development methodologies quite interesting. The problem is that this role sounds like it has too much overlap with a project manager.

The last possibility is that of a product manager. See, this product we are working on will shortly be spun off into its own business. Well, semi independent business. It would have its own staff, its own culture, its own clients, its own sales pipeline. I would be the manager of that mini business, in charge of HR, sales, marketing, finance, development, etc etc. The good points about this role is that it would be a massive promotion in terms of responsibility. It would get me out of programming right away, and broaden the scope of the decisions I'd be making. If I want to go more in a managerial direction, this is exactly the role I would need to take. The negatives are that I feel it is a difficult product. The difficulties are that the client is not the easiest person to work with (so I have heard) and the product itself... has a long development history. It is a technically overcomplicated project. However, in terms of the client, this client would be the first of hopefully many. Part of my role would of course be lead generation and sales.

The last role is such a massive leap from my current responsibility that it is a little scary. I can't imagine taking that much responsibility. And it won't be an easy product to manage.

The other thing to consider is that I don't want to take a management role and then sign up with my brother two months later. My brother is coming to stay with me this weekend, and next week he will be having meetings around his business. After those I think we should have a much better idea of how things are doing. I'll have a much better idea of timelines.

I'm a little surprised that the product manager role is even a possibility for me. One of my colleagues actually wondered if it was a ploy to get me to stay - a promise that would never be fulfilled. I said, especially considering I have a (nearly) concrete option with my brother, that I would never stay on a promise. It would have to be a firm offer.

The things that would recommend me to that role are that I am interested in management a lot more than other programmers are. Other programmers just want to program, I want to get out of programming. I find business aspects far more interesting than programming aspects. I'm studying something that contains a lot of the same subjects as an MBA.

However, I'm inexperienced in pretty much all kinds of management.

 

[beginner99]

not sure what you mean with this. i've been in the industry for 10.5 years and i've worked more than 40 hours a week exactly 2 times. and it was coming in on a saturday to get some work done because of piss poor project management.

and that is exactly why i no longer work for that company.

if you truly believe that overtime is "already compensated" for you in your salary, you are working for a terrible company who is paying you a salary for more than 40 hours a week.

If you earn $200k expect to work over-time. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'm nowhere near $200k! Just less than a third of it actually.

 

[purbeast0]

If you earn $200k expect to work over-time. That's what I'm saying.

only if you work for a poorly ran company, or agree to it prior to taking the job.