>> This guy seems to have a memory like a sieve.
>>
>> He asks us to implement a feature. We tell him it can't be done. "Oh,
>> can't you just do X?" "No, because Y, Z." "Hmm, but what about... oh, I
>> guess you're right. Oh well."
>>
>> Two weeks later... he asks for the exact same feature. And we repeat an
>> identical conversation, again with the same conclusion. He understands
>> that, no, what he wants us to do isn't technically possible. And yet, a
>> few weeks later, he's completely forgotten that this conversation ever
>> happens.
>
> He might also be looking to see if he gets a different answer.

I... don't think he has sufficient brainpower to attempt such a thing. I 
get the impression he's just very excitable and easily distracted.

> I might counter it by saying "we talked about this a couple weeks ago -
> here's a summary of the conversation."  Do it enough times, and he'll
> remember.

Heh, perhaps.

>>> Work up an actual estimate of the time it would take to do it.
>>
>> Is there a way of doing that which is more accurate than sticking your
>> finger in the air?
>
> Of course there is.  Google "PMP" and "project estimation".  Software
> companies do this all the time.

Hypothetically we *are* a "software company". Oh and hey, we do have 
planning meetings. Trouble is, the estimation process is roughly 
"everybody picks a number, and we see if the numbers look similar". That 
still doesn't seem very scientific. Then again, when you're asked to 
produce a new feature and you have no idea what libraries might be 
available to help you or what OS-specific hiccups will trip you up, what 
more can you do?

(We do seem to consistently over-estimate how long anything related to 
C++ will take, which is... surprising. You would have thought we would 
be *under-estimating* that.)

>> Even if one specific customer really does want feature Z... Are they
>> *actually* going to buy the product, or buy more of the product than
>> they would have? Because if the answer is no, why are we disrupting the
>> schedule to spend development time on this? If there's *lots* of
>> customers that want a feature, then we should totally do it. But this
>> business of developing something for one specific customer who may or
>> may not even give us any money... that doesn't seem very profitable.
>
> Depends on whether it's a useful feature or not in the context of the
> software.  Depends on if your salespeople can use it as an additional
> hook with other customers.  That's what product management is all about -
> gathering requirements from customers (and prospective customers),
> turning those into requirements, and then building a plan for creating
> the product.
>
> Do you have a product manager?

Our entire company is ten people. We don't have a lot of anything much.

Realistically, it is quite hard to figure out what customers and 
potential customers *actually want*. I'm sure most companies have this 
problem. Then again, most companies probably have a marketing department...

There are some specific features which the MD is *desperate* to have, 
that (as far as we can tell) no customer has ever been remotely 
interested in. And that's what kind of amuses us sometimes.

>> Then again, our business model is the extraction of money from people
>> who, by definition, have constant budget cuts, so...
>
> Which seems to still work pretty well - from a sales perspective, the way
> you sell to customers like that is to show them that by spending money,
> they save money.

My point being, if they have no money, it doesn't MATTER how much money 
they could be saving. We are not getting a sale. End of.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:41:08 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> He might also be looking to see if he gets a different answer.
> 
> I... don't think he has sufficient brainpower to attempt such a thing. I
> get the impression he's just very excitable and easily distracted.

Perhaps, but I have seen some people act very flaky just for this 
reason.  The CEO I was talking about earlier might well be in that 
category as well.

>> I might counter it by saying "we talked about this a couple weeks ago -
>> here's a summary of the conversation."  Do it enough times, and he'll
>> remember.
> 
> Heh, perhaps.

Might be an interesting thing to try.

>>>> Work up an actual estimate of the time it would take to do it.
>>>
>>> Is there a way of doing that which is more accurate than sticking your
>>> finger in the air?
>>
>> Of course there is.  Google "PMP" and "project estimation".  Software
>> companies do this all the time.
> 
> Hypothetically we *are* a "software company". Oh and hey, we do have
> planning meetings. Trouble is, the estimation process is roughly
> "everybody picks a number, and we see if the numbers look similar". That
> still doesn't seem very scientific. Then again, when you're asked to
> produce a new feature and you have no idea what libraries might be
> available to help you or what OS-specific hiccups will trip you up, what
> more can you do?

Do the numbers seem to be reasonably accurate when the thing they're for 
are done?

The way estimating tends to be done on projects is using a weighted 
average - best case/worst case/likely case, with the likely case weighted.

> (We do seem to consistently over-estimate how long anything related to
> C++ will take, which is... surprising. You would have thought we would
> be *under-estimating* that.)

You could take the average over-estimate and figure that into your 
estimates as well.  That might help identify a realistic estimate 
(indeed, that's how it's generally done).

>> Do you have a product manager?
> 
> Our entire company is ten people. We don't have a lot of anything much.

Even still, someone should be functioning in the role of a product 
manager, even if it's not their full time job.  Someone who manages the 
release schedule, feature documentation, etc.

It's not surprising, though, that in a small company nobody's doing that 
- just that the small companies that do that tend to be a bit more 
organised. :)

> Realistically, it is quite hard to figure out what customers and
> potential customers *actually want*. I'm sure most companies have this
> problem. Then again, most companies probably have a marketing
> department...

True.  But marketing isn't about gathering requirements, that's a sales 
job, and an engineering job.  It's important for a product manager (in 
particular) to be in touch with the customer base and prospective 
customer base in order to identify what features customers want and need 
(and to differentiate between the two, because they're not the same).

> There are some specific features which the MD is *desperate* to have,
> that (as far as we can tell) no customer has ever been remotely
> interested in. And that's what kind of amuses us sometimes.

If it were me, I might be inclined to ask what it is about that feature 
that he thinks customers would like.  It could be that there's a value 
proposition there, and he's just not sharing it for some reason.  If he 
can be made to look at it from a customer's perspective (he wouldn't have 
been a customer at some point in his career, would he?), he might either 
see the feature as pointless (but interesting), or he might help others 
see why it would be valuable.

>>> Then again, our business model is the extraction of money from people
>>> who, by definition, have constant budget cuts, so...
>>
>> Which seems to still work pretty well - from a sales perspective, the
>> way you sell to customers like that is to show them that by spending
>> money, they save money.
> 
> My point being, if they have no money, it doesn't MATTER how much money
> they could be saving. We are not getting a sale. End of.

Only if you don't have the price point right.

Most companies respond very well to demonstrations that if they spend 
£1,000, it'll save them £5,000.  But you have to have data to back such a 
claim up - if you make the claim and there's no data, then they'll think 
you're lying.

A good salesperson is going to be able to take data like that and spin it 
into (without explicitly saying it) "you'd be stupid not to spend the 
money with us."

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> Hypothetically we *are* a "software company". Oh and hey, we do have
> planning meetings. Trouble is, the estimation process is roughly
> "everybody picks a number, and we see if the numbers look similar". That
> still doesn't seem very scientific. Then again, when you're asked to
> produce a new feature and you have no idea what libraries might be
> available to help you or what OS-specific hiccups will trip you up, what
> more can you do?

You iron out those issues in the "investigation" phase of the project, 
or whatever you want to call it. Here we call it Phase 3, which is the 
engineers scratching the surface, doing some rudimentary testing etc, 
and providing very specific deliverables at the end, which includes a 
detailed time schedule. Phase 4 is then where all the detail work gets 
done, of course you'll hit hiccups, but hopefully during phase 3 you 
minimised the risk of any big ones and identified the things most likely 
to trip you up.

Although we do products that consist of mechanical, electrical and 
software elements, I assume a similar development process is in use for 
software-only products. I can imagine phase 3 being selecting which 
libraries to use and doing some basic testing on them, identifying any 
high-risk areas and doing some testing on those, planning a framework 
for the product etc.

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.02.2014 09:39, schrieb scott:
>> Hypothetically we *are* a "software company". Oh and hey, we do have
>> planning meetings. Trouble is, the estimation process is roughly
>> "everybody picks a number, and we see if the numbers look similar". That
>> still doesn't seem very scientific. Then again, when you're asked to
>> produce a new feature and you have no idea what libraries might be
>> available to help you or what OS-specific hiccups will trip you up, what
>> more can you do?
>
> You iron out those issues in the "investigation" phase of the project,
> or whatever you want to call it. Here we call it Phase 3, which is the
> engineers scratching the surface, doing some rudimentary testing etc,
> and providing very specific deliverables at the end, which includes a
> detailed time schedule. Phase 4 is then where all the detail work gets
> done, of course you'll hit hiccups, but hopefully during phase 3 you
> minimised the risk of any big ones and identified the things most likely
> to trip you up.
>
> Although we do products that consist of mechanical, electrical and
> software elements, I assume a similar development process is in use for
> software-only products. I can imagine phase 3 being selecting which
> libraries to use and doing some basic testing on them, identifying any
> high-risk areas and doing some testing on those, planning a framework
> for the product etc.

Sounds like feasibility study to me.

Post a reply to this message