[catlifeonmars]

The minor conclusion of this article was the more interesting (and perhaps more practical) of the two:

Hide concessions to various leaders in the project roadmap.

This isn’t just a “bureaucratic trick” as the OP suggested, it’s actually a way to convert unconditional advice into contingent advice, by encoding a priority.

[SamBam]

> to convert unconditional advice into contingent advice, by encoding a priority

This is one of the most important things I've learned as a developer, and one that I thought I invented myself, before I knew about agile, by keeping a whiteboard near my desk with yellow sticky notes ordered by property:

"Yes, I get that it's a must-have feature, but where do you place it in relation to these other features?"

The concept of prioritization of features, and of saying "if I stopped dead at some arbitrary point in this list, would you have been happy with your order?" seemed so eye-opening to people at the time.

[anchpop]

Sometimes, the features are really must-haves though. Let’s say it’s march 2020 and your boss wants you to design a mass-market covid vaccine. You have three requirements: it needs to be safe for human use, it needs to be effective at preventing covid, and it needs to be possible to manufacture. If any one of these is missing, your design is useless. I think a similar dynamic is visible in many software projects.

[oroul]

That's totally fine - but people need to also be aware that if something is really a must then they have to be willing to spend adequate time and resources on getting it done, instead of assuming whatever resources they have on hand will be sufficient.

It's amazing the things that stop being a "must have" as soon as they have to spend more money.

[hvidgaard]

It's a never ending struggle to get people to create this ordered priority. I always tell my developers to say

"if you do not give this an ordered priority, I will resolve items as I see fit. Should we need to stop for one reason or another, there is no guarantee of which have been resolved".

Often times that is okay. I also tell them to always take the ones they're most uncertain about first. Better to front load hard problems and uncertainties.

[madeofpalk]

A manager once brought up "there are three levers - scope, time (deadline), money (people)", and while it's probably not revolutionary, it did stick with me.

Add more "must have" scope, and something else has to give.

[fridif]

I would argue that the scope lever should be set to 60%, time 60%, and money 35% for software projects.

Software projects are kind of like ovens-- if something cooks perfectly at 300 (temperature units), using 25 minutes and using 5 (money units), that does not mean it will cook perfectly at 600 temperature units using 12.5 minutes and 10 money units. Most likely it will burn.

[quanticle]

Even there, drug companies often go through the features in a particular order. You start with a range of formulations which you suspect will be safe for human use, you test them to see which are effective, and then you hand them off to a different set of chemists and chemical engineers whose job it is to figure out how to manufacture the doses at scale.

Every part is necessary, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an ordering. Finding something that's easy to manufacture is pretty useless if it turns out later that it kills the patient. On the other hand, a drug that's safe and effective, but is difficult to manufacture is still a viable drug; worst case, you do what drug companies do all the time and charge obscene prices per dose until you figure out how to scale the process.

[wayoutthere]

Then you do what the drug companies did: you hire consultants to do it for you. I did architecture work for one of the major covid vaccines for most of 2020 and that’s exactly what they did.

The overall tone of the program was “we basically have infinite money, just get it done and the government will pay us back”. So they had a fucking army of consultants to accelerate a process that normally takes 5+ years down to 6 months and they were building down multiple roadmaps just in case they hit a block on one of them.

[jerf]

Yeah, that's not so much a "nifty bureaucracy hack" as a core skill to completing any project. It doesn't even have to be 20 unrelated people's feedback... it's my own priorities quite often that I mercilessly stuff on the backlog. YAGNI isn't just at the micro code level, it's a core project design skill. In fact I probably YAGNI my roadmap much harder than my code since I often have a good idea that I will in fact Need It at the microlevel after decades of experience and can save some time at that level, but at the project roadmap level anything you can trim is getting the product out generating value sooner.

(Obviously one can go too far, blah blah blah. But just as with code, we have a much larger problem in practice grabbing too much from the project feature buffet than too little.)

[AstralStorm]

And then some to level priorities shift and you look at the backlog thinking "if only we have done x before that".

Usually when your unfinished prototype ends up in production. That's the danger of reporting progress to people who think you can go to space on a paper glider.

Probably half of more of start-ups end up failing like this as their quickly delivered prototype fails to capture the market due to not being actually better enough, or crumble under the initial success.

Good for investors and managers who bail out early enough, very bad for users.

[madeofpalk]

> Yagni originally is an acronym that stands for "You Aren't Gonna Need It"

[wayoutthere]

This is it. I do a lot of consulting work around this problem, and the roadmap is where the business and technology meet. It’s where you convert sprints into calendar boxes. It’s also the part most companies do poorly because nobody likes to spend money on good project/program managers (hint: hire product managers instead even though they’re ~25% more expensive because everything in 2021 is a product in some way).

When you do it this way, you can decide well ahead of time if you need to bring in a contractor to build a must-have feature your team won’t have bandwidth for. It flips the narrative and puts the responsibility on the business side (which usually controls the budget anyway).

[omoikane]

This works especially well when you set and own those priorities, or if your management supports those priorities. Everyone who wants their feature will need to justify to you that their feature deserves a better placement on your roadmap.

It does not work if you can not defend your priorities.

[daveevad]

> Create an extended product roadmap and put those items at least a year off into the future “and as long as they don’t seem relevant, you can just keep pushing them into the future.”

That actually seems to me like the root cause of all the calamity in the article, a culture of lying.

[catlifeonmars]

I don’t see it as lying in any meaningful way. Specifically in the article the problem was that there was technical feedback from many parties that have very little, if any stake in the matter. I’d be willing to bet that none of them even bothered to look at the product roadmap to check on the progress or status of their suggestions.

Rather, the “cause of all the calamity” in the article seems to be the fact that the business has a culture of requiring feedback from random individuals who have very little stake in the project or product delivery.

[daveevad]

Upon further reflection, the root cause is poor communication, and the 'bureaucratic judo trick' is just a continuance, or perhaps even an escalation, of an organization's poor culture.

[pjc50]

This is absolutely not lying and I'm disappointed that anyone thinks it is. This isn't "not doing the thing and saying you did", it's just setting its delivery date into the future, an entirely routine operation for every software project that actually ships.

[daveevad]

From my perspective, the tactic misleads the stake holders about the real priorities. It's a deception and corrodes trust in the organization. The article even describes it as a 'bureaucratic judo trick.' It really seems to me as analogous to the micro-services guy or the architect guy insisting their way prevails.

[catlifeonmars]

I think we’re talking past each other. In my reading of the original article, the author needed to get consensus from various individuals in the organization who were by definition not stakeholders. They had little to no stake in the project or its goals and could therefore block the project with no personal risk.

I could be misreading the article, though.

I agree that it is detrimental to trust to lie about the project roadmap to stakeholders.