[vermasque]

"Have everything in writing, complete with date and signatures"

It is possible that the executives won't take it well to all of the formality here (writing and signatures). How would you convince them that this is necessary?

[scarab92]

"Have everything in writing" is a bad mindset and is not going to save you.

Exeutives are looking at you as the expert to deliver a good outcome. Which means making good decisions, managing expectations and keeping everyone in the loop.

Generally, if it gets to the point of having to dig up who signed off on what, you've already failed. Often you won't even get the chance to dig up those emails, because delivering a bad outcome is enough for execs to write you off without even needing to hear your excuses.

[pdimitar]

> because delivering a bad outcome is enough for execs to write you off without even needing to hear your excuses.

What makes you think they are excuses? Constantly chasing moving targets and not having even one of them agreed upon in writing is heaven for bad execs. I've seen it happen a good amount of times, my colleagues too.

I don't view the "you changed requirements 20 times the last month and I can't keep up with your impossible imagined schedule" statement as an excuse.

[jwatte]

If the goal is to remove bad execs, then a document trail can help, although I'd suggest starting with some statistics like "over the last 3 months, we moved the goalpost 8 times, which led to an effective throughput of 4 weeks of work being done rather than the expected 12 weeks. How do you think we could improve these conditions?" Collaboration first.

Keeping email threads for reference is probably plenty data enough, btw; "signatures" sounds like the wrong approach. Maybe even just summarize the direction given in a wiki document with a change log with time stamps and requesting person, which you can review once in a while, and the sheer length of it might be enough to bring the point across.

[pdimitar]

Thank you -- good advice to put collaboration first. I sometimes have a problem that I assume the worst right away. But I've met some true villains in my life and career so maybe that's why. I'll do my best to implement your advice.

> and the sheer length of it might be enough to bring the point across.

This one sadly hasn't been true -- I tried it but I get blank stares and sometimes grumbling about making people read long stuff that I can just summarize to them. Maybe there's a way out of this conundrum as well.

[scarab92]

Your job is to deliver what the execs consider to be a good outcome.

That includes helping the stakeholders come up with a stable set of requirements. Most of the time when teams are dealing with a lot of requirements change, it's because they never captured the true requirements which usually change at a much slower rate.

Secondly, your job is also to manage expectations, so that execs know what the impact of any changes will be when they request them.

Changes aren't an excuse to deliver late or over budget. These parameters are flexible and new targets should have been agreed when the requirements change was requested.

Execs will usually assess your performance without discussion. There is no venue to bring your cache of documents to prove your innocence after the fact.

[pdimitar]

We all know the ideal theory. I am talking execs that constantly change requirements, refuse to sign under any stable requirements, and think everything is "quick and easy", and take offense when you try to manage their expectations.

Reasonable people I easily work with. It's the rest who are the problem.

[squiffsquiff]

Sounds like you haven't worked in an environment where this happens. You get regarded as 'the expert to deliver a good outcome' sure. But you're ALSO expected to deliver an aggressive roadmap of a while load of other stuff that people already committed to. Someone's something's got to give

[ethbr0]

Dates and signatures are theatrical overkill.

I've yet to work at a place where meeting minutes, sent out to all attendees post-meeting, aren't sufficient for the same purpose (ass covering & continued adherence to The Plan as originally agreed).

I'm sure signature and date places do exist... but, I'd probably be looking for a new job if I worked at one.

[awillen]

The dates and signatures bit is nonsense, but it does help to have things in writing to ensure everyone's on the same page. That just means that when you're discussing things not in writing, you send a written follow up to everyone that's involved immediately afterwards. If it's a meeting, take detailed notes and send them around afterwards. If it's a one on one conversation, just send a follow up email that says something like, "Hi x, I just wanted to memorialize our conversation - here are the main notes that I took. Please let me know if any of this sounds off to you. Thank you."

That doesn't preclude them from not reading that email and later telling you they said something completely different, but at that point you should probably be heading for the door anyway.

[hrbf]

Having stuff in writing is essential, for accountability on all sides. The exact format does not matter, neither does what passes as a signature in a company. My example was for broadest possible applicability. The point is the willingness to commit to something in writing and to take the time to reflect on the implications of doing so. If you cannot get that, you’ve already lost. There will be moving targets.

It’s interesting to see how all responses focus on the signature part as problematic due to its supposed formality. Is this an American work culture thing? I see signing off on an agreement as a signal of professional conduct and reliability.