[lifeisstillgood]

I think project mgmt software suffers from the same problem as project managers - they think they should be in charge, visible and front and centre

I disagree (esp about the human ones)

I want project management that fills itself in based on work people do, not work people tell the tool they have done.

I am dubious that putting ticket numbers in commit messages is needed - let alone IRC, emails, phone calls meetings, vendor orders placed etc

I am not even sure how to do this - I think it’s to do with defining the outcomes via automated tests (Are there five servers available for use by the X team, as opposed to does the blue button send onclick)

I wish you luck but honestly saving the PM time filling in a report that simply “announces” things are done without being measuring actual results is ok but not the quantum leap. But I am grumpy today so perhaps I am Being too pessimistic

But still - solve “achieve these automated testable goals” might be the right answer - but way harder as you don’t control any of that surface area

[zswaff]

Really appreciate the feedback, doesn't come off grumpy at all. In fact I think it's pretty well in line with our vision. Beyond automated reports, we're just generally focused on saving users time/headache. The conflict between the people doing the project and the project manager is very, very common: the former doesn't want to spend time updating the tool, and the latter wants/needs centralized updates/status. In the future we absolutely plan to solve this better than we do now.

It's super compelling to hear about different pain points like this. The idea of automating acceptance criteria is indeed tough but absolutely possible to imagine. This is outcome-oriented in the best possible way!

[rnts08]

Spot on, hopefully apps like these can reduce the number of and/or completely replace overbearing PMs.