Released... a bit

Looking back the past year, big projects at work are settled. Still, you know, software development projects in in-house would not have a project close event. Business requirements would not be frozen. Company is running, people are moving, top management is changing, direction is changing. After all, the world never stops, even in any single moment. These lead to requirement changes. So what about the projects?

Traditionally, projects should be defined in a concrete scope, including time frame, requirement and budget. Still, these are ironic elements. And, they should be fixed in a particular period of time. In another words, they are valid ONLY in a particular time frame. Thus, these 3 ironic pillars are still essential.

To an in-house development, it is still valid. The never ending change of requirements should better be broken down into pieces to fit in different time frame. That is, breaking into different tiny projects to meet the fast increasing requirements. That is the way to work in an in-house development team.

In addition, requirements and priorities changed according to the top management's preference. The most crucial thing would be how much time that the top management can spare for it, the project. They do not care the process, but the result with high quality, and without much supports. In-house development teams are no vendors or service providers. But they are treating the teams in that way. In-house development teams are managed by team leads or managers. They are in the same role of consultants or project managers of vendors. No matter there are team members leaving or whatever changes, it should be managed by the team lead.

I do not quite understand what the tops think. Without sustainability plans or talent management plans, how can they maintain the productivity of a company. What the middles can do are limited. Nowadays, to obtain a high quality developer is difficult for in-house development. Young guys want to enjoy developments with hi-technology involved. Experienced young guys want more money, or want to manage others even they are under 30. The world changed a lot that I have to admit. But the thoughts of young guys are not that realistic to me. Anyway, maybe I was such stupid that stepping into middle management when getting old.

One thing I realized that company culture cannot be sustained. It would be changed according to the top management. Maybe I was wrong, because I only had experience in SME. Maybe large organization's culture could be sustained even top management changes. Maybe time to consider seeing others to widen my sight.