Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




POLL:Programming taking toll on personal lives?

I want to take a survey of how long hours affect programmers personal lives.  Do you feel your long hours have taken a lot away from qualitiy of time with your spouse and/or family?  Do you often wish for a way out? 

Also, some demographics may be helpful.
For easy parsing, please reply in the following format:

If you are single, type in your reply:
STATUS|S

If you are married, type in your reply:
STATUS|M

If you have kids, type in your reply:
KIDS|number_of_kids

Knowing age may help...
AGE|your_age


Thanks.

Bella
Sunday, March 10, 2002

I don't know what programm*ing* has to do with long hours.  Any person in any career can spend long hours at work if they choose to.  They can also choose not to.

I think what matters is programm*ers*, who are often introverts who don't mind spending 14 hours a day working on code, often at the expense of spouse and/or family.

You want a way out?  Go in at 9, go home at 5, and don't work weekends.  It's that simple.

I'm 30, single, no kids.  I work long hours and most Sundays.  My girlfriend feels slighted quite often and my days of long hours and weekends are numbered if I ever want to have a family.  I'll choose family, no doubt.  But it will take some adjustment.

Bob

Robert Anderson
Sunday, March 10, 2002

STATUS|M
KIDS|0
AGE|34

I love coding, and the wife sometimes gets upset that I want to code on the weekends. Especially as that what I do all week for a job. Im trying to explain that I dont always get to code what I want at work, so I have a strong desire to do it when I am at home.

This doesnt annoy her as much as when I play Elite Force. How much she is annoyed depends on how board she is. ie: I should be entertaining her, not just myself.

I wouldnt say that it takes a toll on the personal life that much. Both of us are professional and realize that working is an important part of life. Of course, I dont get to code at home as much as I would like, but thems the breaks.
If I had to choose between the wife and coding, she wins easily.

James Ladd
Sunday, March 10, 2002

I'm 40 and have been developing software for quite a few years now.

I work when I want to now. Providing I can find a job.
Generally about 32 - 38 hours a week.

My wife is busier than I am as she is a doctor in a small town.

We see each other plenty.

Tony
Sunday, March 10, 2002

sometimes my g/f or friends say that i talk about weird stuff.  like the other day-i was real excited about regexp in java sdk 1.4.

razib khan
Sunday, March 10, 2002

> You want a way out? Go in at 9, go home at 5, and don't work weekends. It's that simple.

Easier said than done, no?  What if you work in a team where everyone is in their 20's, live right in the big city,  and can work 60 hour weeks, and you don't want to anymore?


> I wouldnt say that it takes a toll on the personal life that much

Or has it?  Your 34 and still w/o kids.  Surely the career has impacted that decision at least somewhat, no?  I am having weighing having a family and still being a competetive programmer.  Something has to give....

Bella
Sunday, March 10, 2002

>>Easier said than done, no? What if you work in a
>>team where everyone is in their 20's, live right in the
>>big city, and can work 60 hour weeks, and you don't
>>want to anymore?

Eventually you will realise its just not that important, do you see yourself sat on the porch in later life looking back and saying "I wish I'd spent more time in the office"?

Tony E
Monday, March 11, 2002

STATUS|M
KIDS|1
AGE|30

Nowhere near as disruptive as her career - teaching.

I spent my entire sunday evening glueing pages onto cardboard for display.

Ged Byrne
Monday, March 11, 2002

STATUS/S
KIDS/0
AGE/30

I live alone, I do not have a boyfriend or family and therefore little reason to quit working at 5pm, but if I seriously do overtime for more than a week in a row I just break down. I work about 40 h a week and I am rather flexible when the schedule is tight and I have to stay longer at night or come to work on the weekend (something that has happend only once at my current job). But I try to compensate this as soon as possible by leaving early on another day or taking half a day off.

It is my strong believe that there is only a certain amount of time you can spent on a task every day/week/month. Trying to work more than that is neither productive nor healthy.

Have fun,

Jutta Jordans
Monday, March 11, 2002

Depends.  Are you also a lifer, or do you just do programming because it's part of a greater (if vague) goal?

People can fruitfully work long hours if they're creating something that needs to be created.  Maybe a lot of that work goes to waste, but the mind is learning during those days.

Creating something important is just as important as having a family or reading books.  Working for money isn't.

Michael Chernin
Monday, March 11, 2002

STATUS|M
KIDS|1.5
AGE|42

I still work 90-hour weeks, but actually the quality and amount of time with my family is quite good, because both my wife and I work at home. I do far more parenting than most dads.

Mike Gunderloy
Monday, March 11, 2002

90 hours weeks?  You may want to check your numbers.  You must be taking breask during the day, otherwise I can't possibly see how you can "father more than most dads" working 90 hours a week.  I think your "90 hour" week at home is not at all like actually being in the office for 90 hours. 


If you worked 5 days a week, that would average 18 hours a day, which is working  from 6am-midnight.  Not enough time to eat and sleep.  This will lead to a speedy death.

If you worked 6 days a week, that would average 15 hours a day, which is working  from 7am-10pm.  No way you're seeing your kids in this case.

If you worked 7 days a week, that would average 13 hours a day, which is working  from 8am-9pm.  7 days a week.  What else can I say?

Either your number are way off, or you're a very deulded man.

Bella
Monday, March 11, 2002

Jutta,
it must be nice to be able to work 40 hours a week.  Im my world, that's unheard of.  Unless there are firms that are willing to trade off bigtime with salary and a limited workweek.    You may be in for a shock if you ever change jobs.

Bella
Monday, March 11, 2002

I used to work ~60 hours per week, partly due to a troubled (unrewarding) homelife, partly due to boss who encouraged people to work by inducing fear. Spouse is now on medication for schizophrenia, I now work 38 hours/week to be able to help give us both 'a life', and it's now a much better situation all round. I've heard oldsters say that they divorced after working insane hours for a few years; which is the cause of that and which is the effect may be left as an exercise for the student. HTH.

x
Monday, March 11, 2002

Bella> it must be nice to be able to work 40 hours a week. Im my world, that's unheard of.

Where is that world?  I work mid-Atlantic USA doing software development.  40 hours/week is the norm, with extra hours and some weekend work near deadlines when we find out that there is just too much unfinished stuff to do.  Severe overtime for a few weeks may happen on really badly managed projects, but I have not gotten stuck with one of those.

To me the overtime is a relatively minor problem compared to my long commute, which consumes 10 hours of my time a week, or the less than optimal working conditions and project management which make the 40 hours more stressful than they should be.

mackinac
Monday, March 11, 2002

STATUS|S
KIDS|0
AGE|28

I used to work lots of overtime, but after being burned by a dot-com or two, that won't happen again. My work has been "asking" people to workends to ship a product with an overly optimistic schedule. My girlfriend gives me grief for working on the weekends, but I know she is right. It's 9-5 for me from now on..

Banana Fred
Monday, March 11, 2002

Either I wasn't clear enough, Bella, or you're misunderstanding me. Or both.

I am typically at my desk 5AM to 9PM, 7 days a week. But that doesn't mean I am constantly working during that time. Subtract off 3 hours for meals and meal prep (I do most of the cooking around here) as well as feeding the animals around the farm, and there's the 13-hour day.

But that doesn't mean I'm coding that whole time, any more than an 8-hour office day means coding for 8 hours. I work with just about the same intensity that I did when I used to go into an office. So I claim those 90 hours as the equivalent of 90 office hours, even though there are lots of breaks and multitasking.

This morning, for instance, I just got done taking a ten-minute break with our toddler to go play with the baby chicks. Now he's in my lap helping me type. Presently we shall read my e-mail and his Cat in the Hat. Then perhaps he'll play with dinosaurs while I write something.

So, I work 90 hours the same way that most office-goers work 40 hours.

Mike Gunderloy
Monday, March 11, 2002

Mike,

You have a sweet set up there.  Its what I hope for myself one day.

Ged Byrne
Monday, March 11, 2002

Except that 5 AM is perhaps a little early to start. :-)

Frederik Slijkerman
Monday, March 11, 2002

If you are single, type in your reply:
STATUS|S

Knowing age may help...
AGE|25

I have screwed my life so much that it does not really matter whether i screw it up a bit more by programming. So it does not affect me.

noone
Monday, March 11, 2002

Frederik: I start when the rooster starts :) In the winter it's somewhat later.

Mike Gunderloy
Monday, March 11, 2002

S/34/0 is easier to parse :)

I work at a startup.  I get in around 10 and leave between 6 and 8 (average ~ 45 hrs/week.)  I don't work weekends except in emergencies.

I'm definatly in the minority.  I get in after most of my co-workers and leave before most of them (most people work ~ 80+ hrs/week.)

Also unlike most of my co-workers, I'm not
perpetually burnt out.  When people ask me to do something, they get it on time (mostly) because I know how much I can do and really try not to accept more than that.

None of my managment seems to be complaining much, other than when I tell them they really need to go home early once in a while instead of sitting numb in their cubes staring into space.  If I eventually get laid off for not overworking enough, then hey, I guess I'll just have to get another job.

Semi Free Corporate Slave
Monday, March 11, 2002

To the people who work at home.  Do you worry about what will happen if your work at home job goes away?  Do live somewhere where you can get a new job? 

Bella
Tuesday, March 12, 2002

M/2/30

Situational fire-fighting/pre-release chaos notwithstanding, I'm home by 5 and on weekends, as family time is more important to me than burning myself out.  Of course, I'm almost always in the office by 6AM, because I'd rather be gone in the morning while my family is asleep, then in the evening when they are awake.

tchaos
Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Do I worry about getting enough work at home? Constantly. At the moment one major contract is drawing to an end at the end of this month, and there's not another one signed yet to take its place. But that's not really much different from any other sort of freelancing business. Keeping the work flowing is always tough when you're working for yourself. The big disadvantage I have is not that I work at home, but that I am in an extremely rural area and am no longer willing to travel long distances to client sites. It's all a matter of trade-offs; in our case, we prefer this as a place to raise kids over places where I could get more work that paid better more easily .

Mike Gunderloy
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Mike, 
Yea, that spells potential disaster, if you've painted yourself into a corner, and are uncommutable to an office job, and are not able to find work at home gigs....

I never understood how people can get a job in a remote location, where they are 100% dependent on one employer.  (IBM is a great example of this)  When that office/plant shuts down, it's time to move, or work at the bowling alley.  And of course, when 100 homes come on the market at once, with no reason for anyone to move in and buy them, the bottom falls out harder than you can comprehend.  Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket !

I guess your lifestyle has been great so far, cheap remote real estate, good hours, etc.  but that was a function of one job, which can be lost in an instant, which you are now grpappling with....False reality?

How long a drive would you need to make to find a programmer job in an office?

Bella
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

M|1|42

My hours traditionally tend to be fairly heavy, on average say 50+/week, with work on weekends or at home in the evenings. 40 hours is a noticeably light week, and crunch time can easily take that to the far side of 80/week, including camping out at work overnight in the lab. I have kind of a bad commute now, also, which doesn't help. The commute also is why I'll sometimes stay over at night if I'm too tired to drive home safely.

Yep, it does cut into my personal life quite a bit. My wife and I don't like that, but it's the breaks of the game, pretty much. It's been worse, though.

Just wondering, those of you who have responses posted that follow the pattern more or less of "I'm just doing my 40", "it's just a job", "I'd rather not burn out", "I just get up and leave" etc. -- have you ever considered the possibility that your actions may be making somebody else on your team have to work harder than they otherwise would?

If you're seeing the other members of your team at the office pull down heavy hours, and you get up after your 40, when was the last time you tried to see if there was anything you could do to help?

How can you actually in good conscience get up and leave if you know you're only spending half as much time as your teammates are without at least trying to find out what's up? You may be the one who's right, you may be 100% better than they are, great if so. They may be complete idiots... anyway you look at it raises a great opportunity for improvement.

Oh wait - here's a kicker - when was the last time you voluntarily went to your *QA guy* and worked through the requirements and designs for your part of the system to make sure that:

1) the conditions your code may be subjected to are identified
2) what your code is supposed to do under those conditions is identified
3) these things are coordinated with the other stakeholders on the team
4) the interface (human UI or other system ) supports all this
5) the QA guy understands what your code is supposed to do under specific conditions so he can write tests for it.
6) all this is expressed in a format that makes the lives of those who must use it easier rather than harder?
7) ...etc.

Well, if your answer is "never", then you've got people around you who are working harder than they need to because you're cutting corners you should not be cutting.

Have you considered that your teammates might be  approximately as deserving of their time at home with their families as you might be with yours?

At 42, I'm among the older of those I've seen on this group so far. Some of you on this group are closer to my daughter's age than you are mine. I served a good while in the Army at a various levels, and in the civilian world as well, I've led teams ranging in size from 2-3 and commanded a unit as large as 260 soldiers. I've had more or less three careers in the last 20 years. Bottom line, been around the block a few times and know a fair amount about being part of a team and running one.

In the Army, we had a term that applied to just doing your little slice and skating out the door - the G-rated version of the term was "screwing-over your buddy".  There were a lot of ways to screw over your buddy, but one way was to not carry your share of the load when the whole team is trying to carry a common burden. The mission was always too big for one person alone - the mission was a team mission. No individual was done until the team was done. Sure, everybody had their parts to play, but you help each other out whenever possible or practical (some skills are really specialized and could not easily be shared, I know).

If you're so good, and you might well be, that you can do in 40 hours what it takes a teammate 80 hours to do, then you owe it to the team and to your teammate to see if you can help them learn how to do things faster, too. Maybe you can't, but at least you checked into it. The person you asked if you could help will probably remember that you did, also.

Someday, the shoe may be on the other foot. Wouldn't it be better if your shop had a team of people who could all get your amount of work done in 40 hours / person / week? Then you'd all be happier. Or, you'd all be more efficient and may be able to beat out a competing firm for a contract because you know you can under-bid them and still make money? Many good things can come from trying to help out to make things better and not just bail-out when you've got your piece done.

I'm a QA Manager, in case you hadn't guessed from my comments above. I'm one primary consumer of information and artifacts regarding the system behavior. When it is never developed, or when it's never made visible to me, then I'm one of those who pays for the short-cuts taken upstream by those who don't want to "burn out". Guess it's ok for us to burn out.

F.J. Weiland
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Bella - Nope, I'm not dependent on a single employer. Well, only in the sense that I'm self-employed. These days, I'm doing consulting work for a couple of clients, editorial for a couple more, and writing books and articles. With one major job about to end I'd like to slot another into those hours, but it doesn't have to happen immediately. For that matter, we could keep going for at least a year with no income coming in beyond book royalties. So I'm not particularly worried.

An office job? I'd have at least a 2-hour one-way commute. I've done that in the past (crossing Los Angeles), but I'm not about to do it again. Something will always turn up.

Mike Gunderloy
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

FJ,

We usually have more than one day's worth of work "scheduled"; e.g. a 6-month "new project", or something shorter. I am *not* going to attempt to finish it all in one day and night, even if my bosses *would* appreciate my (succeeding at) doing that.

Something that worked successfully for me recently was to make a WAG ("wild-ass-guess")schedule at the beginning of the project, measured in weeks. Then a weekly status report, saying what's done, what's not done, whether the project has slipped, what the blockers are, *adjust* the schedule at the end of every week, and publish it to the bosses. (There's some advice about how much to adjust/revise your estimated schedule in, I think, the book called _Rapid Development_). Net result: I was usefully employed every one of those weeks (they managed to feed me input as needed, or find something else to do temporarily if some expected input was delayed); I didn't burn out; the WAG schedule "slipped" 2 months, but everyone knows exactly why and they had plenty of time to adjust their end-dates, and to adjust the feature set which they're attempting for this release.

I've been out drinking with my QA manager, berated him for working such long hours as he was working if the hours were contrary to his desire, told him that it wasn't necessary (citing myself as an example), let him blow some steam, and he feels better now for whatever reason. QA people imho tend to feel less job-secure than developers; wrongly, if I have any say in that ... I would far rather lose a developer or two than any QA. Also managers can feel less secure, as they try to protect (make up for any perceived deficit left by) their underlings.

I've also (per my manager's instructions) made it explicit in writing that no single person here will be held responsible for missing some important ship date; that if we succeed then we will all succeed, and that if we fail then we will likely all be fired en masse; and that if anyone has nothing much to do (near the end of a project), the QA manager has plenty and go see him. The QA manager characterized that to me as an "evil" email (since it mentioned our all being fired), and said that as a result of it several people came to ask him how they could help. So, that went well.

In the end, I don't want my family to burn out. If this company can't survive without my working 60+ then I just need to find another company; that's where my loyalties are; but, so far, they seem to be surviving. I used to work long, and I benefited from it then, and now not. HTH.

x
Wednesday, March 13, 2002

FJ wrote:

>Just wondering, those of you who have responses posted that follow the pattern more or less of "I'm just doing my 40", "it's just a job", "I'd rather not burn out", "I just get up and leave" etc. -- have you ever considered the possibility that your actions may be making somebody else on your team have to work harder than they otherwise would?

Hey, I was one of the 40 h people, and I think you misunderstood my point. To me it is not "just a job". My work is the most important thing in my life. My colleagues are too. I would never think of letting them down in any way.

For one thing we have a pretty straight forward 40 h policy in our company, you are not only "allowed" to leave after an 8 h work day, you are by all means expected to do so. We have a monthly release cycle and by the end of the month things tend to get a bit rough sometimes, most of us work a little longer then. In the more relaxed times you see people leaving office early. It works really great that way. We do not get paid overtime (even though we might be in for a bonus of some kind for extra weekend efforts or the like, I got an invitation to a David Copperfield show last year after working on sunday). We are expected to compensate by taking a day off.

Also I think that none of my colleagues (neither programmers nor QA nor management whom I consider colleagues too :-) ) would gain anything from regular overtime done by me or any other developer. 40 h in front of the screen is enough. You do not stop thinking anyway, the best problem solution pop up in my head at night.

Working longer on a regular basis wears me out. I had that on a previous job and it ended up with me being seriously ill and unable to work for almost a month. This I consider letting my fellow programmers down.

And working well together with the QA department or not has nothing to do with the time you spend at work either. In the oppsosite. I would guess that a company relying on their employees doing serious overtime all the time cannot be that keen on quality anyway and therefore QA might find it harder getting heard. The longer programmers feel they have to work, the less time they will want to spare on tasks other than coding.

Jm2c,

Jutta Jordans
Thursday, March 14, 2002

M|0|25

>> Just wondering, those of you who have responses posted that follow the pattern more or less of "I'm just doing my 40", "it's just a job", "I'd rather not burn out", "I just get up and leave" etc. -- have you ever considered the possibility that your actions may be making somebody else on your team have to work harder than they otherwise would?

FJ,

Commonsense (and a multitude of literature - Peopleware) proves that overtime is worthless. If people hang back and work longer hours then they invariably:

a) Introduce more problems than they solve
b) Slack off anyway

So there is no real reason to feel guilty (assuming you are working the hours you are paid to work). I work 37.5 hours a week and get as much done in that as I would in 60...

Seeya

Matthew John Wills
Thursday, March 14, 2002

STATUS|S
KIDS|0
AGE|28

All the response formats on this message board *proves* the theory that user's don't read instructions :-P

Long hours don't affect my personal life much. It's only when hours creep into my official "play time" - (ie. any time friday night to sunday night) that it starts to become bothersome.

It's too bad that long hours are the norm in the software industry. I'm hoping it will fully change in the next 10-20 years, when more Gen-X'ers who grew up and evolved with the computer industry will become "management". They'll lead the push for the essential processes that are necessary for a healthy software organization.

In general, there's a shortage of good technical managers in the industry. It definitely rears its ugly head every time I see a job posting looking for a ".NET Architect with 10 years of .NET experience."

- oops, I'm digressing...(and not following instructions :-P)

James Wann
Thursday, March 14, 2002

STATUS|S
KIDS|0
AGE|30

Typical week:
Monday, 12:30pm - 11:00pm in the office

Tuesday, 12:30pm - 4am in the office

Wednesday, sleep in, work 3-4 hours at home

Thursday, 12:30pm - 4am in the office

Friday, sleep in work 3-4 hours at home

Saturday or Sunday - if girlfriend working, I will work some more hours from home (becaue I might have worked less during the week knowing that she was working that weekend).

I work long hours (I love this stuff!) but that is so that I can spend more time with my girlfriend (and because I just don't want to stop sometimes -- did I tell you I love this stuff! :)

I'm working at least 50 hours a week, but I spend so much more time with my girlfriend because the hours are flexible.

Basically, I go into work 3 days a week.
Work from home 2 days a week.

If I know I'm going into the office the next day, I'll force myself to leave around 11pm.
If I know I'm NOT going into the office the next day, I'll leave when I'm tired (4am, 5am, sometimes 6am).

This is why ALL workplaces should have flex hours.  They get more hours from me (at least 50), they are more productive hours (less context switches, it's real quiet at night), and I'm happy because I can see my girlfriend when she's not working (she's a nurse so her hours are all over the place -- and I adjust my work days accordingly).

The philosophy at my workplace is "work the hours you need to work to be productive".
Let me tell you, it does not get any better than that.

Another guy I work with comes in at about 11am and leaves at 4pm (to pick up his little girl).
He'll take care of her until she goes to bed.
Then, he will work from 9pm-2am at home.

So, he still puts in his hours.  And gets to spend time with his daughter/wife.  So his personal life doesn't suffer either.

Again, all companies should let their programmers have flex hours.  It's a win-win situation.

William C
Friday, March 15, 2002

Came to contract on a chunk of another book today. So much for those looming spare hours!

Mike Gunderloy
Friday, March 15, 2002

What exactly do you do, Mike?  Contract for a book?  Are you a proofreader?

Bella
Friday, March 15, 2002

What do I do? A little of everything. In this case, the contract is to *write* part of a book -- something I do quite frequently. I also write software on a contract basis, edit some magazines, write articles, and poke at some projects that might some day ship as shareware. Used to do a lot of training, too, but that was too much travel.

Mike Gunderloy
Saturday, March 16, 2002

Willam C made a great point about flex hours, IMO.

I concur. It works very well for me, as does the ability to work remotely. Often being at the tail end of things in QA, I can't always tell reliably how long something's going to take. As William C describes, sometimes you just get into it and the hours fly by. I'm sure you all have this happen as well.

Remote working is not routine for us, but there's no prohibition against it. There have been a number of mornings when I'll roll out of bed at 5 am, goto my lab at home and get started working and really get into it. Along around early or mid morning, I've sent an email to the PMs and others I'm interfacing with that I'm into what I'm doing and don't want to stop the flow to lose two hours to shower and face my lengthy commute into work.

(I hope the genius - or geniuses - who came up with VPN got richly rewarded)

Sometimes I need to use the lab at work, so staying home isn't an option. But overall the flextime and the ability to work remotely have helped me greatly deal with those unavoidable situations when some amount of over-work is just going to happen.

Good point, William C!

F.J. Weiland
Monday, March 18, 2002

James writes: "It's too bad that long hours are the norm in the software industry. I'm hoping it will fully change in the next 10-20 years, when more Gen-X'ers who grew up and evolved with the computer industry will become "management". They'll lead the push for the essential processes that are necessary for a healthy software organization."

This does not seem very likely to me.  Where will they learn those "essential processes"?  I have had experience working for an employer that did a lot of things right, but now am in a closer to average work environment.  One thing I notice is that the younger people may complain, but they tend to accept things the way they are as the normal way of doing business.  They don't really have an idea of how things could be better.  When they get to management, they'll probably keep doing things the same way.

mackinac
Monday, March 18, 2002

> (I hope the genius - or geniuses - who came up with VPN got richly rewarded)

As an application it's worth millions to a telco ... there's some corresponding money to be made by selling them the kit.

Christopher Wells
Monday, March 18, 2002

Hi mackinac,

You hit the nail on the head. The younger programmers complain because they actually have the ability to *identify* the sore points in software development. You'd be surprised at the number of PHB types currently in the industry who have incredibly low EQ's that don't see the very basic problems in a development environment. The typical stuff that a large number of upper/middle managers do not understand. As for not doing anything about it, I often find that it's management that's disempowered them, especially in this economy. There's probably HUGE room for a discussion for dealing with passive agressive software developers.

A lot of upper-management types at this stage of the industry have limited exposure, and are often one-trick ponys (ie. Database, GUI, Network, Embedded/Hardware, FireFight, but rarely a combination of the above), whereas today's software field is multi-faceted, with development expertise spanning one or more of the sub-fields that's mentioned above.

Sure, today's development environment might just as well turn out PHB's of tomorrow (and I'm certain it WILL!), but engineers today feel the pressure and difficulty and challenges of building large complex systems. And this challenge - for those who last past the ten year survival period for software engineers - will create battle hardened technical leaders that can more effectively deal with schedule pressures, moving requirements, over-architecture, under-specification, because they know and can recognize the symptoms - which is certainly better than PHB's today.

BTW, I don't really like to use the term PHB, but it's better than saying something like "upper and middle management" over and over again. De-normalize if you wish :-P

James Wann
Monday, March 18, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home