What does a Manager do?

What does a Manager do?

Of course "Manage".

Manage what? 

Something that needs to be done or delivered in absolutely certain manner!

Dictionary meaning:

"succeed in surviving or in achieving something despite difficult circumstances" 

"succeed in achieving or producing (something difficult)."

What is to Manage against? 

Risk of not able to do or deliver thing against various agreed parameters by keeping constraints intact.

e.g. Quality, On time, Cost, Completeness, Correctness, Reliable, Acceptable, Legitimate, Certainty, Precise, etc...

Guarding the most obvious and important delivery parameters first

Essentially the question is, 

What happens when "management" happens? 

It is "Risk Free Delivery".

A manager has "Managed well" 

when he has managed all the risks "well".

There are internal and external factors which interfere with the agreed delivery

Manager has to "Manage" against all odds about, how will he factors and overcomes every obstacle

Planning, Risk Mitigation, Estimation, Communication, etc. are tools to help "manage"

These tools also need to be used correctly. 

e.g. Realistic Plan, Well thought Risk Mitigation, Correct Estimation and enough times repeated, Overly Simplified Clear Communication,...

So there is science in using and talent or art in applying these tools

Manager must be rated on results not on efforts!

Managers metrics is, 

What risk emerged, 

How he handled it, and  

How deliverable achieved as per agreed expectations

If no risks emerged, then it was easy task!

So Manager's true performance is, 

when many issues emerged and he did not let delivery affected

More capable managers have more capacity to deal with many and very high risks situations successfully

Leader is more of leading the change for better for everyone and together

He identifies the need and initiates the change process

While Manager is required to take care of every risk to ensure deliveries happen as expected

Individuals and organizations value system, social and legal norms gives boundary framework to carry activity of "Managing" something

otherwise "managing something" can take form of "bribed to get it done"

Manager is for doing things in a right manner that covers all risks against expected delivery

Science of Management is about how you get Right in the Manner.

Biggest thing we should be doing

Biggest thing we should be doing is appreciating peer functions.

Without their presence we could have not done anything.
We crib often for what they failed at doing for us, but that was just a small thing compared to what they doing perfectly well but are invisible because our pain is gone.

Good performance is always invisible.

And you can make another fundamental mistake after reading Netscape story

And you can make another fundamental mistake after reading Netscape story

Here is famous Joel’s thoughts on Netscape Story.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Half or more of tech world has something to learn and follow from Joel.

After the impressive comments from Authority like Joel, others build their opinion about code rewrite, almost in fixated manner without considering how different situation they are in compared to Mozilla.

If you are in coding for some time and do not know Netscape’s rewrite case… this post will be irrelevant to you.

Netscape made mistake at most crucial time to waste 3 years in browser rewrite giving a winning chance to IE to come from nowhere and catch to become leader.

Netscape code was working. It became better and better through numerous workarounds and fixes written to survive the various Operating Systems bugs. This was built over a long period. It was scattered everywhere in the code. It was the real IP of the Netscape code that it can work in spite of so many severe issues in memory management, APIs functioning etc the Operating Systems had.

Possibly you could have written a very good HTML renderer browser but that would not work well on Operating System that runs it. So you have to fix for others bugs. And this is most difficult thing that a coder would ever want to do. You don't know what to fix without someone unhappy and reporting it.

Think of this as through an analogy.

The HTML coder your company has, wrote a correct XHTML code. But it does not works well on various versions of the browser. The HTML coder did not violate any of the HTML or CSS standards. Now what he has to do? Case by case for specific browser versions, create CSS, HTML and JavaScript that would work correctly.

So you got the point here. The HTML coder has to patch for issues in browsers to make his web page render correctly.

Let’s go back to Netscape case.

Was Netscape browser rewrite and waiting it to release to public for 3 long years was wrong? Simple Code Refactoring activity could have fixed everything. True.

Why was that required?

• Poorest maintainability of the existing code due to bad logical arrangement of code.
• Lots of boiler plates damaged logical integrity by damaging earlier simple structure, introduced redundant and wrong place fixes.
• Now the situation is, it takes time to change anything because system lost maintainability charm.
• As it is too difficult to understand for someone to make any change for better.
• Fixing here breaks at other unexpected places.
• Many unexpected ways system was maintaining its working.

But the reality was,
Netscape Browser was working well in spite of all OS issues.

Others would certainly need time to catch Netscape. It was working irrespective of thousands of bugs in the systems on which it runs. And Netscape could run on such diverse systems by fixing all such many issues.

The biggest argument made against was, code was not at all maintainable or understandable easily because the state it was in.

Because of bad code, for Netscape, eventually features took really too long to build because it is so difficult to add or improve things for developers. Even any new change breaks the system at many unexpected places. Nobody had neat idea what is in the code.

Netscape was wrong in its approach to fix it.

When you meet a monolith code, you are in mess. That’s why good architecture and design helps by separation of concerns to make it independent of developer’s maturity in code writing.

For Netscape, a simple refactoring by rearrangement of code could have been done easily. Certainly taking less time compared to 3 years, and without losing the IP it accumulated.

But they rewrote it from scratch. Taking 3 years gap. And the new version was massively buggy with the earlier IP missing.

And you can make another fundamental mistake after reading Netscape story.

When you are in Netscape situation, do refactoring. But are you in the same situation?

1) Better technology is not reason to rewrite. Bad code is not reason to rewrite.

2) Another fancy framework is not reason for rewrite. Do refactoring.

3) Trading for business/operational value against the cost of rewrite. You may not need 3 years to rewrite. In some cases it may be just very less time. (Once I met with email module written badly in one of the product. Every week there was situation to look down and feel insulted when emails goof up with customers. We continued for 6 months like that with choice of to fix than rewrite. When we rewrote the module it took just 1 week for a senior developer.)

4) Paradigms shift in technology every decade. From website to mobile ready website then Mobile App then Platform Integrated e.g. Facebook specific App that open inside FB Mobile App as FB Website then ...

Because you want to meet more customers and they have moved to some different format, you may want to rewrite

5) Security can be a reason for rewrite. Scalability can be a reason for rewrite, because it can change the recipe completely.

6) To fix earlier wrong choice of framework or components or technology stack or wrong design... refactoring will not work alone. Instead consider rewriting specific identified parts of the system.

In last 14 years I met with at least 9 massive rewrites and flipped the business situation to great advantage. Some rewrite took 10 weeks to rebuild a 15 months teamwork while some rewrites took more than 3 years. And in all cases all rewrite cases had same symptom of Netscape earlier but different reason actually. Some of those rewrites were in approval with business people. Those rewrites made business come out of severe risks time to time.

A half dozen more rewrites were simply refused and still suffer same maintainability curse in past 6 or more years. And they did so after knowing Netscape story. Bookish something.

My last mega rewrite was changing an entire system which was coded and value added for 13 years on everyday basis. It took 2 years to rewrite for team of 12 coders, using my another work of 2 years in AI and Java based system developed with another team of 3 coders, as a base line.

Result was complete transformation. Earlier employees were resigning due to too much workload. Company was profitable but was in risk as most old and loyal employees wanting to leave as it badly imbalanced work and home. After new system was in place, employees were happy. Same company could now take up the new opportunities which made it earn highest revenue growth since its existence.

Rewrite is last choice because it is very intense and riskful. Knowing when to use it is critically important.

My word of caution for you:
Business people do not like rewrite because it is throwing away value created. They probably want to kill you for 2 things… 1) there are severe problems open for long and you are not fixing it yet and 2) the plan you propose is “rewrite” to fix most problems.

When business people start influencing technical people often technically wrong decisions are pushed.

One of the killer decision is “To Rewrite Or Not”.

When you are not an expert in the field, and in complete power to influence what decision the experts should take, you often force your beliefs than letting correct decision be made by experts.

Corporate Psychologist often know how to instate balance through designing decision and power structure. Some good managements like Google, FB implement it in better way.

Most code gets rewrite for many reasons. A small portion of code is most long living without any change. Complete rewrite can be a bad idea, but it depends on if you are in a specific situation like Mozilla.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RewriteCodeFromScratch has some interesting pointers.

#1 issue developers should worry

Forcing code to be "reusable", by forcing "configuration" makes it "complex" beyond maintainable and practically useless,

Redundancy is not #1 issue developers should worry, the Complexity is going to ruin everything.

Why software can be so difficult to write for us the humans?

Why software can be so difficult to write for us the humans?

Only software writers will know “Bad software is a bad software”.

Why software can be so difficult to write for us the humans?
Software is system of heavily interconnected dependent nodes, you pull one connection or node and many other will fail. You make one connection right and you will struggle to fix thousand issues. If the interconnections mesh strangled badly, bringing order to it is not a repair or refactoring, it is a brain transplant surgery. It is making B (the mess mesh) to become A (modular order). This like taking an approach where a complexity is squared. In fact with fresh rewrite you can simply build to desired implementation A with steadily improving final desired system.

And we humans have only a limited short term memory. It is just like a scratch pad very very short. Apart from your ability to solve things, the major limitation still is limited short term memory. Which makes it difficult to fit a complex thing in your creative mind while you write code. The way you achieve is think through completely through multiple iterations, revisits to the same core and its part again and again to keep adding to its fabric to make the picture complete in passes…

Greatest ability for any coder is to consider is ability to “deal with complexity”.

Software is inherently complex beyond humans can perceive it completely at once in their little gray matter.

Coding is output in action, of a thorough thinking process, that has answer to, how something will work by implementing it in the code.

Remake

Remake

Talk about rewriting software from scratch and business people will not like it.

They hate rewrite idea. If you try hard to convince them, soon they will start hating you. They will switch off, you.

Their rationale goes like this

    "We built it so over years spending so much.
    We cannot just let that trashed, there is great IP built into it."

    “The software was working to great extent as we experienced, it has been working so great for so many years, how is it becoming useless all of a sudden? We are just 90% there we just need 10% to cover up.”

You are correct, like an accountant.. and completely wrong as a technologist.

My advice:

    "this 10% will take same or more time than what it took to build first 90%."

What you have in hand is some system which is mediocre. Yes mediocre. You are so concerned to achieve that rest 10% impossible because it is built to be mediocre. The mediocre 90% achievement is not taking your business anywhere. It will not achieve rest 10% if it is not changed by removing this mediocre.

This is last mile problem, most struggle as they fail to understand the reality.

They will end up in stalemate.
Want 100% but not ready to change the 90% that preventing achieve the last 10%.

They will go round and round checking with multiple experts and wondering how this 90% can be so wasteful after it is so close to final state.

Time goes on...

My Zycus Story

My Zycus Story

I joined Zycus, left it twice to join it third time. 

Now I am moved out again to work full time with Zycus spinoff Pebstone.

At Zycus, I managed to move their flagship AI technology to 100% Java as a System Designer.

I was Microsoft cult guy, I had never worked before on Java.

Immediately next I had to deliver yet another really big value at Zycus. I completely fulfilled organization’s algorithm needs.

I developed Artificial Intelligence systems at Zycus pretty well. AI is interesting field of science, I had no earlier exposure to it. My work made core of the Zycus products and its internal production systems.

... Text Classification, Text Clustering, Information Extraction and many other algorithms and shipped them as AI Engines that others will use in their Product or in Production Systems. Some products were only possible because technology I built.

I built many rock-solid stable, amazingly fast and scalable systems at Zycus during these early years.

Innovation remained my core motto.

The next challenge was to build top performing talents who are extraordinary technologist.

By this time I made my mind to focus on “Setup and Move Forward”.

I was extreme innovation oriented, extreme technology guy and extreme individual performer that time.

I changed in to something different very soon.

I made myself multiplied. I made myself redundant so I can move to next level of challenge. I transformed my resources into leaders at every level. I realized leader’s role as intense people centric during these times.

By building Agent based AI for Vendor Risk Analysis, Web Robots, Focused Crawling, highly Scalable Web Crawlers with concepts like scalable architectures with the next generation of talent. Best part is some could deliver fantastic technology independently without me needing any hand holding anymore.

Later as Principle Technical Architect I vision for technology needs of Zycus. This was possible with the team of young leadership at R&D.

I vision, Architect and implemented a world class SaaS infrastructure at Zycus. This is the yet another critical value I delivered at Zycus.

I influenced many thought transformations in the way software was developed at Zycus.

Introducing service oriented thinking, forced separation of Presentation from Business logic, Searched based architectures, and Document based systems. I chewed tons of criticism at lunch stemmed from change anxiety and peer issues. Change everybody hates, but is must.

Without people business or technology cannot move anywhere. Talent is absolute need. I focused to build culture of lead and perform. Investing in people development relentlessly. This is not easy task. Leadership is building leaders at every level.

Almost three years I led Pebstone startup phase with all functions, Propellum technology makeover and operating R&D HOD at Zycus simultaneously.

I worked as single man army on AI Algorithms for years alone. Extremely overloaded. Started getting part time assistance on general java app development due to work loads. That was after 5 years! From there a small team grew to convert “Algo Man’s” legacy to R&D Department in Zycus. That same small department become new company. R&D was split in 3 companies. Zycus R&D Dept, a brand new startup company based on innovation incubation and in Propellum to change the technology to take it to scalable business operations. With my movement to Pebstone, R&D Dept in Zycus is closed. The last two members are moving to Propellum.

With great fellow team members this journey was possible.

The greater fun part of the changing inside and transforming outside.

I transformed Zycus internally many times for various things silently. Before coming to Zycus I was MS guy.

I was working with Asterix Softech Ltd. A startup in its fourth year.

My biggest value to Asterix was building their first commercial product which was their dream.

Asterix was Java cult when I joined. I was C, C++ guy. I changed Asterix to MS Technology Company. I realized that their dream product is just not possible at that time with Java where they spent 4 years doing something. I vision and initiated change and drove it well. In the journey I learnt MS technology well.

Next was the Zycus which took me for C/C++ expertise, not for MS technology, led a critical java system design, I was Java novice then but changed myself to do Java well here very late.

Most my learning about technology and Architecture developed during days in Asterix.

I strongly believe core value of leader is the change he brings to everyday affair for himself and others involved.