When should technical people become involved in a project?

[Ancalagon]

Can I get an outside opinion on something?

So, I am a senior developer contracting at a company X.

There is a project that I am the lead developer on. Lets call this project B, which was developed to replace A. B1, what is now live to the public, was developed by a guy who owns a company that we bought part ownership in. We will call this guy F.

Back in March, I was hired to develop a replacement to B1 - B2. B1 had not gone live yet, but we knew it was bad enough that it would at the least need significant work. They did not want to ask F to do this work, due to politics. He is apparently difficult to work with - I dont know, never met him. So, they hired me to basically develop something that was better than what F had done, but do it in house so that it can be easily maintained. However, one day, F phoned our CEO and asked him to put B1 live, so that his replacement for A, A2, could go live. Our CEO agreed without consulting anyone. B1 was so bad that we had clients quitting within days. I think we have lost at least 3 clients, some of them major, and lots of others only stayed because they have been promised that B2 will address all of their concerns. Plus we had to resurrect A to allow them to do their work - lots would have quit had we not done that.

So it was a disaster. The CEO did take responsibility at least, eventually.

So now B2 is looking good, and we are planning to put it live end of May, as far as I know. Yesterday, there is a project/product meeting. No technical people at all are invited, not me, not any of my colleagues. In this meeting, they talk about the future of the B series of products, and B3. B3 is to be the next iteration of B2, but developed with proper requirements elicitation and apparently with several exciting ideas that will make it better. Yes, B2 has not gone to market, we do not know what clients do or do not like about it. They also talked about other related products, that share a common database structure but are aimed at different markets. And they also talked about B2 and the reports in it, and decided that they need some outside help to make the reports "better". They dont yet know what they dont like about the current reports. They have been testing and giving feedback, so I have fixed all of their complaints about the reports thus far, and to my untrained eye, they dont look bad, and are a massive improvement over B1's reports. But now this other guy is coming in at 11 to have a look. Bear in mind, the people who arranged that he come in, do not know how the reports are generated, so I'm not sure he can help.

I'm furious, for two reasons:
1. B1 was a screw up because the CEO did not stop to ask for feedback on B1 before launching it - not even from technical people who were busy developing the replacement. So it was a screw up. Yesterday, they have a meeting to plan a roadmap, without any technical staff present. History repeats itself. They had one non technical business intelligence guy there, that is it. Why not involve at least one technical resource? I'm not saying it has to be me, I just think you should have technical staff involved at the beginning of any project discussions.
2. Dont bring in someone else to finish the reports without at least discussing it with me. Firstly, I can advise you on what kind of person we might need to do them properly. There are 100 million different ways of generating reports, and if they get someone in without the right skills, it will be a waste of time. Secondly, its insulting when you get someone in to finish my work, when you yourself do not know what is wrong with my work. EDIT: also its very late in the project's lifecycle to get someone in work on reports. Ideally he should have been involved from the beginning, but he wasnt because they decided that B2's reports should be the same as A's, not B1's.

Am I right to be hugely irritated?

 

[cguy]

If the project is technical in nature - technical staff should be involved from the get-go. That said, there is often a cascade effect, where new/modified projects and new/modified requirements discussed in a meeting have dependencies, which have dependencies, etc. the level of involvement of indirect dependencies is often non-trivial, so it becomes a judgement call on where to cut off the dependency chain - a smart Organization would still include at least some representative from every level, who at least knows who "needs to know".

As for this other guy they brought in - was he also a contractor? The may have wanted someone in-house involved - they may not want to remain dependent on a contractor.

 

[Ancalagon]

He works for another company, and as far as I understand it, this other company is being contracted in to do the reports.

Fair enough, but I am on a 12 month contract. Also, there are other permanent technical resources - get them in.

 

[cguy]

He works for another company, and as far as I understand it, this other company is being contracted in to do the reports.

Fair enough, but I am on a 12 month contract. Also, there are other permanent technical resources - get them in.

Bizarre - sounds like it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. This usually becomes more problematic the larger the organization becomes. Since the CEO is involved to the degree you say (vs a figurehead leader of an employee army), this juat sounds like incompetent management.

 

[Ancalagon]

its a very small company, funnily enough.

I dont think its a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, I think its a case of the bladder not asking the brain if we are facing the toilet before unleashing.

 

[web_dude]

you are the senior developer... is there somebody above you? a project manager or similar that you respond to?

If that person was on the meeting... then is OK. many times the management have to keep things confidential. Maybe they wanted to get new "senior developers" for the next generations... who knows...

If the CEO is "******ng" the things up... well... that's why he/she is the CEO and the board (shareholders) have to take measures. At the end the CEO is the Ultimate Responsible Person (even if they are not).

Take your concerns to your boss. Maybe you win. But they should get Mr. F ucker out the way 100%.

 

[Ancalagon]

There is another senior developer more senior than me, and a database architect guy, also more senior than me. We are the only technical resources and none of us were included.

Not a confidential meeting.

The guy more senior than me is technically my boss although I dont report to him on this project. he isnt really involved. There is no project manager, the person I've been working closely with is the lead customer service representative for the product, because she knows what the users are complaining about.

 

[AfricanTech]

Impressed at how passionate you are about your work product - getting increasingly rare nowadays.

You are right to be irritated, HOWEVER, don't let your irritation show.

Approach this mildly - email product owner, big cheese, head honcho, persons of influence, and let them know that you are aware of meeting that took place, and as lead dev, believe that they have missed an opportunity by not involving you. Point out (without being arrogant), that you are best placed to provide them with the most efficient (fastest. cheapest and most accurate) way of addressing what appear to be new requirements. Point out that you are personally invested in the project and absolutely want to see it being a success. Acknowledge (if it applies), that you may not be the best at producing visually attractive reports, but if they want the best data, you're the one to come to.

If positive response = win
If no/negative response = :erm: - well, at least if the new reports fk up, you get to say "I told you so"

Props for your passion

 

[Ancalagon]

I've emailed the HR guy but not the CEO.

 

[bobby_digital]

I have seen this happen a thousand times and no good will come out of such a setup.
The technical resources are a major stakeholder in this project as ultimately they need to deliver whatever has been dreamt up by business people.
The benefit of being involved early is that you can sort of calm them done when they get too carried away and promising heaven and earth ito what the users will get.

 

[SauRoNZA]

In my opinion technical people should be involved BEFORE even pitching to a client.

I've seen so many times where sales people make impossible promises to clients due to their own inadequacy on the topic and had a technical person been involved in the pitch it could have been avoided all together.

 

[Maverick Jester]

In my opinion technical people should be involved BEFORE even pitching to a client.

I've seen so many times where sales people make impossible promises to clients due to their own inadequacy on the topic and had a technical person been involved in the pitch it could have been avoided all together.

This ad infinitum.

As a project manager myself- it is the worst thing in the world, to have to come into a project where no technical resources had been involved in until the project goes into execution... Pisses me off big time...

 

[Ancalagon]

In my opinion technical people should be involved BEFORE even pitching to a client.

I've seen so many times where sales people make impossible promises to clients due to their own inadequacy on the topic and had a technical person been involved in the pitch it could have been avoided all together.

The funny thing is that exact thing has happened before at this company, and it was apparently addressed.

But history repeats itself, people make the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[InvisibleJim]

There is no project manager, the person I've been working closely with is the lead customer service representative for the product, because she knows what the users are complaining about.

This sounds like it could be a big part of their problem - who has ownership of the strategic direction of this project? It can't be you as it's not just a technical problem and the customer service rep only has a view or authority at a functional level.

Is there someone at director level championing the project(s) who sees the big picture and can make decisions based on a strategy for the product. If not, you're bound to end up with a lot of people lower down the tree running around doing their own thing and working at crossed purposes.

 

[NightShift]

There are so many different ways of handling these situations, and it doesnt sound like the company in questions has employed any of them.

Typically in an environment when you are selling a technical product to a customer, you have a technical person who fulfills a "pre-sales" role and basically ensures that what is being asked for is actually possible, and could be delivered. At this stage the timing and costs associated with the project would probably be very high-level and vague. It doesn't sound like you are the person fulfilling this role, and maybe it doesnt even exist at this organisation?

Assuming there is some kind of business case to proceed with the project (i.e. the money and time going in is going to generate some kind of value) then you'd sign a deal and appoint a Project Manager, and a technical team. The deal should be scoped out and agreed - whats being delivered, why, and roughly when, and whats not being looked at. Not sure if anyone did that upfront, and not sure if that role is being properly fulfilled by someone other than the CEO?

If you're a technical person doing technical work and getting paid for that, people don't necessarily want you in meetings to talk about product stuff. And most developers I've worked with would rather just be left to do the work we've agreed and planned together and keep meetings/interuptions to a minimum.

It seems like you are upset because there are alot of supporting roles that need to be fulfilled, that aren't being fulfilled. In that sort of environment (and there are lots of them) it's going to be difficult. Sounds like you're missing an upfront tech, a pm, a ba, common sense, and a number of other things. Good luck there! Dont take their shortcomings personally though. As a small company, they probably have very little idea of the ideal scenario and are learning/making it up as they go along. Hopefully the CEO learns from his mistakes.

 

[Ancalagon]

There are so many different ways of handling these situations, and it doesnt sound like the company in questions has employed any of them.

Typically in an environment when you are selling a technical product to a customer, you have a technical person who fulfills a "pre-sales" role and basically ensures that what is being asked for is actually possible, and could be delivered. At this stage the timing and costs associated with the project would probably be very high-level and vague. It doesn't sound like you are the person fulfilling this role, and maybe it doesnt even exist at this organisation?

Nope, it doesnt exist, and it doesnt seem that the need is felt for such a person.

Assuming there is some kind of business case to proceed with the project (i.e. the money and time going in is going to generate some kind of value) then you'd sign a deal and appoint a Project Manager, and a technical team. The deal should be scoped out and agreed - whats being delivered, why, and roughly when, and whats not being looked at. Not sure if anyone did that upfront, and not sure if that role is being properly fulfilled by someone other than the CEO?

Nope

If you're a technical person doing technical work and getting paid for that, people don't necessarily want you in meetings to talk about product stuff. And most developers I've worked with would rather just be left to do the work we've agreed and planned together and keep meetings/interuptions to a minimum.

I want to be included since I take ownership of my work, and I feel that I can add value to not only the technical side but also the business side. My technical input is useful to business decisions.

It seems like you are upset because there are alot of supporting roles that need to be fulfilled, that aren't being fulfilled. In that sort of environment (and there are lots of them) it's going to be difficult. Sounds like you're missing an upfront tech, a pm, a ba, common sense, and a number of other things. Good luck there! Dont take their shortcomings personally though. As a small company, they probably have very little idea of the ideal scenario and are learning/making it up as they go along. Hopefully the CEO learns from his mistakes.

Common sense is the biggest one - the roles do not exist, even if there are people who could fill them.

CEO does not learn from his mistakes! Sadly.