tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36930149.post3543863909776825532..comments2023-10-11T02:59:45.752-07:00Comments on mosgot's World of Software Project Management: The Engineer as a Communication Tool for Remote Teamsmosgothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01197862673904109978noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36930149.post-83971444284662957072006-12-27T16:41:00.000-08:002006-12-27T16:41:00.000-08:00David,
Thank you for the good comment.
Yes, I ag...David,<br /><br />Thank you for the good comment.<br /><br />Yes, I agree with your points. When you first propose to the executives to try the liaison, you see the alarm on their face. And it's hard to convince them. But after they do it, they all agree that it was a good investment. So, the costs and risks are worth it - granted, after careful consideration and planning.<br /><br />The alternative techniques you suggest are very good to. I have actually tried a 1-on-1 pairing once (interestingly in the same company that also later used a "real" liaison) and it proved itself very well. If your company is reluctant to pay for a "full" liaison, start with the 1-on-1. Hopefully, later they will be willing to "upgrade".<br /><br />Again, thanks for the comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36930149.post-2130676673566228862006-12-27T11:40:00.000-08:002006-12-27T11:40:00.000-08:00Excellent post Moshe!
Engineers acting as liaison ...Excellent post Moshe!<br />Engineers acting as liaison between remote teams is indeed a very efficient tool.<br />You touch on a couple of challenges which I've faced dealing with teams in disparate locations:<br />1. cost: as you mention, the cost of rotating engineers from remote teams might be prohibitive - and as a PM you might simply not get the green light to go for it.<br />2. retention: bringing someone in for an extended period of time is an investment you're making in that engineer. That investment is worth making based on the assumption that this engineer will stick around for some time. Most of the offshore development shops have huge retention issues: the job market over there is sizzling hot, and engineers over there are only right to take advantage of it.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the concept is very powerful, and there are a couple of variables we can play with:<br /> . who's acting as the liaison: if engineers on our teams have been there for an extended period of time, they're probably the one we want to invest in. Granting someone on our local team the role to act as liaison will give her an opportunity to grow professionally while at the same time ensuring proper technical communication between the teams.<br /> . what tools can be used to enable the liaison: the best one is indeed to send people in for a decent amount of time. Short of that, the alternative is just to pair up a local engineer with a remote engineer and giving them lower-cost tools to communicate (phone, instant messaging, video conferences). Both of them should act as representant of their remote peer and constantly make sure that the information flows properly between the two of them as well as between their teams.<br /><br />These are just some possible variations around the key concept you've outlined - Engineers acting as Communication Tools - the core of the concept being that people and responsibilities enable efficient communication; technology is merely a medium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com