Some projects are bigger than one person.
A
NomadicProgrammer can sow wild oats in many fields. But the fields may not
be as large as they could be if planted by a
NomadicTribe, and they
may not flourish as many seasons as if planted by a
PastoralProgrammer.
The projects of
NomadicProgrammer s, left untended, can develop serious
maintenance and management problems.
The seed of a great idea often starts with one person,
and is honed and refined by others to the point that the
idea can become reality. Large ideas that grow this way
can be taken forward by groups of people.
A common dynamic in this process it that the hearers of the idea
put their own spin on it and take their own vision forward with
much energy and excitement. This vision is often at odds with
the the original vision.
Another dynamic is that the hearers of the idea may actually
come to think that the idea was originally of their own making;
this is commonly mistaken as a liability to the project. In
fact, it is a liability only to the ego (and perhaps career) of
the original problem-solver who seeded the idea. It's particularly
hard to take for the problem solver if it is their job to come
up with such ideas, as is true in Research or in consulting engagements.
And it's important to the career of the Researcher or consultant
that their contribution be recognized, even though the team,
in the end, may not recognize the significance of their contribution.
If the Researcher or consultant is to 'play again','
it is particularly important that the project PatronRole
(or the Researcher or consultant's Patron) understand the significance
of their contribution.
Therefore:
The Researcher or consultant can line up the initial resources (ideas,
project members with suitable domain expertise) and
get the team engaged with the idea. At that point, the team is
self-supporting. All along the way, the Researcher or consultant
needs to make sure that the project PatronRole understands the team's
progression of thought.
By packing a suitcase and moving away from the team, the Researcher
or consultant gives the team space to do what they do best, without
interference. It's like the
SuitcaseFarmer who puts beef cattle to
pasture for several months while pursuing leisure or other ventures,
returning after several months to share in the profit.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, these are
very smart cattle,
and we don't extend the metaphor to their slaughter (or, if we do,
it's in the spirit of the
RestaurantAtTheEndOfTheUniverse).
Of course, if there is a drought or other disaster in the Researcher
or consultant's absence, there's a chance that the Researcher or consultant
might have to share in those consequences.
At the first successful benchmark, the Researcher or Consultant
can engage the Patron so they share in the rewards received by the team,
and
GetTheirTicketPunched to play again.
The team ends up with a product they are proud of and with which
they identify. The product also has a base of long-term support which
isn't found in the
NomadicProgrammer model.
Sometimes the Researcher or consultant can see the vision through
all the way to the first release, at which time divergence creeps
in. In one
BellLabs project, I was brought in as a design consultant.
I introduced CRC cards as a design technique; because I ended up holding
some of the cards in the design, I ended up doing some implementation.
But most of the implementation took its own course under the changing
forces of project technologies and priorities, and the development team
expertly took the project forward.
One liability of this model is that it's difficult to manage long-term
success. This is particularly important in the Research context. If the
Researcher comes up with an apparently brilliant idea, and the idea is
embraced by development, it may lead to short-term success, or at least
the illusion of short-term success. If the idea is flawed in ways that
show up only in the long term, the Researcher is gone by the time the
ideas surface or are acknowledged, and the Researcher can continue to
sow damage elsewhere. One reason this is more sinister for Researchers
than consultants is that Researchers are viewed as contributing to long-term
results, whereas the expectations for consultants' results are more short-term.
This pattern is closely related to
SandyFrasier's
BreadOnTheWaters pattern
for technology transfer.
--
JimCoplien
CategoryConsulting