dispersed and cross border projects

24
1 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, Software Project Management 4th Edition Dispersed and cross-border projects Chapter 11 (part two)

Upload: tumetr1

Post on 22-Jan-2018

222 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Dispersed and cross border projects

1 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Software Project Management4th Edit ion

Dispersed and cross-border

projects

Chapter 11(part two)

Page 2: Dispersed and cross border projects

2 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Why ‘virtual projects’?

The physical needs of software developers (according to an IBM report):

• 100 square feet of floor space• 30 square feet of work surface• Dividers at least 6 feet high to muffle noise• Demarco and Lister found clear statistical links

between noise and coding error rates• One answer: send the developers home!

Page 3: Dispersed and cross border projects

3 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Possible advantages

• Can use staff from developing countries – lower costs

• Can use short term contracts:– Reduction in overheads related to use of

premises– Reduction in staff costs, training, holidays,

pensions etc.• Can use specialist staff for specific jobs

Page 4: Dispersed and cross border projects

4 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Further advantages

• Productivity of home workers can be higher – fewer distractions

• Can take advantage of time zone differences e.g. overnight system testing

Page 5: Dispersed and cross border projects

5 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Some challenges

• Work requirements have to be carefully specified

• Procedures need to be formally documented

• Co-ordination can be difficult • Payment methods need to be modified

– piece-rates or fixed price, rather then day-rates

Page 6: Dispersed and cross border projects

6 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

More challenges• Possible lack of trust when there is no

face-to-face contact

• Assessment of quality of delivered products needs to be rigorous

• Different time zones can cause communication and co-ordination problems

Page 7: Dispersed and cross border projects

7 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Time/place constraints on communication

Same place Different place

Same time Meetings, interviews

Telephone,Instant messaging

Different times

Notice boardsPigeon-holes

EmailVoicemailDocuments

Page 8: Dispersed and cross border projects

8 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Other factors influencing communication genres

• Size and complexity of information – favours documents

• Familiarity of context e.g. terminology – where low, two-way communication favoured

• Personally sensitive – it has to be face-to-face communication here

Page 9: Dispersed and cross border projects

9 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Best method of communication depends on stage of project• Early stages

– Need to build trust– Establishing context– Making important ‘global’ decisions– Favours same time/ same place

• Intermediate stages– Often involves the paralled detailed design of

components– Need for clarification of interfaces etc– Favours same time/different place

Page 10: Dispersed and cross border projects

10 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Best method of communication depends on stage of project

• Implementation stages– Design is relatively clear– Domain and context familiar– Small amounts of operational data need to

be exchanged– Favours different time/different place

communications e.g. e-mail

• Face to face co-ordination meetings – the ‘heartbeat’ of the project

Page 11: Dispersed and cross border projects

11 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

What do we mean by ‘culture’?

Personality

Culture

Human nature

Specific to individuals Inherited and learned

Specific to groups Learned

HumanityBiological

Page 12: Dispersed and cross border projects

12 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Be careful of stereotyping

e.g. country A versus country Bnote over-lapping area

individuality scores

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 13: Dispersed and cross border projects

13 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Hofstede

• Wrote book ‘Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values’ McGraw-Hill 1984

• Based on a questionnaire survey of 100,000 IBM employees worldwide

• Analysed responses by country and tried to identify national differences

Page 14: Dispersed and cross border projects

14 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Power distanceExtent to which inequality is seen as a

inevitableDeference to those in authority

1. Malaysia 10415= France 6842=. UK, W.Germany 3549. Ireland 28

Page 15: Dispersed and cross border projects

15 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Power distance

LowLess centralizationFlatter organizationManagers consult

before making decisions

Close supervision disliked by staff

HighGreater centralizationMore management

layersManagers make

decisions on their own

Close supervision welcomed by staff

Page 16: Dispersed and cross border projects

16 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Uncertainty avoidance

Lack of tolerance for ambiguity and need for formal rules

1. Greece 11210= France 8629. W.Germany 6547= Ireland, UK 35

Page 17: Dispersed and cross border projects

17 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Uncertainty avoidanceLowLive by the dayLess resistance to changeLoyalty not seen as a

virtueMore risk-takingHope of successManagers do not need to

be technical expertsRules may be broken for

pragmatic reasons

HighWorry about the futureResistance to changeLoyalty is seen as a virtueLess risk-takingFear of failureManagers need to be

experts in area they manage

Rules should not be broken

Page 18: Dispersed and cross border projects

18 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Power distance/ uncertainty avoidance

Unc

ert

ain

ty a

void

an

ce

low

high

Power distancehigh

‘Village market’

‘Well-oiled machine’

‘Family’

‘pyramid of people’

Page 19: Dispersed and cross border projects

19 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

IndividualismConcern for yourself as opposed to concern for the priorities/rules of the group to which you belong

1. USA 913. UK 8910. France 7112. Ireland 7015. Germany 67

Page 20: Dispersed and cross border projects

20 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Individualism vs collectivism

IndividualismCalculated

involvement with organizations

Employees expected to defend their own interests

Rules apply to allPrivate life important

CollectivismMoral involvement with

organizationsEmployees expect

organization to defend their interests

Rules vary according to relations

Private life can be invaded

Page 21: Dispersed and cross border projects

21 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Masculinity vs Femininity

Hofstede identified those dimensions where globally the responses of women tended to differ from those of men

He then tried to relate the overall scores of countries with these differences

Page 22: Dispersed and cross border projects

22 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Business areas affected by ‘femininity’

Less occupational segregation by genderSome young people want careers, but

others do not (not gender oriented)Organizations should not interfere with

people’s private livesLower job stressLess industrial conflictAppeal of job restructuring permitting

group integration

Page 23: Dispersed and cross border projects

23 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

‘Masculinity’ – country scores

1. Japan 957. Ireland, Jamaica 689. UK, W. Germany 6635.France 43

Page 24: Dispersed and cross border projects

24 ©The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2005

Later work• Some later work looked particularly at

far east• New dimension emerged – long term

view or ‘dynamic confucianism’

General problemHow do apply this in practice?