Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> Sure. So my first assumption was that whatever I did so far was more
> like an ad-hoc development. But then I achieved better results and
> faster turnouts when I wrote down tasks and to-do-s onto a piece of
> paper (notebooks usually -- the original paper one, not the computer).
> So that way I knew how much stuff I needed to still do to finish the
> project and the like, then later on I could look back what did I do.
>
> So it turns out that it is nothing more than a to-do list, and maybe a
> ticket based bug-tracking system -- but in a paper. So I thought I
> might need a computerised to-do list and/or bug-tracking system. Then
> I started to thinking about more and more, that I would need something
> that could show dependencies of these tasks, deadlines, hours needed
> or other resources like hiring someone, outsourcing (for example PCB
> manufacturing) and so on. And then I thought it is nothing else then a
> project management really.
>
> I know these stuff are still in a very early stage, basically all
> major project management was developed by recent years. So it is not
> perfect by any means, however, it should be better to think about a
> project and the goals and the risks etc in advance than doing nothing
> -- that was only my way of thinking and I may well wrong on this, just
> please let me know. Anyway, in my way of thinking I thought whatever
> project management I start with is better than just using nothing. So
> why not start with something that is easy of use and maybe not that
> sophisticated but at least something that leads my learning curve on
> managing my projects.
>
> Not sure yet which way is the best so I am open to any suggestions,
> and would very appreciate any advise on this!

There is nothing wrong with a paper based system. In fact, some Agilists use 
a whiteboard with sticky notes each representing a task for their daily 
meetings. It has numerous advantages over a computer-based system: it's 
cheap, easy to maintain, doesn't crash, and it's right there for everyone to 
see.

There is danger in trying to "computerize" the way you do things, you may 
end up wasting your time trying to adjust your workflow to fit it withing 
the software's paradigm. Thankfully these sorts of systems are 
self-limiting: you realize that your time investment isn't worth the benefit 
you get out of it, and the system quickly falls into disuse.

The ad-hoc, "seat of the pants" approach to management is more effective 
than a standard formal approach, because it has lower overhead. Agile gives 
you the benefit of a disciplined approach, but it fits better with the way 
we humans tend to do things naturally, and it has low overhead.

In my mind, bug tracking systems are a symptom of a flawed approach to 
development.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist