Source: The Mythical Man-Month
Communication in the Large Programming Project
Schedule disaster, functional misfits, and system bugs all arise because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. As work proceeds, the several teams slowly change the functions, sizes, and speeds of their own programs, and they explicitly or implicitly change their assumptions about the inputs available and the uses to be made of the outputs. How, then, shall teams communicate with one another? In as many ways as possible:
• Informally. Good telephone service and a clear definition of intergroup dependencies will encourage the hundreds of calls upon which common interpretation of written documents depends.
• Meetings. Regular project meetings, with one team after another giving technical briefings, are invaluable. Hundreds of minor misunderstandings get smoked out this way.
• Workbook. A formal project workbook must be started at the beginning. This deserves a section by itself.
The Project Workbook
What. The project workbook is not so much a separate document as it is a structure imposed on the documents that the project will be producing anyway.All the documents of the project need to be part of this structure.This includes objectives, external specifications, interface specifications, technical standards, internal specifications, and administrative memoranda.
Why. Technical prose is almost immortal. The early design of the project workbook ensures that the documentation structure itself is crafted, not haphazard. Moreover, the establishment of a structure molds later writing into segments that fit into that structure.The second reason for the project workbook is control of the distribution of information. The problem is not to restrict information, but to ensure that relevant information gets to all the people who need it.
Organization in the Large Programming Project
If there are n workers on a project, there are (n2-n)/2 interfaces across which there may be communication, and there are potentially almost 2" teams within which coordination must occur. The purpose of organization is to reduce the amount of communication and coordination necessary; hence organization is a radical attack on the communication problems treated above.
The means by which communication is obviated are division of labor and specialization of function. The tree-like structure of organizations reflects the diminishing need for detailed communication when division and specialization of labor are applied.
In fact, a tree organization really arises as a structure of authority and responsibility. The principle that no man can serve two masters dictates that the authority structure be tree-like. But the communication structure is not so restricted, and the tree is a barely passable approximation to the communication structure, which is a network. The inadequacies of the tree approximation give rise to staff groups, task forces, committees, and even the matrix-type organization used in many engineering laboratories.
Let us consider a tree-like programming organization, and examine the essentials which any subtree must have in order to be effective. They are:
1. a mission
2. a producer
3. a technical director or architect
4. a schedule
5. a division of labor
6. interface definitions among the parts
All of this is obvious and conventional except the distinction between the producer and the technical director. Let us first consider the two roles, then their relationship.
What is the role of the producer?
He assembles the team, divides the work, and establishes the schedule. He acquires and keeps on acquiring the necessary resources. This means that a major part of his role is communication outside the team, upwards and sideways. He establishes the pattern of communication and reporting within the team. Finally, he ensures that the schedule is met, shifting resources and organization to respond to changing circumstances.
How about the technical director?
He conceives of the design to be built, identifies its subparts, specifies how it will look from outside, and sketches its internal structure. He provides unity and conceptual integrity to the whole design; thus he serves as a limit on system complexity. As individual technical problems arise, he invents solutions for them or shifts the system design as required. His communications are chiefly within the team. His work is almost completely technical.
Now it is clear that the talents required for these two roles are quite different. Talents come in many different combinations; and the particular combination embodied in the producer and the director must govern the relationship between them. Organizations must be designed around the people available; not people fitted into pure-theory organizations.
Three relationships are possible, and all three are found in successful practice, and they are:
- The producer and the technical director may be the same man.
- The producer may be boss, the director his right-hand man.
- The director may be boss, and the producer his right-hand man.