Project managers - anyone else find them useless? (office, how much, best)

[turf3]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

I work in IT, and I'm on several large, concurrent projects where we have PMs.

Each one of them, down to a person, acts like they're the boss of the analysts and engineers actually doing the work. I received a request from one of them this morning to create user accounts. My team doesn't handle that, and I was never informed of what type of accounts they needed. I get a nastygram back that "I'll take this to someone else if I need to," CCing other employees on my team who are no longer on the project. After all that, the vendor PM still didn't provide all the information required to create the accounts.

I was placed on a new project last week with a brand new PM who has never done this type of work before. He's a nice guy, but clearly in over his head and has no IT background. He's useless.

I have another project where the PM has been out sick for weeks/months and follows up on every single minor issue. She wants to another the status of minor support cases and other super granular data. She's not around enough to help, and being so granular is causing us to lose focus on the bigger picture.

Anyone else find these people to be damn near useless?

Well, it sounds to me like you have people who are confusing fiddly-dicking around with computers, with managing a project. They are not the same thing. All this business with "creating user accounts" - or, in my company, "What particular version of Share Point will we use to post files that everyone should have access to?" are essentially clerical functions, NOT project management issues.


Project management comes down to three things.


Scope.
Schedule.
Resources.


If it ain't these, it ain't project management.


And, though you didn't provide a lot of details, it almost sounds like your company is applying the term "project manager" when some of this stuff isn't even projects. A project is defined as work with a specific scope that is completed within a certain time. Ongoing support is, by definition, not a project.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by bUU

I've been a software developer (22 years), management consultant (14 years), and project/program/product manager (5 years). I rarely meet (another) software developer who respects management/coordination/budget people, and I rarely meet (another) management-type who understands the work of software development. I don't put much stock in sniping any of the players engage in directed at any of the others categorically. It often indicates nothing more than a lack of perspective on the part of the complainer.

Originally Posted by Creature of the Wheel

I find middle management at any given company in any given field utterly useless.

What I wrote earlier applies here as well - I see comments like that as reflective of a lack of perspective on the part of the complainer. I've never been middle management, but I've had enough exposure to all levels and departments in companies to realize that the only people truly in a place to say that a certain role is "utterly useless" are people who have spent many years in that role. (And before you say that that could never happen, it has. An economist I know made that comment about his particular part of the profession thirty years ago, after a career that he described as pointlessly pushing a pencil around on paper.)

The usefulness of a position is not governed by how it affects some other position; it is governed by how it affects the enterprise overall, where things like administration, governance, audit compliance, operational effectiveness and such matter.

Originally Posted by Ron61

My experience has been that unless you’ve been the person ultimately responsible for a major project, it’s very easy to see these people as near useless. Try it sometime and come back with your opinions.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by ddm2k

I think this recent popularity of the title, and surge of people seeking the certification leads people to question the importance of anything that they hear is a "big deal".

And instead of "following the money" (i.e., realizing that for profit businesses value what they spend resources on) they just assume that if it is a big deal (and they aren't benefiting from that) it cannot possibly be important.

Originally Posted by vision33r

It's still necessary for software development but it's also becoming more streamlined where the lead software designer is the PM.

I've never seen anything less effective than putting management tasks in the hands of software developers, who seem to have an endless propensity for getting blinded by the technology, and for being callous to the needs of end-users, customers and the business itself.

[charlygal]

Originally Posted by vision33r

At some point when automation has taken over many job roles then we don't need PMs anymore. Most IT jobs today don't really have a full-time PM running the projects. A lot of managers are PMs because they're the only ones that can negotiate and allocate the resources needed. A lot of PMs these days are just mediators, they get in between other managers and just work on an agreement between delivery dates and commitment. Now, a lot of these tasks has already been automated through IT workflow and automation software. So I believe in a few years or decade from now, there won't be any PMP in the IT delivery field. It's still necessary for software development but it's also becoming more streamlined where the lead software designer is the PM.

Is this a joke post?

If anything, the opposite is true. It is much easier to automate coding work than it is to automate the FULL job of a PM. Heck, we already have low code development using platforms like Pega.

I don't see any automation built for handling the people, process, or regulatory work done by PMs.

[rummage]

Originally Posted by tnff

This. I think a lot of places try to cheap out and get the benefits of a PM without actually setting things up to be a real project. Basically making the PM responsible/accountable without any of the authority to successfully manage the project. Glorified facilitator.

Thank you, that's a better term. They do this to stroke the egos of people to feel more important in their job so they can repeat their job titles to family and friends. I think it is dishonest to stroke employees like that, when they simply aren't in charge of anything without someone else's approval. It just causes more stress on the job because they are operating under a delusional that they are actually a PM. It has become almost as overused with the term "manager". Coming right out of college with no management experience and no direct reports, not in charge of anything but doing their own work assigned by their supervisor, they have the job title of manager. More stroking but it is designed for the company benefit to exclude those people from overtime pay because they are considered part of management, when they simply aren't. In some organizations the hourly non-manager positions can be paid more money than the new hire with the title of "manager".

I know there are people who get a PMP, and think they are Project Managers now. Just because you approve a vendor's invoice, that doesn't mean you have any actual responsible. For those that don't think so, next time refuse to approve a vendor's invoice, and watch someone in real management question and override you. Don't approve Google Ads payments and watch peers go crazy when the ads stop and you will be to blame. People who work in payroll that approve your paychecks aren't real management, they are facilitators. We greatly need good facilitators, but let's not confuse that job with a real PM.

It doesn't matter how much the project management theory is dressed up to describe different organizations and styles of running the show. At the end of the day, there is only one true PM, and there can't be 20 of them on a project.

[charlygal]

Originally Posted by rummage

Thank you, that's a better term. They do this to stroke the egos of people to feel more important in their job so they can repeat their job titles to family and friends. I think it is dishonest to stroke employees like that, when they simply aren't in charge of anything without someone else's approval. It just causes more stress on the job because they are operating under a delusional that they are actually a PM. It has become almost as overused with the term "manager". Coming right out of college with no management experience and no direct reports, not in charge of anything but doing their own work assigned by their supervisor, they have the job title of manager. More stroking but it is designed for the company benefit to exclude those people from overtime pay because they are considered part of management, when they simply aren't. In some organizations the hourly non-manager positions can be paid more money than the new hire with the title of "manager".

I know there are people who get a PMP, and think they are Project Managers now. Just because you approve a vendor's invoice, that doesn't mean you have any actual responsible. For those that don't think so, next time refuse to approve a vendor's invoice, and watch someone in real management question and override you. Don't approve Google Ads payments and watch peers go crazy when the ads stop and you will be to blame. People who work in payroll that approve your paychecks aren't real management, they are facilitators. We greatly need good facilitators, but let's not confuse that job with a real PM.

It doesn't matter how much the project management theory is dressed up to describe different organizations and styles of running the show. At the end of the day, there is only one true PM, and there can't be 20 of them on a project.

No, there aren't 20 of them. Just one. Me. I don't approve invoices. They have people for that.

Where are all the dev folks? Developers, do you want to code or do you want to worry about training the end users, dealing with internal compliance, or working out international regulations?

How many times have we seen a piece of tech deployed over the weekend and then Monday morning, phones and bells begin going off? It seems that the developers spent all their time working on the application and it never dawned on them that on Monday morning 500+ employees would be coming into work to find their main system completely changed and modified. Now, people have to rush putting together training, QRGs and webex classes just so the employees can do their BAU job.

[luckydogg]

Some of the most worthless PM's I have ever worked with (and I have worked with plenty my background is tech lead on multi-million dollar large scale projects) have very fancy PMP credentials and boy can they throw around the PMP jargon in meetings to make it sound like they must be the smartest people any of us have ever encountered - in fact we should probably bow down when they enter the room to yield to their greatness. What a joke! Many of these people have no IT background at all, or even subject matter expertise (i.e. financial, HR, etc) to conceptualize what it takes for resources to get the job done. In fact at best these are Project Administrators and at worse they are Project Coordinators. WITH the PMP credentials!

Right now I am working on a 2 year project (multi-million dollar implementation) and the PM I am working with does not have PMP credentials yet this is a very high caliber PM who is actually managing the project. He doesn't slave drive resources, or micromanage people because he's not sure what his job is. He leads and manages the project like he is supposed to.

At the end of the day, project management is NOT brain surgery contrary to what some would try and make you believe. It's a mix of skill sets and if you have the right skills it will come naturally. If you don't, you can get all the certifications you want and it's not going to help. You will FAIL - and ruin your reputation, and make many enemies in the process. I've seen that scenario during my career more times than I can count. Be warned.

[bobsell]

I attempted to make a career change into project management.

After getting a new certificate and certification, I was told I could not get a job as a project manager. 70% of PM jobs require 5-7 years experience (defined as you have the job title of project manager) - and 30% require more than 7 years.

But the're fine to whine about a "talent shortage" that they created by using requirements that cannot be filled in reality.

[vision33r]

Originally Posted by charlygal

Is this a joke post?

If anything, the opposite is true. It is much easier to automate coding work than it is to automate the FULL job of a PM. Heck, we already have low code development using platforms like Pega.

I don't see any automation built for handling the people, process, or regulatory work done by PMs.

This is not a joke, I've worked for over 8 clients and they do not have full time PMs. They're all paying well and my new client who is as large many other tech titans also do not have full time PMs for IT and excepts the managers to fill these shoes. Perhaps your neck of the woods things don't get much done without PMs expecting meetings after meetings.

Here at NYC, you'll find that having a PM only exists at large corp and government jobs.

Originally Posted by bobsell

I attempted to make a career change into project management.

After getting a new certificate and certification, I was told I could not get a job as a project manager. 70% of PM jobs require 5-7 years experience (defined as you have the job title of project manager) - and 30% require more than 7 years.

But the're fine to whine about a "talent shortage" that they created by using requirements that cannot be filled in reality.

This is exactly the problem, why most places do not hire PMs. These duties are often being given to dept managers or leads who are often being pushed to take PM courses because they are better suited to project manage/lead their area of expertise. I was an IT manager for 2 years and I was expected to take PM courses and use Microsoft Project. Because PMs are a dead end job usually in NYC mid-level companies who expects PMs to not only run projects but lead and understand them. The only time a true PM was needed is to help implement a new PM system. We had a guy from mid-west who is a PM consultant for major manufacturing brands come on site to help us implement a PM system that will be adopted by all of the depts.

[Dane_in_LA]

Good PMs are jewels beyond price. And, like jewels, they're damn rare.

Mediocre PMs are best employed as glorified secretaries who can assemble and format project information and put it in nice Powerpoints to take to management. The senior contributors will run what needs to be run.

Bad PMs tend to think they're actually managers or contributors, when they are neither. They should be treated like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them horse manure.

Originally Posted by charlygal

If the whip didn't need to be cracked, the PM wouldn't need to crack it.

Shenanigans. If you've never encountered people who subscribe to the "power unused is no power at all" philosophy, you've been very lucky.

[dman72]

My company has spent millions on these people when what we really needed were more people to actually DO things, not have more people looking over the shoulders of those who do.