Theory W Software ManagementOutlineThe Software Project Manager’s ProblemThe Software Management Theory ProblemApproaches to DateSorting out software adviceKoontz-O’Donnell Management FrameworkTheory X and Theory Y*Theory Z: Japanese-Style ManagementTheory W Software Management StepsTheories X, Y, Z, and W: An ExampleTheories X, Y, Z, and W: An Example (cont.)Theory W Solution to ProblemStrategic Guidelines Derived from Win-Win PreconditionsStrategic Guidelines Derived from Product, Process GuidelinesSlide 16Theory W Principles and PracticesWin-Win, Win-Lose, and Lose-Lose SituationsSlide 19Slide 20Negotiation Principles*Slide 22Understanding People’s Win ConditionsWin Conditions: People in GeneralMaslow Human Need HierarchyMaslow Need HierarchyPeople Self-Actualize in Different WaysWin Conditions: Software PeopleRanking of Motivating FactorsSlide 30Comparative Growth Needs and Social NeedsExperiments Show that Programming Team Performance is Highly Sensitive to Given Objectives*Slide 33Slide 34Slide 35Reaching OutStudying the CultureProjecting Yourself Into Others’ Win SituationsThe Modified Golden RuleMutual ExplorationReconciling People’s Win ConditionsSlide 42Win-Win, Win-Lose, & Lose-Lose Examples: UniwordGetting to Win-WinNegotiation PrinciplesSeparate the People From the ProblemFocus on Interests, Not PositionsSlide 48Slide 49Slide 50Insist on Using Objective CriteriaSearching out Win-Win SituationsExpanding the Option SpaceIncorporating People’s Goals in Management Decisions: UsersTeambuildingSetting Up Reasonable ExpectationsTheory W: A Large-Project ExampleReview Team ProceduresReview FindingsReview RecommendationsStructuring a Win-Win Software Process - FAA/AAS Risk Management PlanApplying Win Conditions: Tactical ExampleTactical Example - IIStructuring A Win-Win Software Product - Student COCOMO ProgramsConclusionsTheory W Management and TrustUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCTheory W Software ManagementBarry Boehm, USC9/21/2010Univ ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCOutline•The Problem–For the software project manager–For software management theories•Approaches to date•Theory W Principles and Practices•Theory W Research Issues•ConclusionsUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCThe Software Project Manager’s ProblemBossesAmbitious goalsNo OverrunsNo SurprisesCustomersUsersSoftwareProjectManagerLots of FunctionsUser-FriendlyFast, robustQuick ScheduleLow budgetUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCThe Software Management Theory ProblemSimpleSpecific GeneralSoftwareManagementTheory• Easy to understand• Easy to learn, apply• Provides useful, situation-specific advice• Covers all classes of projects• Covers procedural, technical, economic, people concernsUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCApproaches to Date•Objectives: Simple, General, Specific•Alternatives–Eclectic combinations of advice–DoD-STDS, Procedural Guidebooks–Koontz-O’Donnell Elaborations–One-minute manager, et al.–Theories X, Y, Z–Theory W: Make everyone a winnerUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCSorting out software adviceDo it top-downThorough test planningProve everything correctIndependent test teamsChief Programmer teamsEarly requirements baselineBuildIt twiceUse disciplined reviewsDo it outside-inProgramming standardsUse walk-throughsMeasurable milestonesProgram LibraryConfiguration managementInvolve the userEnd-item acceptance planStructuredProgrammingUnit development foldersProject work authorizationsAutomated aidsDesign verificationUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCKoontz-O’Donnell Management FrameworkPlanning Organizing DirectingStaffing Controlling— Purpose– Contribution to goals– Commitment– Verifiability– Cost-Effectiveness– Precedence— Structure– Premises– WWWWWHHW– Synchronization— Process– Limiting Factor– Flexibility– Navigational change– Performer Participation— Purpose– Contribution to goals— Purpose– Harmony of goals— Purpose– Unity of goals– Cost- effectiveness– Span of Management— Delegation of Authority– Unity of command– Parity of authority•Responsibility– Authority level– Absoluteness of responsibility— Division of Work– Form follows function• People’s strengths– Functional definition– Separation— Selection– Top talent– Job matching– Career progression– Skills balance– Teamwork— Recruiting– Reward– Openness– Commitment—Retention– Reinforcement– Team building– Phase out– Backup— Purpose– Assurance of goals– Cost-effectiveness– Control responsibility— Motivation– Understanding of goals– Reflection of goals— Communication– Parity of information•Responsibility– Receptiveness– Integrity— Leadership– Identification– Empathy– Sustained initiative– Integrity– Team building– Management of time— Structure– Reflection of plans– Organizational suitability– individuality— Process– Standards– Critical-point– Exception– Flexibility– Timeliness– ActionUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCTheory X and Theory Y*•Theory X–People inherently dislike work–They have to be coerced into working–The prefer being told what to do•Theory Y–People don’t inherently dislike work–People can exercise self-direction–Commitment to objectives depends on resulting rewards–People can learn to seek responsibility–Work creativity is widely distributed–People’s potential is only partially utilized* D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960.Univ ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCTheory Z: Japanese-Style Management•People work best toward goals which they have helped establish•Once people have bought into goals, you can trust them to perform•If people share a common set of values, they can develop workable project goalsUniv ersity of Southern Calif orniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S EUSCTheory W Software Management Steps•Establish a set of win-win preconditions–Understand how people want to win–Establish a set of win-win objectives•Establish reasonable expectations•Match