Doomed to fail
- Decide to use a waterfall model. If engineers complain, just tell them that you can't live with the uncertainties and missing predictability of agile approaches. Convince engineers that computer science is a science which implies that they could easily collect all input at once in the beginning, and then systematically design an appropriate software system. If they object to this statement, ask them whether this means they are not able to follow the same kind of approach as other disciplines. Make clear, that from your standpoint agile processes are only for pussies and that you don't respect proponents of this paradigm. If they tell you that agility is about addressing risks, respond to them that you consider agile developers the highest risk in any project. For the same reason, reject any test-first activities from the beginning. As a revenge, tell the development team that in order to reduce budget, multiple engineers will have to share one telephone and one workstation. This is what you understand by Pair Programming.
- Don't introduce any roles. This makes your staff clueless and helps abide to the "Jack of all trades but master of none" approach. People should feel either responsible for everything or for nothing. Using this setting, project members won't be able to ever know whom to address for clarifications. Everyone will be developer and architect. Don't assign the role of a lead architect as this would unnecessarily improve productivity. There is only one predefined role. Make the most unorganized person in your team the project manager.
- Requirements are essential drivers for any project. Thus, a perfect means is to collect a large set of requirements that are as vague as possible ("our application should be flexible"), and in the best case are contradicting ("system should be hard realtime but offer runtime flexibility") or not feasible ("we need 100% availability without any additional costs"). If architects ask you to assign priorities, just tell them that all requirements are equally critical and important. Add to this recipe another dimension by constantly adding, changing or redefining requirements over space and time, especially in later phases of the project. Needless to say, you should never remove any requirements!
- Communication should be leveraged in a proper way. On one hand, try to minimize effective communication between engineers. On the other hand, fill the schedules of your engineers with an infinite sequence of unproductive meetings. These meetings should not have any agenda, be open-ended, mandatory for all engineers, and unstructured. In addition, embrace a culture of e-mail communication with dozens of mails regularly spreading around. Tom DeMarco has labeled this kind of paradigm "Corporate Spam". Obviously, continuous demotivation is also helpful here. Never give developers any positive feedback. Only refer to the incredible and stupid mistakes they made. Introduce the "moron of the month" award for this purpose. Be a control freak and check and discuss every decision in the project, even the unimportant things. This will drive people crazy (e.g., in meetings) and will enlarge your level of joy.
- Outsourcing represents an additional means to worsen the situation. Thus, you should follow an offshoring and outsourcing strategy to play the communication game introduced in the previous discussion. Especially, selecting outsourcing teams with completely different culture is of high importance in this context. Don't let anyone figure out in the project team nor in the outsourcing locations who is in charge of what. One face to the customer won't work very well here, because your goal is to play the game of engineer torture. In the optimal case, language skills of involved persons should be low as otherwise communication would be more effective.
- Force the development team to address all technical challenges with unproven, upcoming technologies where no one in the team could obtain any experiences so far. The application should be based on MDSD, AOSD, Web 2.0. LINQ, WCF, Multicore systems, Semantic Web, REST - add your own favourites here. Tell the people in the team that they are allowed to use whatever tools, technologies, or languages they prefer. This way, the resulting heterogenous tool chain will help you decreasing productivity, while making developers think they got freedom of choice. Another, alternative approach is to force developers to uss inappropriate tools such as the C#-command line compiler, Notepad, Microsoft Word and Visio.
- At the same time don't give people any time for competence ramp-up. Motivate this by telling everyone that you consider "training on the job" the most effective way to learn new technologies. People not capable of learning on the job, are concept-addicted idiots who could be easily substituted by a bunch of chimpanzees typing on a notebook. This behavior will keep morale high. Note: I am refering to YOUR morale here.
- Architecture should be addressed inappropriately. In most cases it is sufficient to prescribe the exclusive usage of UML. As another option consider to develop dozens of different DSLs for even the smallest subdomains. Enjoy when engineers then try to come up with integrated solutions. Architecture documents should have no specific structure, never include all relevant parts, only motivate the "what" and never the rationale. Don't allow any domain modeling during start-up to make sure that stakeholders DO have a DIFFERENT understanding of the underlying domain (concepts). Never introduce architecture guidelines for crosscutting concerns such as fault management, security, or logging. Don't assign the responsibility for subsystems or such cross-cutting concerns to single individuals. This strategy supports mixing domain-specific functionality with infrastructural and non-functional issues which is a constant source of all kinds of errors (-; Applying patterns should be considered a tabu as all other kinds of best practices. To be even more effective, introduce anti-patterns and pretend they are patterns. Last but not least, don't prescribe any locations where to put all those documents. Recall your mantra of IT sadism "Searching is better than finding".
- Introduce re-use by copy-and-paste only. Argue that you are expecting developers to think in terms of open source and that from your point of view this implies a copy-and-paste philosophy. In this context, it would be a mistake to enforce any configuration management tooling. After a while, the application code will be flooded by re-used code fragements that - in case of luck - were changed in the meantime. As soon as an error pops up in only one of these fragments, all developers will feel the pain. Re-using binary components should be considered a bad idea as it will constrain your control. Moreover, enforce and motivate your team to develop everything from scratch. Don't trust any 3rd party middleware, tools, operating systems, but let developers develop these things. Using this approach, the project will focus more on infrastructure than on domain which supports your sabotage stategy.
- Make your system a SOA system. Come up with a great number of potential integration problems and distribute the command to solve all these issues with loose coupling, i.e. using a service-oriented architecture. Invite consultants from market analysts and other companies to tell your team about emerging business and technology directions. Your team will then fall into the SOA trap, forced to consider topics such as Governance, BPM, SOX, EAI, BAM, ESB, REST, WSDL, BI, SAP, etc. This recommendation is a guaranteed success factor as people tend to stop thinking whenever they discuss the SOA panacea. Maybe, they'll recognize that none of this technologies has any relevance for the project, but then it will be too late, anyway. And if the project fails, there are lots of project members you could easily assign the scape goat role. Here, the "I am the Wizard of Oz surrounded by evil demons and incompetent engineers" argument will convince senior management. Take a financial reward from management for opening their eyes and then leave the company. Now, it will be a clear SEP (somebody else's problem).
Note, that knowing these recommendations does not imply that I have personally seen or applied any of them. Nor do I claim that the list above is complete. You may tell me about your personal experiences by adding a comment to this blog. I am open to any feedback :-)