Management antipatterns
From CSSEMediaWiki
(Difference between revisions)
m (Reverted edits by Ebybymic (Talk); changed back to last version by Matthew Harward) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | A selection of a few existing management [[Antipatterns]]: | ||
| + | |||
*[[Continuous obsolescence]] - When technology changes so rapidly that the development can't keep up with current versions of the software. [[William Brown 1998|WB]] | *[[Continuous obsolescence]] - When technology changes so rapidly that the development can't keep up with current versions of the software. [[William Brown 1998|WB]] | ||
*[[Design by committee]] - This antipattern results in a overtly complex system that lacks coherence. This can occur when the design team does not work together in a cohesive manner. [[William Brown 1998|WB]] | *[[Design by committee]] - This antipattern results in a overtly complex system that lacks coherence. This can occur when the design team does not work together in a cohesive manner. [[William Brown 1998|WB]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:23, 25 November 2010
A selection of a few existing management Antipatterns:
- Continuous obsolescence - When technology changes so rapidly that the development can't keep up with current versions of the software. WB
- Design by committee - This antipattern results in a overtly complex system that lacks coherence. This can occur when the design team does not work together in a cohesive manner. WB
- Golden hammer - When a single technique is applied "obsessively" to software problems. WB
- Lava flow - Dead and forgotten code that hardens and becomes unchanged as the system develops. Requires a change in development strategy. WB
- Mushroom management - This occurs when developers are separated from the end users. WB
