Recently I got an email from another program manager, the lady was somewhat junior to me in the sense of actual title, but we were both doing the same role (and eventually that is what matters after all, not a title). She was in charge of a team that delivers some modules for a project that our team uses, and we have been working with her team in the past for several deliveries, and the coordination between our team and theirs was working well.
With a new request, one of our senior developers started a discussion with another senior developer from the other team, and this discussion continued for some time between these 2 developers and eventually the developer from our team included me in the discussion. I put in my comments, talked about the schedule and so on, and did not take the elementary step of including the program manager from the other team. It was around a week later that she found out that she was not being included in a discussion about the features, deliveries, and so on. And then she sent me an email asking as to why she was not being included in the discussions about a delivery that her ground was eventually going to be tasked with making. I am sure she was having a similar discussion with the developer from her group. I had no great answers for this one other than stating that it was a mistake and she should have been included in the discussion.
This is a tricky point, about the level of involvement in discussions and the point at which it should start. The dynamics of this varies from group to group, with some groups having the program manager or the project manager coming in only when actual scheduling or commitments need to be made and the developers having the experience to continue discussions and only bring in the program manager at a much later stage; for other groups the dynamics could be different - when the PgM or the PM needs to come in is not a reflection of the values or maturity of a group, it is just how the dynamics of the group have become established.
However, there is no denying the fact that the PgM or the PM does need to be involved at a certain stage; there are many factors that require inputs from the PgM which the developer may not have. At a very extreme level, the team may have been directed to do some other work, and hence would not be able to cater to any request; or there may be scheduling conflicts or resource conflicts and it is typically the PgM who is in a position to look at these conflicts and then work these out in coordination with others. Further, once the discussions reach a certain stage, there may be the need for regular interactions between more than just these developers and somebody needs to track the agreements and action items from these interactions or meetings. There could be a multitude of reasons why the PgM or the PM needs to get involved, and it is best if the person gets included and they then can figure out their level of involvement at different stages of the discussion.
With a new request, one of our senior developers started a discussion with another senior developer from the other team, and this discussion continued for some time between these 2 developers and eventually the developer from our team included me in the discussion. I put in my comments, talked about the schedule and so on, and did not take the elementary step of including the program manager from the other team. It was around a week later that she found out that she was not being included in a discussion about the features, deliveries, and so on. And then she sent me an email asking as to why she was not being included in the discussions about a delivery that her ground was eventually going to be tasked with making. I am sure she was having a similar discussion with the developer from her group. I had no great answers for this one other than stating that it was a mistake and she should have been included in the discussion.
This is a tricky point, about the level of involvement in discussions and the point at which it should start. The dynamics of this varies from group to group, with some groups having the program manager or the project manager coming in only when actual scheduling or commitments need to be made and the developers having the experience to continue discussions and only bring in the program manager at a much later stage; for other groups the dynamics could be different - when the PgM or the PM needs to come in is not a reflection of the values or maturity of a group, it is just how the dynamics of the group have become established.
However, there is no denying the fact that the PgM or the PM does need to be involved at a certain stage; there are many factors that require inputs from the PgM which the developer may not have. At a very extreme level, the team may have been directed to do some other work, and hence would not be able to cater to any request; or there may be scheduling conflicts or resource conflicts and it is typically the PgM who is in a position to look at these conflicts and then work these out in coordination with others. Further, once the discussions reach a certain stage, there may be the need for regular interactions between more than just these developers and somebody needs to track the agreements and action items from these interactions or meetings. There could be a multitude of reasons why the PgM or the PM needs to get involved, and it is best if the person gets included and they then can figure out their level of involvement at different stages of the discussion.
