Over the years I've been in a number of projects that were very interesting for one reason or another. I've been involved in projects that were real breakthroughs, and also in projects where my goal was to learn something significant while building something of value. With very few exceptions, I'm happy with each of the efforts that I've been a part of.
I was recently talking with a few coworkers about how each of us go about picking projects or technologies to get involved in. I discovered that my approach was a little different from most.
Quite a few years ago (<cue west country accent> "when I were a lad…") I realized that most significant projects take 3-5 years to complete. I've not seen the timeframe vary all that much, although 'significant' certainly has. Figuring that I didn't really get to seriously mold these projects much before 25, and that I'd be lucky to be driving projects past 55-60, I could see being in 7 to 10 'significant' efforts during my career. Obviously, like any rule of thumb, that's a simplification. And like any simplification, it's also mostly true…
That has formed the core of my thinking when I look at a project. I literally ask myself if the goals of a project, the plausibility of its story, and the quality of the people lead me to believe that it deserves to be one of the 7 to 10. As time goes on the bar for 'significant' keeps going up.
This approach has rarely let me down. The couple of times that I have ignored this process have all resulted in experiences that were painful.
How do you approach choosing areas or projects to work in?
Posted
Sep 12 2005, 01:38 PM
by
jim-johnson