CIRCA:Antimanagement Patterns

From CIRCA

Revision as of 15:55, 5 September 2013 by GeoffreyRockwell (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Here are some ways to not manage things well:

This list comes from the Wikipedia Anti-pattern page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern

Analysis paralysis: Devoting disproportionate high effort to the analysis phase of a project Cash cow: A profitable legacy product that often leads to complacency about new products Design by committee: The result of having many contributors to a design, but no unifying vision Escalation of commitment: Failing to revoke a decision when it proves wrong Management by perkele: Authoritarian style of management with no tolerance of dissent Management by objectives: Management by numbers, focus exclusively on quantitative management criteria, when these are non-essential or cost too much to acquire Moral hazard: Insulating a decision-maker from the consequences of his or her decision Mushroom management: Keeping employees uninformed and misinformed; employees are described as being kept in the dark and fed manure, left to stew, and finally canned Stovepipe or Silos: A structure that supports mostly up-down flow of data but inhibits cross organizational communication Vendor lock-in: Making a system excessively dependent on an externally supplied component[4]


Avalanche: An inappropriate mashup of the Waterfall model and Agile Development techniques Death march: Everyone knows that the project is going to be a disaster – except the CEO – so the truth is hidden to prevent immediate cancellation of the project - (although the CEO often knows and does it anyway to maximize profit). However, the truth remains hidden and the project is artificially kept alive until the Day Zero finally comes ("Big Bang"). Alternative definition: Employees are pressured to work late nights and weekends on a project with an unreasonable deadline. Groupthink: During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking Overengineering: Spending resources making a project more robust and complex than is needed Scope Creep: Uncontrolled changes or continuous growth in a project’s scope, or adding new features to the project after the original requirements have been drafted and accepted. (Also known as requirement creep and feature creep.) Smoke and mirrors: Demonstrating unimplemented functions as if they were already implemented Software bloat: Allowing successive versions of a system to demand ever more resources

Personal tools