There Is No Such Thing As A "A Team of One"

Let's just be honest here – "what are 'our very best programmers?'"

Yeah – "they are lone wolves." Because they've always been. Because they've always succeeded that way. Because it's always seemed easiest to end the weekly status-call with, "okay, let's just get back to it." And, so long as you have a stable of three-or-four comfortable "wolves," each singularly devoted to his-or-her personal "lone wolf" project, well, you can get along in just such a manner for quite a long time.

Your management problems begin to appear – and then, very quickly, to escalate – when the workload begins to expand to the point where you can no longer afford to confine each of your "wolves" to just his-or-her "personal (and, self-appointed) comfort zone." Now, you find it necessary to construct a team, but you realize that your "wolves" don't know how.

"There Is No Such Thing as a Team(!) Of One!"

Plenty of "university stars" had this similar experience when they tried to "move into the majors." Suddenly, their skills weren't quite so extraordinary. Suddenly, they had to be part of(!) something bigger than themselves. Suddenly: (1) they couldn't "win the game, all by themselves," and (2) they for the very first time didn't have to.

Many of the world's best programmers, in like manner, are quite accustomed to "winning the game, themselves." They are well-equipped with plenty of examples (carefully listed on their resumes ...) where they have managed to do exactly that. They single-handedly waltzed into a fire, then single-handedly put it out.

But" during the entire (successful ...) process they behaved reactively. Never proactively.

In short – throughout – they were: "a 'team' of one."

The Importance of 'Project Management Discipline' in Software:

In very many ways, the position of "the 'lone wolf' [programmer ...]" is directly and completely comparable to that of every other "lone wolf" that has ever existed.

"He or she must first be shown that (s)he can actually afford to give up the fight." That there really are other people – groups of other people – who can not only "put their fingers into the dike" but actually "patch-up the 'dike leak' entirely and for good."

But then, the "lone wolf" must be shown – no, genuinely but forcefully pushed into – a new process that is ... visibly to him or her ... genuinely superior. A process that is genuinely(!) superior. A strategy that really does reduce the risk, divide the effort, and save time.

The Problem of "Pantsing":

"Pantsing" ... you already know what it means: "by the seat of your pants." Diving headlong into the situation, whatever it may be, trusting that you can find your way out of it "by your derriere."

If you are a manager, then of course this is the easiest way out – just poll each one of your [lone wolf ...] subordinates, asking each one of them in turn what they are doing, then conclude the meeting with: "well, let's just all get back to it!" As long as the situation remains within these narrow confines, you're okay. Beyond that, you're in serious trouble.

"Project Management: The Solution to 'Pantsing':"

"Formal" Project Management becomes a paramount concern when your ever-complicated business situation ceases to be one that each of your subordinates can actually achieve in a "purely self-directed" manner. And, which any of them can continue to expect to achieve through "institutional [self-owned ...] knowledge." This fundamental threshold is reached when each "lone wolf" is finally confronted with the realization that (s)he can no longer prevail, except as "part of a pack."

Classical project-management techniques seek to address these problems by abstracting them – by generally trying to separate them into a general class of "big picture problems" versus "necessary minutia," realizing that both are equally-valid but entirely-separate concerns. Software project management therefore seeks to explicitly compartmentalize the design process, separate from both the writing of source-code and the explicit verification of it. It imposes separate metrics upon each.

And ... the outcomes really are consistently-better than those achieved by "pantsers." Project management discipline explicitly separates "planning" from "execution" from "verification," and in so doing eliminates a drastic amount of wasted effort. But, at least initially, "the wolves" must be convinced.