Troubling Reveal in the Roadmap Roundup

>As a result, deliverables are now tracked by the "owner" of each feature, which is how they will be displayed on Progress Tracker moving forward. Downstream teams like Audio, VFX, and others won't be individually represented, as their work is integrated into the main objectives. This streamlined approach also makes it easier to find relevant teams, with these new groups now featured at the top of the list.

>These new groups encompass all the disciplines previously displayed on Progress Tracker, and we've adjusted how production schedules are tracked to accommodate the need for flexibility. Instead of pinpointing individual developers, we’re using placeholder headcounts and disciplines for each deliverable.

We all know that CIG has a history of lackluster project management. These two passages are extremely disturbing. What they are saying is they just took all the teams and mixed them up.

On paper it looks good, but all you are really doing is throwing people together who's professions and expertise are completely different, being managed by people that have no idea what or how their direct reports do their job.

How do I know? I work IT in a corporate office. We tried it once when some new upper management came in with big ideas. All it wound up doing was setting back all projects a full year. Major outages took far too long to resolve due to no clear application ownership trees. And it cost the company millions in lost business and wasted man hours.

The end result was the board of directors member that pushed the change, and everyone he hired down the line were fired, and the old teams were put back together.

If you think we've had a rough time with missed deadlines, you ain't seen nothing yet. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Hold on to your butts.