[This is an unfinished blog post from years back that I'm publishing now as part of a housecleaning on the off chance that someone might find it useful.]
In my dialog with others, particular those in the agile community, I frequently encounter those with a belief system that runs along the following lines:
* As a human, I'm not like a machine or an animal
* As a knowledge worker, I'm not like a physical worker
* As a software professional, I'm not like other professionals
* As someone working today, I'm not like those who have worked in the past
* As a unique individual, I'm not like others
I think these beliefs are in turn linked to the following perspectives:
* I don't do repetitive things, my work is unique
* I don't do physical work, I use my brain
* The problems I deal with in software are different and more complex than problems dealt with by other professionals
* The knowledge and wisdom of today far exceeds that of yesterday
* What others have learned does not apply to me
I think this in turn leads to the following action strategies:
* I shouldn't spend a lot of time really listening to others
* I shouldn't spend a lot of time studying what others do, particularly in other fields
* I shouldn't copy what others do
* I should figure things out for myself
Except that:
* We have much in common with those that are different from us
* So we have much to learn from those that are different from us
* The brain is an organ that is subject to fatigue, change, etc., like other human organs
................
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Managing the How
[This an unfinished blog post from years ago being published now as part of housecleaning on the off chance it might be helpful to someone.]
One of the core issues in dealing with the role of the engineering manager in Lean/Agile is the nature of the manager's involvement with the work. At the risk of oversimplifying, the differing perspectives are sometimes characterized as follows:
One of the core issues in dealing with the role of the engineering manager in Lean/Agile is the nature of the manager's involvement with the work. At the risk of oversimplifying, the differing perspectives are sometimes characterized as follows:
- Agile: Managers typically cause trouble and should stay out of the way. At most, they should help the team resolve barriers if and only if the team asks for their help.
- Traditional: Managers should continue their traditional Management by Objectives (MBO) role. They should meet with the employee to agree on annual personal performance objectives and evaluate that performance at the end of the year, but they should not micromanage.
- Lean: Managers should be intimately aware of the work process and actively coaching counseling in that regard.
To understand this overloading, let's consider the case of problem solving, although we could have just as easily chosen product/process development. In the case of problem solving, there are two distinct levels at which problems are addressed. There is first of all the process by which you approach the problem (e.g. ad hoc vs. structured, PDCA vs. DMAIC, iterative vs. waterfall, etc.) But there is also the design that you come up to address/solve/mitigate the problem. And again, this notion of process vs. design applies equally well to product or process development.
Given the above, it's now easy to understand why the phrase how the problem is addressed has multiple meanings as in Managers should (not) get involved in how the problem is addressed. In one case, you're talking about the process of addressing the problem and in another case you're talking about the design used to address the problem.
Looking across the three major management philosophies, the desired level of management influence in each of process and design aspects can be roughly characterized as follows:
Agile: Process (none), Design (none)
Traditional: Process (none), Design (approve after the fact)
Lean: Process (guide throughout), Design (situationally involved)
................
Standardization in Large Orgs
I view this issue of organizational learning ands it relationship to standardization as one of the most important and difficult challenges in a large org.
I've had some luck using Jim Luckman's presentation at http://www.lean.org/downloads/Transformational_Leadership_April_2010.pdf which discusses "Blanket Solutions Thinking" and the assumptions that underly it.
Some have suggested that any standardization is bad and that any interdepencies between groups for which standardization would reduce cost should be eliminated by making all groups small and independent (e.g. "two pizza" teams acting as autonomous businesses).
That personally strikes me as somewhat of a "let them eat cake" approach and that we should acknowledge the need/benefit of standardization in some circumstances. The trick is when and how to achieve that standardization and doing it in a way that doesn't kill organization-wide kaizen.
(Written years ago; published as part of a blog draft housecleaning).
I've had some luck using Jim Luckman's presentation at http://www.lean.org/downloads/Transformational_Leadership_April_2010.pdf which discusses "Blanket Solutions Thinking" and the assumptions that underly it.
Some have suggested that any standardization is bad and that any interdepencies between groups for which standardization would reduce cost should be eliminated by making all groups small and independent (e.g. "two pizza" teams acting as autonomous businesses).
That personally strikes me as somewhat of a "let them eat cake" approach and that we should acknowledge the need/benefit of standardization in some circumstances. The trick is when and how to achieve that standardization and doing it in a way that doesn't kill organization-wide kaizen.
(Written years ago; published as part of a blog draft housecleaning).
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Time to put on a SCARF
I wanted to post this before the election because I thought it would be more effective, but I hope it still has some bipartisan value.
David Rock introduced me and many others to neuroscience and it's applicability to everyday matters. He explains that social needs, those needs related to people, are primary, equivalent in importance with physical needs such as food and shelter.
In large part, this is because our brain reacts to social situations as it does to physical situations. Just as we are either threatened by or attracted to physical situations and just as physical situations bring us either pain or pleasure, so it is with social situations. Further, the impact on us of social situations can be even more intense and more long lasting than that of physical situations.
This 2012 presidential election was a social event and, for many of us, a particularly powerful one. To understand its effect on us, it helps to understand the generic elements of social impact that David Rock has identified. These elements are status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness which can be remembered via the acronym SCARF.
Any social event or impact can be understood in terms of its effect on each of these factors. If the net effect on these factors is positive, the overall experience will be one of attraction or pleasure, otherwise it will be one of threat or pain. That said, negative impacts tend to be an order of magnitude more intense than positive ones, so this must be taken into account in doing the impact calculus.
The following is a brief description of each of these factors:
Status refers to how we view our standing as compared to others. If we actively identify with a political party or candidate, then we will experience a political win or loss of that party or candidate as a corresponding gain or loss in our status.
Certainty refers to the extent to which we are confident in what our experience will be. In the context of politics, this certainty will be directly proportional to the extent we understand and trust the party or candidate that has prevailed.
Autonomy refers to the extent to which we feel we have freedom to act as you see fit. Since we tend to affiliate with the party and candidate that supports the freedoms we most value, this attribute too will tend to rise or fall with the success with our party or candidate.
Relatedness refers to the extent to which we feel that we are meaningfully related to others. To the extent that political wins tend to reinforce the underlying groups and political losses undermine them, our relatedness will be similarly impacted.
Fairness refers to the extent to which we feel that events are fair. Once again, this attribute is correlated to political results, with "our" wins driving up fairness and "our" losses driving it down.
So, in the aftermath of this election, I think it's important for us to keep in mind that each of us is undergoing a social experience, but that this experience is particularly painful for partisans whose party or candidate did not prevail.
If we are in the latter category, being able to label the above elements will tend to reduce the pain they are inducing. If we know of others in the latter category, human decency calls for us to deal with them in as we would deal with someone in physical pain.
That is, if we have the expertise to reduce their pain by improving their SCARF experience we should do so, otherwise we should treat them empathetically and at least not make their SCARF experience worse.
David Rock introduced me and many others to neuroscience and it's applicability to everyday matters. He explains that social needs, those needs related to people, are primary, equivalent in importance with physical needs such as food and shelter.
In large part, this is because our brain reacts to social situations as it does to physical situations. Just as we are either threatened by or attracted to physical situations and just as physical situations bring us either pain or pleasure, so it is with social situations. Further, the impact on us of social situations can be even more intense and more long lasting than that of physical situations.
This 2012 presidential election was a social event and, for many of us, a particularly powerful one. To understand its effect on us, it helps to understand the generic elements of social impact that David Rock has identified. These elements are status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness which can be remembered via the acronym SCARF.
Any social event or impact can be understood in terms of its effect on each of these factors. If the net effect on these factors is positive, the overall experience will be one of attraction or pleasure, otherwise it will be one of threat or pain. That said, negative impacts tend to be an order of magnitude more intense than positive ones, so this must be taken into account in doing the impact calculus.
The following is a brief description of each of these factors:
Status refers to how we view our standing as compared to others. If we actively identify with a political party or candidate, then we will experience a political win or loss of that party or candidate as a corresponding gain or loss in our status.
Certainty refers to the extent to which we are confident in what our experience will be. In the context of politics, this certainty will be directly proportional to the extent we understand and trust the party or candidate that has prevailed.
Autonomy refers to the extent to which we feel we have freedom to act as you see fit. Since we tend to affiliate with the party and candidate that supports the freedoms we most value, this attribute too will tend to rise or fall with the success with our party or candidate.
Relatedness refers to the extent to which we feel that we are meaningfully related to others. To the extent that political wins tend to reinforce the underlying groups and political losses undermine them, our relatedness will be similarly impacted.
Fairness refers to the extent to which we feel that events are fair. Once again, this attribute is correlated to political results, with "our" wins driving up fairness and "our" losses driving it down.
So, in the aftermath of this election, I think it's important for us to keep in mind that each of us is undergoing a social experience, but that this experience is particularly painful for partisans whose party or candidate did not prevail.
If we are in the latter category, being able to label the above elements will tend to reduce the pain they are inducing. If we know of others in the latter category, human decency calls for us to deal with them in as we would deal with someone in physical pain.
That is, if we have the expertise to reduce their pain by improving their SCARF experience we should do so, otherwise we should treat them empathetically and at least not make their SCARF experience worse.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
What was I thinking?
In my last blog, way back in April, I expressed enthusiasm for social media, but questioned the concept of following. Well, I've since come to see a place for following in my life as well as developed a much greater appreciation for Twitter, something I wouldn't have thought possible a year ago. I thought I'd post my thinking here.
I blogged before that I wouldn't want to follow anyone unless I thought they were extraordinarily interesting and even then wouldn't want to see all their thoughts. Well, I've come to realize that are some people out there who I find extraordinarily interesting and, upon examination, it appears they only tweet meaningfully.
This leads me to my second point concerning Twitter. The headline on their web page above the field where you enter your tweets asks What's happening? But while streaming "what's happening" in your life may serve some social and commercial purposes, I'm generally much more interested in What are you thinking? Further, thanks to Twitter's analytics, information about what you're thinking can be aggregated with what I and others are thinking to get a sense of what the crowd is thinking, which is often even more interesting.
On a related point, I used to think Why tweet if no one is following you? and Why blog if no one is subscribed to you? I can now answer that question, at least for myself. First, when you tweet or blog, you contribute to the collective consciousness and the collective memory which can be subsequently analyzed and searched. It's quite possible and likely that no one will find individual value in your contribution today, but if you are thoughtful, chances are others will find at least collective value in your contribution in the future.
It also provides a diary of sorts - a record of your key thoughts. It will literally let you answer the question What was I thinking? which can be a helpful memory jogger and allow you to see patterns which might otherwise not have been apparent.
So I tweeted for what I think is the fourth time in my life today and I tweeted about an extraordinary individual who is the only non-relative I'm "following" on Twitter on this point. I expect I will tweet more in the future and expect to follow a few others as well.
I blogged before that I wouldn't want to follow anyone unless I thought they were extraordinarily interesting and even then wouldn't want to see all their thoughts. Well, I've come to realize that are some people out there who I find extraordinarily interesting and, upon examination, it appears they only tweet meaningfully.
This leads me to my second point concerning Twitter. The headline on their web page above the field where you enter your tweets asks What's happening? But while streaming "what's happening" in your life may serve some social and commercial purposes, I'm generally much more interested in What are you thinking? Further, thanks to Twitter's analytics, information about what you're thinking can be aggregated with what I and others are thinking to get a sense of what the crowd is thinking, which is often even more interesting.
On a related point, I used to think Why tweet if no one is following you? and Why blog if no one is subscribed to you? I can now answer that question, at least for myself. First, when you tweet or blog, you contribute to the collective consciousness and the collective memory which can be subsequently analyzed and searched. It's quite possible and likely that no one will find individual value in your contribution today, but if you are thoughtful, chances are others will find at least collective value in your contribution in the future.
It also provides a diary of sorts - a record of your key thoughts. It will literally let you answer the question What was I thinking? which can be a helpful memory jogger and allow you to see patterns which might otherwise not have been apparent.
So I tweeted for what I think is the fourth time in my life today and I tweeted about an extraordinary individual who is the only non-relative I'm "following" on Twitter on this point. I expect I will tweet more in the future and expect to follow a few others as well.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
I Don't Follow
We've started using Yammer at my place of business. For those of you not familiar with it, Yammer is a Twitter-like social media tool. The key differences between Yammer and Twitter from my perspective are that:
- Yammer establishes a separate communication space for each place of business
- Yammer postings are not limited in length
- Yammer supports the notion of "groups"
But this post is about the notion of "following", which I just don't get, at least in the business context. When you "follow" someone, you see everything they post, independent of the subject matter. To me, this feels like the intellectual equivalent of "stalking".
While there may be some exceptional people in the world whose every public utterance is worth pondering, I'm not aware of any and I certainly haven't run into any at my workplace.
Even outside the workplace, the idea of "following" strikes me as creepy. For those who I love deeply, such as members of my family, I'd still like to give them some "space". I don't think it's healthy for them or me to know their every post in every context.
For public figures, my relationship with them is typically associated with some specific activity they are engaged in, be it politics or science or whatever. Following them on all topics just because I have an interest in one topic of theirs makes no sense.
The only precedent for "following" from my perspective is the way in which fans follow celebrities via popular media with the aid of paparazzi. While such following is legal and arguably the price of fame in a democracy, I don't see it having a role in the workplace.
Which brings me back to Yammer. While Yammer has copied this notion of "following" from Twitter, with all its problems, it has also introduced "groups", an important concept that has deep roots in both electronic and non-electronic media.
I love groups. Groups provide focus and enable people with similar interests to gather and share in a way that's recorded so that others can learn from it at at later date. If "following" has a meaningful role to play, I think it is in conjunction with groups.
Depending on the membership of a group, I may want to follow all the posts in the group or just some of them. For example, for high traffic groups, I might want to follow only the postings of certain people to that group.
I'd also like to see the social media equivalent of a "restraining order". I'd like to arrange for the postings of certain people not to appear on my feed, so I can enjoy my groups without having to tolerate postings of people who have proven themselves to be gadflys, bullys, etc.
One final note to anyone who may found this as a result of following me on Yammer. Yammer has a default option whereby, when you initially join, you can follow the "top 20 posters". At some point in time, I entered this collection of people and, as a result, started getting hordes of followers. If you're following me, chances are that's why, and to you I would like to say:
- There's an "unfollow" option on Yammer
- If you "unfollow" me, I will not be offended. If anything, I'd think well of you, although odds are that I will never know
- If you want to continue to "follow" me, that's ok, too. Please just understand that when I post something to a group, I'm directing it at the people who joined that group with the assumption that they have a particular interest in that topic
- If I ever have something to say that I think is worth broadcasting to the general population, I will put it on the company feed
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Role of Rules
In the context of the ongoing dialog in the lean/agile community about "defined processes" (in the sense of documented processes with clear guidelines or rules, not necessarily deterministic processes), the following sets of books have come to together to make an impression on me:
- Group 1: The End of Overeating, by David Kessler Strategy and the Fat Smoker, by David Maister Overcoming Organizational Defenses, by Chris Argyris (see also www.actionscience.org)
- Group 2: Software For Your Head, by Tom and Michele McCarthy (see www.mccarthyshow.com) Agile Project Management with Scrum, by Ken Schwaber (see scrum.org)
The books in Group 2 are interesting in that the each provides a set of strict rules and guidelines to be followed in their particular domain. Each has also been criticized as being too prescriptive and too constraining. But the Group 1 books explain that this is precisely why these protocols are effective.
This topic also seems related to Bloom's taxonomy of learning and various concepts of mastery levels, where one progresses from learning rules, to applying rules, to teaching rules, to breaking rules, to making rules.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Nokia Test Questions
The following are questions that arose in my department after taking the version of the Nokia Test which has ratings from 0 to 10.
Iterations - Our iterations are roughly one month in length, scheduled a year in advance to end on a Monday in the middle of the month (to avoid holidays and other standing meetings). That works out to 8 iterations of 4 weeks and 4 iterations of 5 weeks during a given year. Is that "variable length"? For those that claim "fixed length", what do they do if the iteration boundary occurs in the middle of a holiday week?
Testing within the Sprint - What does "dedicated QA" mean? Is that a reference to a person or role? If so, is having an individual a Scrum team who is dedicated to testing considered superior to having the work fully distributed? If it's a reference to QA work, what does "dedicated" mean? Also, in scoring this question, can you only came credit for a higher number if you've satisfied all the "good things" implied by lower level questions?
Agile Specification - Is interpolation permitted or encouraged? For example, what about "poor requirements"? Is there a reference for what is meant by "specifications" in this context (and what distinguishes it from "requirements")?
Product Owner - Again, are lower level "good things" required for higher level scores? For example, if development team and ScrumMaster are doing the lion's share of the work in preparing the Product Backlog, the Product Owner is only peripherally involved, but the backlog is clear and estimated before the Sprint Planning meeting, is that still a 5?
Product Backlog - Not really a scoring question, but if "story point" is based on size(effort) and not value, then how is cost per story point a measure of ROI?
Team Disruption - There are lots of potential sources of disruption (e.g. other Scrum teams seeking assistance, support personnel seeking help to restore service for a "down" customer). Is this question not intended to measure those?
Team - Same question about whether/how higher levels depend on lower levels (see below for generalization). What does "necessary competency" mean? Our teams are in a constant state of challenge/growth in terms of their skills relative to a large legacy code base.
Generalized Scoring Question - Each of the scoring elements is expressed as either a "bad thing in at least some respect" or a "good thing" relative to Scrum. My understanding of the intended scoring algorithm is as follows:
* You can't score higher than any "bad thing" which applies to you, even if you satisfy something with a higher number
* You can't score higher than any "good thing" you don't satisfy, even if you satisfy a good thing with a higher number
Is that correct?
Iterations - Our iterations are roughly one month in length, scheduled a year in advance to end on a Monday in the middle of the month (to avoid holidays and other standing meetings). That works out to 8 iterations of 4 weeks and 4 iterations of 5 weeks during a given year. Is that "variable length"? For those that claim "fixed length", what do they do if the iteration boundary occurs in the middle of a holiday week?
Testing within the Sprint - What does "dedicated QA" mean? Is that a reference to a person or role? If so, is having an individual a Scrum team who is dedicated to testing considered superior to having the work fully distributed? If it's a reference to QA work, what does "dedicated" mean? Also, in scoring this question, can you only came credit for a higher number if you've satisfied all the "good things" implied by lower level questions?
Agile Specification - Is interpolation permitted or encouraged? For example, what about "poor requirements"? Is there a reference for what is meant by "specifications" in this context (and what distinguishes it from "requirements")?
Product Owner - Again, are lower level "good things" required for higher level scores? For example, if development team and ScrumMaster are doing the lion's share of the work in preparing the Product Backlog, the Product Owner is only peripherally involved, but the backlog is clear and estimated before the Sprint Planning meeting, is that still a 5?
Product Backlog - Not really a scoring question, but if "story point" is based on size(effort) and not value, then how is cost per story point a measure of ROI?
Team Disruption - There are lots of potential sources of disruption (e.g. other Scrum teams seeking assistance, support personnel seeking help to restore service for a "down" customer). Is this question not intended to measure those?
Team - Same question about whether/how higher levels depend on lower levels (see below for generalization). What does "necessary competency" mean? Our teams are in a constant state of challenge/growth in terms of their skills relative to a large legacy code base.
Generalized Scoring Question - Each of the scoring elements is expressed as either a "bad thing in at least some respect" or a "good thing" relative to Scrum. My understanding of the intended scoring algorithm is as follows:
* You can't score higher than any "bad thing" which applies to you, even if you satisfy something with a higher number
* You can't score higher than any "good thing" you don't satisfy, even if you satisfy a good thing with a higher number
Is that correct?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)