July 19, 2007
Agile is Not Communism
Last week I taught an introductory course on Agile Work. Normally this is pretty easy stuff. However, I was teaching this course in Bucharest, Romania (cool), and I have come across a substantial, strong and vigorous objection to agile (also cool, but challenging too). Several people in my class are asserting that agile is just like communism and since communism failed, agile is not likely to succeed either. I'm looking for help on this!
I have Googled "agile communism" and come up with some interesting reading:
Does Scrum/XP Violate the Agile Manifesto?
The Agile Method and Other Fairy Tales: QED
I have also done some quick research on communism to check that I understand the comparison and objection. Here is a wiktionary definition of communism:
1. A term used to refer to a number of political philosophies or ideologies which share the belief in the virtue of holding the production resources collectively. 2. A society organized in line with the communist theories, the ultimate aim of which is the abolition of the state and the creation of a classless, stateless society whose members produce according to their abilities and take what they need.
So let's start with that definition.
Holding Production Resources Collectively
Also called: common ownership of the means of production
I suppose there are a few ways to look at this. In an agile environment which encourages (for example) collective code ownership, it might seem like holding the production resources collectively. However, the code is actually the result of production, rather than the Means of Production. This distinction is not trivial. The means of production for a team in an agile environment still include both the tools and the raw materials upon which those tools exercise. In software development (and in most creative work nowadays), the tools are computers and software and other electronic gadgets such as video cameras, telecomm systems, etc. The raw materials are typically intellectual constructs such as images, sounds, ideas, processes (and of course their legal counterparts such as trademarks, copyrights, and patents). Agile methods do not require the team of workers to own these means, nor do agile methods forbid workers from owning these means. In fact, There is one important way in which agile methods are decidedly not communist: every individual owns their own creativity, experience, and knowledge and is only asked to share willingly (and usually in exchange for pay such as salary, stock options or outright corporate ownership). I believe this passage clarifies things nicely:
Marxists define economic systems in terms of how the means of production are used, and which social class controls them. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie, (the "capitalists" - the owners of capital), while in socialism they are controlled by the people's elected representatives and in communism they are controlled collectively by the people themselves. [Means of Production]
Agile methods, if anything, tend towards capitalism in this regard. (Although a whole other question could be asked about just how much control the owners of a corporation really have given delegated authority through the board of directors to the chief executive staff _and_ the abrogated authority through mutual funds, pension funds, holding companies, and trusts _and_ the limitations on that control through the blunt instrument of voting shares _and_ the influences on that control through the control of information by financial analysts and the media...)
Ultimate Aim of The Creation of a Classless, Stateless Society
Well, this certainly isn't the aim of agile methods that I am aware of. The aims of agile methods as I understand them includes:
- Building stuff that stakeholders like
- Creating an environment for team members to exercise their creativity
- Doing all this in a way that responds well to pervasive frequent change
Again, I can understand why there might be some confusion here. Agile methods promote these three aims by doing something that looks just a little like a classless organizational structure. Typically, agile (and lean) environments start to have a higher manager to staff ratio (fewer managers), encourage self-organizing, cross-functional teams, and emphasize team goal setting, commitment and accountability. This might seem classless (and stateless/managementless) until one examines what is not said: Agile does not claim that every team member is exactly equal, it does not require that every team member do exactly the same thing, it does not require that every team member give up _all_ their individual preferences (although certainly it would be hard for someone who didn't like talking to other people to be part of an agile team... so I guess some individual preferences won't work in an agile team), it does not encourage every team member to do exactly the same amount of work regardless of if you are measuring effort or output.
Now admittedly, when I am presenting examples of self-organizing teams, I do sometimes use examples that come close to classless stateless teams... but that's just to show that this is a possibility and allowable in an agile environment, not that it is the only way.
Those practices in agile methods that do seem like classlessness and statelessness are not aims... they are means. A self-organizing, self-managing team, is means to an end. It is not an aim in itself. Why does this matter? For the simple reason that it is always bad to confuse means and ends. The end cannot justify the means (classlessness and statelessness imposed by revolution)... and nor can the means justify the ends (classlessness and statelessness that results in apathy, boredom and low productivity). So the fact that self-organization is a means is a way for us to decide if it is worthwhile. The evidence for self-organizing teams in a business context is strong (lots of links and articles and books on this blog as well as others). Most team members enjoy being self-directed in a way that is collaborative with other professionals. So both the ends are good - productivity - and the means are good - happy people.
Members Produce According to Their Abilities and Take What They Need
To me, "produce according to their abilities" sounds a lot like a tautology. Certainly, team members can produce no more than their abilities! From an agile perspective, this isn't even what we are interested in... we are interested in the multiplicative effect of teams of people working together effectively so that the result of the work is greater than the sum of the individual abilities. There is now substantial evidence that this is not just possible, but a likely outcome of group work (see Research on Group Effectiveness vs Individuals among many others). My favorite phrase for this is "Unity in Diversity" which describes a group of people who have united around a common goal, but with each individual having talents, experiences, knowledge, patterns of behavior, and insights that are all different from each other.
The second part of the phrase "take what they need" is another piece of this pie that has absolutely no relationship to agile methods. Again, there is evidence that this is specifically not supported. Lean methods encourage compensation that is based on a number of things including: contribution to results in one's sphere of influence (rather than the more limited sphere of responsibility) and the number of skills you have mastered and use to contribute to the work.
Disconnecting reward from results is an obvious problem. While people do have altruistic feelings, we also are clearly motivated by praise
Some Similarities
One of the attendees of the course, a woman by the name of Christina, provided me with some notes based on her understanding of Agile and Communism and she listed these similarities:
- They both rely on participation, rather than executing orders.
- One aim is less frustration.
- They use some similar phrases such as multidisciplinary / cross-functional.
- They both ask people to evaluate each other.
And What about Reality?
Well, I haven't lived in a communist environment so I admit that my ability to talk intelligently about this is not what I would like it to be. I am interested in people out there who might be able to help me with this.
Here are some questions for people who have actually experienced communism:
- What are the actual, in-practice similarities between agile and communism?
- What are the in-practice differences between agile and communism?
- Why did communism fail and how might this affect the success of agile methods?
- How can we safeguard agile from falling into the same problems?
Can anyone out there help please?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 06:13 PM | |
January 17, 2007
The Inner Ring
Here's a slightly off-topic, but nevertheless excellent read: "The Inner Ring" by C S Lewis. This is a talk given by C S Lewis to what seems to be a group of university students. In it, he describes the notion of the inner ring and the desire to be "in". It is amazing how much our culture in North America and our corporate culture is driven by this desire. I'll leave it to you to decide if this is good or bad.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 04:23 PM | |
January 02, 2007
Top Ten Most Popular Entries from 2006
If you are new to Agile Advice, these are not just some of the most popular articles, they are also some of the best! Take a look around; you will find ideas to inspire you, challenge your thinking and maybe that one little thing that will make the difference in applying agile methods in your situation.
1. How Two Hours Can Waste Two Weeks - 25,617 unique views
This little hypothetical story by Dmitri Zimine was very popular on Reddit, and Joel on Software ranted a bit about it.
2. The Case for Context Switching - 2,936 unique views
My rebuttal to Joel's rant. Goes well with Dmitri's article. Emphasizes the idea of building trust in an organization.
3. The Qualities of an Ideal Test - 1,579 unique views
Six qualities that will help make your tests as valuable as can be. Similar to the ACID properties of databases or the INVEST properties of user stories.
4. The Pros and Cons of Short Iterations - 1,555 unique views
A few words that will help you decide how long to make your iteration length. This is an important decision, and most teams and organizations don't know the factors involved.
5. Five Signs of Trouble in an Iteration - 1,489 unique views
A good howto on using burndown charts to discover problems in an iteration.
6. Seventeen Tips for Iteration Planning - 1,427 unique views
A good list of hints and tips that can make the difference between struggling with iteration planning and having it go smoothly and effectively. This is a key part of the Agile Work process, so getting good at it is a high priority for any team new to Agile Work.
7. Change is Natural - "Embrace Change" - 1,397 unique views
A short riff on the universality of change. Also introduces the idea of the "horizon of predictability".
8. The Art of Obstacle Removal - 1,287 unique views
This is a good reference article on types of obstacles and methods for removing them... a critical practice for Process Facilitators.
9. The Seven Core Practices of Agile Work - 1,285 unique views
Agile Work is really quite simple. This is a concise list of the practices that make up this effective methodology.
10. Interview with Alistair Cockburn - Agile and House Renovations - 902 unique views
Applying agile methods to home and garden renovations! Learn a bit about how this luminary of the agile world has taken agile practices out of the software world and into the hardware world.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 06:32 PM | |
December 18, 2006
Lean, Agile and Capitalism - Just a Thought
It occurred to me to ask: If the "invisible hand" in the free markets of capitalism is making for efficient markets, efficient work... then why is there some much room for improvement when we start using non-competitive, collaborative techniques such as lean and agile?
And if these collaborative techniques work on a small scale to improve efficiency, does this mean that we could do this across organizations as a "replacement" for capitalism somehow?
In agile methods, we "assume positive intent" on the part of individuals. What if we could do this across organizations? I'm not living in a dream world yet, but I think I have an inkling of what it might look like: Toyota and its collaborative, leaned-out supply chain.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 06:39 PM | |
November 15, 2006
The Case for Context Switching
Recently, Dimitri Zimine wrote an excellent little story about context switching. Joel Spolsky writes in "From the 'You Call this Agile' Department":
Dmitri is only looking at one side of the cost/benefit equation. He's laid out a very convincing argument why Sarah should not interrupt her carefully planned two week iteration, but he hasn't even mentioned arguments for the other side: the important sale that will be lost.
Okay... I'll bite.
Let's look at that argument from the perspective of the sales person first since that is where Joel's concern starts:
The Sales Guy Perspective
"I need the 'ezhibal' feature now! Big bucks coming soon if we can get it now."
Let's suppose that this urgent email has come in somewhere near the start of our two week iteration. The normal response to this in Scrum is to push back a little. The ScrumMaster says something to the effect of: "Look if you wait 7 days we can put this on the top of the list for our next iteration."
First reaction, and it's a normal one, is for Sales Guy to freak out. I've actually heard people saying things like "You're going to lose your job over this! I'm getting the VP involved and he's not going to like it" and then they stalk off to find the big dog to come and bark at us. Anyway, let's pretend that the Sales Guy is willing to be reasonable and not instantly escalate the "problem". So what he actually says is: "Look, this is super important, it'll probably only take a few minutes for us to talk about it and then we can figure out how long it will take to fix. Let's just do a quick phone call and yadda, yadda, yadda, blah dee blah..."
Enough of the Sales Guy perspective.
Nowadays, if I'm in this situation, I do a value assessement. I tell the team to keep working on their plan, nothing's changed yet, and I sit down with Sales Guy and the person who's sponsoring the current work and we start a discussion about the options of which there are really only two that work in Scrum:
- Stay the Course
- Cancel the Iteration
First, let's talk about how we decide which option to take. Then we'll talk about why.
Deciding on the option is easy. You look at the value of the work currently being done and compare it to the value of the work that Sales Guy needs. You take into account probabilities. If Sales Guy doesn't have a signed contract, then it's hard to day if there's going to be any real revenue from the 'ezhibal' feature. Still, you might be able to do an assessment of the probabilities based on your level of trust and history with the client, etc. You also need to take into account the time value of money. Does delaying the current work have consequences for another client or stakeholder? What is the cost of those consequences.
This is a relatively simple cost/benefit analysis and comparison. If you're not comfortable with money and numbers and spreadsheets, you better get comfortable!
Okay, so we have a way of comparing the two bits of work. Now let's look at the two "allowed" responses and a third "bad" response.
Stay the Course
Turns out that the potential benefit of the stuff Sales Guy wants is not quite as high as the potential benefit of the stuff that Suzie Stakeholder prioritized for the current iteration. Well, that's easy. Put the request from Sales Guy in our prioritized list of work and get to it when there is an appropriate level of benefit relative to the other work.
Cancel the Iteration
The stuff Sales Guy wants is super-valuable. So let's get the whole team to stop what they are doing and everyone supports this very valuble work. Stopping the whole team is appropriate because obvioulsy, the stuff they're working on isn't as valuable. Oh, and because we treat a team as a unit in Scrum. And because the team needs to commit to work, not individuals. This isn't so obvious... more later.
Peel Sarah off to do the 'ezhibal' Feature
This is what normally happens, and in a "normal" non-agile environment, it's probably okay. In a non-agile environment, Sarah hasn't made any commitments (she's been forced to agree to dates and scope, etc., but she hasn't made a commitment that she is empowered to live up to). So if she goes off and does this one little thing, it probably will be just business as usual. In an agile environment, the team has made a commitment and doing this work this way invalidates the team's commitment.
Why do we do it this way? The main reason is around trust and commitment. Yup, it's that soft icky stuff that we're so incredibly bad at that customers think that bugs are normal, that management shoves the kitchen sink into projects in the frustrated hope that they'll get something out of the IT team at the end of the project. Sound familiar to anyone?
Anyway. An iteration is a commitment. It is a firm and solid commitment. The team as a group of smart and honorable people is making a definite commitment to the rest of the organization to get a certain amount of work done in a fixed amount of time. In return, management is agreeing to give the team every support in reaching this commitment. When a team is new at this, they might get it wrong. But having done this with dozens of teams now, I know that after a few tries, the team gets the hang of it and commits to appropriate amounts of work, and management provides appropriate levels of support.
This commitment is essential for developing trust. And anything that comes in the way of the team meeting its commitment is considered "BAD". An obstacle to do away with.
This is interesting, because Joel's second example is about defects. And I strongly agree that defects are "BAD" and need to be dealt with at a very high level of priority. The reason is simple: they prevent a team from meeting its commitment.
One team I was coaching was constantly bombarded by these types of it'll-just-take-a-few-minutes-need-it-asap requests. They had many stakeholders and very very limited resources to service these requests. They had several small projects that were taking literally years to do because they couldn't get enough concentrated time on any one thing. This was considered normal and good in their environment.
The trouble is, no one had really looked at the overall consequences. Everyone was doing local optimization. For us geeks, we all know that local optimization is something to be avoided if possible. We climb a peak only to discover that we have to climb back down a ways to get up to the higher peak we now see is next to this one. We climb up that one only to discover yet another higher peak even further along thus requiring us to climb down and up again... When really what we should have done is stepped back a ways, looked at the lay of the land and said, "hey, that peak over there is the highest of them all, let's go climb that one."
Scrum helps us avoid local optimization by forcing all feature requests for a team to be prioritized in a list of work, and by allowing the team to complete small pieces of work so it actually gets _something_ done that you can learn from.
Joel said:
Agile is not supposed to be about swapping out one set of bureaucratic, rigid procedures for another equally rigid set of procedures that still doesn't take customer's needs into account.
True enough! But it also demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about what is being done in Dmitri's example! First of all, without being agile at all, it is possible to switch from 18 month projects to two week projects. Both can be bureaucratic as you please (well, actually, there's only so much bureaucracy you can cram into two weeks and still get something done). The shorter projects will allow you to be much more responsive to customer needs... by definition!
So what happens when you add in all the other things that agile really is about? Transparency. Truthfulness. Creativity. Learning. Meta-Learning. Prioritization. Self-Organizating Teams. Eliminating Waste.
Well, first of what you get is something that's damn hard to do right. It goes against almost everything we've been taught to do: the extreme of heroics of the extreme of careful planning and process.
Secondly, what you get is something that needs safety zones and meta-rules. Like mutual, freely-given, team-to-stakeholders commitment. Like assuming positive intent.
And thirdly, what you get is an environment where not only is the business getting what it needs more than it used to, but also, the team likes working with the business, and the business likes working with the team.
I admit that the point Joel is making isn't too different. Yes: look at the costs and the benefits. But agile isn't quite about instantaneous responsiveness. That's a red herring and I'm suprised that Joel threw it's stinky carcass into the discussion. Agile is also about balancing that responsiveness with the overall view of value for the team and the organization. The tool for doing that is the prioritized list of work, not the email message from Sales Guy to Sarah.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 04:13 AM | |
November 12, 2006
More on Scaling Agile
One problem with having multiple teams working on the same project will be the tendency to compare the teams' performance. Why is this a problem?
Why Not Compare Team Performance?
One of the main reasons is that the teams need to be collaborating not competing. There can be a small amount of friendly competition that might come naturally, but as soon as management starts paying attention to differences in team performance, the competition starts to get serious.
In the case of multiple teams working on the same project, the goal should be to maximize overall performance, not individual team performance. Too much competition can lead to unintentional or deliberate sabotage: failed communication, incomplete communication and downright dishonesty.
Motivating Teams without Comparing Them!
As Mary Poppendieck has written, measure up [pdf]. In a single-team situation this means that individuals are measured and rewarded based on team performance (their sphere of influence). In a multi-team environment, that means that the group of teams should be measured as a group and compensated as a group. This will encourage all teams to work towards the success of the overall project. I personally believe there is some room for individual-based compensation, but the way it is handled needs to be done so that it does not encourage sub-optimal behavior.
As well, each team can keep track of their velocity. Some coaches recommend using "ideal hours" or some other units to determine velocity (velocity = estimated work remaining completed / iteration). The trouble with doing this with multiple teams is that there will be a very real tendency to want to compare each team's velocity. Since velocity is a useful measure for team capacity, it is important to still have a way to measure it. One simple way to do this to prevent comparison is to use different units for each team. Team One might be measuring velocity in Estimated Ping Pong Balls Completed / Iteration... Team Two in Estimated Bananas Completed / Iteration... Team Three in Estimated Bogo-MIPS Completed / Iteration... etc. etc.
Motivating Collaboration
First off, management must make visible commitments to eliminating barriers to collaboration. For example, it is a great sign of commitment to re-organize office spaces so that all the teams are sitting near to each other. Every time the Process Facilitator identifies an obstacle that relates to collaboration (tools, process, physical environment, etc.) management should get right on it and fix it.
An ongoing investment in team-building training, workshops and exercises is also helpful. This type of investment helps people gain the skills necessary to work effectively with other people. Again, individuals need to see and believe that management cares about and values teams.
Finally, one of my pet peeves: when a project is over, keep the team together! Do not break them up and redistribute your "resources" to other efforts. The value of those people working together is substantial. The value of those people working together as a high-performance team is incredible! In a multi-team situation, it is reasonable to take teams from the overall group and re-distribute their efforts... but just don't break up the individual teams.
Miscellaneous Notes on Scaling Agile:
Twelve is still the maximum recommended size for a single agile team. Seven is really the sweet spot. A team larger than twelve people just takes too long to get into the Performing stage of team development. If you feel like your project needs more than twelve people actively involved, then you probably want to split into two or more teams... and then you have "scaled" agile.
If you have three teams of five people (or some similar configuration of people just over the 12 person limit), then they will work as a very close-knit group and a lot of the time will act as if they were a single team. They will probably plan iterations and do demos and retrospectives together.
Twelve teams working on the same project at once is about the maximum number before communication overhead is slowing everyone down too much. This is largely a factor of trust: with 150 or fewer people involved in an effort, it is possible for everyone to know everyone. More than that many people and it is no longer possible. Trust is just not an option anymore and bureaucratic controls take over.
If for some reason you need to do something in a small amount of time and you think it's going to take more than twelve teams of twelve people...? Break the effort into smaller chunks. Divide and conquer. Division can be across functional areas, structural areas or time.
Although I have heard of agile methods being used with groups larger than this, I haven't heard any success stories :-)
Check out my earlier introductory article on Scaling Agile in a large project situation.
Dean Leffingwell has an article about practices needed for scaled-up efforts at the Agile Journal. I glanced through it, but I admit that after I disagreed with his very first point (Intentional Architecture), I started to pay less attention.
He claims that refactoring of large systems is not possible (or at least infeasible). The odd thing is, most large projects that I have been involved with are being done exactly because an old system is not refactorable. A large telecom system, a large insurance system, a large data warehouse and a large GIS system are all being done with scaled up agile methods exactly because the old systems that are currently in place have become ossified to the point where they must be replaced.
These old systems were originally built with phase-based development approaches. At some point, people stopped refactoring because they were not given the space to do so. This drop in code quality turned into technical debt. The technical debt accumulated to the point where it was unbearable (maintenance costs, cost of change, etc.).
The problem with intentional architecture is that it goes back to the old assumption that you can do a good design for a system without the constant feedback from review, deployment and use done on a very short cycle time. Over and over, we are faced with the painful consequences of this attitude, and that is one of the key reasons we started to work with agile methods in the first place.
Martin Fowler makes a good case that scaling agile is the last thing you should do. I don't disagree! Scale your agile teams at your own risk!
It's nice for me to be able to say that I've worked on some agile projects over $10,000,000 in size, but the fact is that the cost could have been reduced substantially if the team size was lowered and the deadline extended. It is (relatively) simple to do a cost/benefit analysis of cross-team-coordination-overhead vs. the time value of early delivery of more functionality... although I've never seen anyone do it! If you know of an example of an organization doing this in a realistic way, I'd love to hear about it!
Are there other ways of supporting cross-team collaboration that you have seen?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 09:13 AM | |
October 30, 2006
It's NOT About the Money
David Anderson, on the ScrumDevelopment Yahoo! group asked, somewhat rhetorically:
"Is agile about economic benefit or not?"
I would like to assert, without much to back this up, that agile is not about economic benefit.
Economic benefit is an important side-effect of agile. However, Agile Work is much more about learning, humans exercising creative potential, and value... which is in the eye of the beholder. Agile Work is about people, not abstract things called dollars/yen/ euros/etc. The only reason we care about dollars is because people care about them (certainly a tautology, but you know what I mean!)
I know I might be making a big deal about a little point, but I think that if we forget that dollars are the means, not the end, then we get lost very very easily. Agile is both means and end. It is about doing good work in a trust-building environment. It is about teams aspiring to the best service they can possibly give for their time, not just to be paid, but to derive the satisfaction of having created something that someone else values.
This is why the Agile Axioms are so important. The moment we lose sight of these axioms and start to treat Agile Work as if it was just a set of practices (no matter how effective) is the moment that it becomes un-agile and I no longer wish to be involved.
Now admittedly, as far as coaches go, I'm probably a little on the side of "impose the process and learn" rather than "learn and grow the process". But I'm not at the point of "the process is perfect - thou shalt not change it" and I'm very comfortable working with other coaches who are more on the learn-first side of things.
When Agile Work is applied to software development, it is to everyone's benefit to understand the value of the work being doing. I recently talked about using a financial model. I told the story of how using this tool allows an organization to make effective scheduling decisions. In fact, I strongly believe that the Team should be serving the "customer" and that the focus should be primarily around economic tradeoffs.
But this is just a specific practice. Delivering value is balanced out by self-organizing teams, adaptive planning and a whole host of other practices that are also important.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way. In the book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't
And what happens if you are trying to use Agile Work in a non-profit environment? Then suddenly economics takes a back seat. Does that mean that we can't use Agile methods? Of course not. In fact, it might even mean an easier fit. So much of Agile Work is about culture change: trust and truthfulness, self-organization, learning, getting rid of bureaucracy, balance, etc. Big, command-and-control corporations are probably one of the more hostile environments for Agile Work!
This brings up another interesting experience I had recently.
I was working in the United States for a few weeks on a management consulting engagement related to an enterprise rollout of agile. The business development person I was working with (let's call him Ed) told me a story about meeting with the CIO of a large oganization. The CIO complained about having to spend two years getting rid of the previous "religion" in the company about how to get things done. He was obviously concerned that adopting Agile would put him in the situation of having another religion around.
Ed comforted the CIO by telling him that agile was really just a bunch of common-sense practices. There is no religion of Agile.
I thought about it and realized that I had to disagree! Well... maybe it's not a religion, but it is a belief system.
You have to believe that people have positive intent and that they want to contribute. You have to believe that people can come to agreement. You have to believe that money is not the be-all end-all of life. You have to believe that you can't predict the future. You have to believe that people aren't working only for their own narrow self-interest.
If you don't believe these things, then you can't be agile.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:07 AM | |
April 20, 2006
An Introduction to General Systems Thinking
I recently completed reading An Introduction to General Systems Thinking
The Subject
This book is about science, philosophy, behavior, organizations, organisms, problems, solutions, faith, reason, and everything in between. Specifically, it is about a general approach to dealing with systems given the limitations of our human abilities.
The Ideas
One of the strongest ideas in the whole book is that there is a class of systems for which we have only very poor tools to understand them. These systems, which he calls "organized complexity" are contrasted to "organized simplicity (machines)" and "unorganized complexity (aggregates)". Machines can be dealt with purely analytically and in a deterministic manner. Aggregates can be dealt with statistically. Systems that are in the organized complexity category are too complex for a purely analytical approach but too simple for a reasonable statistical analysis. The book is focused on methods for dealing with this class of systems.
The Writing
Mr. Weinberg's writing is, first and foremost, engaging. He writes in an informal voice that is a wonderful complement to the subject matter. Even with the informal tone, he is nevertheless able to communicate some tricky ideas with a great deal of precision and clarity. His use of examples, diagrams, stories and quotes throughout the book is excellent. Although I did not do the exercises he includes, upon reading them, I was satisfied to see that they are all interesting. Since I intend to re-read the book in six months or so, I will also publicly commit to doing a good chunck of the exercises too. Maybe you'll see some of my efforts here since many of them are apropos to Agile Work.
How Does This Apply to Agile Work?
Much of the emphasis in agile methods is on the intractability of building a perfect plan for a set of work (particularly in software projects). The group of human beings that are building something is in itself a system of "organized complexity". As a result, it is impossible to treat that group of people as a system that can be made to work in a deterministic manner. We simply can't account for all the variables. At the same time, we would like to have a lot more certainty about the behavior of the group than we could just using statistical methods. (Check out Systematic HR for some related articles.) Agile methods help us find this middle way that gives us a very good shot at reaching our goals, but acknowledges our inability to determine precisely how we'll get there. A good understanding of Systems Thinking helps us comprehend the necessity and applicability of agile methods.
The Table of Contents
The chapter and section titles of this book tell a great deal about the scope of the work. I have reproduced the table of contents here for your reference.
Chapter 1 The Problem
- The complexity of the World
- Mechanism and Mechanics
- The Square Law of Computation
- The Simplificiation of Science and the Science of Simplification
- Statistical Mechanics and the Law of Large Numbers
- The Law of Medium Numbers
Chapter 2 The Approach
- Organism, Analogy, and Vitalism
- The Scientist and His Categories
- The Main Article of General Systems Faith
- The Nature of General Systems Laws
- Varieties of Systems Thinking
Chapter 3 System and Illusion
- A System Is a Way of Looking at the World
- Absolute and Relative Thinking
- A System is a Set
- Observers and Observations
- The Principle of Indifference
Chapter 4 Interpreting Observations
- States
- The Eye-Brain Law
- The Generalized Thermodynamic Law
- Functional Notation and Reductionist Thought
- Incompleteness and Overcompleteness
- The Generalized Law of Complementarity
Chapter 5 Breaking Down Observations
- The Metaphors of Science
- Boundaries and Things
- Qualities and the Principle of Invariance
- Partitions
- The Strong Connection Law
Chapter 6 Describing Behavior
- Simulation - The White Box
- State Spaces
- Time as a Standard of Behavior
- Behavior in Open Systems
- The Principle of Indeterminability
Chapter 7 Some Systems Questions
- The Systems Triumvirate
- Stability
- Survival
- Identity
- Regulation and Adaptation
- The Used Car Law
Also, check it out, Mr. Weinberg has started a blog on writing fiction. He also helps run the AYE Conference (amplifying your effectiveness).
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 05:18 PM | |
April 13, 2006
Agile Axioms - A Brief Exposition
The previous article was interesting enough for me that I wrote it up real nice, got it edited, and published it as a downloadable pdf. Check it out at the Berteig Consulting Inc. Agile Work Resources page. There is also a whitepaper about Agile and Lean and a one-page Agile Work Cheat Sheet. Have fun!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:29 PM | |
April 12, 2006
Follow the Principles and Adjust the Practices
In "Built to Last : Successful Habits of Visionary Companies
Follow the Principles
What exactly are the principles? The foundation starts with Trust and Truthfulness. "Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues." Everything we do with agile should be about truthfulness (visibility, transparency) and building trust.
With this as a strong foundation, we can look at the Agile Axioms:
We are Creators
Reality is Perceived
Change is Natural
All of the other principles and practices associated with Agile Work flow from these basic assumptions about the world. We can't prove that the above three axioms are "true". But they either resonate with us or they don't. If they do, then it will be easy to use these axioms as a checkpoint for all the activities we engage in using Agile Work, wherever we apply it.
We are creators... therefore we derive our sense of value from our ability to create. If our creations are accepted by others, our team, our stakeholders or our community, all the better. But fundamentally, this is inherent to us as human beings. However, sometimes this natural drive is suppressed or repressed. In order to activate it, we need to work in empowered teams.
Have you ever experienced inspiration or "flow" or joy when working with someone else? Perhaps you were solving a problem. Perhaps you were playing a musical instrument - jamming - and got into a fertile groove. Perhaps you were teaching your children and created the light of understanding in them. Perhaps you built a beautiful set of bookshelves for your home. Or maybe you told a joke that created a brief moment of genuine levity in a group of friends. We are all constantly creating!
This basic principle then means that Agile Work methods and practices should not be imposed. Taught to us, perhaps... given to us as a template, perhaps... but once we understand the practices and are familiar with them, we should immediately be given the freedom to use the learning cycle to be creative with the process and practices of Agile Work itself. If we do not participate in creation, we become dis-empowered and that eventually leads to resentment or apathy.
Reality is perceived... therefore we need to work hard to build a common perception of reality if we are to work together effectively. We need to amplify our learning. We can't assume that our own understanding of a situation is going to be shared by others. At the very least we need to check: "do you see this?"
Let's recognize that in some way or another we are all blind:
Again, the learning cycle comes into play. The guidance, detachment, love, courage and search we go through all help us to build a common understanding of reality. This allows us to see new ways to apply the Agile Work principles and practices that make sense not only to our context, but also to everyone else participating in the work.
Change is natural... therefore instead of fighting change, we need to anticipate it, adjust to it, embrace it, and be gracious or even enthusiastic. Not only does change happen to us, but we also instigate change. If things get to boring, whatever the circumstance, we find ways to change things. We rebel at stasis and ennui.
Each practice and procedure done in the context of Agile Work must be explicity and implicitly accomodating of change. If a procedure can't tolerate change it will either lead to a dissonance or conflict... or if we are embracing change, then we will modify or discard the procedure. Our creative nature loves to create, but if we become too attached, too "in love" with our creations, we will support them past their point of relevance.
Our latest greatest idea will be good for a while. But eventually change will make it irrelevent.
So we see that all three Agile Axioms are also interrelated.
Our creations will be washed away through change and if we are lucky or wise we will perceive the change in reality - be truthful to ourselves and others - and allow a new creation to take the place of the old one.
When we perceive a certain truth, and try to share that with others, we will be asking those others to change their own perceptions. This change can be difficult and may even require the destruction of a mental model created with love and care over a lifetime. Sensitivity to this loss and encouragement to build a new creation will help build a shared perception... as long as we too are open to new perceptions!
Adjust the Practices
And of course, all this foundation of creation, perception and change must be connected to the practical day-to-day reality of our lives. Our family lives, our work lives, our social lives, our volunteer lives, our intellectual lives, our emotional lives, our spiritual lives... our whole lives.
The Agile Work practices are simple to state:
Manage Ourselves
Deliver Frequently
Adapt our Plans
Communicate Powerfully
Test Everything
Measure Value
Remove Obstacles
These practices provide a starting point. A basic set of activities that will assist you, your team or your organization to advance quickly towards whatever goal you have set for yourselves. The way these practices succeed is by making sure that the Agile Axioms are always remembered and their implications accepted. These practices will set up a virtuous circle by building trust and allowing truthfulness. More trust and truthfulness will allow a fuller and more nuanced expression of the practices...
But if these practices become canonized, if they become a rote process imposed and followed blindly, then it means that we have lost sight of the Axioms. We have forgotten to check our practices against the context of creation, perception and change.
The reason we follow these practices is because we believe that we are all creators, that we can learn from our diverse perception of reality and that change is a force of growth. We don't believe these Axioms because we blindly perform these practices.
This is all available as a nicely formatted pdf: Agile Axioms - a Brief Exposition.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:45 AM | |
March 30, 2006
Bombs and Agile
The coach's gathering last weekend also got me thinking about the ethics of Agile Work and coaching. Is it okay to use agile methods for destructive purposes?
Let's first look at the Agile Software Manifesto for guidance. We see four statements of values and a number of principles. None of them provide an ethical framework that helps us determine where to use agile methods. In fact, there are many types of work that we could ask an equivalent set of questions about:
Is it okay to use agile methods to assist research in bio-weapons?
Is it okay to use agile methods to build software systems for nuclear missiles?
Is it okay to use agile methods to run a hate campaign?
Is it okay to use agile methods to ... ?
The agile community lacks a statement of ethics equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath. Do we even need one? As coaches, should our Middle Way to Excellence be grounded in a strong moral sense or is the middle way adrift?
I feel like we need a moral grounding. I think that the basis of it should be the recognition of the Unity of Humanity. I believe that both justice and mercy are important. Trust and Truthfulness are part of the foundation as well.
Is there any way to state a professional creed for Agile coaches that we can all agree upon? Has anyone tried?
For what it's worth, the ICF has a code of ethics that might be a starting point.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:04 PM | |
March 14, 2006
Agile or Not Agile?
Every once in a while the del.icio.us tag for Agile turns up something really interesting. This evening, I found this article about the ongoing use of the term "Agile". The article is brief and a little weak, but it brings up a concern that is always niggling in the back of my mind. Interestingly enough, a good friend of mine, Christian Gruber, emailed me another web page of similar import...
In this registration page for Rules of Enterprise Agility, we read about something that really has nothing to do with the Agile Manifesto, nor the Agile Axioms.
Both of these examples are signs of two things:
1. The growing popularity of the term "Agile".
2. The growing dilution of the meaning of the term.
How can we fight this? Should we fight this?
I think it is very important to constantly call attention to the fact that Agile is about the minimum process and tools that can possibly work, and only in the context of valuing individuals, interactions and teams more than those tools and processes.
Trust is the Foundation of Agile Work
Technology, tools, process, even good ideas and good organizations do not create trust. People create trust by being trustworthy: honoring their commitments, striving for excellence, truthfulness, courage. One of the fundamental problems afflicting organizations is the lack of trust: between management and employees, between business and IT, between experts of various sorts, between coworkers.
This lack of trust is institutionalized in many ways including bureaucracy and legal frameworks.
The only way to change this state of affairs is to build trust. And the only way to build trust is to embody trustworthiness in yourself so that by example and by your words you can help others to become more trustworthy.
Agile methods put in place mechanisms that assist in building trust. But those mechanisms are merely a means to an end. Let us never forget that.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:27 AM | |
March 10, 2006
The Art of Obstacle Removal
One of the best ways to go faster is to remove the things that slow you down. This "obstacle removal" is an integral part of many agile methods including Scrum and Lean. Sometimes it is obvious where an obstacle is. There are a few small things that can be done easily to go faster. But to get going really fast, we need to have a deeper understanding of obstacles... and the Art of Obstacle Removal.
What are Obstacles?
An obstacle is any behavior, physical arrangement, procedure or checkpoint that makes getting work done slower without adding any actual contribution to the work. Activities that do add value to our work may be slowed down by obstacles, but are not obstacles in and of themselves.
Obstacles and Waste
Obstacles are the causes of waste in a process. There are many types of waste, and for every type of waste there are many possible sources (obstacles).
Types of Obstacles
Personal
Personal obstacles are related to us as individuals. There are several levels at which these obstacles can show up.
Outside factors in our lives such as illness or family obligations can become obstacles to our work at hand. These obstacles are hard to remove or avoid. Even if we would want to avoid an obstacle such as illness, it is hard to do anything about it in an immediate sense. However, as part of our committment to the group we are working with, we should consider doing things to generally improve our health. Good sleep, healthy and moderate eating, exercise and avoidance of illness-causing things and circumstances are all possible commitments we can make to the group. Likewise, we can make sure our personal affairs are in order so that unexpected events have the least impact possible. This topic is vast and there are many good sources of information.
Physical Environment
Obstacles in the physical environment can consist of barriers to movement or communication, or a lack of adequate physical resources. Sometimes these obstacles are easy to see because their effects are immediate. For example, if a team room lacks a whiteboard for diagrams, keeping notes, etc., then the team may not be able to communicate as effectively.
Other physical obstacles are not so obvious. The effects of physical environment can be subtle and not well-understood. Poor ergonomics take weeks, months or years for their effects to be felt... but it is inevitable. A too-small team room can lead to a feeling of being cooped up and desperation to get out... and eventually to resentment. Again this can take weeks or months.
Here are some guidelines on a good team room.
Knowledge
A lack of knowledge or the inability to access information are obstacles. A team composed of junior people who don't have diverse experience and who don't have a good knowledge of the work they are doing will have trouble working effectively. There may be barriers preventing the team from learning. Common barriers include over-work leading to a lack of time or mental energy for learning. With junior people in particular, there is a lot of pressure to be productive and that can often be at the expense of a solid foundation of learning.
Other times, knowledge-related barriers can be more immediate. If a critical piece of information is delayed or lost this can have a large impact on an Agile team that is working in short cycles. The team may be temporarily halted while they wait for information. Building effective information flow is critical to a team's performance.
Organizational
One of the best sources of information about this is the two books by Jim Collins: "Good to Great" (Review) and "Built to Last" (Review).
Cultural
In organizational culture, one thing I constantly see is a public espoused value of teamwork, but a conflicting behavior of individual performance reviews and ranking. This is cultural. It is also a barrier to the effective functioning of an Agile team. For corporate environments I highly recommend the Corporate Culture Survival Guide by Edgar Schein.
Dis-Unity
Dis-unity is one of the most subtle and common forms of obstacle. Competition, legal and cultural assumption of the goodness of "opposition" and habits of interaction including gossip and backbiting all combine to make united action and thought very difficult.
This is an extremely deep topic. There are many tools and techniques available to assist with team building. If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend reading "The Prosperity of Humankind".
Removing Obstacles
The ability to identify obstacles and understand why they are causing problems is only the first step in removing obstacles. In Agile Work, the person primarily responsible for identifying and removing obstacles is the Process Facilitator. The Process Facilitator has several approaches available for the removal of obstacles. A process facilitator has similar responsibilities to a change agent.
Direct
Deal with the obstacle directly without involving other people. This can be as simple as getting up and moving an obstacle impairing vision, or as nuanced as running interviews and workshops throughout an organization to gradually change a cultural obstacle.
Command and Control
Identify the obstacle and give precise instructions for its removal to a person who will directly perform the removal. This can sometimes work if removing an obstacle takes a great deal of time, effort or specialized skills that you yourself do not posess. However, the overall approach of "command and control" is not recommended for Agile environments since it is disempowering.
Influence
Identify the obstacle and suggest means to deal with it to a person who has the authority or influence to get others to deal with it. This indirect method of obstacle removal can be slow and frustrating. However it usually has better long-term effects than command and control.
Support
Offer to assist and encourage the removal of obstacles that have been identified by other people. In many respects this is a very effective method. It can assist with team-building and learning by example. People are usually grateful for assistance.
Coaching
Train others on the art of obstacle removal including obstacle identification, types of obstacles and strategies for dealing with obstacles. Observe people's attempts to remove obstacles and give them feedback on their actions.
Creating a Culture of Obstacle Removal
Encourage and measure obstacle removal at all organizational levels until it becomes habitual. In many ways this is the essense of the lean organization.
Strategies for Dealing with Obstacles
Diagrams are a great way of communicating the essense of a concept. Feel free to share the following diagrams with anyone (but of course keep the copyright notice on them).
Remove
Remove the obstacle altogether. This method of dealing with an obstacle is usually the most immediately effective, but is also one of the most difficult methods.
The best way to actually remove an obstacle is to get at the root cause of the obstacle and change that. This type of change results in the longest-lasting and most stable elimination of an obstacle.
Move Aside
Take the obstacle and put it in a place or situation where it is no longer in the path of the team.
In a team's physical environment, this may be as simple as changing the tools that the team is using. For example, if the team is all in a room together, move computer monitors that are blocking team member's views of each other. If there is a useless checkpoint that work results have to go through, get management to eliminate it.
Shield
Build a shield or barrier to hide the obstacle so that it's effects no longer touch your team.
If a team is distracted by noisy neighbors, put up a sound barrier. If a team is unable to see their computers due to late afternoon sunlight, put up window shades. If a manager is bothering the team with meetings or tasks unrelated to the work of the team, then put yourself between the team and the manager (or get someone in upper management to do that).
Shielding is excellent for immediate relief, but remember that the obstacle is still there and may become a problem again if the shield cannot be maintained.
Transform
Change the structure or form of the obstacle so that it no longer affects effectiveness.
In general, this method requires a great deal of creativity and open-mindedness. This is one that works particularly well on people who are obstacles: convert them into friends of the team!
For example if the team needs approval of an expert who is not part of the team, this can cause extra work preparing documentation for this person and long delays while the expert revies the documents. If the expert becomes part of the team, then they are well-informed of the work being done and can give approval with very little overhead.
If done well, this can be a very long-lasting method of dealing with an obstacle. Make sure that the transformation is true and that it takes hold... and beware that the obstacle doesn't revert back to its old nature.
Counteract
Find an activity that negates the effects of the obstacle by boosting effectiveness in another area.
As a coach or Process Facilitator, this is what we spend our time in early in a team's adoption of Agile Work: we get them to work in the same room, use iterations and adaptive planning, we focus them on delivering work valued by the stakeholders as defined by the Product Owner. All these things are enhancing the team's ability to get work done without actually directly dealing with any obstacles.
Watch out for barriers avoided this way to come back and bite you later on.
Removing Obstacles and Learning
Organizational learning, as well as adult learning have a strong relationship to obstacle removal. Organizational learning can be either single-loop or double-loop learning. Adult learning can be either normal or transformative. We can approach obstacle removal from a surface level where we only deal with the immediate symptom, or we can work at a deeper level where we deal with the symptom and its chain of preceding causes. One effective method for examining the deeper causes is the 5-why's exercise.
Obstacles Inherent in Agile
Agile methods do not perfectly eliminate all obstacles. Some obstacles that are inherent in agile methods include overhead due to planning meetings at the start of iterations, the use of a dedicated process facilitator. As well, the use of iterations can become a barrier to certain types of work items: repeating items, investment in infrastructure, one-off tasks that are not directly related to the work at hand.
At some point, our teams will have matured to the point where agile methods are no longer necessary and we can pick and choose what parts of agile we use.
Go Forth and Demolish Obstacles!
As a Process Facilitator, coach, ScrumMaster, manager, change agent or stealth agile advocate, you have the ability and the knowledge to make a big difference in people's lives and in the success of the organizations they work within. Removing obstacles is one of the most important duties you have.
Do you have stories about obstacles you have removed or seen removed that have made a big difference? We would love the hear the anecdotal side of this as well!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:10 PM | |
December 07, 2005
Catastrophe, Crisis and Victory
Today I came across Tobias Mayer's article Catastrophic Organizational Change. Much as his thoughts on the topic resonate with me, I think there is something still missing.
His process reminds me of the term "crisis and victory" which in my faith community is used to describe an ongoing (and never-ending) process of learning and advancement. When this cycle stops, it means we have stopped learning and advancing. This applies to an individual learning about agile, a team learning about agile or an organization learning about agile. So perhaps we should also discuss the terms "Catastrophic Team Change" and "Catastrophic Personal Change"?
And yet, frankly, much as I like the rebellious and in-your-face feeling of the word "catastrophic", I think it does a dis-service to the actual process involved. Catastrophic change is what happens when you ignore incremental crises until they build up to a point where nothing can be done any longer except pass through an enourmous destructive process in order to re-build. Catastrophic change at any level is the sign of disease. As agile coaches, trainers, practitioners, we should be encouraging a healthy cycle of crisis and victory not a process of crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, CRISIS!, CATASTROPHE!!!,... change.
Several of the best coaches that I know actively encourage small breakdowns. Little crises. These breakdowns then become learning opportunities. The work can then become an environment for transformative learning. It's hard work for team members. People have to actually think, develop personally, change themselves instead of expecting their environment to change. But it is at the core of being Agile.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:52 PM | |
October 10, 2005
Agile, the Adult Educator and Ethical Considerations
A review of Tara J. Fenwick's “Limits of the Learning Organization: A Critical Look” (article found in Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult education
This article is a critique of learning organization literature (as presented in the works of Peters, Senge, Watkins, Marsick, Argyris, Schon and others). I chose to do a review of it because learning organization literature can and does inform the work of Agile practitioners. The writer, Tara Fenwick, offers a critique of this literature as an academic and practitioner in the field of adult education. Even though the language and tone of the article is judgmental and at times affronting to the corporate trainer audience, it is never-the-less challenging and valuable because she raises interesting ethical questions that can serve as cautions against potential trends that can distort agile practice. I will summarize her argument in the some of the areas most relevant to Agile practice.
Fenwick's summary of the model of learning organization found in the literature, is an organization that: “creates continuous learning opportunities, promotes inquiry and dialog, encourages collaboration and team learning, establishes systems to capture and share learning, empowers people toward collective vision and connects the organization to its environment.”
The following is a summary list of some of Fenwick's critiques:
Who's Interests are Served
Although the learning organization literature holds great promise for a more humanitarian and egalitarian workplace, it has the potential to distort learning “into a tool for competitive advantage” and in turn, exploit people as resources in the pursuit of profit. To explore this idea she asks a valuable question: “Who's interests are being served by the concept of learning organization, and what relations of power does it help to secure?” She argues that learning organization literature tends to serve the interests of educators working as trainers in organizations and managers interested in their own self preservation.
How Learning is Defined
Learning, in learning organization literature seems to be defined as that which benefits the organization, all other learning falls into the dysfunctional category. This perspective negates other ways that people create meaning and learn and potentially causes a person to become “alienated from their own meaning and block flourishing of this learning into something to benefit the community.”
Assumptions about Learners
The learning organization literature subordinates employees by seeing them as “undifferentiated learners-in-deficit”. Educators and managers are the architects of the learning organization while employees are busy “learning more, learning better and faster” trying to correct their knowledge deficit. In the learning organization workers become responsible for the health of the organization without the authority to determine alternative ways to reach that health. The fear of being left behind in a quickly changing market environment is used to create anxiety and fear as motivations for learning. All of these factors serve to put serious limits on the potential of people to learn in the work environment.
Diversity and Privilege Overlooked
Perspectives of race, class and gender -which research has shown affects the way people learn and collaborate- are lacking in the literature. Fenwick challenges the notion of achieving a democratically ideal situation for open dialog -that the learning organization literature calls for- when all people in the work place do not “have equal opportunity to participate, reflect, and refute one another” (for example because of the status of ones job, character, gender, class, age etc.)
Fenwick sheds a clear light on where the good philosophies of the learning organization are found wanting. The Agile community can benefit from asking some of the same ethical questions she asks in relation to our work. Her critique is a good challenge for Agile practitioners. It challenges us to:
- Continue to strive for higher levels of ethical excellence in our work
- To consider issues of power in our work
- To become conscious of how we use our own power
- To give thought to what voices are included / excluded in the creation of the learning organization
- Pay attention to how we motivate learners
- How to foster collaborative environments that are conscious of the privileging of some over others
- Think about who decides what is valuable knowledge and learning and how that affects the knowledge creation process
Reflecting on these issues will go a long way to contributing to the development of agile practice.
The full text of an old version of Fenwick's article can be found here.
Posted by Shabnam Tashakour at 09:35 PM | |
October 07, 2005
Agile Coach/Mentor Job Description (Process Facilitator)
Given the Agile Axioms and Disciplines then an agile coach or mentor should have some really specific experience and capabilities. This list constitutes a first attempt at a job description.
Experience:
- working in strictly timeboxed iterations with adaptive planning using some sort of prioritized work list
- working in a "test-driven" manner (e.g. writing a document for a client where the client specifies acceptance criteria)
- participating in frequent status meetings where the team members report to each other, commit to work and identify barriers
- building and maintaining big visible charts to show progress and status (e.g. the standard thermometer chart to show progress towards a numerical goal)
- fashioning appropriate tracking and performance metrics that encourage team work rather than individual competition
- helping other people to adopt and adapt all these practices
Capabilities:
- promoting collaboration in challenging circumstances
- searching for truth/a solution relentlessly
- honesty and trustworthiness
- a learning attitude (proactive and learning from mistakes)
- humility and assertiveness
- guiding people without controlling them
- detachment (ability to step out of a situation)
- an attitude of service without expecting recompense
- understanding of transformative learning
- conflict resolution as learning (not negotiation)
- encouraging creativity
Not Required:- technical experience related to the work of the team - the Agile Coach (process facilitator) should not be a performer on the team
- domain experience related to the goal of the work - the Agile Coach should not be a direct stakeholder in the results of the work
However, technical experience and domain experience can sometimes help...
Suggestions and ideas are greatly appreciated!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:33 PM | |
September 29, 2005
Transformative Learning and Agile
It seems to me that most people who have had any kind of success on serious projects, or in life, can probably point to a profound collaborative experience at the core of that experience. In my last posting, "tools vs. capabilities" I said that because Agile is fundamentally a process of collaboration and our culture is fundamentally is a culture of contest, we need to recognize that learning Agile requires a transformation at the level of character more than methodology. Despite the fact that we may have had profound experiences with collaboration, because we are also deeply influenced by our environment, there are limits to what we can understand about it. We need not look further than the agile disciplines to see how most of our working and social practices are not supportive of Agile perspectives. For example empowering the team and the concept of self-organizing team is a direct challenge to most of our social, economic, cultural, community and familial structures which are essentially hierarchical. The discipline of amplifying learning is a direct challenge to the practice of excessive specialization which manifests itself in the form of expert elitism. How can any one of us ever hope to have a culture of learning and innovation if we come from a culture of expertise and hierarchy based on that expertise?
This is where transformative learning comes in. Agile requires of us not just an ordinary, but transformative learning experience. When we learn, we take something new and fit it into an old category or assign an old meaning to it. Categories are ways in which we organize our learning, they can also be called frames of reference. If we encounter an experience for which we have no category it is hard to understand it. For example have you ever been in a conversation or taken part in a course where what you were learning was so foreign to you that you didn't even know what kinds of questions to ask to help you understand it?
Our frames of reference are shaped through the influence of our culture, language, and experiences, which all interact to set boundaries to future learning. This is because outside of these categories it is impossible for us even to register something new, let alone seek out its reality in an unprejudiced manner.
How often do you find yourself in a new learning situation where you feel overwhelmed, frustrated or even angry? It is possible that at those times you may be at the threshold of a transformative learning experience. You can have two reactions: one would be to dig deep and try to figure out why you are disturbed and see what insights you are led to and the other would be to just give up on the idea and find arguments against it.
Another way to recognize a potential opportunity for tranformative learning is to reflect on the following question: have you ever had an experience where you were faced with some new learning and because you have had a similar experience or because for some reason you see yourself as an expert in that field you have not been able to derive the proper learning from that experience? You may have realized this at a later time after numerous interactions with a similar experience where you slowly started to recognize gaps in your own understanding.
In order to derive the full benefit of a new experience that doesn't fit into the realm of our experience we must have a transformative learning experience. A transformative learning experience is an experience that requires of us to examine the values and limitations of our old categories and assign new meanings to them. This does not mean that all of our previous learning is invalid. A transformative learning experience allows us to expand our frames of reference to allow for more complexity and at times possibly to integrate two previously perceived dichotomous approaches.
For a detailed introduction to transformative learning theories, its thinkers and history check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning on Wikipedia.
Posted by Shabnam Tashakour at 10:50 PM | |
September 27, 2005
Tools Versus Capabilities Approach To Agile Training
Which approach is most valuable in training that fosters collaborative work for the purpose of optimizing the performance of an organization: a tools / methodologies approach or an inner capabilities approach? The typical orientation that most organizations take is often external and rule-based. This consists of creating methodologies, rules, boundaries, systems and processes to enhance collaboration.
These external approaches ultimately fail to have a lasting effect on people and the culture of the organization because they don't address change at the level of habits of mind. People then work in the new structure with the same patterns of behaviour. Behind this kind of surface approach to change are assumptions about human nature. At worst this consists of a belief that people are base (greedy, selfish etc.) by nature. At best that people are fundamentally good but cannot improve except through external measures. It is true that we need external systems and structures to give expression to our inner capabilities, to test, foster and develop them in action. However all the investment that companies make in tools, systems, methodologies are obviously not enough. We need both external and internal approaches to training people in collaborative processes. Systems and tools provide only a framework that then need to be filled in with character. At the core of Agile there are disciplines (such as Empower the Team, Amplifly Learning) without which the methodologies would have no life. The practice of the disciplines fostered by the development of inner capabilities infuses life into the Agile methods and at the same time the methods act on and reinforce the inner practice of the disciplines.
As Agile champions (coaches, facilitators, practitioners) we must invest energy on fostering -through modelling and coaching- the development of inner capabilities. The Agile community will benefit from an identification of core capabilities required and a deep exploration of how to foster their development in individuals, teams and organizations.
Although it is our nature to organize in groups and we may have much experience with collaboration, we nevertheless live in a culture of contest and individualism. Out of this culture comes a set of belief systems which are so deeply rooted in our lives that we are not fully conscious of them and their affect on us. These belief systems cannot change easily through the introduction of external structures alone.
Posted by Shabnam Tashakour at 12:44 PM | |
September 15, 2005
Personal Philosophy of Adult Education
The following is my approach as an educator to my work in community and organizational development. I have come to this understanding mainly through experience, a great deal of mentoring and study.
Please note that when I use the term “teacher” in this document I also mean consultant, mentor, coach etc. The term “student” is also interchangeable with organization or community. The term education is interchangeable with organizational or community development consulting.
Validation: a starting point
Education should start from, affirm and validate the experience, insights and knowledge of the individual. This is a foundation for education that honours and respects the student. Recognizing the nobility of the student allows her an active role in her own learning. The role of the teacher is to facilitate learning by drawing on the experience of the student, to build on that experience through the acquisition of new insights, knowledge and skills.
Learning must be self-directed. The teacher may have a number of wonderful things to teach, but if the student does not believe that they are relevant to her, she will not be engaged. This is especially true for teachers who are working in communities that they are not a part of. The teacher must engage in careful investigation in order to understand the situation of the student, which includes attentive listening, as well as a genuine interest in the needs of the student, before proceeding along any line of instruction. Taking her cue from the students, the teacher must work with the individual / group to create a learning environment in which everyone takes responsibility for their own learning. In this kind of environment the teacher is not an expert and does not do the students’ learning for her. The teacher can use questions to assist the student to understand, instead of delivering answers. The teacher should also encourage an environment of learning that recognizes mistakes as part of the learning process. The learning environment should create in the student a hunger for the acquisition of knowledge, insights and skills beyond the direct experience with the teacher.
Encouragement: the key to self-directed learning
Once the experience of the student has been validated and her needs established, education should be challenging but not obtrusive and challenges must be presented with respect and encouragement. Encouragement versus excessive criticism leads to individual initiative instead of paralysis. The natural result of an encouraging and challenging learning environment is self-discipline and self-correction instead of external discipline (control) and constant external correction.
A transformative, holistic approach centred in humility and service
The learning environment should foster humility in both the student and teacher. Most contemporary approaches to education are materialistic; the student pays, studies, receives a degree, becomes an “expert”, etc. The whole educational experience, from the teachers to administrators, cultivates in the student a sense of self is that is based solely on the expertise and knowledge gained. The “Expert” attitude in the community development environment is often not useful because the work in the field is so complex. Many stakeholders have keys to the process, as a result, the “expert” attitude devalues the knowledge of others and tends to taint the path to solutions with conflict and ego. Another consequence of the expert mentality in the community is dependency; people are divorced from the solution to problems that they all contribute to and to which they all hold the keys. Instead of drawing on the knowledge of the stakeholders, the expert renders her own knowledge most valuable which in turn causes them to discard volition and succumb to a state of perpetual dependency on one expert after the other. Community members or institutions are robbed of the ability to play a central role in their own lives as a direct result of being robbed of opportunities to play central roles in the decision-making process of their community.
With humility at the centre of all learning, the purpose of education becomes transformation. We learn so that we, our communities and our institutions can improve and change for the better. Also as learning is applied to community efforts, individual capacity unfolds and is developed. Learning for its own sake is valuable, but learning for positive social change, makes the acquisition of knowledge, skills and insights relevant and engaging in the face of community development challenges. Learning then becomes intimately connected with action and is corrected and refined through action. This infuses a powerful sense of purpose and meaning in the learning process, especially as successes are realized.
Principle-based approach facilitates ownership
Education should cultivate a sense of personal ownership in the learning process and community life. Fostering a sense of personal ownership comes with educating students to have a mature perspective about their own learning as well as the changes they desire to implement in the community. It involves helping students learn the capability of ‘becoming’ the change that they want to see, as well as finding positive starting points in desperate situations and building on them. A mature outlook demands that students have a principle-based approach to problem solving versus a rule-based approach. Education then becomes not only a process of acquiring knowledge but centred on capacity building for individuals, institutions and groups. Fostering the development of capacities needed to overcome obstacles also requires a principle-based approach, embodying principles such as perseverance, human rights and dignity, building unity in diversity etc.
Integration and balance of methods essential
Education should be methodical and balanced. It should aim to acknowledge, validate and employ different learning paradigms: those of science, spirituality, culture and the arts. Systems of education that value science above the arts or spirituality are destructive to the individual and community as they create an imbalanced view of the world and rob people of a diversity of perspectives and tools that they need to face complex challenges. An educational program should strive to address the mental, emotional, spiritual and physical needs of students and not focus too much on merely one dimension of life. This is especially important in communities that have experienced extreme marginalization (colonization, oppression) where healing and wellness must play a significant role in the learning process.
Modelling Change
A key ingredient to success in transformational education is the example of the educator. As people, naturally we do what we know and what we have experienced. In order to change our patterns of behavior we need to begin having fundamentally different experiences than what we have known. The educator must be able to assist in the creation of such experiences. To do this she must be capable of modelling what is being taught and through constant critical self-reflection strive to exemplify in every action empowering ideals.
Summary
Learning and education are indispensable to all community efforts for positive change. The job of an adult educator is to assist individuals, the community and its institutions to adopt a posture of learning. This begins with working with the experience of the student, fostering self-directed learning and follows as the teacher interacts with the student to challenge and assist her to new levels of learning. With humility at the centre of all learning efforts, dependency on “experts” can be replaced with volition and independent decision-making. The potential of the individual further unfolds as she applies her learning to service to the community. Attention to capacity building and cultivating a sense of personal ownership -in the process of learning and community building- deepens the experience and truly engages the student in taking an active role in the development of her life. Utilizing all systems of learning in the education process ensures balance of methods and helps cultivate the infinite and diverse capabilities of human potential. Ultimately the success of an educator rests on the degree to which she is able to model the change she is fostering.
Posted by Shabnam Tashakour at 05:04 PM | |
August 18, 2005
Harvard Business Review Article
I highly recommend this article on Collaboration Rules. Great stuff in there about developing teams, developing organizations and how important communication and trust are to doing so. The article draws examples from and compares the open-source development and maintenance of the Linux kernal and the operation of the Toyota Production System.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 10:48 PM | |
August 17, 2005
The Viable Systems Model
Agile Work is a system that can be created inside many types of organizations and work environments. I recently came across an interesting article about the viability of systems. The article describes an interesting recursive breakdown of systems into sub-systems of specific types. Over the course of the next few weeks, I will use this model to try to analyze Agile Work to see if it is viable.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 08:36 AM | |
August 09, 2005
The Transparent Society
The Transparent Society, an essay by David Brin is an excellent statement about the possibilities and challenges that technology presents to us as a society. What is interesting about this paper is that it presents a possible society that is very similar to some of the goals in establishing an agile environment: open communication, accountability, free access to information and status, and close collaboration.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:58 PM | |
August 06, 2005
Generalizing Specialists
The term "generalizing specialists" has come to mean an individual who has a particular area of deep expertise but also has experience in a large number of other areas that may not be directly related to their core area. This type of person typically has strong talent in their specialty but also has a generally strong talent for learning new skills and ideas quickly. The origin of the term seems to be in the software industry referring to programmers who can do other software-development related tasks.
In self-organizing teams, a generalizing specialist is a more valuable team member than a pure specialist. The pure specialist often has an attitude that they should not need to do work outside their specialty. This can be destructive to the team's morale. On the other hand, the generalizing specialist is willing and able to learn new skills - to stretch as the needs of the team change. And since change is natural, this is an essential attitude for team members.
However, we are usually trained, and strongly encouraged to have a deep specialty. This approach to education and training is a natural consequence to the typical organizational model for work and society. Therefore, if a team is converting to agile work methods, people need to be coached to stretch themselves and learn new things. For some people, particularly those who already have multiple hobbies outside work, this is an easy transition to make. For others, it is a very difficult transition. In some extreme cases, this may call for the removal of someone from the team. (Note: I have never seen this myself and I only mention it with great reservation. I strongly feel that only those who could be called "ill" will be so incapable of changing their way of working. For other recalcitrants, it is usually a matter of motivation.)
Other terms that are similar to "generalizing specialist" include "craftsperson", "renaissance man", and "polymath".
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 08:05 PM | |
August 04, 2005
Just In Case You Haven't Seen It Yet
There is a fantastic article about software productivity: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html. I love Joel's writing style, and this article in particular has important lessons for us all, regardless of our profession: find what you can be the best at, and do that. Interestingly enough this is part of the message of the book Good to Great but applied to a whole corporation. It also applies in the context of self-organizing teams: each individual should be able to find/learn in what way they can best contribute and do that more than they do other stuff.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:41 AM | |
August 02, 2005
Memory and Mystery
My father, Garry Berteig, recently took a trip to China to visit my brother in Beijing. Garry is an artist and an educator of great skill and insight. While there, he had the following insight:
Memory (traditional forms) is undone by Mystery (abstract forms). The next step is to combine the two into new forms in a postmodern sense... unity through diversity.
I believe this can be related to the idea of levels of mastery which I first encountered in Alistair Cockburns excellent book "Agile Software Development". Since I don't have the book in front of me, I have to go from memory. First there is rote learning, memorization of predefined forms. Then comes understanding of why the forms are the way they are. Finally comes the wisdom and experience to innovate on the forms.
If anyone else has any ideas about this, I would love to discuss them!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:00 PM | |
August 01, 2005
Broadcast Mode Communication
The book "The Mythical Man-Month"* discusses some of the reasons that larger teams are inefficient. The main concern is with the number of possible connections between team members. If you have two team members, there's only one channel of communication. However, if you have n team members, then you have n(n-1)/2 channels... which grows quickly (order n^2) as n becomes larger. If one is required to work with a large team, say more than 10 to 12 people, it becomes imperative to find ways to improve communication efficiency.
One of the best ways to do this is to use broadcast mode communications. Information radiators are a simple broadcast mode tool. In a subtler way, having the team co-located** also takes advantage of broadcast mode communication: if everyone can overhear all the conversations that are going on in a room, then people can tune in when they hear something of relevance.
It is important to note that there are several other forms of broadcast communication that are useful in certain circumstances: e-mail, blogs with RSS or Atom feeds, analog radio, television (if you can think of others, please let me know in the comments). These tend to be more useful for very large communities. Radio and television have severe limits: they are not easily used in a communal fashion.
Some forms of communication may seem to be broadcast, but in fact are not. A simple web site is not because it requires that people poll it to see if it has been updated. Conference calls are marginally broadcast in that while they are occuring, everyone participating hears everyone else. However, a conference call requires active synchronized attention on the part of all the participants.
The subject of media and communication is a vast one. Some of the best writers include Marshall McLuhan and Gregory Bateson. However, there are many many more.
*Highly recommended!
**A search on dictionary.com for collocation indicates that three spellings are all correct: collocate, colocate, and co-locate, this latter spelling being the most common on the web.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:18 AM | |
July 28, 2005
Applicability Matrix Tool for Colocated Team
Notes:
1. Individuals are automatically co-located with themselves.
2. Teams can greatly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their communication by working in a shared space. For rote and adaptive work, sharing a space is highly recommended, but not always essential. Some teams have found mechanisms for working effectively in a distributed fashion. In these circumstances a great deal of effort is put into frequent use of rich communication channels. In purely creative and innovative work, it is very difficult to do the work without co-location. Risks of misunderstandings or waste due to handoffs increase a great deal if co-location is not used in these circumstances.
3. In community work, co-location is difficult in general due to the large numbers of people involved. A “command centre” open to all members of the community is usually as close as it is possible to come to co-location. With rote work, it is not necessary to even attempt co-location. Adaptive and creative work benefit greatly by increased communication so some efforts to co-locate may be worth the effort, but care should be taken in determining the return on investment.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:46 PM | |
July 23, 2005
Book Review - "The Tipping Point"
Overview
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference is a book that is about the way ideas, things and behaviors go from obscurity to ubiquity in a very short period. The basic model is that of an epidemic in which three types of factors contribute to quick dissemination: 1) the network of people involved including "connectors", "mavens" or respected experts, and "salesmen", 2) the ability of that which is spreading to stick around, the "stickiness factor", and 3) the importance of small physical, mental and social factors, in creating a conducive environment. The Author, Malcolm Gladwell, includes some excerpts on his web site.
- Introduction
- One: The Three Rules of Epidemics
- Two: The Law of the Few: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen
- Three: The Stickiness Factor: Sesame Street, Blue's Clues, and the Educational Virus
- Four: The Power of Context (Part One): Bernie Goetz and the Rise and Fall of New York City Crime
- Five: The Power of Context (Part Two): The Magic Number One Hundred and Fifty
- Six: Case Study: Rumors, Sneakers, and the Power of Translation
- Seven: Case Study: Suicide, Smoking, and the Search for the Unsticky Cigarette
- Eight: Conclusion: Focus, Test, and Believe
- Afterword: Tipping Point Lessons from the Real World
- Endnotes
- Acknowledgements
- Index
Assessment
This is a fascinating book, well written. Some of the anecdotes and "case studies" are mind-blowing. However, there is a bit of weakness in parts. In particular, the Afterword and the sections on The Power of Context are weakly put together - ideas do not flow well, or are too stream-of-consciousness. As well, the weight of evidence, while strong, is not totally convincing. That said, there are a couple of really fabulous stories.
One story that stands out is the study related to the "Good Samaritan". In brief, researchers set up an experiment to test what factors influenced a person's behavior when presented with someone obviously in need of help. At a seminary, the researchers had students prepare and deliver a brief talk on some