One of the Agile topics that I devoted an entire "chapter" to in my Agile book, and which I characterized as being the most hotly debated of our many discussion points at work, reared its ugly head once again today! It seems like this one never gets resolved, no matter how much talk happens around it. Somehow I think we'll still be squabbling over that particular topic well into our third year of Agile, at the rate we're going...
What is this oh-so-contentious Agile concept? Keeping the mainline tests green (passing)...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was part of those discussions today and I think "keeping the mainline tests green" was a symptom. It was a symptom of a collective growth that has to occur.
I had a discussion with the originator of the "tests" topic. I suggested to him that we are in an interesting place. The feature teams are very strong, cohesive and with a great sense of purpose and ownership. Mixing the "what to do" with the "how to do" ideas.
I suggested that this sense of ownership and responsibility causes many teams to struggle with suggested priorities handed down by management. The reason for this is that management has not helped the feature teams understand that two things:
1) The decision of what to do rests with management
2) The consequences of those decisions rests on management.
The second part is what the teams fear - the wrong choice will negatively impact them later, so they struggle to against things that may cause them problems later. The teams need to trust management not "shoot the messenger" later.
This isn't directly in response to either the post or cjg's comment (although it touches on the latter), but I wonder at what point or on what issues "management" is off the hook? In most of the meetings I've been in (which I freely admit is a small, SMALL fraction of those attended by everyone else in the room) "management" winds up as the end point for all of the major problems and the reason nothing can be done to solve them. To be clear: I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just questioning whether they are. I honestly don't know.
I thought the discussion from about fifteen minutes before the end of the meeting to about ten minutes before the end were the most productive, as well as the Boy Wonder's description of his "ideal world". At the very least the ideas brought up there stand a good chance of getting us to a known state, even if that state isn't as well known as it might be. Best of all, it seemed there was... wait for it... agreement....
(Unless it was apathy, which is just as possible.)
Short postscript: "us versus them" is almost never the correct approach, no matter who "they" are. I have a feeling we've simply traded one easy "they" for another.
Well, I guess I'll have to continue on with the analogy that I've described to others ;)
This isn't necessarily the best analogy and perhaps not for all audiences, but a comparison to the military works here - especially modern military like the US army. There is a rigid hierarchy of command, with responsibility growing up through the ranks. When orders are given, they are about an objective, not about the "how" but the "what". Each soldier isn't told what to do exactly, just what to accomplish. Sounds alot like feature teams - they don't get told "how" to do something, just "what" to deliver.
Sometimes, however, those in command give orders that don't make sense to the grunts - the people doing the work. They still have to follow them though. That's what I was alluding to - sometimes those in charge (what I'm calling "management") ask the feature teams to do things that aren't obvious as to why. The team will suggest that this isn't a great thing to do, but as long as it is acknowledged that there is risk and it is known, the team needs to work on the task.
This is where trust comes in - the teams trust those above them will ask for things that will result in a product and when a wrong choice is made, those above will deal with the consequences appropriately. Those making the strategic decisions trust that the teams will provide input regarding choice, timelines and achieve the goals set out.
I wish to avoid the "us versus them" tone, but I guess I'm just not writing carefully enough. What I've been commenting on is an area that the whole company can grow and improve on - that is using our roles more effectively.
Post a Comment