Skip to main content

What have we LEARNED?

Scrum is a stepping stone toward the organization becoming learning organization, and much of being Agile is about the opportunity to learn. In the modern world of knowledge workers, if the people are not learning on the job, then they are not creating new knowledge. We create new knowledge by understanding the context of new problems, deconstructing the problem, understanding the forces acting within the system, creating solutions to solve them, and then remembering the decisions that resolved the forces and applying them to new challenges. Experience comes from numerous encounters with similar problems. When we reflect on new problems, we generalize and abstract guidelines and rules – this synthesis is learning. Reflection requires time and distance from the immediate problem.


At what point in the Scrum framework do we focus on learning? Well, for a truly mature Scrum team it is constantly, at varying levels. That's what makes working on an Agile team fun for me. We’re constantly learning something – whether it’s through planning to do something new or different and it actually working or by failing to achieve an objective and then realizing a better path to that objective. Learning to learn is like riding a bicycle; once you know how, it gives your inner child freedom to explore.

But if you have never experienced this type of fun on an Agile team, then perhaps you need training wheels for your shiny new Agile vehicle. These training wheels come in the form of the basic framework of Scrum. For example, the product review meeting (demo) is a great place for learning. If the team can create an opportunity for the stakeholders to learn the current state of the product, then they are doing the core of their task. However, the team also needs to present what they have learned during this iteration. Sometimes this is too technical for many of the stakeholders, but this doesn't mean it should be squelched. One of those stakeholders may be a high-level technical architect. If the team learns something about the suggested architecture, isn't this demo a great place for that feedback (positive or negative)?

A great story from Richard Cheng that describes an Agile team in the learning process was covered on the  ScrumDevelopment YahooGroup discussion list.
"Let me tell you a true story. I was working with a Scrum team at a financial website. About once a month, there was a company meeting where they presented what they did to the other departments and executives. Their initial presentation contained information such story points completed, hours spent on stories/spikes/firefighting, and what they implemented. As the team really started to understand the goals of the company and the project and their place in achieving these goals, the team presented the following:

1. What have we done this month to help make our company profitable?

2. How have we excited our customers

3. What we have learned

"This is a fundamental shift from thinking about task based, to do list work to actually achieving goals and providing value. Helping your organization shift from getting value from the first set of presentations to the second set of presentations is a big part of what the Agile transformation is about."

-- Richard K Cheng, PMP, CSP


Teams of developers (programmers, testers, business analysis, etc.) typically adapt to change with ease. For these knowledge workers, learning and doing Scrum is relatively easy. In Richard’s story, he’s telling us of a fundamental change that happened within his organization. It is at the company meeting that teams are describing the new knowledge that they have created and describing the impact to their customers.
How would this fundamental change occur in an organization?  My answer is via a shift from management operating in outdated fashion (i.e., control and reduce risk) to thinking in a leadership style (i.e., release control and accept risk). It is often the management – working within the traditional organizational structure – that that have difficulty embracing the Agile change. Scrum teams may create many more learning opportunities than management desires, and they may expose many more impediments than the existing structure can bare. This will cause friction in the management layers above the teams. 

Do not forget that the management layer has become successful within the old structure, and they may need to embrace new theories of motivation and practices of management. These new theories, ones that were not taught in MBA school in the 1980s, are well described in popular leadership literature. The Industrial revolution lead to a style of management largely based in Fredric Taylor’s work on Scientific Management also called Taylorism. This theory of management worked very well for assembly line workers. It does not function well for knowledge workers. New theories for creating the environment required for creative knowledge work are described in:

Drive: The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us by Dan Pink
Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard by Chip and Dan Heath
Management 3.0: Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders by Jurgen Appelo, author of the popular NOOP.NL site.

Leaders are you managing your knowledge workers as if they are industrial workers? Have you upgraded your wetware – your mental model of the way in which you manage and lead people? What are you studying to increase you ability and knowledge? What are you learning? To become the Agile learning organization, the whole body of the organization must learn new things – create knowledge – this is especially true for the leadership.

In her article The Rise of Emergent Organizations, Beth Comstock describes a possible alternative dynamic in the way to organize people to achieve a common purpose.  She appears to be experimenting with some of these techniques at GE.  I'd like to learn more about what she refers to as "Opening up New Feedback Loops."

"GE last year did away with annual performance reviews, opting instead for systems that allow individuals to give and receive feedback to anybody they interact with."

See Also:
Why we cannot learn a damn thing from Toyota or Semco by Niels Pflaeging

Esko Kilpi's article on Productivity Revolutions - Medium. An interesting view of Taylor the socialist and troublemaker. And a prediction that "technological augmentation" is going be the next revolution in productivity for the knowledge worker.

How to build the next Trello and sell it for $425 million or more
Atlassian bought Trello for $425 million. Because Trello was on trajectory to kill Jira.
by Mitt Tarasowski Executive at Libertex. Co-Founder of Clever.do.

Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

Software Development terms applied to Home Construction

Let's Invert the typically wrong headed view of Software Development project management as a construction project.  We can map it the other way just to see if it works... to have some fun, to explore the meaning of phrases we toss around quite frequently.


Normally Project Management terms come from a construction domain.  We are going to apply the lexicon of modern software to the construction of a home.  We will follow the construction project and meet some of the people doing the work.

This is a very small (8 homes from $600,000 skyward) program in my 30-40 year old neighborhood.

About 6 months ago I saw the programs landing page go up.  It gives casual observers and some of the stakeholders a general idea of the intent of the program.  And most importantly who to contact for additional information if you happen to be interested in their products.

The Refuge program has 8 product projects and has them running independently.  Yet much of their DevOps infrastructure has already b…

Where is Shakespeare When We Need Him?

We are desperately searching for a term for people that connotes the best of human kind.  The creative, sensing, combinatorial synergistic, empathic solutioning persons that have yet to been labeled with a role name that works.

Some of the old terms:
Staff, Workforce, Human Resource, My Team, Army, Company

Shakespeare created 1700 words in his time.  He mutated verbs to nouns, and vice-a-versa, transformed verbs into adjectives, and formed words from whole cloth never before heard.  This skill is rare, but there is a poet that can create the term we need in the twenty-first century.

What should this term define?

21st Century Human Resource; the generalizing specialist.

Yes, but what more?  What less?

Suggest your poetry in the comments, let us see if we cannot do 1/1700 as well as The Bard.

By-the-way; who create the phrase "coin a word"?




a little feedback please...

some feedback please...
How do you like the new look and feel of our site?
  ___)  nah (I like the old one better - bring it back)
  _X_)  yeah (much cleaner and easy to navigate)



powered by Typeform
See Also:

Innovation in the Automobile Industry

In the 1900s the automobile industry was the most important and innovation industry in the USA.  But one could question if this was good for our society in the long run.  And one could question if they actually innovated.

In the early 1900s there were few automobiles, very little infrastructure created to support the industry.  For example the road system was still designed for horse drawn wagons and the wagon wheel (remember a steal rim and wooden compression spoke wheel).  The future US Highways, or the 1950s Interstate Highway System at the cost of $425 billion were decades and many innovations away. There was no gas service station, there were however horse stables, farriers, and blacksmiths in each town along the roads.  There was no real "road map", there was no road naming system, like was created in 1926 - the United States Numbered Highway System.

The industry employees millions of people, and was a large factor in the economy of the USA.  It created or was created b…