Skip to main content

Exercise: Pair Programming Simulation using Tangrams

Yesterday (July, 2015) we did a lunch-n-learn at GameStop HQ on pair programming.  I think it was a great success, largely because we serve food, and I've been told that everything goes better when people are sharing a meal together (and even better with adult beverages).


Are you interested in Pair Programming?  I'll confess, the term is a bit misleading.  I was asked by multiple people if the topic was just for programmers.  No - no it's not just a programming technique. It is also for any kind of knowledge work.  Such as testing, or analysis, or writing stories, or ... yes coding, scripting, excel spreadsheets, etc.



The Agenda: Pair Programming Simulation


Start with a warm up exercise (totally non-related to the topic).  This allows all the late arrivals to find a seat and not miss out on the real start of the session.  I've found this technique (soft start) to be a required technique for companies that have not adopted basic meeting protocols, such as finishing prior to the start of the next meeting.  IF one does not finish on time, how can one start on time?

We used Thiagi's warm up of Buying Happiness

Flipped this lesson.  Although the experiment resulted in a - How Fascinating (failure).  No one actually participated in the homework to read the lesson before the experience session.  We continued without doing any actual lecture.

PDF - Pair Programming - Lessons

Query the audience - to share the common level of people with respect to the domain knowledge.  Ask a few questions - raise your hand if you have heard of pair programming, if you've done pair programming, if you only program in a pairs (every day)?  Look around - these are the experts.  Raise your hand if you are a beginner?  When you read the homework on pairing, you remember that pairing beginners with beginners is an anti-pattern.  So what shall we do about that?

Restructure the seating arrangements, have people select appropriate pair for their skill level.  Don't allow the beginners to sit together and the experts to create a click.

Part ONE.  Pair Drawing.

Let's do the simplest thing that could possibly work... everyone has learned to draw/sketch.  Let's use this innate skill to explore pairing basics.

PDF - Pair Face Drawing

Most people are afraid to draw.  At some point in our traditional schooling we are made ashamed of our ability to draw.  With a bit of expert practice many can over come this self imposed limitation.  Here's a TED Talk to start you on the path to recovery.

Why people believe they can’t draw - and how to prove they can | Graham Shaw | TEDxHull

Part TWO.  Lunch.

Typically what draws everyone to your meeting... food.  Don't do Lunch-n-Learn with out this.

Part Three.  Pair Puzzle Solving.

Let's extend our learning into a harder problem domain... solving a puzzle - Tangrams.

PDF - Pair Puzzle - Tangram Solving

PDF - Cultivating Collaboration - Simulation via Tangrams - or a starter guide to Pair Programming


This exercise can touch upon the aspects of Test-First (TDD) practices.  Typically a topic for another Lunch-n-Learn.

Debrief.

A great facilitator does the exercise / simulation just to get to the debrief.  Reflection is the only activity where double loop learning may occur.  Using metaphor and analogy to relate drawing faces or solving Tangrams to developing software is the job of the debrief.


In a large group with many subgroups this can be done by projecting the debrief question on the screen and having the subgroups (tables) debrief themselves.  Extra points given for summaries of learning points or action items discovered.

We did a debrief after each example problem.  Then ran out of time to debrief the whole workshop - but did get Level One feedback on the workshop.  It was a 8 or 9 (out of 10) with a few improvement to make for next time.

    
      
  


See Also:

A Week of Pair Programming by Matt Chalice

Two Years of Pair Programming by Matt Cholick

Comments

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…

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, then yo…

Before Scaling Up - consider...

Before one scales up their functioning teams (I'm assuming one would not want to scale up non-functioning teams - yet I've seen that done) one should look for alternatives to the scaling problem.
"Scaling Agile methods is the last thing you should do" —@martinfowler, 2003This scaling problem has been studied:
"In 1957, British naval historian and management satirist Northcote Parkinson [known for Parkinson's law: “work expands to fill the time available for its completion”] painted a cynical picture of a typical committee: It starts with four or five members, quickly grows to nine or ten, and, once it balloons to 20 and beyond, meetings become an utter waste of time – and all the important work is done before and after meetings by four or five most influential members."


Why Big Teams Suck by Robert Sutton is a Stanford Professor and co-author (with Huggy Rao) of Scaling Up Excellence: Getting to More without Settling for Less.
Studied in Academia "…

Do You Put “CSM” After Your Name?

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:
Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order. That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …

Situational Leadership II Model & Theory

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed?  Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized?  Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation?  Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?

Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations").  And it's not just for the leaders.  The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model.  The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator.  When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes …