Skip to main content

Dialogue on Distributed Agile Teams

Here's an interesting article by Patrick Lencioni: Virtual Teams are Worse than I Thought


Dialogue on Distributed Agile Teams

Pondering communication styles, our human ability to truely understand one another, and the tools we use that constrain these attempts. 
  1. Peter Senge evolved the concept of dialogue for learning organizations. Extending quantum physicist, David Bohm's ideas on three basic conditions necessary for dialogue:
    1) All participants must "suspend" their assumptions, literally to hold them "as if suspended before us";
    2) All participants must regard one another as colleagues;
    3) There must be a 'facilitator' who 'holds the context' of dialogue.
  2. Dialogue, as it turns out, is a very old idea revered by the ancient Greeks and practiced by many "primitive" societies such as the American Indians. Yet, it is all but lost to the modern world. All of us have had some taste of dialogue--in special conversations that begin to have a "life of their own," taking us in directions we could never have imagined nor planned in advance. (Senge, 1990, p. 239)

  3. In my professional life I enjoy engaging with so many intellengent people. I enjoy discussing concepts, exploring our context and constructs. I've found the Twitter platform to be both wonderful and frustrating, sometimes concurrently frustratingly wonderful.

    Here's an example:

  • Mark commented on a great course by Modus Institute. He didn't mention which of the course offerings he was refering to; they have 3 online - I now assume he's refering to the course titled: Successful Distributed Teams
  • Great course on how to launch distributed agile teams by @ourfounder and @Sprezzatura at  http://bit.ly/1Vib75s 
  • Why do people keep calling this an Agile Team - when it clearly breaks at least ONE of the principles of Agile, from start?  https://twitter.com/mkilby/status/831126579799539712 
  • I responded, as I often do on twitter, with a general observation while pondering a meta-cognitive question.
  • @srogalsky I'll give you 3 to choose from: Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
  • As I had suggested that multiple of the Agile Manifesto Principles were "broken" - I copied and pasted them into the twitter conversation thread.
  • Perhaps the pharse "breaks at least ONE" was intrepreted by some readers as a molotov cocktail - not my intent. Note I'm not refering to the course. I'm (in my mind) refering to the practice of people - calling a group of other people connected by communication wires - a team.
  • @srogalsky Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the enviro and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
  • @srogalsky The most efficient and effective method of conveying info to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
  • @davidakoontz Why can't those be done remotely?
  • @srogalsky guessing @davidakoontz is 
dogmaticly interpreting this 1. Which is heuristic (like any principle) & possible w vtc distributed. https://t.co/ZykrYx8ODP
    @srogalsky guessing @davidakoontz is dogmaticly interpreting this 1. Which is heuristic (like any principle) & possible w vtc distributed. pic.twitter.com/ZykrYx8ODP
  • @AdamYuret @davidakoontz Right, that seems likely. I'm work with remote teams, but use face to face almost exclusively via video.
  • @AdamYuret @srogalsky I tried not to be dogmatic in my response - that's why I give 3 and allow you to choose... :)
  • @srogalsky I'm a fervent believer that distributed teams are less effective than co-located ones, but principles aren't dogma @davidakoontz
  • @AdamYuret now Adam, who interpreted the text as dogmatic, who used that word? @srogalsky
  • @davidakoontz me, the term "Breaks at least one principle" is dogmatic. @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret oh good point! Ironic also. Dogmatic = inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret @srogalsky @davidakoontz Can you imagine all Linux contributors in a single room? 😀
  • @daverooneyca Heuristic, not always true. Also Linux is 100% distributed which is 2nd best. 😉 @srogalsky @davidakoontz
  • @davidakoontz Never heard @ModusCoop teach that biz ppl shouldn't work with dev, that f2f is ineffective or env doesn't matter. @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret @davidakoontz It feels like you are stating the position that "in person is better than remote" which I think is true.
  • @AdamYuret @davidakoontz But "can't do those 3 things remotely" is not a factual position. In person is better.
  • @srogalsky I believe the 3 principles are synergic; I believe starting from the position of distributed ___ team is poor choice @AdamYuret
  • @davidakoontz yes, unless you're training people with the constraint of distributed teams, then it's essential. @srogalsky @ModusCoop
  • @AdamYuret good point - it's essential. the starting point of remoteness is essential? So is the course delivered remotely?
  • @srogalsky awesome! love the recursion involved in that.@AdamYuret
  • ...meanwhile in another branch of the conversation...
  • @davidakoontz Never heard @ModusCoop teach that biz ppl shouldn't work with dev, that f2f is ineffective or env doesn't matter. @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret @davidakoontz It feels like you are stating the position that "in person is better than remote" which I think is true.
  • @srogalsky your opinion of my attitude toward teams is valid; but that's not what I stated @AdamYuret
  • @AdamYuret @davidakoontz But "can't do those 3 things remotely" is not a factual position. In person is better.
  • @srogalsky Steve I'm unsure of who you are addressing me or @AdamYuret ?
  • @srogalsky Yes, and doing distributed /poorly/ is the worst of all and hardest to fix. @davidakoontz
  • Replying to Steve's earlier tweet: But "can't do those 3 things remotely" is not a factual position. In person is better. The 3 things are the quoted 3 principles of the Agile Manifesto.
  • @srogalsky yet when one examines the synergies of those 3 principles working together... it's hard to argue that distribution is good
  • @davidakoontz Shades of good, better, best. BTW, i just finished a remote face to face conversation with some very motivated team members.
  • @davidakoontz I would rather have talked to them physically face to face, but my constraints don't allow that.
  • @davidakoontz So we do everything we can to turn up the communication to 11 and learn how to do this better every day.
  • @davidakoontz Our customers are also worldwide so I meet with them in the same way most of the time.
  • @davidakoontz Trying to meet physically would be a non-starter.
  • @srogalsky I'm happy you are happy with all of this; that's real great. I bet you could teach us a thing or two about that.
  • @davidakoontz I plan on taking the course to get better :). Physically together would be ideal, but then I would have to work elsewhere
  • On a different branch of the thread...
  • @davidakoontz It seems like you're saying the "How to go up stairs in a wheelchair" course should counsel using one's legs. @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret actually saying the opposite in text; I'm having difficulty crafting phrases that you don't interpret poorly  @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret to continue with you analogy (tho it may be insensitive) ... @srogalsky
  • @AdamYuret I'm attempting to say calling the course "disabled Running up stairs" is a poor phrase (in my opinion RE: Running) @srogalsky
  • @davidakoontz "Effective distributed agile teams" seems to say it fine. "Agile teams being effective despite a constraint." @srogalsky
  • @davidakoontz As a former wheelchair user, I don't need any more analogies here :) @AdamYuret
  • @AdamYuret if using your legs is an option, you should. If not, then a course would seem valuable. @davidakoontz
  • @davidakoontz r u conflating "effective" w "running" in this metaphor? Lk distributed is incapable of being in any way effective?@srogalsky
  • A branch of the dialogue that discussed the actual course.
  • @davidakoontz @jimmysjolund ...but the reality is that increasingly teams need to be distributed.
  • @Sprezzatura how do you instruct this course, what is the media choice you are using to best convey the instruction?
  • @Sprezzatura will the participants pay the cost of relocating themselves for a period of time necessary for instruction;
  • @Sprezzatura consider alternatives to this expense, would holding a video call not have delivered same value more efficiently?
  • Exposing ones ignorance in a public form with colleagues can be an unsafe venture... as some colleagues will not share their knowledge freely with the pool of shared understanding (what Peter Senge calls dialogue) that allows reflection and inquiry to become a powerful tool for building team learning.
  • And in yet another branching from the beginning of the conversation - Jimmy is asking if my reference (original observation) is to the phrase "course on how to launch distributed agile teams".
  • Why do people keep calling this an Agile Team - when it clearly breaks at least ONE of the principles of Agile, from start?  https://twitter.com/mkilby/status/831126579799539712 
  • @jimmysjolund yes, that's my supposition - I've not seen their course. But I've heard lots of vendors labeling like this...
  • @davidakoontz Sure face to face conversations are great but I believe teams can be both agile and distributed depending on the people.
  • @davidakoontz @jimmysjolund The course is entitled Successful Distributed Teams. I'm unsure what your issue is with our "labeling,"
  • @davidakoontz @jimmysjolund ...but the reality is that increasingly teams need to be distributed.
  • @Sprezzatura that's a "reality" I'm willing to question;
  • @davidakoontz @ourfounder & I are in DC working w/the World Bank. I'll be sure to let them know you've issues w/them being distributed.
  • @Sprezzatura now, now do we need to get snarky? I'm really OK with a world bank what ever they do - I'm sure it's worldly @ourfounder
  • @davidakoontz @ourfounder 1/2 Snarky? Your tweet about my class (that you know nothing about) is inaccurate & unconstructive. Yet again...
  • @davidakoontz @ourfounder 2/2 UR creating issues where none exist. It's not provocative nor contributing to a discipline. It's being a dick.
  • @Sprezzatura I was offering an opinion that questioning the basic formation of team-ness is a valid form of inquiry @ourfounder
  • After these exchanges got too contentious I decided to withdraw from the dialogue.
  • 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…

    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, …

    Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

    Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



    Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



    Orientation - Why am I here?
    "Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

    Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…

    Refactoring - examples from the book

    Martin Fowler's book Refactoring:  Improving the Design of Existing Code has a simple example of a movie rental domain model, which he refactors from a less than ideal object-oriented design to a more robust OO design. Included in this Refactoring_FirstExample.zip Zip file are the Java source code files of the Movie, Rental, and Customer classes. Along with a JUnit CustomerTest class. Using these example source files you too can follow along with the refactoring that Fowler presents in the first few chapters of his book.


    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 …