Josh Kerievsky called me to task for not following up on his third version of his story of providing a quick fix before a test-driven fix. As I said, I don’t want to be critical of Josh. I will, however, cast a critical eye on the code he has shared.
For those just tuning in, the previous installment talked about differences between the culture we espouse and the culture we practice. This installment will return to that.
Read MoreThe background for this post: Gil Zilberfeld posted a link to a blog post by Joshua Kerievsky. I had some questions and Josh’s response, to me, seemed to change the story a bit. As I suspected, the story is hypothetical, and changes to support the intended conclusion. This always makes it very slippery to talk about a story. The details matter. And in this case, the change overwrites the original, without any indication of what has changed. That makes it even harder to have a conversation about it.
I’ll give a synopsis of the story here, since it may change again. In brief,
It’s my observation from watching small groups of people working together that it’s almost universally common that some people will take charge and direct the common effort and others will get quiet, abdicating any such role.
It’s also my observation that, even in a small team working together daily, people notice different things, interpret the things they notice differently, and assign different significance to those interpretations. People often think that because they are immersed in a common experience that there’s no need to talk about it. This appears to not be so.
Groups of technically oriented people often want to optimize the work process to those activities needed for the technically oriented output, and overlook those that are focused on the needs of humans and groups of humans working together. Yes, you can have a standup and not get any value from it. You can also not have a standup and avoid providing a convenient mechanism for taking advantage of the differences in observation, interpretation, and significance made by the entire team.
If you’ve got a really good team facilitator, they’ll likely notice this and help bring it out. If they’re really excellent, they’ll convince the team to work in a fashion where it can more easily come out without them acting as a middleman to make it happen. They might use a simple technique such as a daily standup to create such an opportunity.
You may have noticed I haven’t been writing much on my blog. That’s because I’ve been writing a book, instead.
I’ve self-published before, both solo and with co-authors. This is my first professionally edited book, though.
It’s been a lot of work, but my editor, Adaobi Obi Tulton, has helped me create a much better book than I would have created by myself.
Take a stroll over to Pragmatic Bookshelf where you can buy it. And after you read it, I’d love to hear what you think.
A friend asked for suggestions on a metric for backlog grooming. I’ve never written down these numbers, but this is the metric I use in my head.
Agile 2018 has come to an end. Once again, virtually all of my time was spent in the Audacious Salon, where I was a track chair. Once again, it was an immersive and powerful experience for me.
It’s time, perhaps past time, for me to describe the salon to the world. To describe how it came to be, the intent, the evolution, and the magic I’ve seen flourish.
This description is, of course, the viewpoint of one man. Undoubtedly I’m biased. Understandably, others will have different viewpoints based on different hopes and wishes, different experiences, and different knowledge. I invite you to share these differences in the comments, even if your viewpoint seems negative toward the concept. Perhaps particularly if you have some complaint, doubt, or fear about the Salon. I, or we, can learn most from a diversity of opinion from diverse people. Read More
When I first met Andreas Schliep, he told me a consulting war story with the punch line, “Well, you can paint that wall with a screwdriver if you like”¦” There’s no stopping people who are intent to use the wrong tool for a job, or use it in the wrong way. Sometimes it even works. I’ve seen someone successfully, after a fashion, driving wood screws with a hammer. Read More
On numerous occasions I’ve observed long-time members of the Agile community complain about misinterpretations of what Agile means, and how it performed. Frequently this is precipitated by yet another blog post about how terrible Agile is, and how it damaged the life of the blogger. Sometimes it’s triggered by a new pronouncement of THE way to practice Agile software development, often in ways that are hardly recognizable as Agile. Or THE way to practice software development is declared post-Agile as if Agile is now obsolete and ready to be tossed in the trash bin. Read More
The simplest method of estimation is to compare the anticipated work to past experience. And we all have experience that we can use. The big question is how relevant is that experience. A secondary question is how clearly do we remember that experience.
We always have experience, of course. We weren’t born developing systems. We’ve tried things, and learned things, from childhood onwards along a path that’s lead us to today’s situation. In all the things we’ve done, there’s something that we can compare with the work we’re facing. Read More
Even when you’ve done something many times before, sometimes you forget something or make a mistake.
This morning I was on my way to visit a client and realized I’d forgotten something. It seemed to me important enough to do something about it, so I went back home and got it. The unanticipated delay threw my schedule into disarray. I wasn’t going to arrive by the time I wanted. I was frustrated and unhappy with myself.
I see similar things happen all the time in software development projects. Something throws off the schedule. People get unhappy. Read More