thekua.com@work

Last year, I missed the announcement, and therefore the Agile Coaches Gathering UK organised by Rachel Davies (author of Agile Coaching). Fortunately I happened to join twitter late last year and saw the announcement for this year’s gathering shortly after its announcement. I bought a ticket as soon as I could. It’s a good thing too since I think I bought one of the last few tickets for a restricted sixty person gathering.

This year’s gathering, held at historic Bletchley Park spanned a day and a half with Friday evening opening the Open Space format to be used on Saturday. Bletchley Park ended up an awesome venue, and the open space format worked well with a number of spaces located outside. Given the UK actually had a summer this year, it turned out very nicely.

One of my favourite things about this sort of gathering is getting a whole bunch of people working in many different environments, contexts and getting them to share ideas and approaches about what works for them. We had a mixture of experienced coaches and coaches new to the role yet there was something about being there on a Saturday and a passion for it that brought people together. What follows are my notes from each of the sessions.

Experiences from the coaching discipline (not just agile practices)
My first session of the day explored other coach’s experiences working or exploring what coaches from other disciplines do. One person shared their experience working with a swimming coach and how they helped them get better at their practice.

This theme, looking at other coaching disciplines to see what they do, definitely ran throughout the day although I’m cautious of taking the role too literally. We discussed this during this session as most people being coached (life coaching, sports coaching, etc) tend to do so on a voluntary basis. Working as agile coaches for organisations, not everyone is necessarily there on a voluntary basis.

Another aspect that, I think differs, is that most coaches aren’t necessarily experts in the field they’re coaching in. For instance, sports coaches are often not people who’ve been the most successful in the world. In my experiences, agile coaches are really there to act as shepherds to help people get the most out of thinking and working with agile practices. Unlike other coaches, this often requires a level of mastery than what most other coaches have in their field. I’ve seen coaches act dangerously with not enough experience with agile practices.

I still think there is value in looking outside of our discipline for ideas and methods of working, yet conscious of the appropriate context to use them in (and there is always a context).

Presentation is not facilitation
Tobias Mayer is really well known in the Scrum community, and proposed a session to rant about the way that most training is done. I think there are plenty of examples where Death by Powerpoint is interpreted as effective training and whilst I agree with the premise, I’m not sure I agree with the end conclusion. I think presentations have a place, just maybe not in training. I also don’t necessarily think that training is solely about trying to trigger a complete mindshift in people.

When a coach gives up
I met Xavier Quesada Allue at XP2009 and again at Agile2009 so was interested to hear the premise around is it okay for coaches to give up and when to give up. This was one of those sessions located in the sun and some interesting stories about dealing with difficult teams or organisations where it doesn’t make sense to try.

We didn’t attempt to clarify, at the start of this session, what giving up meant to everyone. This probably made it difficult to get an agreement about when or why to give up, although we heard some very interesting stories.

My take on this, is that coaches end up needing to prioritise their work, just like everyone else and thus, not everything is going to get taken care of at the same time. Working with people also means you cannot predict how quickly people will move, or how they will react, therefore there is no way that you can always set completely achievable goals (it relies on others, not just yourself to make them happen). As a result, as a coach, you need to be comfortable with things not always going as planned.

I think that coaches also have the benefit of seeing the system that is driving a lot of the behaviour for the people on teams and unless something is done with that, then they will continue to behave as they always have. Both of these take time.

Game sense approach (what I learned coaching rugby)
Another inter-disciplinary coaching session that I attended briefly although a very loud bus made it difficult to concentrate and I ended up leaving because I had difficulty participating during this session.

Double loop learning + Defensive routines
If you ever get a chance to listen to Benjamin Mitchell in a safe environment, he’s quite the riot. If anything, perhaps it’s his self-deprecating and admitting his own faults and looking back at mistakes amidst his jokes that makes it so warming.

During this session, he talked about a book he’d been reading discussing how people react, and talking about different “models” in which the author classified people and using that to be able to project behaviour in different circumstances.

Once again, Benjamin reminded me of some key points I’ve learned over the years like:

• What you say and what people hear are completely different
• Avoid positional or solutions-based negotiation. Lay your interests on the table and you’ll often end up in a better position.

I’m not really clear about what double loop learning is, so I’m going to have to add that to my to do list as well.

New books

• Training from the back of the room
• The Skilled facilitator
• Situational leader
• Discussing the Undiscussable

Comments(2)

This year’s XP2010 conference was held in the great Northern parts of Norway, up in Trondheim, only about 200km south from my first XP conference (XP2006) I attended several years ago. I always find this series of conferences interesting, partly because there is always the blend between the academic (research papers and experience reports) and the industrial side as well as the infusion of the hosting country’s culture.

This year, the conference saw 425 attendees (50% of them Norwegian) across 8 different tracks and covering four days of a wide variety of conference mixtures including Lightning Talks, Panels, Workshops, Tutorials, and Open Space events.

The first of the two keynotes, run by Scott Page was my favourite – a lecturer and researched on complexity in different environments. He talked about the importance of diversity and its impact on building better solutions as well as a provable formula calculating what the wisdom of the crowds was. Hopefully they’ll be putting up his slides somewhere as a result.

The second of the keynotes, ran by David Anderson did a great job of condensing down a long talk into a thought-provoking discussion on the work that he’s been doing on building a Kanban movement in the places he’s been working as well as a discussion of his recently released book about Kanban. He had some nice visualisations on the slides and even finished slightly earlier with plenty of times for questions.

Overall the conference seemed to have a nice blend of both process and technical topics, although there were a few complaints about specific discussions around “XP” itself although I think plenty of discussions about specific practices quite useful within any agile context.

I ended up much busier than I thought I would be, playing host for two of the session talks, helping out with a Pecha Kucha (more on that later) session and running a workshop on my own.

Venue, organisation and efficiency wise, the organisers need to be congratulated on a job that will be hard to surpass. Everything seemed to run smoothly including an amazing and difficult-to-forget Conference Banquet involving interesting local foods (smoked reindeer heart, moose and local seafood), a pair of comedic jazz academics, Keep of Kalessin playing some Extreme Metal, all inside Trondheim’s amazing Student Society venue.

The strangest part of the conference for me was participating in a “What’s in my agile suitcase?” Pecha Kucha run by Martin Heider and Bernd Schiffer. You can read more about the format here and it was great to be one of the five other prepared Pecha Kucha’s including Rachel Davies, Mary Poppendieck, Joshua Kierevsky and Jeff Patton. I found the diversity of styles and approaches fascinating as well as the specific things that people “packed” in their suitcases. Being the first time format all the speakers found it a fascinating format made thrilling by the short-time and the fact you don’t have control over the timing of the slides. If I were to do this differently, I’d definitely try to focus on a smaller range of topics (or just one).

My week ended (as did the conference) with my final workshop called “Building the Testing Pipeline.” I’d specifically targeted people who’d been working with automated tests for some time and I ended up with a surprisingly full room. I’d run this previously at ACCU with a slightly different audience. We had some great brainstorming sessions (I’ll be putting that up soon) and hopefully more people came away thinking more consciously about the balance of tests they have and whether or not they have the correct balance that maximises their confidence, and minimises their feedback cycle.

I’m also very proud that the experience report that I shepherded won best paper (experience report), and I finally got to meet the author, Jørn Ola Birkeland of Bekk Consulting, in person to congratulate him on the day.

Thanks to all the organisers, participants, and passionate people that made the conference so much fun and success. Wonderful to reconnect with old friends and make many new ones.

Comments(4)

It’s about time I got around to reading the whole Agile Coaching book by Rachel Davies and Liz Sedley. I’ve owned it for at least six months now but has sat with a number of other books that demanded my attention. Fortunately long flights (like back to Australia) give you lots of time to pass with books to read. I’m glad I finally got around to reading it as well. The short version: if you’re interested in what agile coaches do, or if you’re working in an agile team, particularly a leadership role, this book is for you.

When you first open the book, it’s obvious it is a Pragmatic Press book. It jumps straight in with lots of helpful hints for those that want or are currently looking to be an agile coach. It’s broken up into four main areas, with smaller sections revolving around specific agile practices. This also means it’s fairly easy to digest it in smaller pieces (something I probably could have tried) doing the daily commute on the train.

I’ve been fortunate to know Rachel and Liz before and during their book writing. This book really captures the way they work, and great advice in the form of very practical tips for people. I hope that any readers, even without knowing the authors, can tell the wealth of experience both of them bring. I think writing a book on agile coaching is pretty tough. There’s a temptation to focus on the coaching elements alone, or to capture the distilled gotchas around introducing and coaching teams on specific agile practices. This book definitely gets the balance right for those new to coaching agile teams – enough background to the practice with helpful hints (it’s not meant to be a definitive guide on a particular practice) yet framed in a way that would definitely help anyone introducing and encouraging an agile way of working.

There are many other people this book wasn’t written for (more on that later) yet in its form is the best collection of wisdom steeped in experience that I see budding agile coaches benefiting from. I wish I had something like this when I first started out explicitly acting as an agile coach.

Like all the pragmatic books, this one is really easy to read. I think it took me about three hours on the first leg of my flight to finish it. Reading through each of the sections, the authors offer advice and helpful techniques. Many I’ve drawn upon over the years and draw upon often, a few I’ve never used and many that I definitely needed a reminder about using them. In other words, this book contain lots of practical advice that can really work depending on your team and circumstance.

There are many things that I like about this book – including the small personalised stories from both authors, named techniques that will help new coaches remember them better, and a very direct try this and see sort of philosophy that is both pragmatic and living by an agile way of working. I particularly approve of this book being, for the most part, methodology-neutral mentioning a broad spread of practices and principles individual methodologies espouse followed up with many other links to resources, books and references for agile coaches to then follow. I also like the hurdles section (there’s often much more than those listed!) as it hopefully prepares agile coaches for what happens when things don’t go to plan (almost always).

This book definitely fills a need – helping new agile coaches work out where to start with lots of advice that can be applied almost immediately. This book is also a useful reminder of tehcniques and a way of filling in some gaps for agile coaches who might have only experienced some of the agile practices and ways of working.

Like all well focused, practical books, part of what makes it so well focused and good are the areas that it leaves out (something I’m sure will be filled by other books to come). Some of these topics include:

• Setting up an agile coaching gig right (when they perhaps need something broader than agile coaching) – it’s no panacea for all organisational problems and coaching isn’t guaranteed to turn every situation in short timeframes
• Coaching larger teams or large organisations
• Coaching distributed teams
• Helping organisations “go agile”
• Different types of coaching engagements (full time – to part time)
• Working with other agile coaches as a team

I’m glad someone got around to putting this book together – and I’m happier knowing that it’s also written by practitioners grounded in plenty of real world experience and a variety of different contexts. To new coaches, many of these apporaches may seem optimisitc or impossible but I know that they’re all tested and can work in the right circumstances. Read this book as a way of starting off and refining your own agile coaching style – don’t view this as a definititve book to agile coaching, and as the authors put it so well at the end of the book – develop yourself continually.

Comments(2)

Just a short note that I’ll be running a workshop for attendees of ACCU2010 this Saturday on understanding how to get the balance right for the testing aspect to build pipelines. We’ll explore the tradeoffs and conscious decisions we should be aware of when putting these into our feedback loops.

Slide deck to come, though it’s a classic me-style, participatory workshop (you learn more by doing!) so slides won’t necessarily make a whole lot of sense by themselves.

Comments(0)

Keynote: Ralph Johnson on Living and working with aging software
The final keynote of the conference kicked off the second day of QCon and presented to us by Ralph Johnson of the Gang of Four fame and whose students contributed to Fowler’s timeless Refactoring book.

Ralph was asking about the number of people who work on systems they created (versus systems that other created) and then argued about the meaning of maintenance programmer arguing for software evolutionists instead. Whilst I agree that no one likes to be labelled a maintenance programmer, changing the name doesn’t really matter.

I like the different perspectives that Ralph brought. He talked about Software Capital as about truly understanding how the software works. Code is one example of this, but actually there are many other things that go into understanding how the software works. He argues that the right sort of documentation (and other artefacts) that helps understand how the software works is another part of Software Capital. As a result, you also need the people around the software to help keep the story alive.

My observations of various organisations also backs up some of the things that he says such as, the larger a system gets, the more likely you need some form of documentation and social structure around the software.

I think a lot of people didn’t like Ralph’s keynote because he talked about refactoring as if it was a new idea and, unfortunately this audience is one that has been exposed to these ideas for a long time.

Track: Beyond Tools and Technologies
I spent the rest of my time on the track that I was speaking at later that day. The first talk of the day was Martin Fowler whose talk, “What are we programming for?” brought the tiny room to a stand still. The room was so full (although it was a small room) that they had to turn people away.

Martin used the talk to highlight the importance of going beyond acting like hired guns and actually thinking about how to use the skills for something good. He asked people to consider the essence of the firms that they work for and whether or not they are benefiting humanity.

Rebecca Parsons, ThoughtWorks’ CTO then talked about the importance of team diversity in her talk, “How to avoid ‘We never even thought of that’!” She talked about the role that diversity played in creating innovations in science and how too much of the “sameness” creates problems with creating too many assumptions. I like the idea of a balancing tradeoffs of not enough diversity leading to problems in teams and too much diversity to the point that the team don’t share the same vocabulary.

After the lunch break, I ran my session, “Building the next generation of Technical Leaders“. I was very happy with the turnout and had some great feedback from the participants. It’s an issues I think is sorely neglected in our industry and has a huge impact on the team effectiveness.

The next session was run by our Director of Social Engagement (Jeff Wishnie) and Merrick Schaefer of Unicef discussing the importance that technology has on developing countries and the significant impact it can have on the lives. They talked about the Rapid FTR project that is being developed to help capture information about children who’ve been separated from their parents with hope of quickly reconnecting them, and at worst, giving them legal status by registering them with an agency such as Unicef.

The final session of the day rounded out with Mick Blowfield with a presentation titled, “IT in a Low Carbon Future“.

Whilst there were many other potentially interesting sessions, I was really happy to hear about the issues that go beyond just Tools and Technology.

Comments(0)

When you introduce agile methods to very traditional organisations there’s a side effect most people underestimate. This is, I believe, where the first line in the manifesto is most appropriate:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Traditional organisations are geared for efficiency – keeping individuals busy to the point where you lose overall effectiveness if you ever need to synchronise between parts (which you inevitably do for software these days). Calling a meeting is frowned upon as it takes up lots of time, so out of necessity, most communication occurs over email or IM. As Alistair Cockburn pointed out a long time ago, these are pretty ineffective channels of communication. Relying solely on these types of channels only turns to a build up of frustration as issues go unheard by the right set of ears. In traditional environments, these often turn into build ups set to explode at the most random of moments.

Image from Nic Jacka’s flickr stream under the Creative Commons licence

Perhaps you’ve seen it? Think about when one person hijacks a meeting to highlight an issue (typically important one) not being addressed, or when someone spontaneously shouts at someone for no apparent reason. It might even be as bad as someone having a temper tantrum, literally throwing things across the room. Traditional environments often do not provide mechanisms as outlets for this.

Therefore, when introducing practices such as daily stand ups, planning meetings and retrospectives, the first few times you run them, expect an avalanche of unresolved issues and emotions to ensue. This is fine. Expect this from some of the quieter members as you give them explicit permission to talk about important things that need resolution where traditional structures have not given them that permission to talk about them.

Treat it as you would the opening of a previously shaken soft drink bottle for the first time. You’ll have to be ready to clean up some of the spilt liquid, but you don’t have to worry about picking up broken glass. Now that the bottle’s open, you can work to address the real issue at hand.

Comments(2)

Conflict is a natural part of your every day life, whether it is at work or home. A certain amount of conflict is healthy as long as you work out how to resolve it.

Liv Wild and I will look at a number of conversation models we’ve found healthy teams use, in agreeing to agree. We’re holding it at the Thoughtworks UK office from 7pm this Tuesday (9 Feb). More details can be found here.

Comments(0)

Last year, I ran a workshop at XP2009 and Agile 2009, helping people map behaviours to the different levels in the Dreyfus Model. Being a workshop for only 90 minutes, we only had time to introduce the model, generate a set of behaviours mapping them to each level in the model and only a small fraction of time thinking about where this might be useful in a coach’s toolbox.

I tend to use it as a way of encouraging people to self-assess their own behaviours, and as a way of seeing concrete, specific sets of behaviours that people in more advanced stages might find themselves.

We didn’t really get an opportunity to discuss the limitations of using the model in this way (remembering that all models are inherently limited in some manner).

Most useful for Novices
Ironically enough, this set of behaviours mapped in this way is only most useful to those who still remain Novices and less so, the Advanced Beginner. Novices need concrete rules, and directions. Advanced Beginners start to see context, yet it’s often helpful being specific about what sets of behaviours you might see at different stages.

Ironically, as you progress, using the Dreyfus Model in this way becomes less useful as you progress. I like to introduce this set of behaviours after people have had some experience with a certain practice. It helps people answer the question, “What does good look like?”

It’s not an exhaustive list
When I’ve run these workshops with other coaches, I find it interesting to see how they notice different sets of behaviours from what I would observe. Even when looking at a single practice, you have a multitude of behaviours at lots of different levels. It’s preciseness at describing specific sets of behaviour also has the risk of people only focusing on the prescribed behaviours instead of thinking about the sorts of behaviour that sits at this level.

I can’t imagine trying to list every single set of behaviour. As interesting as that might be, I think it would be impossible to capture, and difficult to communicate succinctly.

Best for personal development, not as performance evaluation criteria
It’s easy for managers to see a list of different levels, and then attempt of fit people into a box for performance evaluation. As much as their intention might be good good (professional growth) I think it’s easy to game.

I like to emphasise that this model is best used as a way for coach’s to help people self-assess, and for people to set their own goals about where they want to be.

Not the only tool to use
I like using this tool as a transitional tool, helping people jump the gap from Novice to Advanced Beginner and from Advanced Beginner to Competent. Beyond that, I would use less of this tool and look at other tools that help people self discover their information.

Comments(3)

Update: Posted this so early my brain wasn’t awake and I hadn’t linked to the feedback links as promised. I’ve updated it so that it’s correct now.

A few people have arrived at this blog looking for the terms, “Giving feedback to defensive people.” Before focusing on the fact that the recipient may be “defensive”, I’ll refer to you to several different posts outlining some principles of giving effective feedback. Read them before continuing on.

Firstly, if you’re giving feedback to a person, ensure that you follow the principles of effective feedback.

1. You intend on strengthening their confidence; or
2. You’d like to help them improve their effectiveness

Many times I’ve heard several people give feedback and it is not in the spirit of either of these. Often, they give feedback with the intent of improving their own effectiveness, not necessarily the recipient. For a variety of different reasons, it’s easy for me to improve my own effectiveness by asking people what to do – something that is both selfishly easy. It takes more courage and effort, putting yourself in the recipient’s shoes to help them out.

Photo taken from Noii’s Flickr stream under the Creative Commons licence

If someone comes across as “defensive”, I’d ask yourself what circumstances they could possibly under that make them so. Perhaps they have other things on their mind, and are preoccupied in a manner that makes it difficult to listen to feedback. The solution? Ask them if now is a good time to give them feedback.

Maybe the recipient associates “feedback” with “criticism” due to others “giving them feedback” ineffectively, fuelling a cycle of defensiveness. The solution? I find it easy to spend a quick minute or two describing the basic principles of feedback, and help them understand you are here wtih the true intent of either strengthening their confidence or improving their effectiveness. I like to emphasis it should be a conversation and that I will try to be a specific as possible, but encourage questioning if the recipient needs clarity.

Another reason the recipient may be defensive is for fear of being judged as a person. The solution? Focus on behaviours and impact, rather than attempting to describe what you think their motives are. This doesn’t mean you cannot have an opinion, however it should be clearly stated about how you interpret the impact, not on how you interpret them as a person.

They may truly believe that whatever situation you describe, they disagree with. The solution? Start with the model I describe here, seeking agreement for observations, then impact, before thinking about recommendations. Any disagreement on the early stages will inevitably lead to disagreements on future stages.

Finally, as a person giving feedback, you need to accept the recipient may choose to acknowledge, disagree with or do nothing with the feedback you gift to them. I remember one incident, quite recently, where a colleague gave me feedback with recommendations. We talked about it, both understanding the variety of forces unbeknownst to each other. At the end of the conversation, I concluded I would have repeated the same behaviour in the same circumstances, however that’s when the feedback donor got frustrated. My lesson, if you’re giving feedback to someone, be prepared to say, “I respect that we disagree on something, and thank you for being prepared to listen.”

Comments(3)

Agile methods have a gap on how to do deal with requirements that often leaves business analysts confused about what to do. From an analyst’s point of view, user stories seem to be the only technique agile methods prescribe. When people are new to agile, they take this as agile’s “only” way of modelling requirements. What isn’t made explicit often gets forgotten, so I want to make this clear: Agile methods don’t discourage thorough analysis or modelling. They don’t discourage the use of diagrams and other visualisations that help people better understand and refine their domain representation. They want everyone to focus on value and communication by using the rights tools for the job.

When coaching analysts, I often find myself telling them, all the tools they draw upon to question, to challenge, to refine and capture their understanding is important. Agile methods focus on better understanding of value, not better note taking. Writing things down does not automatically translate into understanding between two people. Cockburn’s already demonstrated a model that talks about the richness of communication methods, with written documentation being one of the worst.

The best business analysts I’ve worked with have little need to write things down, having absorbed what needs to be done, understood the real requirements, and constantly available ready to help clarify them. Conversely, the worst business analysts see their job only as writing “requests” and “demands” down, doing little to question and challenge what is really needed versus what is merely articulated. These I call overpaid scribes.

Question what value your tools are using and if they help you either better understand or better communicate with other people. If you find modelling in UML helps you better see relationships, do so but avoid spending all your time polishing the model and getting the syntax correct. Be wary of investing yourself too much in one particular model or document that makes you potentially more resistant to changing it. Neal Ford describes this as Irrational Artefact Attachment. If you find yourself writing something down to remind yourself of what is important to get across, do so but don’t use it as a way to avoid helping others understand it.

Agile methods appear nebulous to many people because “user stories” simply appear. It’s not prescriptive about how you get there because there are simply too many different ways to get there. Whilst being prescriptive will help some projects, it would no doubt hurt many others.

Image of Shh! taken from Anthony Gattine’s flickr stream under the Creative Commons Licence

Comments(4)