[Best practices] "highest guiding principles" for agile review activities"

Only by doing a good job of agile review can we continuously improve and implement positive feedback. What should we do? Look at foreign masters ....

Agile review debate on the "highest guiding principles" of the activity

Imagine inviting several talented people to sit down and drink tea while discussing prime direve ve-the basis of agile review activities. If you do not knowAgile ReviewSo I can recommend norm kerthProject ReviewBooks or Esther Derby and Diana Larsen aboutAgile Review. Other similar processes include review after project completion, and the "post-mortem check (postmortem)" that the team goes back after an activity is completed (how can I hate this ?). The highest guiding principle is that anyone who follows norm practices will practice it, and it is also a prerequisite for agile review activities to contribute knowledge. Many people who have just attended review activities and have worked hard to understand the highest guiding principles have raised questions similar to those in the following conversation. This is also a good opportunity for us to learn and understand from the speeches of those who think hard.

***

Philippe is the source of the topic. Thank you, Philippe!

Philippe:

"Highest guiding principles"Yes:

No matter what we discover, we understand and firmly believe that, given the known circumstances at the time, the individual's technical level and capabilities, the available resources, and the status at hand: everyone is dedicated to their own work.

Is that true? During my career as a developer and consultant, I met destructive and annoying people. In most cases, I try not to get in touch with them. I always try to avoid or not work with them.

Simply saying "I firmly believe" in words is unacceptable to me. I have fired a person (throughout my career) because he is not competent for assigned jobs; more specifically, he has no questions about his ability, but he is not at all concerned about the project. Therefore, I do not believe it easily, but start from facts. From the perspective of human nature, I think "the highest guiding principle" is too naive. I can fully trust people who work with me, but they must prove that they will not disappoint my trust.

LINDA:

It took me a long time to fully understand the true intention of the "highest guiding principle. During the review activities I participated in, there were many clips that made me struggle the same way. The purpose of review is to learn. It is not a performance review activity. However, when talking about the character of team members, participants cannot really understand the "purpose" of review ". It is necessary to list conditions similar to the "highest guiding principles" and other similar conditions to achieve the goal.

The "highest guiding principle" focuses not on reality, but on trust, but on the ideas persisted to review the success of the activity, in order to maximize the knowledge output, the focus of thinking is temporarily removed from the "person. This is a "game"-"Let's pretend"-instead of looking at the workplace and people.

I know that when I ask others to "sign" to abide by the "highest guiding principle", they also have the same idea, which is normal. They only need to pretend to be able to do so for a little while, but this is enough for them to put aside others' judgments so that the team can learn new things.

"Spoof" your brain to perform some necessary actions-sometimes you have to do this; it is surprising to find this. However, our brains often accept similar tricks.

Many people will come to me after a review and say a lot like you said, but next they will say: "But I have already 'signed' followed the 'highest guiding principles 'and completed a review. I think the 'highest Guiding Principles' should be correct." I have never commented on this. I just nodded and agreed.

EUGENE:

As a person with similar experiences, I know that even the most competent and intent-oriented people sometimes have adverse effects on teamwork. I agree with Philippe that working with them will often make people feel frustrated. And I do not want to work with such people. But the key is that they do not want to have any adverse effects at all. They will make every effort to save poorly managed projects. From this perspective, the "highest guiding principle" is completely correct. It even raised the following question ...... The premise of their technical level and ability is to know that teamwork skills are equally important as pure technical skills.

Since these people are either experts who stick to their opinions, informal leaders, or even both of them, we as managers should do the following: first, pay attention to reducing "internal resistance" when building a team. Second, we should "sell" our team's operation methods based on different levels, personalities, and relationships with them. This is how we build a cohesive team. I firmly believe that we should never look forward to or hope that everyone can take the lead. We will never have perfect team members. We must learn how to deal with different types of people in the team and build them into a cohesive group. It is not easy for a mature manager to do this. Sometimes we can be satisfied, sometimes not; and we can see the gap in the Team's morale and output results. I would like to say that it is the most difficult but important task for an individual to be "Introspective.

With this in mind, I feel that it is extremely important to carry out a review based on the "highest guiding principles. This is the only way to create an atmosphere that promotes successful review activities. It also provides us with new opportunities to further enhance our team cohesion.

I don't agree with philpe's saying, "I can fully trust people who work with me, but they must prove that they will not disappoint my trust ......". The two cannot both. Either we give people a lot of trust, and if they cannot perform well (you can define the meaning of "good performance" by yourself), we will deduct points for them; or we will not trust them from the very beginning, they must prove their value. I have seen the practical application of these two methods, and firmly support the first one. In addition, I think the second method is more suitable for McDonald's (I don't know, I didn't work there), but it definitely doesn't work for IT companies. I interpret his words as saying that I should assess from time to time whether I should fully trust a person. I fully agree with this.

Philippe:

I understand the intention of the "highest guiding principle", but I am confused by the word "belief. You said: "To hold a healthy and effective review, we wantHypothesisOrPretend(Your original words) everyone has done their best ......"

If I know that Linda is just a zombie, for example, she says she is ill, but Whistler sees her skiing, for example, fighting with other colleagues, or failing to submit code on time, and blame others for causing her delay. You don't want me to start looking back with the idea that "she has tried her best", do you? What you mean is what Linda can do, right? In addition, we cannot question why she cannot do what she can?

I would like to rewrite this guiding principle as follows: no matter what we find, based on the current knowledge of each person, their technical level and capabilities, available resources, and the current situation, let's assume that everyone has done their best.

But why can't Linda's performance be evaluated at the review meeting? Why do we need to sum up with a wonderful metaphor and gorgeous language within three hours? Everyone knows what the real problem is. (maybe Linda doesn't know it yet ).

LINDA:

Performance evaluation is not the goal of review activities. Of course, an organization always needs to evaluate its performance. However, some items found during review activities may help those who must evaluate its performance.

However

When team members start to blame each other or blame others outside the team, it is very difficult to continue the review. In many cases, it is hard to say clearlyWhy?Unsatisfactory performance in the past. I think that when they are part of a review activity, participants consciously or unconsciously protect themselves, so they do not tell the truth or hide something that will embarrass them.

If the team has had an unsuccessful learning experience, it will be troublesome. I used to think that the constant challenge is a kind of "engineering mentality" [See note 1]. Now I realize that this is actually a kind of human nature. Things will always deteriorate, especially when the project "fails", It takes considerable effort to learn in this context. I think we do the same in our daily lives.

Wording is very important in any language. "Considering ...... What does it mean to do everything you can? I think you might think it's about saying that someone's performance is not up to expectations, rather than blaming Team members for failing to do their best. Of course, this situation may also happen if someone who has tried his best is fired.

Finally, I think you can rewrite the "highest guiding principle" or review any content of the activity at will based on your understanding and preferences :-)!

Many times, people struggle to solve problems that have never been discussed. No one can avoid being accused of failing to do a good job-I have met. This does not mean that people do not do their best. It may be impossible to judge whether a person is dedicated. However, it is much easier to evaluate others' performance, although I'm glad I don't have to worry about it :-).

Linda continued:

In view of the past many reviews, I realized that reviews do not often happen, but they are a good time to make changes. I have seen individual and team changes, and sometimes they happen in an unexpected and unexpected way. These changes are only possible if people agree to follow the "highest guiding principles" and adopt other steps in the process. I remember the past several review activities that have taken place in a positive direction. I don't want to lose the opportunity to change because I stubbornly think that we "know" others.

If you do not follow the "highest guiding principles", the situation may be deadlocked. This is too easy-as long as you maintain a stubborn judgment on the interaction between each other in the past-I often do this myself.

OWEN:

I would like to reiterate some of Linda's points. The purpose of the "highest guiding principle" is to temporarily stop trust in others. As Linda said, let's pretend to be in the next two hours (or within the duration of Review ), we believe that everyone in the room has contributed their best in good faith. Of course, this is a bit naive, but it cannot be seen as a challenge to the mentality. Let's let go of our doubts and judgments on others, try to let them review and learn with us, and try to find out how to make everyone do their best. This is very challenging, because it is totally different from our thoughts.

Philip gave an example of an employee who would have been working but skating. Can we assume that she is still trying her best to work while skiing, rather than assuming she is suspected of being absent from work. This will allow us to look at her motives from a positive perspective. Maybe she is skiing with an important customer, maybe her brother just died of cancer is a skiing enthusiast, and skiing is the way she handles grief.

Ultimately, others' motives are unknown-at least we should work with others to verify. The "highest guiding principle" is to make us realize that our observations are subjective and will be influenced by our own prejudices; and whether we can discard our prejudice-at least in the review. If we can, we may be able to learn something.

EUGENE:

That's right! Do you remember Yourdon's book on structured design, which was published 20 or 30 years ago? He told a story about a guy who left the office in a work day and came back with a bucket of paint, without saying a word, I painted the office door Green, and then left for a whole day. Apparently, he spent 36 hours in the office trying to solve a bug (but not succeeded ).

OWEN:

It took me quite a while to understand the "highest guiding principle ". Reading Norm's book makes me feel like a mantra. I tried several times at the beginning of the review, but it didn't have any magic effect. So I gave up. The discussion in the Yahoo Restrospective discussion group is the key to understanding. I am trying to introduce the "highest guiding principle" in the review activity, but it is useless to read it out loud. Prior to the formal start of the review activity, it should be discussed with other persons involved in the review. If you want to perform iterative review, this is a great topic for reviewing the "Iteration origin" activity. :) It is a review of "meta review ".

Michael:

Recently I joined a new company and asked me to host a review of an unsuccessful project. The release date of the project was postponed three times, and the result was suspended because the company thought it could not be delayed. As you can imagine, this kind of thing seriously damages the trust relationship between the business department and the Development Department. To review the objectives of the activity, I don't only need to let everyone learn which links can be done better, but also re-establish trust relationships. To achieve the goal, the use of the "highest guiding principle" is the only way.

DIANA:

What puzzles me most about the "highest guiding principle" is not that someone is judging others, but that someone says:

Sometimes I do not do my best because I feel very lazy, procrastinating, or otherwise. Therefore, I would assume that others will not do their best for such despicable reasons. I am willing to take responsibility for slack, and others should accept the condemnation. We can learn from these things and make them public. Only in this way can we collect all the information needed to solve the problem, and the humiliation will prevent people from making similar mistakes in the future.

Smart people have high expectations and requirements for their own and their own will, but this will affect their sympathy and understanding for themselves and others, and will not feel the feelings of others. I personally do not agree to use humiliation to prevent some things. Do not shame others or yourself.

MARY:

In the popular days of Total Quality Management (TQM), Dai Ming and Zhu LAN both noticed that when a worker makes a mistake, 80-85% of these instances are due to system problems, not personal reasons. I also noticed this. Every individual is always tired or lazy. However, a system that does not allow workers to feel tired or lazy is not a good system. For example, when assembling a computer, you need to insert various connection lines into it, and the connectors are highlighted similar to the clip, so that it will not be reversed or reversed. I think that the previous PC was very easy to take the ide wrong, And I made several mistakes. I will not blame myself, but the plug that cannot be differentiated.

Similarly, I think most of the Software defects are not programmer errors, but system problems. For example, if appropriate tests are not provided, defects cannot be detected immediately. Developers will also feel tired and relaxed like workers. The system should know that this is a matter of course and provide corresponding compensation mechanisms. Every developer should not be expected to invest 100% in 100% of the time. This is too unrealistic. The system we designed should allow people to keep themselves.

Another observed phenomenon is that the team may lack the motivation to do a good job. My experience tells me that this is usually the case for 80-85% of the time, because of system frustration or lack of appropriate tools or experts, or because you cannot directly contact the Customer and do not know what to do, or the measurement of the work or the expectations of the management may prevent them from doing the right thing (a very common cause of poor performance ). In my opinion, when people do not do their best, they should look at the factors in management that are counterproductive to incentives, whether they lack adequate professional knowledge and the standards or expectations of local optimization workload, or other obstacles that impede people's efforts.

I will not assume that everyone has done their best, but I will think that if they do not, the deep-seated reasons should be explored from the system or management aspects, rather than from the individual. Of course not always. There are some bad guys who should solve the problem of poor performance for whatever reason. However, it is not very useful to try to improve individual performance when there is a problem with the system. Therefore, to solve the problem, you should not blame someone first, but discover the underlying reasons hidden in the system.

Esther:

I am used to introducing the "highest guiding principle" in this way ". I would say, "my personal values make me stand here today. This is not easy. Sometimes I have to remind myself of some very depressing problems. Today, I do not suggest you adopt my values, but from a purely pragmatic perspective, if you have no opinions on others, you will be more likely to influence them; if you think others are stupid, it is impossible to learn something from them." Next, I will ask you if you can simply review your personal opinions, rather than always.

LINDA:

Even if many people participate in the review, I will raise my hand or take a few steps back and forth, or use other methods to indicate that I am watching everyone. It will not take long, and it is a strategy that affects others-for example, to communicate with others, so that everyone can say "yes ". This will make everyone more invested. Generally, I will not do any "Reminder" actions. There will always be people who participate in review-people who are learning to promote review-and who know others better, we can also remind you of the language acceptable to others and organizations.

NORM:

The "highest guiding principle" was developed after I reviewed the promoter's career. It was not until I had to teach others how to lead the review activities that I found it necessary to clearly describe the "highest guiding principle. However, some of the ideas contained in the review have existed as early as I participated in the first review, and the remaining ideas have been deeply rooted in my heart till today.

When I was a teenager, I participated in a sailing competition. One of my friends was in bad weather and drowned due to a tornado. The top sailors I highly respect carried out a fearless review, checking every aspect of the competition, checking everyone's actions, and every decision. It is not for anything else, but to let the whole sailing community know how to avoid another death event. Because these sailors bravely told the painful story, our leaders clearly stated that we cannot judge others' actions. There will be no scapegoat, and no one will be condemned. The sense of guilt should not always accompany us, and there will be no penalty, because we are already uncomfortable.

This is an excellent example of learning by repeatedly telling a story to everyone. I 've been playing for over thirty years, but every time I step onto the deck, I think of the lessons I learned.

When I started to develop my own courses, I realized that I couldn't say this: "No, no, personal judgment." If I say this, instead, we will focus on these concepts. In fact, I need to find a message to replace these items. The first thing that comes to mind is "we assume that everyone has done their best ". But the word "hypothesis" seems unconvincing, so it is changed to "We understand and firmly believe that everyone has done their best to their work ".

I think the most important thing for promoters is to understand the meaning behind the "highest guiding principles. With this foundation, we can use our creativity to help organizations in need improve them. I think Esther's explanation of the "highest guiding principles" is necessary to become part of our responsibilities and a culture.

Ainsley:

Remember to apply the "highest guiding principle" to yourself ". In my personal review workshop, we talked about how ways of understanding ourselves and personal experience have a huge impact on us. Whether it's for others or myself, I will use the "highest guiding principle" as the context of self-evaluation. Many people have noticed that they are more tolerant to others than themselves, and this has also affected their work.

LINDA:

This conversation with you is really good. I found the following interesting text in the Yahoo discussion group. Thank you for sharing it with me:

A TV interview host and Dr. Richard Feynman discussed the Challenger Space shuttle explosion accident:
Host:But we heard your Chairman Rogers say, "We are not here to blame anyone ."
Why? Why is there no one to blame?
Dr. Feynman:I don't know who to blame, and doing so is no good. The real question is: how can we learn from them ......
MacNeil/lehree news time, January 1, June 9, 1986.

Thank you

Thanks to Steve Adolph, Paul culling, Esther Derby, Geoff Hewson, Norm kerth, Philippe kruchten, Diana Larsen, jaswinder Madhur, Ainsley NIEs, eugene nizker, Mary poppendieck, Owen Rogers, and Michael VAX.

Author Profile

Linda risingShe obtained a doctorate from Arizona State University in the field of Object-based design methods. Her background also includes her experience in teaching at the university in the fields of telecommunications, avionics, and strategic weapon systems. Internationally renowned contributors include pattern, review activities, agile development methods, and process changes. Linda isFearless change: Patterns for introducing new ideasThe author of this book, written together with Mary Lynn Manns, and isDesign Patterns in communications software,The pattern almanac 2000AndThe patterns HandbookAnd other books.