James King

They need to fix accountability

Posted by James King on February 26, 2010

My favourite comment for the week was me and a friend talking about a project we were consulting on. We agreed that “they need to fix their accountability”.

While we might be right, we realised that it is a bit wimpy to suggest that someone else has to fix accountability for a project you are on.

So we had a long discussion about what we could do on the project and we concluded we just needed to make sure we were clear on
- what we delegate (including escalate or ask for);
- when we are ambiguous about our own accountability for something and our own authority for getting things done
- when we were assuming someone else was “handling something” and when we thought we were.
- Next project we will go back to basics and insist on a session where we sit down and explain our roles and responsibilities to each other and then debate them.

We have already had improvements in less that a week. It was so simple that I am wondering if it is worth creating a one day course that covers nothing more than delegation, follow up and expectation setting. Would you come to a course like that or is it something you already know and do?

Posted in Consulting, Reflection | 1 Comment »

Argumentum ad waterfallium

Posted by James King on February 20, 2010

Argumentum ad hominem is a cool Latin phrase I read in a book called “How to win every argument – the use and abuse of logic”. The book is written by Madsen Pirie and while I don’t know if it is still in print, I do know its on the shelf at the Chattswood Library in Sydney.

The concept is that I will attack an argument by attacking its source (speaker). So rather than saying I disagree with Fred because of a flaw in his argument, I either

Explain that Fred is a bit of a wally and therefore not to be trusted in this matter. The natural conclusion is therefore that we should ignore what he is saying; or
I say that Fred is not one of us. All people of a certain grouping (say agile project managers) believe that xyz, which is not what Fred is saying, so as agile project managers we should ignore him and believe (my argument).

The problem with the approach is that I have not assessed or commented on the quality of the point Fred is making, but rather distracted the group from doing so.

This turns out to be a great way to trick people if you want to be evil:

As Australians we must believe that … (never mind why)
Fred is from management, so of course he would say … (never mind if it makes sense)
Waterfall projects are stupid and agile/lean/kanban projects are much better, so we must … (never mind why)

I have noticed a lot of people recently saying we should not do x because it is a waterfall approach to projects or we must do y because that is the agile approach.

The problem, as you can probably perceive, is that “waterfall projects” are not people and so “argumentum ad hominem” does not apply. So I have invented a new term “argumentum ad waterfallium”.

Now if you are evil, you have a Latin (ish) term to apply to what you are doing.

Also – if you hear someone say “that was how things worked in waterfall so we can’t do it” or “In agile projects you need to have user stories so we need to …” you can respond automatically with “Waterfallias Argumentum ad”.

When they ask “What on earth do you mean by that?” – you can respond with “exactly what I am asking you”.

Just because waterfall is old and agile is cool does not mean we should or should not do something. I have commented on this in a blurb I did to advertise a talk I am doing.

More widely though – you will often hear people in the workshops you run say that some must happen because “the CEO said it” or not happen because “that was the old way” or “that is what management want us to think”.

When you hear this (or do it yourself) remember – the source of the argument may make us question the motives for the argument but they do not impact the quality or the logic of the argument.

So whenever anyone uses this technique stop and ask them why they disagree with the argument. You will often find that they struggle to answer that question without reverting to talking about the person rather than the argument. Which means they are probably not considering the argument at all.

Posted in Arguing | Leave a Comment »

Vacancy for an agile trainer in Australia

Posted by James King on February 7, 2010

I do a lot of work with Software Education and I can vouch for them as an excellent group to work with.

So I thought it would be worth mentioning that they are looking for a new trainer to deliver a range of courses in agile development. You will need to be charismatic, experienced and good at dealing with the reality of projects rather than just the theory. The charisma is particularly important because the rest of us trainers look like we have been hired for our experience rather than any soap opera like good looks

http://softed.com/Company/Vacancies.aspx

If you get a job there and love it then you owe me a coffee. If you hate it then its not my fault, I just typed in a link to some random site and you should have done more research. On the other hand if you miss out on or don’t follow up on the role then it will have been great.

Similarly if you start work with Software Education and it all goes really well then tell them that you found them through me and I deserve kudos by association. But if you suck at facilitating and helping participants learn, then tell them your name is Geovanni McKetchup and that you have never heard of James King.

On a slightly serious note though, if you are considering training or consulting and do have some practical experience, then they are a great bunch to work with. Contact me if you want more of a briefing on their style and what it is like working with them.

Posted in Partners | Leave a Comment »

Minor rant from James – what happened to the customer

Posted by James King on February 6, 2010

I just posted this on another site, so I didn’t want to repeat it all here.

The article is at this simple english heading:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=2221192&discussionID=13508554&sik=1265408037120&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=.ana_2221192_1265408037120_3_1

As you would (not) guess from the wording of the link, I am wondering why we still debate the involvement of the customer in our IT projects.

We adopt every new technical practice and every new approach – and then baulk at the idea that we need to understand our customer’s needs, or at the idea that we need to get them to make the time to help us.

Maybe we should stop implementing other project methodologies and start breaking our project approaches into two simple groupsings:

- Method 1 – ask people what they want, give it to them and then ask them what they want next.

- Method 2 – build something, apologise and then tell the client they are stuck with whatever it is, so why not give us more money and see what happens.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Small experiments vs planned execution of change

Posted by James King on January 17, 2010

I am working with a client who has a whole continent full of different “tribes”, all of whom are going agile and all of whom have huge change agendas on at the moment.

So I am working on a change management plan to help the organisation roll out consistent approaches to IT development and to demonstrate continued improvement in speed and quality across multiple development teams for multiple internal and external clients (the tribes I mentioned).

I think I have a cunning plan but it will be interesting to see how it plays out in reality. Rather than rolling out a structured change program I am recommending we let all the cowboys run wild and do whatever change they want.

Then instead of driving change, the central group responsible will define the rules for experiments so that:

When a group want to try a new idea they must first report in that they are doing so. They do not need permission but need to state the experiment they are performing, why (which can be as simple as “make life easier for ourselves), when the first phase will happen and most importantly – what they predict will happen.
Then at the end of each phase we will check whether the outcome was as expected. If it is then we will ask why and then see how we can share the knowledge more widely. If the result was better or worse than expected then we will ask why and see what we can change or roll out more widely.

Doing this will help our central team focus on some core activities which we can also treat as experiments. It will also allow individual tribes to move at a pace (and in a direction) that suits them rather than waiting for us to catch up. Of course it might also lead to chaos, lack of focus and inertia.

Give me a call in a month or so (or add a comment here) if you want to learn how it turns out. Or give me a call now if you think you know how it will turn out and want to warn me.

Posted in Capability growth, Implementation | 1 Comment »

Working in virtual worlds – and getting away from it all in the real world

Posted by James King on January 6, 2010

I just got sent this link to an article in Scientific American. Its about “gold farmers” from the third world.

These enterprising workers join online games and spend time playing the game in order to amass treasure or experience that they can then sell to others for real money.

There are already property speculators in Second Life and people who can be hired to join your team of adventurers in a game.

Apparently there is even online crime with computer hackers stealing real people’s characters to sell onto others.

So you can now use your real world fortune to do better in a fantasy game than if you actually had to play it … and you can log into an online game to do a days work, before logging out to get away from it all by spending time in the real world.

If only there was a role for gaming coaches then I could log in and spend time virtual coaching. That would be a good life.

Posted in Observations, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Why do we need warranties on projects?

Posted by James King on December 27, 2009

I was given a new technological device for Christmas that I never knew I needed – a cup warming plate that plugs into my laptop. Now I can type away while leaving my tea or coffee for ages without it going cold.

The device has set a new standard for decadent features that I previously did not conceive a need for. And of course it comes with a warranty if I can be bothered to log in and register.

I am happy to have this new complexity in my life as the maintenance cost is minimal. I can either keep it on my desk, pack it in my suitcase, or stick it in a cupboard “to use later”.

I am also happy to register for the warranty “just in case”. But I will be very annoyed if I have to actually use the warranty, because I will be really frustrated if my shiny new toy (er – I mean productivity enhancement device) doesn’t work properly.

Interestingly, though I have been speaking to some IT crews recently who insist that all IT projects should have a warranty period.

Apparently offering a warranty shows the business customers that we care and want to do the job properly.

But my question is this – If I am annoyed at having to use a warranty for the products I buy, then why should my customers be happy at having to use the warranty I give them. Shouldn’t they be like me, sticking the warranty in a file in case of need and then forgetting about it?

I recently added an article to another blog about testing, and I added a link to yet a further blog that talks about testing on agile projects. They are slightly relevant here because they both talk around the idea that we should build quality into what we do rather than testing and fixing what we produce at the end.

You can follow the links here if you like: http://softwareeducation.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/some-holiday-reading-what-happens-to-testers-on-agile-projects/

More importantly though, the lesson I would like to take from the new coffee warmer I have is Not that we need more complexity, gadgets and features that nobody previously realised they needed.

It is that we need expect our systems to work. We should be surprised if they fail and therefore “warranty periods” should be an accommodation to the past practice of building too much complexity too quickly. If our clients want to purchase a warranty then fine – but we should use the chance to hang out with production support and fix old bugs, not start to unwind the damage done by our latest period.

Then the measure of a successful project can be that the clients start to see warranty as paperwork to stick in the draw. And we can get on with building the next thing they want.

Posted in Observations | Leave a Comment »

Learning facilitation (if you are in Sydney)

Posted by James King on November 1, 2009

I run training for people in a lot of different areas and one thing that consistently comes up is the importance of facilitation in just about every area of work.

I like to think I am a really good facilitator and that you will get real value for money by getting me to facilitate challenging meetings and workshops for you. Yet I still have to admit that most of the important facilitation happens within your own team.

So how do you become a better facilitator? There are some really good training courses around that I am happy to recommend. But a large part of learning to facilitate is just practicing and paying attention as other do it. And the problem with practicing on important projects is that it can be embarrassing when it all goes to cactus.

So another approach is just to turn up with this group: http://facilitatorsnetwork.blogspot.com/

You turn up with no RSVP (or ditch the meeting and go for a beer with friends with no feeling of guilt). When you turn up they hit you for $5 and then you hang around. There is some networking and there is always a facilitation by someone who wants to demonstrate some cool techniques.

The next one is on 9 November and came with this blurb:

Graphic Facilitation with Nancy White

Is there more to visual facilitation than the occasional use of a flipchart? Can we listen with our eyes and fingers as well as our ears? This session explores how images and drawing can help with the facilitation process.

Whether you are an artist or not (especially if you think you aren’t), we will be painting, drawing, smudging and crayoning. We will be getting our hands dirty please do not dress in your nice work clothes (or at least bring a big shirt to cover up).

Nancy White has worked with organisations as diverse as the World Health Organization, IBM, IEEE & the International Labor Organization. She is the co-author of “Digital Habitats” with Etienne Wenger & John Smith. Her graphic facilitation gigs have involved the Dalai Lama. More details on Nancy’s Australian visit here: http://nancywhiteoz.wordpress.com/

Venue: University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Jones Street, Ultimo corner Thomas Street. Room 5.580 Level 5, Building 10, Take the lift to level 5, cross the atrium foot bridge, walk straight ahead to room 580.

Time: from 5:30pm to 7:30pm sharp | No RSVP – Just turn up

Posted in Events | Leave a Comment »

Research into software development

Posted by James King on October 11, 2009

I often come across research into things such as Agile development, ITIL, pair programming and other areas. But the research is often quoted by fans of whatever the topic is.

I am generally too lazy to confirm that the research is sound, so I generally ignore most of it.

But here is some unbiased looking research (which I have not verified) into some areas of software development:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/nagappan-100609.aspx

The areas I found most interesting were:

- Test driven development provides better quality but is significantly slower then “code then test”. I am in favour of quality over speed in deploying new code, but this is the first research I have seen on the impact of TDD to speed. And if the number is consistently “30% slower” then I guess that should give some teams cause to stop and think.

- Organisational structure and measures seems to have a massive impact on software quality. So rather than revolutionising the techniques used, maybe better quality comes from building and supporting the team with the right organisational drivers.

Posted in Observations | Leave a Comment »

Partner for capability development – Software Education

Posted by James King on October 5, 2009

A lot of the work I do involves building the internal capability for an organisation. And while I like to think I am good at what I do, I don’t have the expertise to cover the full breadth of work this can entail. So I often work with Software Education.

You might see me appearing as one of their trainers, since any face to face BA or Agile training I do tends to be working as one of their crew rather than in my own right. You might also see them as the group I recommend using when I am doing consulting for you and you need training to accompany that work.

So, who are they?

They describe themselves in the following terms:

“Software Education are the internationally recognised local experts in software development training. With over 50 courses in Business Analysis, System Design, Programming, Software Testing, IT Management and Agile Development, we not only provide you with access to leading-edge content but also get you connected to an unrivalled network of international experts. “

Whether through our public courses, individually tailored in-house training or our international conferences, STANZ and SDC, with our help you will acquire practical, relevant skills which you can use immediately.

What’s more, we can help you acquire certification, if that’s important to you.”

And how do you know whether to engage me through them, them through me or some mixture? It doesn’t really make any difference, so just start anywhere and talk to either them or me.