Politics

Scrum At Scale and Society

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

As per my last post I said I will be talking more (but not entirely) about politics. And if you think I’m going to jump into something big, right now, not really. Well I kind of am. Because I want to share something that I find useful in thinking about society, politics, and how we get things done at scale.

It won’t surprise you that it’s about Agile methods, but one that affects my politics – and might give you a few ideas.

For anyone not familiar with Agile (a vanishingly small number of people who read me as I talk about it a lot), it’s an approach to work, started in software, about reasonably-sized teams working in short increments. The popular method is Scrum, where teams take a list of priorities, tackle a limited set over a short time, and then review and do it all over again. I’ve applied it to writing, art, and more.

But as you may guess, small teams is like about 5 people give or take. So how do you do a big project? Well someone invented Scrum At Scale. You have teams, but team leads from those team meet on their OWN Scrum teams to coordinate. Bigger project? Then you have teams of team leads of team leads, and pile it as high as possible. It’s pretty cool and isn’t the giant process-haul that rival SAFE is.

It also affected my view of politics.

First, one of the problems of politics is non-participation or exclusion. To be part of society is to be part of it, like it or not. At the same time plenty of people want to exclude others to get their own “selectorate” to make holding power easier, and of course usually screwing over everyone else. Scrum at Scale made me realize how important it is for people to be involved and involved at multiple levels.

You should pay attention to your community, but also to your state/province, federal, and the world and be involved. If necessary hold office even if it’s an informal community thing. Good leaders should also be trusted if they can and have held positions at lower levels and have actually done something. I’m no military adventurist by a long shot, but there’s a reason I sometimes vote for ex-mils as well as doctors, emergency workers, etc.

Scrum at Scale is about being involved and being in touch among levels. A team lead on the lowest level scrum team might be a representative on one team, and the team above that, and so on. That’s the kind of thing software development or society needs – integration of people.

But there’s one more factor as well. Scrum of Scrums, especially, emphasizes communicating problems upward. What a team below can’t solve, the team above tries to tackle, and so on up the chain. Eventually unsolvable problems land on a leadership group, and if no one else can fix them that’s their job.

Problems go up, solutions come down. If you’ve ever seen politicians try to solve issues that they usually make up you realize how important this idea is. The higher up the chain you are the more you should help fix the unfixable things below. If no problems come up then you keep things running, which is important because I can say quite cynically many a problem is caused by a politician trying to keep their job.

Honestly, a lot of my politics are influenced by things that aren’t seen as political – project management, biology, and so on. But as I’ve noted before everything is really political, so we should learn from everything.

Steven Savage

That Political Question

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I once had someone note that my blog wasn’t political, and that was refreshing. I can sort of get that, especially if you’ve encountered writers to A) turned “political” and B) did it for the clicks/attention/cash. “Politics” has become a dirty word in some ways, and people have made an effort to dirty it.

But that made me think. See my blog does talk politics. In fact it talks politics more than many readers may realize (and probably in some cases, than I realize). Because a lot of my blog is about organization, technology, culture, and getting things done. That’s all politics.

Ed Zitron may be the Lewis Black of technology, but if you ever heard or read his stuff, his work is political, he just doesn’t say it.

I do avoid, in some cases, making it explicitly political. Some of this is the dismal state of modern politics. A lot of it is about what I want to discuss. If I make specific political statements then that means those who automatically disagree won’t listen and those who automatically agree won’t question me. I’m fine with disagreement and agreement, but would like it to be heartfelt not automatic.

Praise me or call me a dumbass for real, not because I repeated a talking point.

When I do this consciously, I’m kind of annoyed with it, because politics should be interesting and engaging. Politics is part of society and civilization. In fact, to try to avoid politics is to avoid having a society. To emphasizes that let’s talk the Toledo Zoo and Civil Defense.

The Toledo Zoo, which I had visited many times, had some buildings made by the Works Progress Administration back in the 30s. Those lasted quite awhile, and the WPA was the result of politics. I’ve also dug up books create due to the WPA and so on. Parts of our history due to politics.

Civil Defense, for a time, interested me as well. At first for the nature of it’s communications, and later for what it meant. As a Project Manager seeing Americans come together in organized fashion intrigued me. It’s also part of my interest in disaster recovery. Yes, Civil Defense was propaganda-heavy, it was political, but it also left a legacy.

Politics can be sure we get things done. Ever go and say “someone should fix this?” Well getting it fixed is politics.

But why has it become such a dirty word? Why is it associated with screaming at each other over Thanksgiving? Why can’t we, you know, solve problems?

My short take is simply this – we’re in a media saturated culture where politics is somewhere between lousy soap opera and gladiatorial game. Some people compare it to wrestling but that’s insulting wrestling. We’ve made politics about anything but doing things, and all that does is serve entrenched interests at best. At worse (and I think we’re at worse), politics is essentially a media-industrial complex filled with people who will say and do anything for hits, money, and to release their own psychological complexes.

And while all this is going on? Terrible things are happening, only we’re not as aware of them or trying to fix them as she should be.

(I have suspected the origins of this are in Kennedy’s popularity and the mass media, but I think there’s more I need to chew over. A friend has been studying media history and his insights are depressingly useful.)

We’ve made politics not about getting anything done and politics has always had its problems. We should be engaged. We should have discussions, not arguments. We should do things for our communities of all kind. We should not be listening to some guy on YouTube who alternately argues for insane politics while pitching pills to fix erectile dysfunction or legal psychedelics.

So I may be talking politics more directly. Be the change I want to see in the world and all. Though I can’t say I won’t do a bit of a runaround before I admit something is about politics. Let’s keep things fun here – as opposed to what too much political talk is about.

Steven Savage

Let’s Talk Cutting Stuff

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

OK, so this is sort of a political post. Yes it’s about the US Government, DOGE, and cutting stuff for “efficiency.” It’s also a post on general efficiency and issues, but because this kind of subject is a mine field let me address it with my usual delicacy and decorum.

DOGE is a dumb, corrupt mix of stunt and coup that also feels like the worst of Silicon Valley Management fads combined with people that don’t know how things work. This may sound embellished, but I also speak as a guy with 30 years of IT experience, way too many certifications, and a skill at cataloging every dumb thing I’ve seen in my career. I come at this from hard, painful experience.

Now with that said, the next statements my seem surprisingly, well, unbiased. Because really good sense and good process sense isn’t hard. We just make it hard.

I’d like to zero in on an idea I’ve seen for way too long, that anything – government, business, charity, your bowling league – has too much bureaucracy. That all you have to do is cut bureaucracy and everything gets more efficient in a kind of Darwninian market magic. This of course is usually wrong, but often in ways that aren’t as obvious and that take time to find out.

Simply put, no, not all bureaucracy, process, etc. is inefficient in that it doesn’t get the job done with appropriate expenses. Shockingly, an amazing amount of things actually work. They may not be perfect, perhaps they can be better, but the amount of “good enough” you’ll see in the world is often higher than you’d think. Things can be better, but let’s put a pin in that for later.

The problem is effective work is not easy to notice unless you’re really good at awareness and have an organization that has good internal awareness. In fact as I’ve stated before some jobs become invisible when done well – like my own, Project and Program Management. Am I saying that sometimes organizations need more reports – and the attendant bureaucracy – to know they’re doing OK?

Honestly, yeah. This is a great example – if you don’t have the right reports (bureaucracy) you might make changes to fix things that are OK.

Anyway, we’ve got the idea that somehow everything is inefficient (for political, social, and economic reasons I may analyze another time). So we believe people who say “well, we’ve got to cut that,” and those people usually have an agenda. I’m not just talking political, a lot of consulting groups make bank telling people how to cut bureaucracy in a kind of oroborous of management hypocrisy.

So people don’t see good work and because of our culture, we go a-cutting and thinking we can make things efficient by getting rid of stuff.

Which, as you may guess, doesn’t really work. We’ve probably all been at a place that was going to cut itself into efficiency, and we probably don’t work there anymore. If we’re so fortunate not to have experienced it, there’s a good chance someone we know has, and will tell us about it at profanity-filled length.

So you don’t just charge into a place and start magically cutting your way to efficiency. You have to analyze goals, workflows, and so on. You have to actually do things and know research. If you don’t do these things you will -intentionally or not – create disaster. If you’ve ever been through cuts and been the Lone Employee Left Over In An Area, you know what I mean.

Now let’s pull the pin out on improving government, business, etc. Let’s talk the thing that doesn’t often get talked about – sometimes you have to do more, hire more, and spend more money to be efficient.

This of course is blasphemy in pop business world because the idea of efficiency is spending less, right? Well much as you sometimes have to spend money to make money, you also need to spend money to have the people, resources, and processes to be efficient. It can cost more to eventually cost left.

It sounds like a paradox, but it’s not. If say a government office isn’t doing great handling things, then it’s wasting money. But you don’t cut if, you may have to spend more to make it work effectively. If you can’t do the job, maybe you have to make sure the department does its job with more money. Sometimes saving isn’t the goal of something.

Yet, surprisingly, shocking to others, things operate better at scale. If spending $1 on a department or business unit saves $2, but spending $5 saves $15, what’s the best choice? I once advised someone on process improvement and found they were in a situation where hiring five more people would save work across hundreds of other employees.

Or it all goes back to goals, research, and understanding. Not cutting. Cutting costs, etc. does not magically make things better, especially when you rush it.

If you want to understand that, we can often look at the business world once you get beyond survivorship bias. But maybe now where I’m seeing angry town halls and protesting park employees (words I didn’t expect to type) you can see random cutting doesn’t work.

Which in some ways is a great irony of the DOGE era. Actions that are arguably governmental are going to be studied by business schools as well. Just not in the way some would have expected.

Hey I got this done without mentioning The Unaccountability Machine. Whoops . . .

Steven Savage