Project Management

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

Can You Imagine Starting?

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 was going to do a post on media forms and what we can learn about today’s media from the Dada art movement, but Serdar had to go and get all brilliant and discuss how people can’t and shouldn’t wait for the right conditions to start something. It deserves it’s own blogpost, so me discussing art movements has to wait.

Serdar points out how people wait for the right conditions and how you can always find advice, from Doris Lessing to Buddhism that the time is never right, never perfect. The problem of course is helping people understand it’s time to get off their butts and do it. If you’ve ever tried to get someone – or yourself – “going” you know what I mean.

Now I work with Agile methodologies, as anyone who’s known me for five minutes is aware. Agile is about breaking work down, doing it in order of importance, and very importantly getting going. Just start and take feedback later – in fact doing something means you at least get feedback so you can do better (or even just quit). Agile isn’t “move fast, break things” it’s “move fast, make things.”

Thus as you can imagine I have to help people “get started” and “just get going.” Which should be easy as I have a lot of experience, a lot of certifications, and a very irritatingly effective attitude of “just do it.” Should be easy with a person like me, right?

Of course you know the answer is that it’s not, which irritates me at an irrational level. Sometime I “buddy up” with “just give it a try.” Sometimes I “Agile harder.” Sometimes I end up a therapist. But Serdar’s post made me realize in some cases what people lack is the ability to imagine starting. It’s easy to look at a big project or some ambitious idea and be so overwhelmed you can’t imagine starting – and in some cases it’s easier to imagine failing.

It’s easy to imagine not starting. I’ve realized as I mull offer Serdar’s writings that people like me are trained imagining how to start, other people have that imagination of how to start and we have to help others develop that capacity.

Of course easier said than done, and each person or group is an individual case. Maybe we have to inspire. Maybe we have to (in some cases literally) draw a picture. Maybe we encourage a prototype. Maybe we just “give it a shot.” But we need people to be able to see starting despite “imperfect” conditions.

Which means when we’re trying to help someone overcome a fear of imperfect conditions, our first job might be to help them see what’s possible. But the next job is helping them develop that imagination.

Steven Savage

But What If It’s Not Worth Doing?

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 this isn’t another post on AI exactly. I get it, there’s a lot of talk of AI – hell, I talk about it a lot, usually whenever Ed Zitron goes on a tear or my friends in tech (IE all my friends) discuss it. If I was friends with Ed Zitron, who knows what I’d write.

The funny thing about AI is that it’s about automation. Yes it’s complex. Yes it’s controversial. Yes, it lets you generate pictures of Jesus as a Canadian Mountie (Dudley Do-Unto-Others?). But it’s automation at the end of the day. It’s no different than a clock or a pneumatic delivery system.

And, referencing a conversation I had with friends, when you automate something on the job or at home, let’s ask a question – should you have been doing it anyway?

First, if you get something you have to automate, should it be assigned to you? If something really isn’t part of your portfolio of work, maybe someone else should do it. Yes, this includes things like home tasks and that includes the shelves you have not and almost certainly will not put up.

A painful reality I’ve come to realize is that many people take on tasks someone else can do, and often do better. However due to whatever reason it drifts up to them and of course they stick with it. Worse, the really good people often would be better at it, and maybe even have more time and hurt themselves less.

A need to automate something often says “I don’t need to do it and I may be bad at it” and the task should move up or down or somewhere else. I’m not saying automate, it, I’m saying reassign it – to someone that may automate it anyway, but still.

Secondly, and more importantly, if you have a task that can be automated it’s time to ask if anyone should be doing it period.

Anything really important needs a person, a moral authority to make a decision. You have both the decision making skills and the ethical ability to make the right decision. Automation certainly doesn’t have the ethical element, and if it doesn’t need your decision making skills . . . why are you or anyone doing it.

The task might be unnecessary. It could – and trust me I see this a lot – be the result of other automatic generation or other bad choices. It may be a signoff no one needs to sign off on, an automatic update you don’t need to be updated on, or who knows what else. I honestly think a lot of work is generated by other automatic processes and choices that could just bypass people anyway.

But there’s also the chance the task is unneeded, shouldn’t exist, or really a bad idea. Look if the task is assigned to you, a competent individual with good morals, and you want to automate it maybe it just should never have existed. Much as good Agile methods are about making sure you don’t do unneeded work, process is the same.

Whenever something has to be automated, it’s a good time to ask “why did it come to me anyway?” Because the answer may save you time automating, instead letting you hand it off, change how things work, or just ignore it.

And that’s not just AI. That’s anything.

Steven Savage