How Do We Change a System That Doesn’t Want to Change?

Changing a system that doesn’t want to change is hard. To do so invites us to focus on needs, not wants. Wants are like wishes, but needs are what drive action. So, change requires us together to change what the system needs.

This means we need to change what the people who own and run the system need. They decide how the system works. Their needs shape it. For positive change, their needs must fit with the changes we need.

One way to do this is to invite folks to consider why the change is good. Let’s say a business is reluctant to address “people issues”. By illustrating, with dialogue, how people are central to them getting their needs met, work can be easier, save money, and make customers happier.

Organisational culture is also key. It’s like the personality of the business. It decides how people think and act at work. If we can change this culture, it can also change what the system and those in charge of it need.

In the end, changing a system is about changing its needs. This can help bring the change we all need.

From Exasperation to Excellence: How a Project Manager Transformed His Relationships by Changing Himself

[A real-life scenario]

John had been a project manager for over a decade, and he had seen all kinds of projects come and go. He prided himself on his organisational skills, his ability to coordinate teams, and his attention to detail. But today, as he sat at his desk, surrounded by stacks of paperwork and unanswered emails, he was feeling exasperated.

He had just received an update from his team, and it was not good. They were behind schedule, again. Despite his repeated instructions, they were still making the same mistakes, still failing to meet their targets. He rubbed his temples and quietly yelled “Why won’t they just do what I tell ’em?” into his coffee mug.

John had always been a stickler for following procedures and protocols. He believed that if everyone just did what they were supposed to do, everything would run smoothly. But lately, it seemed like his team was working against him. They were resistant to his suggestions, and even when they did agree to his proposals, they failed to follow through.

John knew that he needed to find a way to motivate his team. He tried to put himself in their shoes, to see things from their perspective. Maybe they were feeling overwhelmed, or maybe they needed more support. He decided to call a team meeting to discuss the situation and see if they could come up with a plan to get back on track.

At the meeting, John listened carefully to his team’s concerns. They were feeling stressed and overworked, and they didn’t feel like they had enough support from management. John realised that he had been so focused on results that he had forgotten to show his team that he valued their input and cared about their well-being.

He apologised for his behavior and invited suggestions for some changes he might make. Everyone agreed to schedule regular check-ins with each team member to discuss their needs and offer support. He also took steps to show his team that he valued their input, by including them in decision-making and taking their suggestions seriously.

Over time, John noticed a significant change in his team’s performance. They were more motivated and more willing to work together to achieve their goals. He realised that by taking the time to listen to his team, involve them and show them that he cared, he was better able to build trust and create a more positive work environment.

In the end, John learned that being a project manager isn’t just about giving orders and expecting people to follow them. It’s about building relationships, understanding the team’s needs, and creating an environment where everyone can thrive.

 

The Secret Deeds of Employees that Leave Managers Speechless

Employees can engage in behaviors that managers may find unexpected and even unethical. Some examples include sabotage, defiance, spreading rumors, lying, and selling information. However, it is important to understand that these actions are often rooted in deeper motivations and are not necessarily indicative of malicious intent.

Sabotage, for example, may stem from an employee feeling undervalued or overworked. They may believe that the company or management is not supporting them, and they resort to sabotaging work in an attempt to bring attention to their concerns. In these situations, it is crucial for managers to listen to employee complaints and work to address their concerns.

Defiance can also be a result of frustration with management or company policies. Employees may feel that their opinions, ideas and needs are not being heard, leading them to challenge authority. Again, open communication and a willingness to listen to employee feedback can help resolve these conflicts.

Spreading rumors can be a manifestation of insecurity or a desire for control. Employees may feel that they do not have a direct line of communication with management and resort to spreading rumors to try and gain insight into company decisions or to shape perceptions. Managers can combat this by being transparent in their communications and building trust with employees.

Finally, selling information can be driven by financial need or a belief that the information is not confidential or sensitive. In these cases, it is essential for companies to establish clear guidelines and policies around the handling of confidential information, and to provide employees with the resources they need to succeed.

In conclusion, while employees can engage in behaviors that managers may find unexpected, it is crucial to avoid the Fundamental Attribution Error and understand the underlying motivations. By addressing these motivations and fostering open communication, managers can build a positive workplace culture and minimize the likelihood of unethical behavior.

 

Why I Blog

Thare’s a few key reasons why I’ve been consistently and regularly blogging for the best part of fifteen years now:

1. To invite conversation. I love conversations. I love personal interactions and the exchange of perspectives. Blogging has not served me too well in this regard, so far.
2. To clarify my thoughts. I find writing my thoughts down serves to refine and clarify them.
3. To change the world. Some ideas, such as nonviolence, fellowship, love and dialogue have the possibility to change society in general, and the world of work in particular, for the better. I feel privileged to invite folks to encounter these ideas.
4. To listen to and learn from others, and experience their alternative perspectives.
5. To share my experiences. I probably have more experience in software delivery (and life) than most. Maybe my sharing equips readers with extra experiences, albeit vicariously.

– Bob

Quickie: How To Convince Somone When Facts Fail

How To Convince Someone When Facts Fail

And also:

Facts Don’t Change People’s Minds. Here’s What Does.

See the role for therapy? And for Organisational Therapy?

Quintessential Applications – Come Join Us!

What do we need to see in applications from potential Quintessential fellows? Well, we definitely don’t want to see a CV or resume. We don’t grok how what you’ve done in the past speaks to your potential in the future. We choose to see our fellows as capable of anything, given the necessary support and environment.

We would like to be surprised by the things you feel represent your best. Maybe a list of the things you’ve read and found insightful, such as blog posts, articles, books and so on. Or the times you’ve most enjoyed getting together with others to deliver great software and great experiences. Or maybe the topics in which you have the most interest, and some contributions you’ve made or intend to make in those areas. Maybe you’d be willing to share your take on Quintessence, on Organisational Psychotherapy, or some intriguing questions or practical experience you may have regarding excellence in software delivery. Opinions are way less interesting to us, compared to evidence.

It might be interesting to hear about the terms and conditions you guess you might be needing, including things like pay, hours, locations, equipment, team mates, etc..

Take a look at the list of skills we consider most useful, and tell us about your own skills and aspirations in those areas, or even in other areas you feel may be relevant. Although some “hard” tech skills such as coding and UX might be interesting, we’d love to enroll fellows with outstanding soft skills – these rank higher in our priorities. For example, the Antimatter Principle is as the heart of everything we do – so we’d love to hear about your experiences with attending to folks’ needs.

We’d also love to hear about times when you’ve taken care of something or someone. And how that felt – bot for you and for them.

Above all, we invite you to share with us why you see yourself as a good fit for our community of fellows, and the ways in which you will contribute to moving our whole community forward – improving the principles and practices of software delivery. And your take on excellence, too.

Go wild! Express yourself. If words and text ain’t your thang, maybe video, or audio, or music, or art, or Zen koans, or haikus, or however you best express yourself.

Our declared purpose is to make a dent in the universe, to make the world a better place through outstanding excellence in software delivery. To bring Alien Tech to the service of human beings. We’d love to hear what these things means to you. And how you see yourself contributing.

We appreciate we’re asking you to dedicate some non-trivial amount of time to representing yourself. And we’ll reciprocate by dedicating our time to paying attention to your application. And we will happily help you evolve your application from e.g. small beginnings, incrementally. No need for a one-shot big- bang application. Doing things together is, of course, a hallmark of The Quintessential Group.

We’re looking forward to hearing from you – whatever the medium, whatever the format. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message.

– Bob

First Step Towards Quintessence

Taking a look at the idea of Quintessence can seem overwhelmingly daunting. Changing the culture of a whole organisation? Shifting assumptions and beliefs of an entire workforce, managers and executives included? Wow. Some herculean task?

Formidable Challenge

The challenge can seem truly formidable. Yet the benefits look appealing. 

How to take that first step? What is the most useful and reassuring first step?

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

~ Lao Tzu

Surfacing And Reflecting

The clue is on the cover of my second book, “Memeology“. The subtitle reads

Surfacing and reflecting on the organisation’s collective assumptions and beliefs.

I find a useful first step is talking with peers. And listening to what they have to say. Discovering if there’s an appetite for such surfacing and reflecting. Uncovering their challenges of the moment, and sounding out potential allies. Persuasion comes later, if at all.

The status quo has a powerful grip on busy people. It’s easy to dismiss calls for change in the midst of daily stressors such as fire-fighting and chasing targets.

Timbre

What’s the timbre of dialogue in your organisation? Progressive or regressive? Inviting or dismissive? What timbre might best suit the kinds of dialogue implied by Quintessence? How might y’all affect that timbre? And could you use some help with that?

Chatting Is The First Step

To recap – simple chatting with friends, neighbours, peers and colleagues can be the vital first step. And “Alien Tech” can sometimes serve as an icebreaker, if you feel you need one.

– Bob

 

Quickie: Prepared to Listen

If you’re not prepared to listen, why expect others to listen to you?

Quickie: Flying Fucks

How many Agile coaches give a flying fuck about folks’ needs – except perhaps their own?

How many see the direct connection between attending to folks’ needs and their success as coaches?

“Please, just attend to my needs”

This is the silent plea of everyone in your organisation (and everyone in our lives, for that matter).

Silent because of fear of appearing weak or needy. And silent because those in need rarely realise they have unmet needs, let alone realise that their needs could be attended to.

Are you hearing their requests? Are you doing something, anything, about them?

How would you feel if your heartfelt pleas continually fell on deaf ears? Do you care how others might be feeling?

– Bob

The Way Forward

By way of a counterpoint to my previous post “What’s Holding Us Back“, I’m interested in the way forward for the software industry, businesses, and society in general.

It’s become delightfully obvious to me that a whole raft of helpful assumptions and beliefs constitute that way forward.

In my most recent books (Memeology, Quintessence) I detail these helpful assumptions and beliefs at length, and again in keeping with my preference for short blog posts, I’ll just summarise, here…

Here’s some of the major assumptions and beliefs helpful to enabling organisations better achieve success:

• Generalising specialists form the core of quintessential organisations (see e.g. Paint Drip People).
• Continual small changes in assumptions and beliefs (kaizen), with occasional larger step changes (Kaikaku) are the way to effect improvements.
• Change is desirable, best left to serendipity, and better seen in small daily increments.
• Dialogue is at the core of improvements, in relationships and the way the work works, both.
• Everyone’s needs matter (at least for all the Folks That Matter). See also: the Antimatter Principle.
• Clarity and honesty on what constitutes “success” is the only way to align folks and see everyone’s real needs are being attended to.
• Culture is the visible by-product of the invisible set of prevailing assumptions and beliefs, and is amenable to intentional change through eg Organisational Psychotherapy (be that facilitated or via self-help).
• There are many possible organisational structures other than hierarchy. They have all be tried at one time or another. Most have proven more successful that hierarchy.
• Change always requires revisions to existing policies and rules. See: Innovation ALWAYS Demands We Change the Rules.
• Talent is unnecessary when we have thriving relationships, and a focus on the way the work works.
• Interpersonal relationships are core to success.
• Interesting work and the prospect of community, meaning, and other “soft” elements trumps high pay as a motivator and attractant, every time.
• Productivity ensues from optimising the way the work works, which in turn requires a focus on collective assumptions and beliefs.
• Efficiency is a distracting red herring, effectiveness is the path to productivity and success.
• Business problems are almost never the fault of certain individuals.
• Breaking the organisation into parts and managing these parts separately is a recipe for significant sub-optimisation and shortfalls in success.
• In collaborative knowledge work, intrinsic motivation is much more powerful than extrinsic motivation. The latter serves as a demotivator.
• The social dynamic and listening are the only means to effect changes in people’s behaviours.

…and so on, and so on. 

All the above assumptions have been proven time and again through decades of research. By listening, experimenting and being interested in the science and outliers, our ignorance can be assuaged and enlightened.

– Bob

Quickie: About You

How did you get to be the you you are today?

Quickie: Wants and Needs

Folks are often strident in pursuing what they want, silent on pursuing what they need.

Which would you prefer to address?

Quickie: Not Interested

Here’s a bunch of things that readers of this blog – and by extension, software folks and execs generally – are not interested in:

• Self-organisation and techniques for same.
• What’s happening in the software community.
• Pretty much everything in the larger (teal) circle.
• Thinking about things.
• (Digital) transformations.
• Organisation-wide issues.
• Social issues that affect work.
• Awesomely powerful new ideas.
• Learning.

What is “A Decent Conversation”?

Decent conversations have been front of mind for me for many years. Mainly due to my need for them, and for their conspicuous absence in most cases. Sure I get to have many interactions with people, but are those conversations? And moreover, are they “decent”?

Decent

In my most recent quickie I borrowed the term “decent” from the headline of the linked article.
Admittedly it’s a little vague. Let’s see if we can’t disambiguate a little.

For openers, a circular definition: For me, a decent conversation is one that meets my needs.

Which of course begs the question “What are my needs of a decent conversation?”. (Please prefix all the below with an implicit “For me…”).

A conversation is more that just two (or more) parties talking to each other. Or more often, at each other.

Conversations or exchanges involving simple assertions – for example “dogs are so cute” – fall short of “decent” conversations. Ditto for expression of opinion – for example, statements beginning “I think…”. I need interactions that involve supportive and mutual sense-making, not just airing of opinions.

While the word ‘sensemaking’ may have an informal, poetic flavour, that should not mask the fact that it is literally just what it says it is.

~ Karl Weick, 1995

Decent conversations must involve skilful listening, on the part of all participants. Expressly, listening for what’s “going on” with each other. Marshall Rosenberg describes this as “focussing on what’s alive, right now, in those participating”.

How often do you feel people are listening to you? That they’re interested in how you’re feeling and what you have to say? That by listening they’re connecting with you as a person? How often do you listen well enough that others feel that same way about you?

More than Listening

Decent conversations involve more than (NVC) listening. They involve empathy, compassion, and a desire to help participants evolve their understanding. To come together in reaching a deeper or more nuanced shared understanding. I sometime refer to this as “shared mutual exploration”.

Yes, that’s a high bar. But with practice and motivation – and yes, support – one that most people are capable of clearing.

Is there value in decent conversations? For me, absolutely. For others? Maybe we can have a decent conversation about that.

– Bob

Further Reading

Rosenberg, M.B. (2015). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Puddledancer Press.
Kline, N. (2010). More Time to Think: A Way of Being in the World. Fisher King Publishing.
http://www.skillsyouneed.com. (n.d.). Active Listening | SkillsYouNeed. [online] Available at: http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/active-listening.html [Accessed 7 Aug. 2021].
http://www.psychologytoday.com. (2013). It’s Not Enough to Listen | Psychology Today. [online] Available at: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/encountering-america/201303/its-not-enough-listen [Accessed 7 Aug. 2021].
Cordes, R. (2020). Making Sense of Sensemaking: What it is and what it Means for Pandemic Research. [online] Atlantic Council. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/geotech-cues/making-sense-of-sensemaking-what-it-is-and-what-it-means-for-pandemic-research/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2021].
Trzeciak, S., Booker, C., Mazzarelli, A. (2019). Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence That Caring Makes a Difference. Studer Group.
Bohm, D. (2014). On dialogue. London: Routledge.
Rodriguez, C. (2013). “On Dialogue” David Bohm. [online] Carmen Rodríguez A. Available at: https://carmenrodrigueza.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/on-dialogue-david-bohm/ [Accessed 7 Aug. 2021].

The Relevance of Giants – 2. O Sensei (Morihei Ueshiba)

On most every occasion when I’m speaking in public – at conferences, workshops, and the like – I tend to mention one or more of my “Giants” of Rightshifting. Men and women who, through their lives and work have contributed significantly to my understanding of work, and in particular to my understanding of effective collaborative knowledge work.

Many folks express interest in these Giants, but I do wonder if they appreciate the relevance of the ideas and experiences of these Giants to their own daily lives at work.

I mean, what relevance does, say, O Sensei have to developers, testers, operations staff and the like? Which aspects of any of these Giants’ work could be useful or helpful or simply comforting to these folks?

In this occasional series of posts I’ll be exploring some of the Giants’ relevance to folks other than theorists, managers, consultants and the like. I’ll be sharing some insights into their work, and specifically, the likely relevance.

With these posts I hope to pique your curiosity just a little. Let’s continue, with this second post in the series, with O Sensei.

O Sensei

Morihei Ueshiba

(December 14, 1883 – April 26, 1969)  (See also: Wikipedia entry)

I’m not going to dwell on his early life and experiences in the Japanese Army, his adventures in Mongolia, nor his experiences in Manchuria and Japan during the time of World War 2.

Aikido

I suggest the primary relevance of O Sensei to most folks working in the field of software development (and production operations) is Aikido – the martial art he developed. Excepting it’s less a martial art, and more a philosophy for life, and for harmonising with others.

Unlike many other martial arts, Aikido is focussed on caring for others, as emphasised by the translation of the three kanji: ai-ki-do as the Way of Unifying Spirit or the Way of Spiritual Harmony. O Sensei envisioned Aikido as an expression of his personal philosophy of universal peace and reconciliation. O Sensei’s goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.

“Blending“, one of the core techniques of Aikido, invites us to look at conflicts from the perspectives of the other person – or people – involved. For me, this has a direct connection with empathy – as promoted by e.g. Marshall Rosenberg and others of the nonviolent community.

“Life is growth. If we stop growing, technically and spiritually, we are as good as dead.”

~ Morihei Ueshiba

Where’s the Relevance?

How do we make it more likely that we’re all spending our time on stuff that matters? How do we go about attending to folks’ real needs? I find blending a great asset in identifying with the needs of others. As I blend, I see their perspective, and their needs, more clearly. And in turn, they can feel more listened-to. And choose to reveal other things, crucial things, that means we get to understand more about what matters to us all. With this knowledge – and goodwill – we have a better chance of focusing on what matters, and of reducing the chance of wasting some or all of our time on the inconsequential, on detours, and on dead ends.

Practical Investigation

You might like to join an Aikido dojo, to practice the physical forms of the techniques. And to discuss the philosophy with like-minded people wha have already started the journey. Beware, though, of those dojos and sensei that emphasise the physical forms at the expense of Aikido philosophy.

– Bob

Further Reading

The Life We Are Given ~ Michael Murphy, George Leonard
The Way of Aikido ~ George Leonard
It’s A Lot Like Dancing ~ Terry Dobson

Please Don’t Irk Me with Fast Arguments

I love Twitter for its ability to facilitate conversations over time and space. Recently, I have found myself feeling irked by a style of conversation which I could describe – and have described – as “cargo-culted argument”. In other words, arguments attempting to promote a position based on widely-held existing beliefs and ideas (and where the arguer appears have not thought through that belief).

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

~ William James

Socratic Questions

I find Socratic questioning to be useful when mutually exploring a topic or question (my preferred mode of conversation). In using Socratic questioning I seek to invite parties to the conversation to reflect on and think about the issue afresh. Occasionally, however, one party will choose to repeat “conventional wisdom” on the topic, without, seemingly, pausing for said reflection. I say “choose”, but I wonder how much of a conscious choice it is. We humans are creatures of habit, not least when it comes to thinking.

I feel saddened on such occasions, when we miss the opportunity for deeper mutual exploration of a topic (and thereby a deepening of our relationship or Twitter connection).

“No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.”

~ Voltaire

Fast Arguments – or Slow?

Kahneman writes about this phenomenon in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. He describes Slow (system 2) thinking as the kind of reflective, conscious, consider-things-afresh thinking Socratic questions invite, whereas we all prefer to default to what he labels as Fast (system 1) thinking, which so often, in this context, leads to a simple regurgitation of conventional wisdom.

Would you be willing to set aside your Fast arguments in favour of a more Slow exploration of topics of conversation?

– Bob

Further Reading

Thinking, Fast and Slow ~ Daniel Kahneman

 

Difficult Conversations

Before this turns into a mini-series, I’d just like to add one observation to my previous two posts.

Setting aside the outcomes sought by the people that matter, outcomes related to the business and its needs, there’s the not inconsequential matter of the unexpressed outcomes sought by these folks with respect to their own personal needs. Often, these needs are not discussed, shared or even registered at a conscious level by the individuals concerned. And often, then, explicit outcomes have yet to be identified – both by them and by us.

There’s not much point addressing the needs of the organisation (see my previous post) without also attempting, at least, to address the needs of the individual people that matter. This asks of us more effort, because we’re likely to be starting “further back”, before these folks have even expressed their personal sought outcomes. And because they may be reluctant to get into these kinds of conversations, being unusual in a workplace context. And then there’s the difficulty involved in “speaking to power” or at least empathising with people in positions of power.

Examples

Some examples may help clarify this observation.

Senior managers and executives, in articulating the sought outcomes listed previously, may also want to control the solutions chosen, hence their providing solutions in the form of wants. Often there’s an underlying need to feel “in control”, driven by some need, such as their need for order, or personal safety, or kudos.

Similarly, articulating their sought outcomes may, in part, derive from their need for tangible progress, or a need to be seen as the driver of that progress.

Summary

Entering into, and sharing the exploration of these often intensely personal topics is certainly difficult. But that difficulty can ease when we have the right conditions – such as trust, friendship, skill, and safety. And without such conversations, we’re that much more likely to spend much time and effort on delivering outcomes that no one really needs, or worse – that actively work against folks’ needs.

– Bob

Further Reading

Crucial Conversations ~ Patterson & Grenny
Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most ~ Patton, Stone, Heen & Fisher
Discussing the Undiscussable ~ Bill Noonan
Feelings Inventory ~ List at the Centre For Nonviolent Communication
Needs Inventory ~ List at the Centre For Nonviolent Communication

Antimatter Evo

Tom Gilb has long been known for his “Evo”(evolutionary) approach to software engineering, and more recently for his sharp criticisms of the Agile Manifesto (99% of which I agree with).

In a recent (February 2018) PPI Systems Engineering Newsletter, he authors the feature article “How Well Does the Agile Manifesto Align with Principles that Lead to Success in Product Development?”, describing in some depth his issues with the Agile Manifesto, its Four Values and Twelve Principles.

Apropos the latter, Tom comments at length on each, providing for each a “reformulation”. I repeat each of these twelve reformulations here, along with a translation to the vocabulary (and frame) of the Antimatter Principle:

1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

Tom’s reformulation: Development efforts should attempt to deliver, measurably and cost-effectively, a well-defined set of prioritized stakeholder value-levels, as early as possible.

Antimatter translation: As early and frequently as possible, in the course of developing e.g. a new product or service, we (the development team) will identify, quantify, and subsequently measure, a well-defined set of the needs of all the people that matter, and deliver, as early and frequently as possible, stuff that we believe meets those needs.

Antimatter simplification: Our highest priority is to continually attend to the needs of everyone that matters.

2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.

Tom’s reformulation: Development processes must be able to discover and incorporate changes in stakeholder requirements, as soon as possible, and to understand their priority, their consequences to other stakeholders, to system architecture plans, to project plans, and contracts.

Antimatter translation: Our approach to developing new products or services enables the development team to discover and incorporate changes in the needs of anyone that matters, and the members of the community of “everyone that matters”, as soon as possible. The development team has means to quantify, share and compare priorities, and means to both understand and communicate the impact of such changes to the community of “everyone that matters”.

Antimatter simplification: Handle changing needs, and changing membership of the “everyone that matters” community, in ways that meet the needs of the people that matter.

3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

Tom’s reformulation: Plan to deliver some measurable degree of improvement, to planned and prioritized stakeholder value requirements, as soon, and as frequently, as resources permit.

Antimatter translation: Plan to deliver some measurable degree of improvement to the planned and prioritised set of needs (of the people that matter) as soon, and as frequently, as needed.

Antimatter simplification: Deliver stuff as often as, and by means that, meets the needs of everyone that matters.

4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project

Tom’s reformulation: All parties to a development effort (stakeholders), need to have a relevant voice for their interests (requirements), and an insight into the parts of the effort that they will potentially impact, or which can impact them, on a continuous basis, including into operations and decommissioning of a system.

Antimatter translation: Have established means through which we continually solicits the needs of the people that matter, means that are well-defined and well-understood by everyone that matters. These means provide: an ear for the feelings and needs of the people that matter, and feedback on the consequences (impact) of attending to those needs.

Antimatter simplification: Share needs and solutions as often as, and by means that, meets the needs of everyone that matters.

5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

Tom’s reformulation: Motivate stakeholders and developers, by agreeing on their high-level priority objectives, and give them freedom to find the most cost-effective solutions.

Antimatter translation: Motivate everyone that matters by agreeing on everyone’s needs, and give everyone, as a group, the freedom to collaborate in negotiating the trade-offs, priorities, and most cost-effective solutions.

Antimatter simplification: Motivate people to the degree that, and by means that, meets the needs of everyone that matters.

6. Enable face-to-face interactions.

Tom’s reformulation: Enable clear communication, in writing, in a common project database. Enable collection and prioritization, and continuous updates, of all considerations about requirements, designs, economics, constraints, risks, issues, dependencies, and prioritization.

Antimatter translation: Provide communications that meet the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour.

Antimatter simplification: Facilitate sharing of information, feelings, needs, etc. to the degree that, and by means that, meets the needs of everyone that matters.

7. Working software is the primary measure of progress.

Tom’s reformulation: The primary measure of development progress is the ‘degree of actual stakeholder-delivered planned value levels’ with respect to planned resources, such as budgets and deadlines.

Antimatter translation: The primary measure of development progress is the ‘degree of actual needs met’ with respect to the planned, prioritised and quantified set of needs of everyone the matters. Note: Assuming end-users or customers are amongst the set of people that matter, this demands the product or service in question is in active service with those people, such that we can measure how well (the degree to which) their needs are actually being met. And don’t forget the needs pertaining to how the endeavour is being conducted!

Antimatter simplification: Choose a primary measure of progress that meets the needs of everyone that matters.

8. Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

Tom’s reformulation: We believe that a wide variety of strategies, adapted to current local cultures, can be used to maintain a reasonable workload for developers, and other stakeholders; so that stress and pressures, which result in failed systems, need not occur.

Antimatter translation: Proceed at a pace that meets the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these (dynamic and potentially conflicting) needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour.

Antimatter simplification: Choose a pace that meets the needs of everyone that matters.

9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

Tom’s reformulation: Technical excellence in products, services, systems and organizations, can and should be quantified, for any serious discussion or application. The suggested strategies or architectures, for reaching these ‘quantified excellence requirements’, should be estimated, using Value Decision Tables [45, 1, 2], and then measured in early small incremental delivery steps.

Antimatter translation: Aim for a level of technical excellence and good design – and any other quality-related attributes – that meet the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these (dynamic and potentially conflicting) needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour.

Antimatter simplification: Agree on attributes of quality, and levels of quality, with respect to the means of the endeavour, that meets the needs of everyone that matters.

10. Simplicity – the art of maximizing the amount of work not done – is essential.

Tom’s reformulation: We need to learn and apply methods, of which there are many available, to help us understand complex systems and complex relations. [1, 2, 46, 47, 48, 49] and succeed in meeting our goals in spite of them.

Antimatter translation: Aim for a level of simplicity – and any other quality-related attributes -that meet the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these (dynamic and potentially conflicting) needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour.

Antimatter simplification: Spend effort only where it directly attends to some need of someone that matters.

11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

Tom’s reformulation (A): The most useful value and quality requirements will be quantified, and will use other mechanisms, including careful corresponding stakeholder analysis [1, 51, and 52], to facilitate understanding.

Tom’s reformulation (B): The most cost-effective designs/architecture, with respect to our quantified value and resource requirements, will be estimated and progress tracked, utilizing a Value Decision Table with its evidence, sources, and uncertainty. They will be prioritized by values/resources with respect to risks [45].

Tom’s reformulation (Simplified, combined): We will use engineering quantification for all variable requirements, and for all architecture.

Antimatter translation: Choose organisational structures and methods (teams, heroes, feature teams, self-organisation, quantification, etc.) for the endeavour that meet the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these (dynamic and potentially conflicting) needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour.

Antimatter simplification: Agree on attributes of quality, and levels of quality, with respect to the organisation of the endeavour, that meets the needs of everyone that matters.

12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

Tom’s reformulation: A process like the Defect Prevention Process (DPP), or another more-suitable for current culture, which delegates power to analyze and cure organizational weaknesses, will be applied: using participation from small self-organized teams to define and prove more cost-effective work environments, tools, methods, and processes.

Antimatter translation: Aim to learn as much from our work as meets the needs of everyone that matters. Manage these needs, including negotiated solutions, just as all the other needs in the endeavour. 

Antimatter simplification: Pursue improvement, with respect to the means and organisation of the endeavour, that meets the needs of everyone that matters.

Summary

The key insight that emerges from this exercise in translation is this:

Once we have a more-or-less formal and established approach for identifying who matters and their needs, with respect to the endeavour at hand – and then tracking, negotiating and managing the evolving community of “everyone that matters” and their needs – much of the minutiae of the Twelve Principles, and debates thereon, evaporates.

In a nutshell: we must attend not only to the needs in the context of the particular product or service under development, but also to the needs of everyone that matters in the context of the means (conduct, organisation) of that development effort.

– Bob

The Advice Process – Flaws and Fixes

“The advice process is a tool that helps decision-making via collective intelligence. Much depends on the spirit in which people approach it. When the advice process is introduced, it might be worthwhile to train colleagues not only in the mechanics but also on the mindset underlying effective use.”

We’ve been using the Advice Process for several months now. Whilst we’re still very much committed to its use, and wish to see the changes it promotes, all has not been going smoothly with its uptake.

Potential

We chose the Advice process as a means to devolving and distributing decision-making. We like its potential for quicker – and more impactful – decisions, raised levels of trust, improved communication, and higher levels of involvement and engagement. This list describes this potential, as described by its early promoter, Dennis Bakke of AES, in more detail:

• Community: it draws people, whose advice is sought into the question at hand. They learn about the issue. The sharing of information reinforces the feeling of community. The person whose advice is sought feels honored and needed
• Humility: asking for advice is an act of humility, which is one of the most important characteristics of a fun workplace. The act alone says, “I need you“. The decision maker and the adviser are pushed into a closer relationship. This makes it nearly impossible for the decision-maker to ignore the advice.
• Learning: making decisions is on-the-job education. Advice comes from people who have an understanding of the situation and care about the outcome. No other form of education or training can match this real-time experience.
• Better decisions: chances of reaching the best decision are greater than under conventional top-down approaches. The decision maker has the advantage of being closer to the issue and has to live with responsibility for the consequences of the decision. Advice provides diverse input, uncovering important issues and new perspectives.
• Fun: the process is just plain fun for the decision-maker, because it mirrors the joy found in playing team sports. The advice process stimulates initiative and creativity, which are enhanced by the wisdom from knowledgeable people elsewhere in the organization.

Practice

In practice, we have not yet seen full realisation of this potential. Overall, we attribute this to poor implementation of the Advice Process, which we’re now intent (sic) on fixing – whilst not undermining its original intent (see above).

Flaws

Some of the implementation flaws we have experienced include:

• Permission-seeking. Some folks have not yet overcome their established reflex of seeking permission. The Advice Process as conceived rejects permission-seeking, placing implicit responsibility for outcomes on the individual or team with the intent, not on the permission-giver. This shift (i.e. from authoritarianism to co-creation) requires a degree of courage from all parties.
• Trust. Some advisors have found it challenging to trust the intentions or competence of those seeking advice.
• Belief. Some with intentions have found it challenging to believe that they now have the power/authority to make key decisions.
• Misunderstanding/clashing frames of reference. Sometimes, advice sought and then given has been received/interpreted as denial of permission.
• Impatience. The delay between announcing intent and receiving advice has proved a source of friction, leading on occasions to proceeding without waiting to receive considered advice from advisors who may hold key pieces of the puzzle (often, these are the busiest of people).
• Criticality. Some people have voiced concerns that key business decisions with serious negative commercial or reputational risks could proceed to action, even when some key risks go unappreciated or unaddressed (due to advice being sought from the wrong quarters, ignored, or not understood).

Fixes

We’re intending to experiment with addressing the above concerns through a couple of refinements:

• Shared responsibility. The onus of communication will rest equally with those communicating intent and those from whom for advice is sought. Those announcing an intent are requested to actively pursue advisors to confirm their intent has been heard and understood by all the necessary parties; those from whom advice is sought are requested to respond promptly and with due consideration of the significance of their role and advice.
• Time-outs. In those cases where someone believes there is a problem – maybe they feel the Advice Process has not been followed correctly or not used when it should have been – that someone may call a Time-out. The intention or action in question – which may already be in train – will then be suspended, pending a go-around (i.e. another taking of soundings, general proposal of intent, seeking of advice, confirmation that the intent has been understood, and consideration of advice received). Note: This does not imply that the intention itself has been denied or overruled. Rather, some party to a particular instance of the Advice Process believes the Advice Process has not been followed or used appropriately, and that the risks implicit in the intention or action are likely not being duly considered or attended-to.
• Arbitration. We’ll see if we need to introduce some arbitration or conflict-resolution mechanism to handle repeated time-outs being called against a given intention or action, or to handle occasions where parties disagree on whether the Advice Process has indeed been followed correctly or not.

I’ll keep you posted on how our experiment is going.

– Bob

Further Reading

Decision Making ~ ReinventingOrganisations Wiki

The Advice Process – Definition and Usage Tips ~ Daniel Tenner

Advice Process for Effective Organizational Decision-Making ~ Agilitrix