George,

I understand that your reading of the "prime directive" is as a call for
respect. My reading of it is that it suggests dishonesty. Retrospectives
will certainly work better with both respect and honesty, but, as others
have pointed out in this thread, the exact form of that respect and honesty
depends on the people involved. The words used to encourage respect and
honesty also depend on the people involved. The "prime directive" doesn't
help me be honest and respectful. If it works for you, great.

All of which brings us back to the original question: what do you do
(respectfully and honestly) in a review or planning session if the team
consistently doesn't meet its goals? I'm trying to imagine myself in the
meeting Joe described.

"How many hours can you spend on our project this cycle?"
"75 hours"
"75 hours"
"75 hours"
"75 hours"

Now what do you say? They have been consistently working 25 hours/cycle. The
25 hours have been ineffective. What do you say?

That's the question Joe originally asked, not, "What's wrong with my
organization structure?" or, "How is this all management's fault since
programmers are, generally speaking, blameless?" The question is, what
should Joe say at that moment?

I vote for, "I don't believe you," followed by expectant silence (this is a
variation on the "What?" response when someone says something crazy). It's
short, it accepts responsibility, and it leaves lots of room for follow-on
discussion (although I can't predict what form that discussion would take).

What do you think Joe should say?

Regards,

Kent Beck
Three Rivers Institute

_____

From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Dinwiddie
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:57 PM
To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [XP] What if we don't meet sprint goals? was--getting
development committed to the iteration goal



Kent,

I'm sorry to hear that.

And a bit surprised, given the emphasis you've recently been placing on
respect. Respect for the other person is what the prime directive is
about. It's not at all about "pretending bad work was good." It's
about judging the work, not the person.

We are all fallible. Those of us who have high expectations of
ourselves feel our failures intensely, but we cannot prevent them all.
For whatever reasons, known and unknowable, we have done what we did.
Even for ourselves, it does us little good to pass judgement. It causes
much harm to pass judgement on others, particularly within out team.

How much better it is to examine the 'what' and delve into the
underlying reasons why. A reason may be "Bob thought that getting the
feature in the release was more important than doing thorough testing."
A reason may be "Bob was distracted by personal issues and didn't do
his best work." It may be "Bob doesn't understand this technical issue
and was too embarrassed to ask for help." I might even be "Bob screwed
up and noone knows why." I can't think of any use for saying "Bob is a
bad person." Even if you decide to fire Bob, I think it better to do so
on the basis of "Bob isn't contributing enough to make up for the
mistakes he makes" rather than "Bob is a bad person."

And that is what the Prime Directive is all about.

- George

Kent Beck wrote:
> Nope, doesn't fit for me.
>
> Kent
>
> _____
>
> From: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Dinwiddie
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:10 AM
> To: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [XP] What if we don't meet sprint goals? was--getting
> development committed to the iteration goal
>
>
>
> Kent,
>
> I'd like to invite you to look at the Prime Directive from a different
> viewpoint. I don't think it's a fiction. I think it's a tautology.
>
> Given the exact state of the universe at the exact time, people did what
> they did. They don't have to be proud of it. They don't have to think
> it didn't matter. They are allowed to regret what they did. The fact
> remains that it is what it is.
>
> It's not a false affirmation that someone did OK. And it's not to
> protect feelings. Instead, it's to avoid the bottomless pit of blame
> and what-ifs and wanting to repeat it with hindsight.
>
> You say, "I often do less than the best job I could." I'm sorry, but I
> don't believe you. I think that perhaps you really mean "I often do
> less than the best job I think I could." Or, "I often do less than the
> best job I should." Or, "I often do less than the best job I expect of
> myself." These are very different things.
>
> Rather than wonder why I'm such a bad person that I don't do the best I
> could, it's more productive for me to wonder what within me lead me to
> do a job that's less than I expected of myself.
>
> Please try this viewpoint and let me know how it fits.
>
> - George
>
> Kent Beck wrote:
>> What should we do when we don't meet the sprint goals? How do we
>> deal with the knowledge that things aren't working well? I think that is
a
>> worthy question for discussion. How can we even discuss that without it
>> turning into blame?
>>
>> Regarding trust and motivation: If the team does not do what they say
they
>> will, blind trust will not improve motivation or commitment. What reason
>> would they have to improve if their manager is that foolish? Making it
>> clear that you want true and honest information about the project so that
>> you can move forward together sets a standard. Giving them the chance to
>> earn your trust through honest effort and consistent performance makes
>> sense. The team needs to be able to trust their management too. It needs
>> to be safe for them to give realistic estimates. How do you rebuild trust
>> when there is a history of mistrust? At some level it requires a
>> mental/emotional realignment; we are all working together to get the work
>> done for our company. As long as it is an us/them game then trust can't
be
>> the basis of the relationship.
>>
>>
>> I myself have some issues with regard to the "prime directive" and
> personal
>> integrity.
>>
>> Here is the text of the "prime directive":
>>
>>
>> "Regardless of what we discover, we understand and truly believe that
>> everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time,
>> their skills and abilities, the resources available, and the situation at
>> hand."
>>
>>
>> This directive is telling me to change my understanding of negative
events
>> and my beliefs (which are based on my observations and experience) about
>> others for the sake of the feelings of retrospective participants. I
often
>> do less than the best job I could. False affirmation (even of me) does
>> nothing to promote safe, honest working relationships. I do not believe
>> people are capable of denying so much of their knowledge. Pretending to
do
>> so does not seem to have any advantage. As soon as the retrospective is
> over
>> the finger-pointing or worse will come out again. The point of the above
>> piece of fiction seems clear to me from the followup sentence:
>>
>>
>> "At the end of a project everyone knows so much more. Naturally we
>> will discover decisions and actions we wish we could do over. This is
> wisdom
>> to be celebrated, not judgement used to embarrass."
>>
>>
>> This says to me that the goal of the prime directive is to protect
> ourselves
>> from judgment and avoid embarrassment. I think this confuses
> responsibility
>> for feelings. If I make a mistake and this is pointed out to me in a
>> retrospective, feeling embarrassed might be reasonable even if it's
>> uncomfortable if I knew better. If I did my best then I have no need of
>> embarassment even if I did something wrong. Feelings that match reality
> help
>> me learn and grow.
>>
>> Avoiding judgment seems an unreasonable goal, since the goal of a
>> retrospective is to learn from what happened. This requires evaluation
and
>> logical judgment is the process used to achieve that learning. Blame is
> not
>> necessary for that learning, but learning to seperate responsibility and
>> blame is a hard task for some. Whether or not someone "did their best" is
> a
>> very subjective call. It is something that you certainly know for
> yourself,
>> but can only guess at for another. Pretending bad work was good is not
the
>> same as withholding judgement and doesn't really show respect for your
> peer.
>> "Oops, you really missed on that one. Next time will be better." is a
more
>> believable and honorable position. Assuming good intent may be a better
>> premise for establishing the nature of a safe relationship during a
>> retrospective than telling people they must "truly believe that everyone
> did
>> the best job they could".
>>
>> It is interesting to note the assumption of regret; that we will wish we
>> could do things over. Why? If we did the best we could with the knowledge
>> we had, how could we do it over better? Doing a similar new project with
>> our new knowledge makes sense, but there is no way to go back. Regret is
a
>> really poor basis for decision-making. There is social science research
on
>> this topic. Living in the past or moving on is a personal choice. Clean
>> living leaves the fewest regrets.
>>
>> Each person in the meeting has the responsibility hold himself, to not
> dump
>> his own negative feelings on others, and to communicate as clearly as he
>> can. But, to pretend that everyone did their very best just to avoid a
>> statement that could appear negative or protect someone from
embarrassment
>> doesn't make sense to me. I do think that it is important to be talking
>> about the work rather than projected motivations of individuals on the
> team.
>>
>> Another way to get useful information from participants is to ask what
> went
>> well, what do we want to do more of? This process, called Appreciative
>> Inquiry, allows details to unfold in a positive, non-threatening, less
>> personally incriminating way.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kent Beck
>> Three Rivers Institute
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ilja Preuss
>> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 3:07 AM
>> To: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [XP] getting development committed to the iteration goal
>>
>>
>>
>> joe_dickason schrieb:
>>> I belive if they had committed to 26, they would have delivered < 26.
>> Are you aware of the fact that the teams knows you don't trust them?
>> What do you think does that do to motivation and commitment?
>>
>>> We had sprint reviews scheduled, but there were conflicts and we
>>> weren't sure what to do when we hadn't met the sprint goals.
>> I don't think I understand that sentence. Can you please try again?
>>
>>> Absolutely, we do sprint retrospectives. There are 3 guys,
>>> including myself, that started the agile adventure at my company.
>>> We asked for volunteers to make-up the agile team. So, the time is
>>> primarily volunteers. At the retrospectives, the 3 of us ask
>>> leading questions trying to figure out what to continue doing, stop
>>> doing, start doing. Most of the volunteers have little to say.
>> Do you agree on the prime directive? Does everyone do? Do you act
>> accordingly?
>>
>> http://www.retrospe
>> <http://www.retrospe
> <http://www.retrospe
<http://www.retrospectives.com/pages/retroPrimeDirective.html>
ctives.com/pages/retroPrimeDirective.html>
> ctives.com/pages/retroPrimeDirective.html>
>> ctives.com/pages/retroPrimeDirective.html
>>
>> How save do the volunteers feel?
>>
>> Perhaps try a different format? We had very good results with this one:
>> http://jimshore.
>> <http://jimshore.
> <http://jimshore.
<http://jimshore.textdriven.com/Agile-Book/retrospectives.html>
textdriven.com/Agile-Book/retrospectives.html>
> textdriven.com/Agile-Book/retrospectives.html>
>> textdriven.com/Agile-Book/retrospectives.html
>>
>>> I fill the BA/QA role on the agile team. Meeting with customers to
>>> get stories and acceptance tests figured out. Working to get the
>>> tests executed and automated.
>> How much is the team collaborating?
>>
>> Curious, Ilja
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------
* George Dinwiddie * http://blog. <http://blog.gdinwiddie.com>
gdinwiddie.com
Software Development http://www.idiacomp <http://www.idiacomputing.com>
uting.com
Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemar <http://www.agilemaryland.org>
yland.org
----------------------------------------------------------






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]