Why Process Frameworks Are So Toxic
From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221569924_SMCMM_Model_to_Evaluate_and_Improve_the_Quality_of_the_Software_Maintenance_Process

Why Process Frameworks Are So Toxic

We live in worlds that our conversations create. Our conversations can add value to a situation, person, or opportunity, or devalue a situation, process, or opportunity. Agile process frameworks create their own conversation styles and patterns. Are your Agile conversations generative and constructive? Or are they dictatorial and confining?

In their book Conversations Worth Having, Jackie Stavros and Cheri Torres explain the power of appreciative inquiry for making progress when collaborating with others.

Appreciative inquiry entails asking questions from a positive and supportive stance. So for example, if someone says something you disagree with, do not immediately criticize it, but display curiosity and ask them why they think that. Take it as a cue to explore their thoughts and feelings about the issue.

By doing that, you are using an inquiry-based approach. You are asking them to explain their thoughts. You are learning why they think what they think. In the end you might still disagree, but you don’t start by telling what you think: instead, you inquire about their thoughts.

The problem with process frameworks like SAFe and Scrum is that they are not inquiry-based. They are statement-based. The diagram below comes from Conversations Worth Having. It describes a conversation in terms of two categories: (1) inquiry- or statement-based, and (2) appreciate- or depreciative-based.

No alt text provided for this image

An inquiry-based conversation is as we described above: it is where you start by asking, in a quest to understand. In contrast, a statement-based approach is where you state what you think, possibly without proof, asserting your own beliefs.

Of course, how you do something matters: one can state one’s beliefs in a very open way, where it is clear that you welcome feedback. But Agile process frameworks are not like that: they assert their rules and roles without proof. You are expected to just accept that the framework is what you need.

In terms of the diagram below, process frameworks are to the left of the vertical centerline—they are either affirmative or destructive. An affirmative conversation is one in which someone is not overly critical, but they are pedantic. In a destructive conversation, they are not only pedantic, but they are challenging and critical. Most of the politics-related social media discussions that we see today are of that type. No one’s mind is ever changed through those conversations: they are a total waste of time. Worse, they generate frustration, diminish relationships, and tend to push us further apart.

Constructive Agility is a right-of-the-centerline approach. It does not begin by dictating processes to use that will “make you agile”. Instead, it begins by asking you questions: the questions are about what your own processes should be. This is a generative approach. If the leadership culture is supportive, then the conversations will be the idea: the ones “worth having”. If the culture is not supportive, the conversations will merely be critical: characterized by challenge and criticism.

An Example

For example, in the section Structure the Initiative, Constructive Agility asks you to answer these questions:

  1. What are the main categories of work that must be performed?
  2. What are the primary ways in which we will allow the work to be done? In other words, what workflows are envisioned? For example, some choices might be,
  3. Engineers fully integration-test every change they design.
  4. A separate set of test engineers will perform integration tests on a recurring basis.
  5. Some combination of 1 and 2.
  6. What skills are needed to perform the work?
  7. What are the dominant sets of issues that are expected to arise? - That is, what categories do they fall into?
  8. What styles of leadership are needed to expeditiously resolve these issues with correct decisions?

The answers to those questions are intended to help you to decide how to create an initial structure for your initiative. Thus, instead of saying “create this group with these roles and perform these activities”, it challenges you to come up with your own approach, but advises you what to consider.

That is important, because it forces you to think. Remember when you were in school, and you were asked to come up with an approach, using what you had learned? That was a lot harder than merely repeating what you had memorized; but only when you came up with your own approach did you actually start to understand what you had learned.

Constructive Agility is like a college curriculum in which the endpoint is (a) a working initiative, and (b) true knowledge and experience in the minds of those who helped to set it up and get it going.

It is generative and inquiry-based. It promotes relationships, deeper understanding and movement towards desired outcomes. It is fundamentally a learning process. In the course of learning, you create processes, use those, and refine them over time. You end up truly understanding your own processes and why they are agile.

It is not a shortcut, because there is no shortcut to agility. It is the real, and is truly the only way to achieve actual agility.

Greg Hutchins

Principal Engineer of Quality + Engineering. Founder of Certified Enterprise Risk Manager? (CERM) Academy, 800Compete.com.

2 年

Nice piece. Tip: Congrats on applying for IC 35. You may want to add (TM) to your 'Constructive ...' Re: process. Many if not all the standards coming out of ISO, IEEE, DOD, etc are process models ie. risk based. it may be worthwhile describing how agile would fit into or intersect with these process models.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Cliff Berg的更多文章

  • They Know a Collapse Is Coming

    They Know a Collapse Is Coming

    The CIO of Goldman Sachs has said that in the next year, companies at the forefront will begin to use AI agents as if…

    78 条评论
  • Agile – I Told You So

    Agile – I Told You So

    I think it is no longer controversial that the Agile movement is in decline. When I made a post about it a year ago…

    51 条评论
  • The Most Brilliant Programmer I Have Known Couldn't Work at Google

    The Most Brilliant Programmer I Have Known Couldn't Work at Google

    During the late 1980s I worked at a 30-person startup. The company was founded by the two fellows who had been the lead…

    31 条评论
  • The Most Guaranteed Way to Improve the Bottom Line

    The Most Guaranteed Way to Improve the Bottom Line

    Culture eats strategy for breakfast, but it’s leaders who generate the culture – leaders at all levels, not just at the…

    2 条评论
  • Empowerment, Not Self-Organization

    Empowerment, Not Self-Organization

    Have you heard people say something to the effect of, “Self organization is not really entirely self organization”? I…

    11 条评论
  • Join a Community that is About Learning

    Join a Community that is About Learning

    Things like leadership, product development, technical practices in DevOps, and more. Free workshops for learning.

  • Anyone Can Learn DevOps

    Anyone Can Learn DevOps

    Are you looking for ways to expand your skills, to be more effective in your organization? One way is to learn more…

  • Use a Capability-Focused Approach — Not an Agile Framework

    Use a Capability-Focused Approach — Not an Agile Framework

    Article here: https://www.agile2academy.

    3 条评论
  • Why Team Performance Is the Wrong Thing to Focus On

    Why Team Performance Is the Wrong Thing to Focus On

    Many companies today are obsessed with teams. The “old” approach of static departments and hierarchies is out.

    12 条评论
  • Leadership Is the Key Skill Today

    Leadership Is the Key Skill Today

    Join our free “Intro” to our acclaimed course, Constructive Agility? for Leaders. (Formerly Agile 2 Foundations) It…

    5 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了