Facilitator: Tobias Mayer
”We value… Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”
Overview
The workshop was interactive and experiential in nature. It explored the themes ofThe workshop was held at Agile 2005, Denver, Colorado on 27 July 2005
Participants:
Patrick Bruss, Todd Bradley, Todd Greene, Debbie Martin, Rich Jochems, Steve March, Karen Gawloski, Bob Michiels, Tom Seffernick, Steve Adolph, Rebecca Wirfs-Brock, Purushottam Kumar, Mike Long, Boris Gloger, (plus one)
Workshop
The room was set with a circle of 16 chairs at one end of the room. The rest of the space was empty. Laptops were excluded from the session. We started the session sitting in the circle.
1. Introduction
...was along the lines of ”...the way of working today, and many of the exercises have their roots in a non-software area: that of working with disenfranchised youth as part of probation services, education services, and government training programs in inner-city London. There are similarities – stay open-minded…
The long-range focus of this way of working is towards self-actualization and collective empowerment, but at a shorter range each exercise has its own primary focus that directly relates to the qualities we ask of people who work in an Agile environment. Today we will be looking essentially at courage, self-organization and change.
Although the title of the session is Agile Thinking, the exercises themselves are less about thinking and more about action – about doing stuff. It is the doing that helps shape the thinking. It is suggested that when taking these exercises back to your own organizations that they be used in conjunction with more traditional presentation methods, and expressly used to help cultivate an Agile mindset. As you become more familiar with this way of working you may choose to run whole sessions of this type.”
2. Who are we? (Icebreaker)
Talk with the person next to you for two minutes. Do not discuss your job, or anything to do with software. Each share one thing about yourself that is important to you, and that you are comfortable with the group knowing.
When everyone has finished talking (or time runs out) face back into the circle and take turns to introduce your partner to the group. At the end of this short exercise we knew we were among pilots, tennis players, parents, singers, theatre directors, bikers, marathon runners, playwrights, snowboarders, golfers, readers of spiritual books, home renovators and philosophers.
This exercise creates a space for people to exist beyond the confines of their job. The focus shifts away from jobs and roles and onto the actual individuals. Even when working with a team of people who already know each other you may find that the individuals look at each other through new lenses, often with a nice mixture of curiosity and respect.
3. The Triangle Game (on our feet now, in the open space)
There is a full description of this exercise here, including some debrief notes.
In this particular session much of the focus of the feedback was on the benefits of refactoring (the first time I have seen this exercise have this particular focus). The teams self-organized into small, self contained subgroups where there were no dependencies with the larger group. This was the fastest way to resolution they found.
4. Complex Requirements
Organise into two teams. Assign a manager to one team; the other team will self-manage. The managed team must listen to the instructions of their manager and do what he tells them. The self-managed team can figure out their own way of meeting the requirements. Arrange the team into a ‘most-least’ line across the room according to the following criteria.Debrief: What happened? How did it make you feel? What was difficult? In this particular session the managed team had an “Agile” manager (well, naturally, this was Agile2005, after all!). Both teams thus performed in approximately similar ways and the intention of illustrating the difference was somewhat lost. However, what emerged was the importance of clarifying requirements, which is essential no matter what kind of process you use. Neither team fully understood “well-travelled” and simply made up their own definition. Both were wrong. Neither team asked the customer (i.e. the facilitator) to clarify, nor did they offer to help the customer to understand for himself what he was actually asking for (so often customers really don’t know). One team made the pertinent point: this was our first iteration, it will give you an opportunity to provide input based on what you can see.
5. Spaghetti
This exercise involves holding hands. Step out and be an observer if this makes you uncomfortable. Ask ten people to stand in two lines of five, shoulder to shoulder, facing each other, about an arms length away from those opposite you.
Ask people in one of the lines to raise their right arms, ask those on the other side to raise their left arms. Each person take the hand of someone opposite you – but not directly opposite. Now with you other hand take the hand of a different person opposite you. Much criss-crossing should be apparent.
This knot will untangle into a circle. Never let go of the hands you are holding. Nominate a manager and ask him/her to give the team members instructions to move in order to untangle the knot. No team member should move unless instructed. After a few minutes it becomes apparent that this is too complex a problem to be resolved this way.
Ask the manager to take a supportive/service role instead, and ask the team to solve the problem for themselves. They can ask their manager to assist them, e.g. provide external vision, shift an awkward limb, etc. if they need to.
Observe the behavior, and the interactions. This is a fascinating process to watch, but be prepared for it to take a little time (maybe up to 10 minutes); it may also appear to not be working. Have faith – it will resolve. When it does resolve there is usually great joy experienced by the team members – and often by the observers too.
Debrief: Particularly focus on the interactions between the team members and how that felt. In this session one observation was that ten people was too big for a single team, the group communicated only with those around them to reach the resolution, working almost as two subgroups, although the hands never separated. Discuss also the feelings that reaching resolution evoked.
6. Where do you stand?
This is a very simple exercise, but do not be fooled by that. It is an extremely powerful tool and if not used with caution could be damaging to a team’s moral and/or level of trust. Be careful. Put an “Agree” sign on one side of the room and a “Disagree” sign on the opposite side. The line connecting the two signs is a continuum. Tell the group you are about to make some statements and you want them to position themselves on the continuum, according to where they stand on that statement. There is to be no talking, just quietly place yourselves on the line. After each statement, when people are in position ask them to observe where others are and where they are in relation to others. Commentary is not needed. The statements used in this session were:In a team context, statements more about the product being built and the support of the organization for this team would be appropriate. When you first use this exercise, be cautious about any statements that could potentially create confrontation, animosity or fear within the team, such as “do you feel supported by your team mates?”. There is value in addressing that, but be confident the team feel safe with revealing such feelings.
7. The Grid Game
This game needs a flipchart or whiteboard. Draw an eight by eight square grid big enough for all to see. Draw a dot in each of the eight squares in the top row. Divide group into small teams of 3-4.
Instructions: Your objective is to fill all the dotted squares with black ink. You can only fill a dotted square if all the squares below are filled in. You have a pen each and fifteen minutes to do this, but you do not know how thick your pen will be. What strategy will you use to fill the dotted squares? (No actual filling of squares will happen; this is just a quick discussion to arrive at a strategy.)
What happens here is that the teams will likely come up with a strategy that gets most dotted squares filled in as possible – i.e. filling in a row at a time, rather than a column. The (reasonable) assumption is made that if getting all the dots filled in has value then getting some of the dots filled in has proportional value. This has direct correlation to the concept of building software in slices, rather than layers, according to XP and Scrum recommendations.
Facilitator note: I have only run this session twice. At this session (as participants will recall) the ‘thickness of pen’ and the exact meaning of ‘filled-in’ caused no little confusion. Perhaps people were determined to fully understand the requirements following the ‘Complex Requirements’ exercise (above). If anyone wants to improve on the set of instructions for this exercise, feel free. Consider it an exercise-in-progress – and feedback your comments to this page.
8. Power Sculpture
This exercise was developed by Augusto Boal as part of his "Great Game of Power" workshop. Power Sculpture is the first part of this workshop; it develops later into a more role-play based theatre experience.
For this exercise you need a small table, four to six chairs, and a water bottle (actually we used a take-out cup of Starbucks coffee). The objects are put into the middle of the open space in no particular setting. The group arrange themselves in a circle around the objects. Ask anyone in the group to enter the space and arrange the objects so as to make one object become more powerful, in relation to the other objects. Any of the objects can be moved or placed on top of each other, on their sides, upside down, or whatever, but none of the objects can be removed altogether from the space. The group may run through a great number of variations in the arrangement.
After each new arrangement ask the group to comment and discuss the arrangement. What does it bring up for them? The exercise can develop in a number of different ways, depending on the group and the facilitator. We explored the taking of power from a single object and distributing it to other objects. Again, this was simply done by moving the objects in the space. Minimal movement was required to change the dynamics.
This is a quiet, and thoughtful exercise, with little preconceived direction. It creates a space for the participants to explore the power dynamics at their own organization, and perhaps in other aspects of their lives. Some deep learning can occur in this space. It is difficult to express that in words, and this exercise really needs to be experienced to be fully appreciated.
Anyone interested in pursuing this further, and learning more should follow the links above or browse the Great Game of Power search results.
A nicer way to finish the session is to have the group just sit quietly for a minute, eyes closed and consider the session, or possibly use a specific wind-down exercise like Quiet Counting.