3518RE: [agile-usability] Re: versus collocated teams
- Jun 5, 2007Hi guys,
As much as I have enjoyed this thread, I think it may be time to bring
it to a close.
Lots of really good points and views have been expressed and shared (on
both sides of the issue) and I don't think anyone is going to be able to
convince anyone else by pounding on the same arguments over and over
again (btw: I love that "Sam is not a good change agent" bit ;-)).
Maybe we should just leave it at that, take in what we have heard and
let it simmer for a while.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
> Sent: June 5, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [agile-usability] Re: versus collocated teams
> Hello, Owen. On Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 8:43:28 AM, you wrote:
> >> Please explain clearly how it could be better for the customer to
> >> have you, a long way away, [rather than] someone just as
> good as you,
> >> right there.
> > I probably can't. I don't have enough experience at managing
> > personalities. I have already outlined three areas where I
> think there
> > might be a logical benefit in terms of cost reduction, access to a
> > larger pool of resources, and ease of reconfigurability,
> but these are
> > just assertions. You know they are not backed up with the
> > that you have.
> My point is that you, the remote guy, have to be somehow "better"
> than a local guy. If someone you want to work for can find
> someone who is "just as good" as you are, and who wants to be
> present, it seems that such an individual will inherently be
> more "desirable" to someone who is recruiting.
> If that is true, and I believe it is, it should get you
> thinking in a different direction. You appear now to be
> thinking "Hey, it's just as good to be remote," despite the
> fact that the entire universe seems to be aligned against you
> on the other side of that line.
> Instead, it would seem to me to stop railing against (what I
> and many others perceive to be) reality, and instead start
> figuring out ways to offer things which will not likely be
> available locally.
> That might be some specialized skills, or just generally high
> power of some kind: I don't know.
> It would be a very tough sale for me. I would frankly prefer
> someone "rather good and local" over someone "very good and
> far away", because I've worked both ways and value the
> interactions that highly. Others might not find it quite such
> a tough sale, but I'm suggesting to you that it will be a sale.
> You are taking something off the table in the negotiation:
> easy face to face access. To make your sale, I think you'll
> need to put something back on the table that your customer
> will value at least that highly.
> > I don't follow Rugby Union: where the term Scrum comes
> from. However,
> > Allan Jones coached the Australian Rugby team. He isn't a
> role model
> > of mine. In fact in all ways but one possibly, it appears
> that he is
> > my antithesis. He lead Australia to successive Bledisloe Cup, Tri
> > Nations, and World Cup victories. Read an unauthorised
> biography put
> > together about him recently.
> > He had a saying that went something like this: "Play the
> ball, not the
> > man". I'm not sure that trying to discredit me will win
> your argument
> > in the long-run...
> I'm not trying to discredit you. I'm trying to help you to
> observe what you are saying and to begin to find ways to get
> what you want.
> > I'm feeling a bit threatened by your persistent questioning, please
> > forgive me if I have misread the situation.
> That pain you feel might be an indication that you're holding
> your head in the wrong position ...
> Ron Jeffries
> I cannot find my duck.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>