Re: Remote versus collocated teams.
- Hello William.
--- In email@example.com, William Pietri <william@...>
> I don't manage anybody, but I have coached both sorts of team. When Imy
> say virtual, I mean with the individuals scattered hither and yon (in
> case, out of homes or personal offices) but acting as a team viaplace,
> screenshare, Skype, wikis, and other remote collaboration tech. Plus
> regular in-person meetings.
> These teams would all be more effective if they were in the same
> but other factors prevent that, and they are sufficiently productiveas
> it is.What makes you say that "[t]hese teams would all be more effective if
they were in the same place"?
- Here here Ron! Remote teamwork may be possible but it certainly
isn't ideal. Close collaboration without co-location is a
compromise, sometimes an essential one, but not one you'd advocate
as part of any methodology.
I sometimes like to think of this in terms of new business
startups. How many people would start a business and think, "I
know, let's base our development teams in multiple locations and
have the business owners of the product we're building in a
different place to the developers." For logistical reasons, sales
and other field-based teams maybe, for product development I think
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ron Jeffries
> Hello, Owen. On Sunday, June 3, 2007, at 11:01:30 PM, you wrote:
> > I realise that many people aren't in my position such that they
> > want hard facts to decide. Many are going to trust the opinionsof other
> > people they may think have seasoned opinions, because theyhaven't got
> > the time or the interest to decide for themselves. However, ifJohn
> > Kern's business, as a case in point, can demonstrate that the usepossible,
> > communications tools to facilitate a remote team discussion is
> > then shouldn't the Agile community be a little less hard onremote
> > teaming?want
> Owen, even Jon said that together would be better. Why would we
> to recommend something that wasn't the best we know?
> Ron Jeffries
> The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
> is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.