Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Remote versus collocated teams.

Expand Messages
  • Owen Thomas
    Hello Ron. ... work ... Yes, I realise that, never having yet had the opportunity to be involved in Agile development, my experience of of them is less than a
    Message 1 of 146 , Jun 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Ron.

      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Hello, Owen. On Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 11:55:22 PM, you
      > wrote:
      >
      > > I would assume that the programming I was asked to do was of
      > > functionality that had been worked out at several higher levels, and
      > > user documentation (if this is what you mean by asking me how my
      work
      > > gets documented) is being overseen by whomever I received the
      > > programming work from.
      >
      > Normally on an Agile team, the system design, how the objects
      > interact, and so on, is a team responsibility. As such, things like
      > this are determined via a lot of discussion. So things aren't so
      > much just handed out with some "higher level" god-like person doling
      > out work to what I think you have called "code-cutters". Code cutter
      > is not a job title in most Agile methods.

      Yes, I realise that, never having yet had the opportunity to be involved
      in Agile development, my experience of of them is less than a bit
      au-fait. I only have a very general knowledge of what is involved, but
      continual customer involvement, and quick release cycles are two reasons
      why Agile turned my head. I have worked in a more traditional Waterfall,
      and can see the common sense in adopting these two earlier mentioned
      approaches to handle changes in what is required while 'what is
      required' is taking shape.

      > Normally on an Agile team, we recommend that the programmers choose
      > their own work from the stories that the customer provides (or, less
      > ideally IMO, from the technical tasks that the team has determined
      > will implement the story). So again, as with the design, there isn't
      > someone doling out work to the programmers. There is, instead,
      > design discussion, task breakdown, and work selection.

      I see. While participating in this discussion, I have been coming to
      terms with more of what's involved, and I see that instead of having
      stuff pushed to team members so they can go away for a time and come
      back to 'hand over' what is needed, each team member takes away whatever
      they think their expertise and interests qualifies them to get involved
      in. I would agree that this is a much looser way of teamwork. It sounds
      like a good thing to do in a project for which the requirements are not
      static, and again, I see this as having much value in a lot of what goes
      on in agile projects.

      > When the team is all remote from each other, these discussions are
      > difficult to have. I'm not sure how you'd come up with a coherent
      > architecture and design in that situation, nor how you'd coordinate
      > the task and work breakdown. What I see most often is a much more
      > command and control approach, where work is handed much out as you
      > contemplate. That is not what I'd call an Agile approach at all.

      I don't see why your assertion should have to be so. Admittedly, there
      are tasks that have to get done that will require the collocated
      participation of two or more team members, and they will naturally
      collocate to undertake these tasks. However, it is still my belief that
      much (usually most) of what goes on in a project can be done with equal
      effect in a distributed environment. If I take a user story that
      involves the creation of some type of application, algorithm, or
      business process, I really don't see that so long as I have access to
      the development code base and documentation I need, and the people I
      need to talk to over IM, email, Skype, or phone, that I would
      necessarily be at a disadvantage to other team members, so long as they
      used these same methods to get the job done.

      I may agree that there are times (not for anything I would get involved
      in) that for the pace of change, two of more resources might derive some
      benefit from collocation. Such ideas, changing from one minute to the
      next, would be in a most embryonic state, and one can forget about
      writing a single line of code, or establishing a single process in
      relation to them. Ideas of that immaturity are far too volatile to get
      more than the prime stakeholders (possibly customer CEO's and the
      project's lead consultants) involved.

      It might be good to have a speaker phone handy which will allow members
      to lazily connect or contribute when the conversation drifts into topics
      that might be of interest to various remote resources as would be
      dictated by the natural flow of the conversation. A stenographer would
      transcribe the conversation in real-time, and publish this conversation,
      or minutes thereof to, say, an IRC channel, giving interested parties
      the opportunity to contribute without having to remain connected to the
      conference call. Additionally, the prime stake holders might want to
      contact a remote resource to elicit advice when they have a question.

      As the customer is continually involved in the project, they would have
      to be aware, and accepting of the communications channels that exist by
      virtue of the geographically distributed nature of the project's
      composition. I believe that the customer acceptance barrier, to me, may
      be more difficult to surmount than convincing the members of this mail
      group of the possibility that remote teaming is an Agile attribute that
      gets the job done.

      Might this work? Might this not work?

      Owen.
    • kswaters1
      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
      Message 146 of 146 , Jul 11 10:35 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        not.

        Kelly Waters
        http://www.allaboutagile.com


        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        >
        > 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
        would
        > > want hard facts to decide. Many are going to trust the opinions
        of other
        > > people they may think have seasoned opinions, because they
        haven't got
        > > the time or the interest to decide for themselves. However, if
        John
        > > Kern's business, as a case in point, can demonstrate that the use
        > > communications tools to facilitate a remote team discussion is
        possible,
        > > then shouldn't the Agile community be a little less hard on
        remote
        > > teaming?
        >
        > Owen, even Jon said that together would be better. Why would we
        want
        > to recommend something that wasn't the best we know?
        >
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
        > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.