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

Re: [XP] Scaling Scrum and XP with Dynamic Governance

Expand Messages
  • Michael K Spayd
    Hello Everyone, Sociacracy is, from my point of view, a very sophisticated governance system, and is the literal father of Holcracy, which is another
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 15, 2012
      Hello Everyone,
      Sociacracy is, from my point of view, a very sophisticated governance
      system, and is the literal father of Holcracy,
      which is another governance system. It is quite consistent with the values
      of Agile and would be great for a
      company or department to adopt. The caveat is that most organizations are
      frankly not mature enough to use
      such a system, it is appropriate to a higher developmental level than they
      are at. Of course, the same could be
      said for most organizations chances of becoming truly agile.

      I recommend study/contemplation of both or either system as to what
      governance that is not rooted in the machine
      model and command and control assumptions looks like.

      Hope that is useful information.

      Best,
      Michael


      On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:

      > I do not know about it. Not sure if I'm sorry or not. It sounds kind of
      > pseudo to me. I suppose I should put it on my list of things to look into.
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Roth
      Hi Ron, As Michael Spayd says, it s a corporate governance system that s much more democratic than the more usual command and control corporate governance
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 15, 2012
        Hi Ron,

        As Michael Spayd says, it's a corporate governance system that's much
        more democratic than the more usual command and control corporate
        governance systems we love to hate. It was rebranded in the US as
        Dynamic Governance because of reactions to words that either begin with
        soc- or end with -ocracy.

        A well-functioning XP or Scrum team would probably recognize most of the
        team (called circle) practices except for the actual decision process,
        which is based on consent (not consensus as it's usually understood),
        not on majority vote. If someone wants to make a change to the current
        procedure, they make a proposal. The proposal is presumed to be adopted
        unless someone objects. Objections are worked through until they're
        either resolved or it's recognized that the proposal can't be achieved.
        The process is structured to make sure everyone has a voice: the
        facilitator calls on each person in turn; she does not recognize people
        who want to speak. The process is further structured so that the first
        round is reserved for clarifications, the second round for objections
        and then the third round to attempt resolution of the objections.

        A couple more qualifications: all, and I mean all, procedures are
        subject to revision. There's no such thing as a practice that can't be
        changed. Once a proposal is adopted, compliance is not optional - this
        is the same as Lean Manufacturing and most other functional team practices.

        Structures larger than a circle are based on multiple circles and a
        procedure called "double linking." That is, the subordinate circle has
        two delegates to the next superior circle, one of whom is the manager
        and the other is elected by the team. They have full voting powers so if
        a subordinate circle does not consent to a policy that affects them, it
        does not go into effect.

        My general impression is that Scrum/XP would be a natural fit for a
        Sociocratic organization, however I don't think that it's necessary in
        order to achieve scaling. The place where Sociocracy would work well is
        in getting agreed-on coding standards, protocols and similar things that
        cross teams, since the procedure for getting agreement among separate
        teams is essentially baked into the corporate culture.

        The system came from the Netherlands and the usual example is Endenburg
        Electric, an electrical contractor which has about 10,000 employees. I'm
        told it's accepted in some European countries as satisfying labor laws
        requiring employee participation. There's a book on it titled "We the
        People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy."
        http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Consenting-Deeper-Democracy/dp/0979282705

        Full disclosure: I had nothing whatever to do with writing the book, and
        I don't work for these people. I just like what they're doing.

        John Roth




        On 12/15/12 3:34 PM, RonJeffries wrote:
        >
        > Hi John, it's nice to hear from you ...
        >
        > On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, "jhrothjr" <JohnRoth1@...
        > <mailto:JohnRoth1%40gmail.com>> wrote:
        >
        > > I just saw this on the Sociocracy list -
        > http://www.socionet.us/dynamic-governance-is-scrums-big-brother/
        > >
        > > I presume you know about it. Opinions?
        >
        > I do not know about it. Not sure if I'm sorry or not. It sounds kind
        > of pseudo to me. I suppose I should put it on my list of things to
        > look into.
        >
        > What do you know about Sociocracy, in general or specifics?
        >
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > Impossible is not a fact. It is an opinion. -- Muhammad Ali
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • RonJeffries
        Hi John, ... It has the ring of something that would appeal to you, somehow. Thanks to you and Michael for the update about it. Seems interesting, and odd. Ron
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 15, 2012
          Hi John,

          On Dec 15, 2012, at 6:46 PM, John Roth <JohnRoth1@...> wrote:

          > Full disclosure: I had nothing whatever to do with writing the book, and
          > I don't work for these people. I just like what they're doing.


          It has the ring of something that would appeal to you, somehow.

          Thanks to you and Michael for the update about it. Seems interesting, and odd.

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way. -- Jessica Rabbit



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.