19857Re: Experience with Rallydev's SLM tools?
- Mar 1, 2007Hi,
I think Ron has a good point here, in that all these technologies are
great when the people you are interacting with are not next to you.
But do you really want to be chatting on IM when the person is right
next to you? It happens - once you have IM, you would rather IM from
your desk than walk two cubicles away. Tools can be good if we
specifically look out for and avoid that anti-pattern.
I think distributed teams (multiple cities) have pretty much no choice
and these tools can be a great help for improving interaction in these
Colocated teams, on the other hand, have much better interaction
possibilities, and using a tool may not be neccesary. There could
still be good reasons for one - distant customer or remote executives
who want to see the progress, for example, or other special
requirements - but if everyone is colocated, I prefer to go low tech.
There is a fuzzy middle area where the team is distributed on
different floors or different offices in the same city, and the
decision must be taken whether to colocate the teams or use a tool.
I'd vote for colocation if possible, tool otherwise.
Catalyst - A project management tool for distributed and agile teams
Personal Blog: http://siddhi.blogspot.com
--- In email@example.com, Ron Jeffries
> Hello, Eb. On Wednesday, February 28, 2007, at 1:25:06 PM, you
> > I'd argue that web based tech has increased the amount of
> > interaction between people generally - I'd also note that I keep
> > in touch with a whole host of people via IM and Wiki's and
> > interaction is certainly up for me compared with the early 90's.
> I would think that most people would agree that technology has
> increased the options. As I type this message here, I am also having
> a chat with someone from Germany
> > I know Lewwwent and I know the team - they are anything but
> > isolated and non interactive - for photographic proof search
> > Flickr for "Pizza On Rails"
> > I think what is being exhibited here (generally not specifically
> > you G) is a generational gap in thinking about what interaction
> > is. MySpace, del.icio.us, Facebook, Blogs all that web 2.0 jazz -
> > has shown that plenty of people interact online and that some web
> > technologies actually just give you another option to face to face
> > real time interaction.
> Oddly enough, even those of us from several generations ago know
> that. We also prefer to date real women and pair program face to
> > Yes face to face real time is be better most of the time - but
> > that does not mean that technologically mediated comms channel are
> > all bad and lead to non agile behaviour.
> They aren't ALL bad and they don't LEAD to non-agile behavior. On
> the other hand they are not AS GOOD, and they HINDER agile behavior,
> to some degree.
> As someone who recommends things, I feel that it's best to push for
> the best, while accepting reality. But reality is changeable ... so
> accepting less isn't always as "pragmatic" as people think it is.
> As someone who has worked both ways ... and seen teams transition in
> both directions, I'm of the opinion that no one who hasn't gone all
> the way has a good enough sense of the value to decide not to go
> > I think we need some flexibility here in our thinking around what
> > it means to interact.
> I use email here because we can't talk. Doesn't mean it's best. IMO
> it's not.
> Ron Jeffries
> But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to
> truth, whatever it might turn out to be. -- Alan Watts
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>