I just started using Agile methods in my job of running a software development team. We started our first sprint (iteration) Monday. We are not "both feet in" and only a few days have elapsed, but I already see a difference in the team's sense of urgency and energy level. We are using Rally, an Agile project management tool, to help us run the project. Our first iteration size is 2 weeks. The team was already a reasonably high-productivity team since, in general, everyone on the team is committed to getting things done the right way. What was missing was a little more structure and focus.
We met Monday morning to agree on the list of Stories (collections of tasks) for the iteration and make general estimates of the size of each. By the end of the day most team members had broken down the stories into multiple tasks with concrete estimates in hours for each one. Rally rolls up all hours estimated in tasks into the Story level and provides various views including full iteration and team member allocation. We met the next morning to make any adjustments, agree that the amount of work to accomplish in the 2 weeks seems to fit and clarify any other concepts that were fuzzy.
The team is new to Agile thinking for the most part. As manager of the team I mostly cover the role of ScrumMaster (to use a Scrum term). Scrum is a specific methodology of Agile. When I say that we are not "all in" I mean that we do not do everything recommended in the Agile literature. For example, we use email for daily status instead of daily face-to-face standups. This was a practice already in place when I arrived on the scene late last year. It seems to work well, and we have tweaked it a bit and critiqued it recently to try to make it better.
I subscribe to the method of gradually going Agile. I believe that if you have a team that is already flexible and productive, moving to Agile is a natural evolution. Not being burdened with a heavy Waterfall culture is a real benefit. A small-company environment where there is already fundamental trust and a little bit of development anarchy is much more of a blank slate in which to imprint a particular process, and Agile methods are a natural step.
There is a lot of information that preaches that Agile will fail unless undertaken under the watchful care of expert consultants and training programs. A lot of this information is produced by companies who make their living creating Agile development tools. I am not heeding that advice, and instead trusting that I know what I am doing from reading and leveraging over 25 years of experience developing and managing software teams in a variety of business circumstances and processes.
I may continue to post as the experience unfolds to record the pros, cons and results of this experiment.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Unity and Religious Science
The two religious movements seem to have come out of a similar motivation and time. Both movements have roots in the 19th century and accept all spiritual paths, Christianity and otherwise. Both movements have a connection to Eastern religious principles, but to differing degrees. Both movements appear to be motivated toward a metaphysical interpretation of the Bible, the New Testament Gospels in particular. Both movements emphasize the oneness of the Universe and our ability to get in touch with the One Presence.
I was surprised when I visited a Unity Church bookstore recently that I found no books about Religious Science. From my limited exposure to both approaches, I thought they share fundamental concepts. The differences seem to be in style and emphasis.
Religious Science appears to be a bit more theologically broad and to emphasize philosophy, metaphysics and concepts from Emerson, Science and Eastern religions a bit more. Bible acceptance is focused on the Gospels, although Ernest Holmes Science of Mind writings reference Bible scripture across the board. Unity appears to be a bit more rooted in traditional Christianity, with much more use of Christian scripture during services.
Both movements are a very refreshing approach to spiritual progress. Accepting all paths and pulling concepts from Science, Philosophy, Eastern Theology as well as New Testament Christianity is a recipe for enlightenment and practical application to modern life.
I was surprised when I visited a Unity Church bookstore recently that I found no books about Religious Science. From my limited exposure to both approaches, I thought they share fundamental concepts. The differences seem to be in style and emphasis.
Religious Science appears to be a bit more theologically broad and to emphasize philosophy, metaphysics and concepts from Emerson, Science and Eastern religions a bit more. Bible acceptance is focused on the Gospels, although Ernest Holmes Science of Mind writings reference Bible scripture across the board. Unity appears to be a bit more rooted in traditional Christianity, with much more use of Christian scripture during services.
Both movements are a very refreshing approach to spiritual progress. Accepting all paths and pulling concepts from Science, Philosophy, Eastern Theology as well as New Testament Christianity is a recipe for enlightenment and practical application to modern life.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Fast-forward and Drive-by Dating
Electronic dating has created an environment that allows fast-forward or drive-by dating. It has been a long time since I participated in online dating, but recently I paused to reflect on the past experience and decided to record my impressions here.
Drive-by dating happens because it becomes easy to browse a lot of people once hooked up to a dating site. Even if you try to meet only the ones where there is a shred of interest, the numbers can be high. This can lead to many one or two time dates where you repeat the same story line over and over, listening to what the other says for possible elimination cues.
Even before that, the person may be eliminated mentally just from the first face to face impression, not necessarily because of physical characteristics, but because of the multiple dimensions of communication that occur in a first time meeting compared with email and phone conversations. You can know a whole lot more about a person within the first 2 minutes of a f2f meeting than a week of emails and phone calls. Sometimes this first impression can be over-ruled by a good conversation or unexpected common interests or interaction, but the first impression is very important.
On the other hand, fast-forward dating occurs when you actually meet someone you like. Back in the stone ages before the Internet, we'd usually meet people through mutual friends, at parties, at work etc. Lots of face to face time and personal and/or professional interaction may have occurred before a mutual attraction blossomed. Sometimes a romantic relationship was preceded by a long friendship. Lots of things might have been in place even before the first date including having mutual friends, knowledge about the other person's family, and day to day demeanor.
Not so with online dating. Since the question of "are they attracted to me" is already old news (remember we are talking about the online candidate you met and really liked), you can skip right to the affection. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Love at first site can get instant gratification. You don't have to do a lot of social activities you may not want to do just for the purpose of trying to figure out if the person is attracted to you or not.
The downside is that it can almost instantly propel what could be a good start into a committed relationship. You may feel like you know the person and like the person a lot but hasty actions or an implicit underlying soundtrack for a committed relationship might be overwhelming. In the olden days we might progress from casual conversation to acquaintanceship to friendship to dating (while dating other people) to exclusive dating. No need for such quaint customs these days :-). If the relationship doesn't work out right away, you may not even get the chance to meet the other person's friends and family, which might have weakened or strengthened the attraction in more grounded ways.
This speediness probably results in at least three outcomes.
One is where the commitment happens, then the relationship goes on for a while, but still has the attribute of fast-forwardness and burns out quickly, since on Internet Time, a month is like a year.
Another is where the desire to commit comes quickly but one person may have an existing relationship in some vague stage of progress or happiness. Making a quick decision is not possible (out of respect for the other person involved and the infancy of the new interaction), so the new relationship dies as quickly as it started due to impatience and the potential for dishonesty.
Then, I guess we have to allow for the success case, where there is love at first site, quick commitment, great compatibility and long term relationship.
Oh, well. It's great to have more ways to meet, communicate and get to know other human beings. The more connected we are to each other the better. We just need to be careful and respectful of everyone's feelings of course. It can be easy to unintentionally hurt someone or get hurt because of confusion, mis-communication or mis-understandings.
Drive-by dating happens because it becomes easy to browse a lot of people once hooked up to a dating site. Even if you try to meet only the ones where there is a shred of interest, the numbers can be high. This can lead to many one or two time dates where you repeat the same story line over and over, listening to what the other says for possible elimination cues.
Even before that, the person may be eliminated mentally just from the first face to face impression, not necessarily because of physical characteristics, but because of the multiple dimensions of communication that occur in a first time meeting compared with email and phone conversations. You can know a whole lot more about a person within the first 2 minutes of a f2f meeting than a week of emails and phone calls. Sometimes this first impression can be over-ruled by a good conversation or unexpected common interests or interaction, but the first impression is very important.
On the other hand, fast-forward dating occurs when you actually meet someone you like. Back in the stone ages before the Internet, we'd usually meet people through mutual friends, at parties, at work etc. Lots of face to face time and personal and/or professional interaction may have occurred before a mutual attraction blossomed. Sometimes a romantic relationship was preceded by a long friendship. Lots of things might have been in place even before the first date including having mutual friends, knowledge about the other person's family, and day to day demeanor.
Not so with online dating. Since the question of "are they attracted to me" is already old news (remember we are talking about the online candidate you met and really liked), you can skip right to the affection. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Love at first site can get instant gratification. You don't have to do a lot of social activities you may not want to do just for the purpose of trying to figure out if the person is attracted to you or not.
The downside is that it can almost instantly propel what could be a good start into a committed relationship. You may feel like you know the person and like the person a lot but hasty actions or an implicit underlying soundtrack for a committed relationship might be overwhelming. In the olden days we might progress from casual conversation to acquaintanceship to friendship to dating (while dating other people) to exclusive dating. No need for such quaint customs these days :-). If the relationship doesn't work out right away, you may not even get the chance to meet the other person's friends and family, which might have weakened or strengthened the attraction in more grounded ways.
This speediness probably results in at least three outcomes.
One is where the commitment happens, then the relationship goes on for a while, but still has the attribute of fast-forwardness and burns out quickly, since on Internet Time, a month is like a year.
Another is where the desire to commit comes quickly but one person may have an existing relationship in some vague stage of progress or happiness. Making a quick decision is not possible (out of respect for the other person involved and the infancy of the new interaction), so the new relationship dies as quickly as it started due to impatience and the potential for dishonesty.
Then, I guess we have to allow for the success case, where there is love at first site, quick commitment, great compatibility and long term relationship.
Oh, well. It's great to have more ways to meet, communicate and get to know other human beings. The more connected we are to each other the better. We just need to be careful and respectful of everyone's feelings of course. It can be easy to unintentionally hurt someone or get hurt because of confusion, mis-communication or mis-understandings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)