Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Debunking agile myths (with references)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Debunking agile myths (with references)

1,007
views

Published on

As presented at the Deutsche Scrum 2012

As presented at the Deutsche Scrum 2012

Published in: Technology

4 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,007
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
4
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Debunking Agile MythsPierluigi Pugliese
  • 2. Agile Books vs. Truth 2
  • 3. Agile Body of KnowledgeMight be true, but... 3
  • 4. Evidence? 4
  • 5. Research 5
  • 6. W.E.I.R.D. 6Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine, Ara Norenzayan, The weirdest people in the world?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences - BEHAV BRAIN SCI , vol. 33, no.2-3, pp. 61-83, 2010
  • 7. Challenging Assumptions 7
  • 8. Self Organisation
  • 9. Term Self-Organisation: Doubts? 9
  • 10. Self what? 10
  • 11. Groups self-organise always! 11Any text about Group Dynamics!
  • 12. Self-Coordination: better? 12
  • 13. Is self-coordinated better? 13Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time pressure, andinterpersonal domi- nance. Small Group Research, 31, 131–157.
  • 14. Values
  • 15. What are Values? Simplicity• How do you use them? Reliability Communication Quality Honesty Courage Feedback Transparency 15
  • 16. Values: Nominalisations • Example: Honesty => be honest Exceptions? When? Who? With whom? be honest About what? How Validity? exactly? Context? 16Any Linguistic text
  • 17. And what about Beliefs and Goals? 17
  • 18. So now... We value honesty! Go! 18
  • 19. Values: Reaction to Life Conditions 19Clare Graves’ Theory
  • 20. Solution...• Avoid “Values”• Boundaries, emergence• Set Goals• Challenge Beliefs• Reflection processes• Support group dynamics 20
  • 21. To create a great team you must do...
  • 22. Team building heuristics: True or false? In my team there is [something]... How do I solve it?What do I do whena team member does [X]? The product owner does not listen to the team: what can I do? 22
  • 23. Team Cohesion • Belonging and Morale • Tendency to stick together • Trust and teamwork • Strong social forces to be a team • Belonging to something larger • Inclination to form social bonds 23Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables.Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.Nixon, H. L. (1979). The small group. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Thye, S. R., Yoon, J., & Lawler, E. J. (2002). The theory of relational cohesion: Review of a research pro- gram. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.),Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 139–166). New York: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.Chan, J., To, H., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. SocialIndicators Research, 75, 273–302.Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2008). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature.International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, published online, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x.
  • 24. Cohesion: Multi-Component Process • No “typical” cohesive group • No “core components” of cohesion • Components: • Social • Task • Emotional • Perceived 24Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7–26.Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.
  • 25. Some ideas... • Smaller group => higher probability of cohesion • Stable teams => increase cohesiveness • Initiation to the group => investment in the group 25Many. For example:Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30, 558–581.
  • 26. No conflicts in my team! Good or bad? 26Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • 27. Cohesive group... Good or bad? 27For example:Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and perfor- mance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of constructrelations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 24, 168–188.Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and taskinterdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.
  • 28. Cohesive groups and performance What is the cause and what is the effect? 28Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integra- tion. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
  • 29. Solution: Informed Experiments 29
  • 30. Timeboxing
  • 31. Is timeboxing useful? 31
  • 32. Experimental results • Faster delivery • Less creative solutions • Increasing time pressure later does not impact creativity 32http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/24/2/179.abstracthttp://sgr.sagepub.com/content/21/3/283.abstract
  • 33. Timeboxing: Time awareness 33
  • 34. Explore and Verify! 36
  • 35. Questions?
  • 36. Pierluigi Pugliesehttp://blog.connexxo.com