Team accountability


Published on

How we introduced a system for Scrum Team accountability using ratings at the end of each iteration.

Published in: Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I use the word “Pig” very affectionatelyWe define a Pig as meeting all of three criteriaDedicated to a product sprint 100% of the time (we count any non sprint work as an obstacle to the sprintGets and submits peer ratingsSprints on any ProductWe did three Sprints before we started rating people. We have a rule that a Pig has to complete a two Sprints before than be ratedWhen we did our survey, the most interesting results came from the text responses.
  • Enterprise applications written by one developer, with no version control and no automated testingOne hit wonders caused tools to be rewritten over and over
  • Team accountability

    1. 1. Team Accountability<br />Applying metrics to Team Member feedback<br />
    2. 2. Topics<br />My Pig Pen<br />The Pigs<br />Developing the Rating System<br />Implementation<br />6 Month Survey<br />Adaptations<br />
    3. 3. My Pig Pen<br />Reorganization – August 2008<br />10 – 12 developers from 3 organizations merged.<br />Product space included several technologies (REXX, WinBatch, VBScript, C#, C++, Vb6, PLSQL, TSQL)<br />Limited use of source control<br />No automated testing<br />
    4. 4. My Pig Pen<br />Product Space<br />Approximately 30 “tools” including web sites, GUI apps and command line apps.<br />Significant certification and accreditation hurdles<br />Scale – 350,000 user seats in 12 time zones<br />
    5. 5. My Pig Pen<br />Culture<br />No team development<br />High interrupts, extreme lack of organizational focus<br />Certification process induces wait states<br />“Copy Paste” development<br />HDD (Hope Driven Development)<br />
    6. 6. The Pigs<br />Senior technical people<br />10+ years of experience<br />Non coding “architects”<br />No familiarity with Agile Scrum<br />Mid-level developers<br />3 – 10 years of experience<br />Legacy (C++, VBscript, VB6) skills<br />No team experience<br />Junior developers<br />1 – 3 years of experience<br />Scripting languages<br />No team experience<br />
    7. 7. Pig Rating System<br />Leadership outlined<br />Anonymous<br />Each iteration<br />RATING not RANKING<br />Component of Performance Review<br />6 Categories<br />Selected by Pigs over 2 one hour meetings<br />Initial list had 4 categories. Final list had 6.<br />Each Category has several elements<br />Each category included several elements, designed to standardize the components include in a category<br />Identified by Pigs over 2 more one hour sessions<br />Posted on SharePoint as Discussion topics to allow the Pigs to clarify what the elements mean<br />
    8. 8. Requirements Contribution<br /> Identified Use Cases<br />Conducted interviews with selected customer/user representatives<br />Identified scoping/bounding conditions on user requirements<br />
    9. 9. Design Contribution<br />Created appropriate and useful Agile design artifacts and models<br />Implemented best practices<br />Environmental Security Requirements<br />Software Industry<br />Implemented Patterns<br />Designed based on re-use of existing code/services<br />Design for run / sero outage<br />
    10. 10. Technical Contribution<br />Contributed to code according to ability / REQUIRED documents<br />Wrote good code / REQUIRED documents<br />Solved technical problems<br />Provided technical help to other team members<br />Improved abilities throughout the sprint<br />
    11. 11. Quality Contribution<br />Identified data to use in testing during the Sprint Planning week<br />Designed automated tests<br />Implemented "mistake proofing" practices<br />Executed / recorded tests for code they developed<br />Executed integration tests<br />Designed end user tests<br />
    12. 12. Scrum Contribution<br />Participation during Sprint Planning week<br />Added clarification to features<br />Participation in Sprint Kickoff<br />Participation in daily SCRUMs<br />Daily Since / Before<br />Obstacles recorded<br />Participation in Sprint Closeout<br />Performed a named role in the close out<br />Participation in Lessons Learned<br />Contributed written Individual Lessons Learned<br />
    13. 13. Teamwork Contribution<br />On time for meetings<br />Schedules and leads appropriate meetings<br />Readily available on phone / LCS - Logs on to LCS religiously and is available via all communication channels readily.   <br />Returns phone calls/e-mails promptly - Promptly responds to any emails/messages.<br />Created material for meetings - Taking notes, creating UML drawings, etc.<br />Identified tasks - Actively identifies tasks that need to be completed<br />Volunteered for tasks - Takes the initiative to volunteer for tasks<br />Helped with non-technical issues - Assists fellow team members with non-technical issues (i.e. Forwarding emails)<br />Made the work fun<br />Accept and provide constructive opinions and options<br />Solve relevant interpersonal problems<br />Maintain Sprint velocity<br />
    14. 14. Iteration Input<br />Spreadsheet per team per iteration<br />Numeric rating (1 [high] – 4 [low])<br />Everyone rates everyone else<br />Anonymous<br />
    15. 15. Iteration Feedback<br />Team average<br />My scores<br />
    16. 16. Trends<br />Consistency<br />Are Pigs generally rated the same across various combinations<br />Normalization<br />Over time does the standard of deviation decreases<br />Improvements<br />Do the ratings move as we emphasize specific Agile areas (Requirements, Design, Coding)?<br />
    17. 17. Results<br />
    18. 18. Summary<br />Scrum Team members must have a mechanism to hold each other accountable<br />Ratings, NOT Rankings<br />Leadership establishes the broad guidelines<br />Team Members establish the specifics and standards<br />Tied to performance reviews<br />