Skip to main content

Scientia Potentia Est

It turns out the famous Francis Bacon phrase, "knowledge is power," doesn't actually appear in any Francis Bacon work.  According to our mutual best friend, Wikipedia, "The closest expression in Bacon's works is 'Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule.'"

Which just goes to show you that, once again, hearsay gets it a little bit wrong.

Scalable communication is tricky, and not least because people are conservative about letting too many people have access to too many facts.  Witness the current controversies over "internet freedom," spurred by the wikileaks events, or the Egyptian government's recent move to completely shut down the internet in that country.    But bringing this down to a level or two below that of national security, let's talk seriously about the phenomenon of "not having too many people in the room."

We've all heard the phrase.  "No, sorry, we don't want X there--it's going to be too many people in the room."  Does it bother you when you hear that?  It bothers me.  That is a statement which simply can't be taken at face value.  It is a "smell."  How many is too many?  What is really going on here?  Agilists, unfortunately, are as quick as anyone else to seek small rooms that don't have "too many people" in them, when conferring on important issues.  Why is this?
  • Comfort:  Sometimes, it's a matter of comfort for the small group of people who are talking things over.  Retrospectives, for example, are classically held by the "core" agile team, because the team itself needs to determine what things are going well, and what things are not going well, and how to fix them.  The last thing the core team needs is for everyone's line manager to hang around hearing reports of non-optimal behavior.  In some environments, it may be difficult enough even to develop trust across the core team.
  • Fear of spamming:  These days, we are barraged with information, and in particular, we all get a lot of email.  A lot.  So groups may feel better about having a small private meeting and then trusting to "word of mouth" to get the results out, rather than "bothering" others with information.  A colleague of mine just apologized to me for sending out three useful blast email messages yesterday, hardly a matter for shame and regret.  It's a slippery slope from "fear of spam" to "not too many people in the room, and the message never gets out."
  • Conflict avoidance:   Let's face it.  There are some people you just don't want in the room with you, because they are unpleasant and disruptive.  If you're not ready to have a complete "let's look at your future with this company" talk today, or if the person is senior to you and no-one will ever have that talk with the person, then it may be easiest to simply draw the line around the small room, and define "too many" as "the number in the group plus one," where one equals "Dysfunctional But Un-Removable Bob."
  • Familiarity:  Sometimes, we just don't think to include people in meetings, because we're used to always meeting with the same people, and we don't want to disrupt something that is working well.  Fair enough, but one person's "dream team" may be another person's "tenure clique."
  • Wanting to avoid "raw" messaging:  A pattern which may happen is that a small team may want to fine-tune its message before conveying it to others, to avoid giving offense, or to increase the impact of the message.  But then they don't actually send the message.  Is this you?  I think you should think about this!
The bottom line is that no matter what your reason for including or non-including people in the room, and despite the fact that Bacon never actually put it this way, knowledge is still power.  Transparency has to occur inside the room and if the room isn't big enough to include all 10,000 of your company's employees, then communication needs to occur outside the room as well.  Yes, asynchronously!  Even if the message is not well-crafted.

Popular posts from this blog

A Corporate Agile 10-point Checklist

I'm pretty sure my few remaining friends in the "small, collocated team agile" community are going to desert me after this, but I actually have a checklist of 10 things to think about if you're a product owner at a big company thinking of trying out some agile today.  Some of these might even apply to you if you're in a smaller place.  So at the risk of inciting an anti-checklist riot (I'm sorry, Pez!), I am putting this out there in case it is helpful to someone else.

Here's what you should think about:

1.Your staffing pattern.  A full agile project requires that you have the full team engaged for the whole duration of the project at the right ratios.  So as you provision the project, check to see whether you can arrange this staffing pattern.  If not, you will encounter risks because of missing people.  Concretely it means that:
a.You need your user experience people (if applicable) and your analysts at the beginning of the project, as always, b…

Requirements Traceability in Agile Software Development

One of the grim proving grounds for the would-be agile business analyst (henceforth "WBABA")  is the "traceability conversation."  Eventually, you will have to have one.  You may have seen one already.  If you haven't, you may want to half-avert your eyes as you read further.  It gets a little brutal.  But if you close them all the way, you can't read.
WBABA: in summary, we complete analysis on each story card, and then we support the developers as they build it that same iteration!Corporate Standards Guy:  but how do you do traceability in agile?  You have to have traceability.  It's broadly recognized as an important factor in building rigorous software systems. These software systems permeate our society and we must entrust them with lives of everyday people on a daily basis. [The last two sentences are an actual quotation from the Center of Excellence for Software Traceability website!] WBABA: [cowed silence]Corporate Standards …

The Agile Business Case

Many agile teams have never seen a business case, ever, and they may even be proud of it.

Our mantra is that we deliver "business value," not just "software," quicker, better, and faster, but if so, we certainly don't spend a lot of time reporting on value delivery, and in fact we may be scornful about "analysis paralysis."  As software developers, we consider ourselves to be doing quite well if we can deliver the software every two weeks (or continuously).  And this is particularly if we've enabled this frequent high-quality delivery through automated testing and automated build-and-release techniques.  We've reduced business risk by making results visible more often, and allowing the business to change direction more frequently.  We assert that along the way of course we're also delivering value.  But how would we prove it?

I've recently posited that we shouldn't even think of doing agile projects without capturing and recording s…