« May 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Chicken silencer
Topic: Agile management

A few months ago, we started a discussion group based on the book, The Art of Agile Development by James Shore and Shane Warden. Almost from the first meeting, the topic of discussion broadened into agile practices in general and how some of our own projects were doing. It has been a very interesting and constructive experience, and probably will continue indefinitely, book or no book. The discussion group is a great way for ScrumMasters and other practitioners to share ideas, experiences, issues, and suggested solutions. Recently we tried a somewhat radical idea and had ScrumMasters facilitate the retrospectives of teams other than their own, without having much knowledge of what the other teams were doing or what their issues were. Now we're considering having team members cross-pollinate other teams by sitting in and pairing with them for a day or so at a time.

One participant told a story this week about his team's retrospective that I found noteworthy. It seems one of our managers attended the retrospective as a chicken. At one point, a team member said something that piqued the manager's interest, and he engaged in a lengthy discussion with that team member, right in the middle of the retrospective (which was timeboxed). He was allowed to go on with this without interruption. I asked the discussion group what they thought the ScrumMaster should have done in that situation. Bear in mind that this particular chicken is the direct manager of this particular ScrumMaster.

A participant suggested that the ScrumMaster might carefully, delicately take the manager aside after the retrospective and gently, diplomatically suggest that perhaps he might, just maybe, let the team get on with its business and to try and remember that usually, sometimes, you know, if it's all right with you, "chickens" maybe ought not to speak too much during the retrospective, since according to theory, only the "pigs" are allowed to speak. Several heads nodded in agreement.

I nodded, as well, and then asked the group if anyone had another suggestion, since some of the participants have been through a CSM course and they might have received some slightly different advice about this sort of situation. No one offered an alternative.

So I did.


"Chickens don't talk!"

If the ScrumMaster was afraid to say this to his own manager, it raises a question about whether we have a culture of trust in our organization, doesn't it? The Right Thing is always the Right Thing. It doesn't change based on who is or is not in the room at the moment.


Posted by Dave Nicolette at 10:40 AM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (4) | Permalink

Thursday, 15 May 2008 - 12:39 PM EDT

Name: "mark"
Home Page: http://adancingbabyinthemidnightsun.blogspot.com/

The chicken and pig thing works for the daily stand up but I don't think it applies to Retrospectives. The problem was the timebox, not that I spoke in the meeting. IMHO. If I'm wrong in my assertion, I'm open to correction or improved understanding.

 The difference to me is the daily standup has people meet afterward to work on issues that were brought to light. There is not a clear outlet for that in the retrospective. We need to work out issues in some format. If that issue was not supposed to be addressed there, then the scrum master should say this not the appropriate format for this discussion but I will address that issue in this format. That is why the chicken and pig thing works in the daily standup well and does not work in other ways. There is not a formal place to allow issues to be addressed. However, I felt like the discussion underway was pertinent to a retrospective discussion format.

Thursday, 15 May 2008 - 2:40 PM EDT

Name: "Dave Nicolette"
Home Page: http://www.davenicolette.net/agile

Hi Mark,

You may be right - if the discussion was pertinent, it may have been best to go ahead and deal with it right then and there. The "right" approach may depend on circumstances. 

That same team has taken large issues out of a retrospective before, on one occasion I know of. Although there wasn't already a time slot in their iteration schedule for it, they made time for a follow-up meeting to deal with questions that were not resolved during the retrospective itself. In that case, it was because some team members didn't feel "safe" in expressing certain concerns they had; the issues were raised off-line, one-on-one in the hall outside the team room...maybe not the healthiest way. In other cases, there may be a "large" issue that can't be resolved within the allotted timebox just because of its scope.

I guess there's no fixed formula for any of this, although there are general guidelines and good practices. People have to use judgment and try to stay focused on goals. Agile methods are rigorous but not rigid - if it makes sense to address an issue outside the retrospective's timebox, then we can go ahead and do so. Meeting the project's goals is more important than following a predefined process. 

Thanks for your feedback. 

Thursday, 22 May 2008 - 10:01 AM EDT

Name: "Alex"

You are missing the point of agile, it is about encouraging collaboration and making people feel safe doing so.  Your suggestion to use airhorns to silence people would make your teams scared to talk.  A scrummaster must facilitate the process and if the questions asked are yielding value then they should always be allowed.   The scrummaster is not a policeman but an enabler.

Your flavor of agile seems to revolve around telling people what to do and limiting the time they have to do things.  You should study kaizen and techniques from Toyota, everyone has a voice and improvements are applied continuously.   This chicken and pigs approach is immature and prevents communication. 

Saturday, 14 June 2008 - 1:59 AM EDT

Name: "Dave Nicolette"
Home Page: http://www.davenicolette.net/agile

Hi Alex,

Thanks for setting me straight about agile. 

View Latest Entries