Archive for category Teams
Creating a Vision – An Analogy
Posted by cgrant in Business, Management, Teams on October 27, 2011
I’m a big fan of vision and mission statements. Many people think they’re fluff but I truly believe they are valuable tools. I think vision and mission statements are misunderstood, and are really much more difficult to write than one might think. For example should a vision change yearly? When you communicate your vision are you really communicating a road map of activities?
Here are two analogies I thought of that calls out the difference between a roadmap and a vision.
Scenario 1) As the leader of my family, i gather my children around and tell them. “Kids, we’ve got a good chunk of money put aside and we’re going to use it. Tomorrow we’re going to get up at the crack of dawn and get in the car. We’re going to spend 12 hours driving and then we’ll stop for the night. We’ve got 500 dollars allocated for this already. The next day we’ll get back in the car and drive another 12 hours. Here we’ll commit 3000 dollars over the next 5 days. after which we’ll get back in the car drive 12 hours stop for the night and drive another 12 hours the following day. Isn’t it great that Mommy and Daddy are spending this much money on you?”
How was that as a vision? Would my kids look forward to the literal and figurative Long road ahead?
Scenario 2) 
I gather my kids around and say. “Kids we’re taking a road trip to Disney World”
Of these two options which would inspire and drive my kids. Which would help them understand what the overall goal is.
The point here is that, to me, a vision is a long term objective that inspires people and conveys the destination. Something that even if there is a detour in the road, serves as a guide post helping you get back on path to the right direction. It helps you get through the long boring drives, or stressful days at work. It brings people together in a collective goal and guides teams toward a shared future.
A vision is more than a road map or a play by play of what is coming up next. A vision is communication of where we are trying to go, not how we’re are getting there.
Coffee Notes: How to Build an Agile Dev Team – The GE Way
Posted by cgrant in Coffee Notes, Management, Teams, Technology on January 11, 2011
“Building software in a waterfall approach, where there is a big milestone release at the end of the process, isn’t conducive to success in the modern world, according to top executives from the NYSE and GE.” –Kerner
This article by Sean Michael Kerner reviews interviews with Robert Kerner, vice-president at New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and Matt Merchant, CTO, GE Corporate on software development practices in their companies.
An interesting and view on what happens when leaders “get it”.
Layers of Architecture
Posted by cgrant in Architecture, Career Development, Development, Java, Management, Teams, Technology on October 16, 2009
There are tons of architects out there today. It seems when you’ve spent enough time as a developer, you end up becoming an architect. Architecture is not just the next step in a developers career. There are whole new disciplines and methodologies applicable to architecture. That said here are the common levels of architecture.
Enterprise Architecture (planner)
Enterprise architecture is a high level field that concentrates on how the various domains or subject areas interact. This layer spends even more time focusing on how technology will be utilized in the future, and governing how it is used today. Enterprise architects work to create technology roadmaps and work with the business to plan for the implementation. Enterprise architects create technology projects. It is at this layer where frameworks like TOGAF and taxonomies like Zachman come into play. This layer view the enterprise as a holistic entity.
Solution Architecture (designer)
A solution is an answer to a question. The question in this case is typically an IT project. The solution architect’s primary objective is to design a solution that meets the projects requirements and also falls in line with the domain and enterprise architecture guidelines. The solution architect is responsible for coordinating with multiple domain architects to design the most appropriate solution. A solution architect may interact with domain architects in infrastructure, web services, data management, and so on. During the course of the project a solution architect will typically create many work products either for communicating the solution to a governance board, to explain the implantation to a developer and various other uses. These work products are eventually owned by the domain architect as codified knowledge of the system after the project implementation.
Domain Architecture (owner)
A domain is an area of focus. Domain architects are primarily focused on maintain a specific area of technology or a specific application. These architects are the owners and gatekeepers for a specific area. The work in this area is primarily concerned with the current state of the system. These architects are charged with managing the knowledge for their area. These architects are also responsible for keeping up to date on future projects related to the domain and guiding the designs to meet the overall objectives of the domain. A successful domain architect will know that a future project will require x functionality. When an active project is debating between two possible implementations, the domain architect will be able to guide solution toward the best of the two solutions that meet the future goals.
Application or System Architecture(builder)
The application or system architect is primarily focused on the implementation at hand. This is the most detailed level of architecture. An application architect, for instance, would be concerned with the most appropriate design pattern to use in a certain programming situations. These tend to evolve from the most advance developers and engineers. The primary focus here is to implement the best solution for a specific task. Work products that may be produced during this layer are primarily used to communicate to the developers or implementers. In many co-located environments a lead developer often fills this role and very few work products are actually produced. Instead the team may utilized whiteboards or code stubs to communicate the implementation. For larger more dispersed projects, or for outsourced solutions, the application or system architect has a more demanding role for providing detailed implantation instructions.
Conclusion
The various layers of architecture are not meant to be isolated entities. In most situations one architect will fill multiple roles at various levels. Each layer has a unique focus. Understanding the layers helps clarify responsibilities, activates and deliverables. From a career development standpoint individuals can use the layers as the basis for a personal gap analysis and learning plan.
I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.
Best of luck in all your endeavors.
Working with Offshore Teams: Tips from the Trenches
Posted by cgrant in Business, Management, Teams, Technology on October 8, 2009
I’ve had the opportunity to work with a variety of offshore teams on various projects. While very challenging these relationships can indeed be valuable. So how do you make the most of these partnerships? Here are a few observations.
Language
The most challenging piece of an offshore partnership is the language differences. While most business people around the world speak English, it will typically be a British version and/or be accompanied by a heavy accent. This all becomes more difficult when trying to communicate on a conference call with a choppy reception and the other end sounding like they’re in an auditorium.
How to deal with it. There is no good answer here. Two approaches seem to help, first have someone onsite to act as a translator. This is typically someone from the same vendor, who has been assigned onsite. Ultimately though you need to become accustom to the language, this only comes with time. Surround yourself with people who speak the language. Don’t be afraid to say you don’t understand. When on the phone be sure you’re able to concentrate on the call with little background noise or distractions. Overtime the accents will become more understandable and the language gaps will be clearer.
Communication
Surprisingly talking does not equal communication. When dealing with any remote team, clear communication is critical. 
To frequently conference calls are stressful and where in a normal situation you would ask for more information, on a call you may feel it’s too difficult and you’ll just send an email. Conference calls are critical for a project. Don’t let them go to waste. Ask questions be sure that your question was understood correctly. I’ve found it’s difficult to get participation from an offshore team on a conference call. Typically one individual will do all the talking. Work to get more than yes and no answers and more participation from the whole team. Also in these calls try to encourage conversation outside the simple status updates, you might find out important information.
Beyond the conference call its important to follow up with a clear recap of what occurred on the call. This helps make sure everyone on the call is on the same page and all action items are assigned. With any remote team, following the activates between discussions is difficult. Use email frequently. Insist on a formal agenda and meeting minutes. Clarify action items and blocking issues. If a blocking issue does arise take care of it immediately.
Culture
There are significant culture differences that come into play when dealing with international vendors. These culture differences are stem from national/ethnic traits, to corporate/vendor culture. There are traits that surface simply due to the continued relocation of team members.
My experience has been that Indians don’t tend to question authority. I’m not saying challenge authority, but rather look for clarification and understanding. 
What seems to happen is that individuals will take a message from a higher-up or client that may not be clear, and instead of working with the source to understand it, they will go to their peers to help understand the message. While this may work in some situations, often times it takes much longer to get the right information. When this works the best is when there are a series of mentors available to the offshore team. A series of experienced individuals various team members can turn to. To help this process, try to keep one vendor and one team as long as possible. Inevitably the vendor will swap out resources on you but hopefully you can hang on to a few key resources that can fill this mentor role. When working one-on-one with an offshore resource be sure you have been understood clearly, ask them to repeat what needs to be done, not simply do you understand.
Working culture. These guys work hard, really really hard. They work nights and weekends, often they work far from their families. Even in India they will travel to different cities to work in central location for a client. It is so important to realize these guys a working really hard for you. Take time to make that personal connection with them (if they let you). Get to know your offshore team by name. Express your gratitude to them individually for their effort. A note about working habits, since these folks don’t technically work for you, they may not tell you when they’re going on vacation. Ask regularly when upcoming holidays are and what vacations are planned so you don’t end up with a skeleton crew right before a huge deployment. If you have on site resources realize when they take vacation it’s typically for a month so they can get back to India.
Conclusion
Offshore and outsource projects can be highly effective if leaders take the time to consider the variety of challenges the show up in these situations. Communication is always a critical component of any business initiative. In an offshore model communication is more important than ever. Leaders are dealing time zone changes, language differences, and cultural differences. All these challenges can be overcome with increased and clear communication.
Team Conflict Resolution
Posted by cgrant in Business, Management, Teams on September 22, 2009
Importance of conflict resolution strategies
Successful teams (and families) are the amalgamation of many different individuals into a cohesive unit. With this variety of personalities it is critical that team leaders understand how to effectively manage conflicts. While some may argue the best solution is prevention, others believe conflict is inevitable and can be healthy for a team. Regardless of philosophy successful teams will, at some point, be confronted with conflict within the group. “Conflicts are part of individual relationships and organizational development, and no relationship or organization can hope to mature to productivity and be successful without being able to resolve conflicts effectively” (Cottringer, 1997).
Facilitating conflict resolution is a skill all team leaders should understand. Various processes exist to manage these events and all forms the facilitator and team members must agree on the means for resolution. “In order for a team to be successful, it is essential that members know the basics of conflict resolution, delegation, and consensus building” (Convey, 1994). When the team members are unclear on the process or unable to implement an agreed upon resolution process, additional conflicts can arise from the mediation. One of the first steps, when brining a team together, is defining the team charter. It is within this charter that the process for conflict resolution should be noted. Additionally team members should be educated in the basics of the mediation process. With this foundational knowledge the team can effectively work through conflicts as they arise.
Sources of conflict
The sources of conflict can be as varied as the individuals within the team. These sources can range from working style to personalities conflicts. Understanding the various sources of conflict enables the leader to work through the resolution process more effectively. For example, in a large organization nearby, a project team was experiencing a series of conflicts. Analysis of the sources indicated misunderstandings on what the problems were that the team was actually facing. A few individuals stated the team produced poor quality work while others stated the work was not being completed on time. As this team discussed the conflict a second source became evident. The organization and team had conflicting understanding of the goals the team was striving toward. Significant pressure was being placed on quantity while the core team was attempting to work on the quality of the solution. Even where the overall goals were agreed upon, there were additional conflicts regarding the on the strategies and tactics to achieve those goals. What we see on the surface of a conflict is only the tip of the iceberg (McDaniel & Carstarphen, Solving Conflicts – Building Trust!, 2004). Leaders and team members need to dig in and understand the true sources of the conflict in order to devise the appropriate solution. Approaching a conflict with partial information may result in a solution that address only part of the problem or maybe none at all.
The Conflict-Concerns-Goals-Actions (CCGA) Process
Various processes exist that enable the team to gain the required understanding of the conflict. Most successful processes follow a standard flow of conflict identification, understanding the various concerns, clarifying the goals, and identifying possible actions (McDaniel, Conflict to Cooperation, 2005). This flow is called the CCGA process, for Conflict, Concerns, Goals, 
Actions. “The value of the CCGA process is that it “short circuits” our tendency to simply jump from our personal understanding of the conflict directly into a solution before considering other worthy factors.” (McDaniel & Carstarphen, 2004).
The first stage of this process is agreeing on what the conflict is. This process accomplishes two key elements, first it calls out the fact that there is a conflict within the team and it clarifies what the conflict is. With the team members in agreement on the issue, the group can move on to the second phase, Concerns. In this second stage the facilitator work to uncover the issues and motivations that are driving the conflict from each party. This process requires the team have a level of trust to begin with. In the concerns phase the team members begin to use that trust when discussing their concerns. As the concerns are raised a variety of emotions can flood the discussion. The facilitator and team need to be able to trust each other enough and communicate effectively to work through this process. Once the individual’s concerns are understood, the group can move to clarifying the goals. In the third stage the team answers the question “what are we trying to accomplish”. Clarifying the objectives sets a flag for the team to use as a guide when determining a course of action. With the goals understood the team is now free to move on to discuss possible actions for resolving the conflict. While named CCGA, there is an additional “C” which truly enables the whole process. This process relies heavily on communication. The success of this process comes from the communication abilities of those involved. Being able to trust and communicate through the discussion without attacking or withdrawing is critical to successful resolution. These qualities need to be exhibited by both the facilitator, and team members.
Conclusion
“As a team leader, one must realize the paradox that surrounds conflict. The team needs to embrace conflict as a means of generating and evaluating ideas. While at the same time, it must shy away from it to prevent anger, frustration, or alienation. The biggest challenge for the team leader is figuring out how to balance these two forces” (Brockmann, 1996) Utilizing a standard process for conflict resolution provides the team with a basis for trust in discussing issues. Working through this process enables the team to understand all the elements creating the friction as well. The CCGA process also helps the team work through solutions that address not only the conflict itself but the underlying concerns the team members have. Working with the human side of teams can be difficult, but it can also be rewarding. Following an agreed upon process such as the CCGA enable teams to work through issues ranging from lunch plans to even the most emotionally charge conflicts, through a defined communication process.
References
Brockmann, E. (1996). Removing the paradox of conflict from group decisions. Academy of Management Executive , Vol 10 (Issue 2), p 61-62.
Convey, S. (1994). Performance measurement in cross-functional teams. CMA Magazine , Vol 68(Issue 8), p 13-15.
Cottringer, W. (1997). Conflict Management. Executive Excellence Magazine , Vol 14 (Issue 8), p 6.
McDaniel, G. (2005). Conflict to Cooperation. Austin: 1st World Library.
McDaniel, G., & Carstarphen, M. (2004, Apr). Solving Conflicts – Building Trust! Retrieved Jan 30, 2009, from Texasnonprofits: http://www.txnp.org/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=1482
Townsley, C. A. (2008). Resolving Conflict in Work Teams. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Team Building Directory: http://www.innovativeteambuilding.co.uk/pages/articles/conflicts.htm
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Teams category.
Shared on Google Reader- Working with Git - Part 1 - Our initial experience
- Jenkins: The Definitive Guide
- A Google-a-Day Puzzle for Monday, June 13th
- Creating a Code 39 Barcode using HTML, CSS and Javascript
- Tech Comics: "The Busy Coder"
- Laws of Software Design
- Unit Test Patterns: The Domain Test Values Class
- Spring & JUnit - What you Don't Know
- 15 Lightweight and Minimal CSS Frameworks
- Should Schools Go Back to 1983 Technology?
