Overview
This process has three parts. The first part is a brainstorming session, the second is a silent reorganization, and the third is a group discussion.
* * *
Preparation
In preparation, each participant should think of several specific things about the project that:
Could be improved
Went well
* * *
Timing
It is best to use the Lessons Learned process relatively soon after the completion of the project milestone or event, so that participants still have it fresh in their minds.
* * *
Time
Expect this process to take between one-half hour and two hours, depending on the project size, the number of participants, and the complexity. With some experience, you will be able to judge the time required based on the amount of material to be covered. In turn, you should space the Lessons Learned sessions so that the target time allocation for this process is approximately one hour.
* * *
Roles
There is one facilitator, one scribe, and several participants. The facilitator leads the team through the process. He/she should be as unbiased as possible, which means the facilitator is often not part of the project team (however, this is not a requirement). The scribe captures team comments that don’t get written down during the exercise for inclusion in the write-up. Participants may include any team member or stakeholder of the project.
* * *
Setting
This exercise is best performed in a conference room with a table and plenty of wall space or a whiteboard.
* * *
Supplies
Easel paper, large Post-It notes, markers, and tape.
* * *
Setup
Tape several pieces of easel paper together, and then tape them up on the wall in the conference room. Label them “What could be improved?” Tape together several more sheets of easel paper on another wall and label them “What went well?”
* * *
Process
Participant guidelines
Focus on the process and not on the people. Anything related to the project is fair game. No judgment should be passed on other people’s ideas. Only the participant presenting his/her idea should be speaking.
* * *
Facilitator guidelines
Remain unbiased. Try to get equal participation from the group. Do not let any individual or small group dominate the exercise. The facilitator can participate (if he/she so desires), but should be conscious to not lead the group in any particular direction. Help the group follow the process below.
* * *
What Could Be Improved?
Overview
These next two sections are where the brainstorming takes place. The idea is to get as many ideas on the table as possible. They do not have to be mainstream or hot ideas; in fact, it’s often the corner or edge cases that add the most long-term value since they are often overlooked.
* * *
Step 1
The facilitator asks the participants to write their top three to five “What could be improved?” ideas on Post-It notes (one idea per note). This should be done individually and without discussion.
* * *
Step 2
When the participants are done, the facilitator selects a random participant and puts her note up on the “What could be improved?” easel paper. The notes can be placed anywhere on the easel paper.
* * *
Step 3
When selected, the participant describes her idea/suggestion to the group. Other participants should not make comments agreeing or disagreeing with the idea being presented. Only questions of clarification may be asked.
* * *
Step 4
The facilitator then selects the next participant to present his idea. This goes on until all participants have presented one idea.
* * *
Step 5
Once everyone has presented one idea, the facilitator starts around the room again. This goes on until all ideas have been presented. Note: Ideas may start to be repeated, and this is okay. The discussion can be abbreviated.
* * *
What Went Well?
Overview
This section is the same as the previous one, except that it asks the question, “What went well?” For this process, the facilitator and participants repeat the steps 1–5inthe previous section to collect and brainstorm their ideas.
* * *
Silent Reorganization
Overview
There are probably numerous ideas on each side now. Many of the ideas are related, or only have minor differences. The intent of this section is to group the ideas into major themes. This is done in silence to prevent one or a few individuals from dominating/influencing the groupings.
* * *
Step 1
The facilitator invites half of the team to approach the “What could be improved?” idea set and the other half the “What went well?” idea set. The participants are instructed to move the notes into related groups. Anyone can move any note, including ones that have been moved by other participants. It is normal to see the same note moved several times back and forth by different members of the group. The catch is that there can be no talking during this part of the exercise.
* * *
Step 2
The participants should move between “What could be improved?” and “What went well?” so that they have the chance to work on both sets of ideas.
* * *
Step 3
If there appears to be a conflict about the placement of any particular note that cannot be resolved silently, the facilitator may duplicate the note and, thus, place it in multiple spots.
* * *
Step 4
Continue this process until the movement of notes stops.
* * *
Discussion
Overview
The facilitator leads the discussion on each of the major themes that emerged from the previous step.
* * *
Step 1
A heading should be agreed to by the team and added to each grouping of notes. The facilitator should also ask if there were any other themes/groupings that people noted but that got reorganized out. These should be captured now by adding the heading to the appropriate easel paper.
* * *
Step 2
New comments, suggestions, and ideas should be captured on a new note and added to the appropriate group.
* * *
Step 3
Once all of the groups of notes have been discussed, the facilitator should summarize the findings, identify any action items, and thank the team for participating.
* * *
Step 4
The facilitator should write up the results from the scribe’s notes and the easel paper, being sure not to move anything from its final resting point. (It’s a good idea to tape down the notes before taking down the easel paper.) There is not any editorializing done here. Simply capture the major themes, as well as the Post-It note comments under each one. Action items should be transferred to the team’s active “action item” list for follow up.
* * *
Step 5
Publish the results of Lessons Learned to the whole team, including the members that didn’t, or couldn’t, participate.
Archive the results and make them accessible for future review.
* * *
Chapter 6: The Agile Project Team
A project team that “gels” can be a joy to work on. A cohesive team is, very possibly, the key between success and failure in the agile environment. Most of us have had the good fortune to have been part of such a team at least once in our careers, but we probably have many more stories of mediocre and even dysfunctional teams. Numerous dynamics may combine to make a team “click”. This chapter is not about overall team dynamics; rather, it explores some of those characteristics common to the successful agile project team. If you are selecting your next team, then this chapter should give you some ideas about what to look for in your members. If you’re already part of a team, this chapter may give you some ideas to make your team more agile.
Common Skills
The so-called soft skills are a critical common denominator of agile team members. These skills include the ability to create and maintain relationships, interact with various levels and functions within the organization, flexibility, adaptability, and generally being a team player. These traits are commonly referred to in most discussions on team dynamics and, indeed, they are invaluable to any team.
In the agile environment, the value of solid interpersonal skills is amplified. Agile projects tend to pursue multiple simultaneous pathways. The agile team needs to be able to operate within and evolve this network of pathways to advance the overall project. The networked nature of the agile project team requires the average team member to interact directly with many more people in the organization than may be necessary in the classic environment, where members have well-defined and compartmentalized roles.
Broad technical skills are also a must for the agile team. This may seem obvious, but again, the need for technical know-how is some-what amplified in the agile environment. To maintain their responsiveness, agile teams are generally smaller. Fewer people per team means team members must be able to wear multiple hats. All relevant areas of expertise for the project must be covered, but there isn’t room for much overlap. If you’re responsible for a certain functional contribution to the team, then you must be able to carry the ball in that area. Others are available to collaborate with you, but you must be able to make the final determination. In other words, it is difficult for a rank novice, who is still learning on the job, to play a core role on an agile team.