We check whether we are already effective or whether we can improve
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 4:19 am
If we regularly talk about our goals, our work and our challenges, we are already doing a lot of things right. Looking beyond our own department, being open to giving and receiving feedback, and having the courage to question results all promote transparency.
In agile frameworks, communication is usually encouraged and strengthened, which in turn can have a positive impact on transparency. With the help of artifacts, events or even predefined processes, it is made easier for us to work transparently. In Scrum, the so-called daily - a kind of meeting - helps developers to make challenges that influence the sprint goal directly visible. The retrospective promotes discussion about which working methods from the last sprint should be retained and which we could change.
In general, Scrum is an excellent example of empiricism. The framework itself promotes transparency, while all events bring with them the idea of review and adaptation.
Reviewing means assessing a process, result or way of working. During the inspection, we then record what we have noticed. For example, it could be that we regularly run late for a certain meeting, that we have guatemala consumer email list not achieved the last sprint goals or that the same people always clash in discussions. But it could just as well be that we have had far fewer changes to developer tickets since we started having on-site workshops with the customer. We could also find that the sprint goal is achieved more often and there are fewer open tickets at the end of a sprint since the developers actively negotiated the sprint goal with the PO.
We cannot review everything we do or everything that happens in our environment, nor can we adapt everything at once. Our time for change is limited. So we try to focus on the essentials. Within our environment, it is a matter of dealing primarily with the things that either promise the greatest success or need to be solved most urgently.
When it comes to adaptation, we first and foremost think very carefully about what we spend our time on. Time that goes into adapting processes cannot be invested in project business.
Once we have decided on something, we define the goal and try to limit the effort required to achieve it. How much is solving the problem worth to us? If there isn't enough time, we look back at what we have done, check what we still need to do and prioritize.
It's nice to be aware of all the problems, but that alone won't improve anything. So we need people to focus on implementing the highest priority ideas. That could be an individual, an outsider, or the whole team.
continuity
Empiricism works. It even works if I apply it once. But is that enough? Empiricism is less a process that you have to start in order to reach your goal; it is more a way of working and thinking. This means that only when empiricism has entered people's minds and is being lived does its true potential unfold. Values and culture can support us in this.
We don't just brush our teeth once every few days. And if you want to get a tan, you don't just lie in the sun once and then stop. It's not enough to have spoken about the fact that you're stuck and need help in one of many situations. If we then keep quiet the next time and just keep working, who is being helped?
If we find that our development cycle is taking too long and we reduce it from four weeks to two weeks, then it won't be enough if we never talk about the cycle again. Maybe after six weeks we'll find that the results have gotten even worse. How fatal would it be not to make this transparent so that we can ultimately change it and learn from it.
Empiricism thrives on a mindset of openness. On a culture of feedback. It can even be really fun to regularly discuss what went well, what went badly, what we want to keep and what we want to change, and then plan how to change it.
We review what we do and adjust it if necessary. We continue to develop and improve constantly. It's hard work, but anyone who has experienced success once wants to experience it again.
Do you question what you do, think about how you can improve and plan for this? How transparent are you in your work?
In agile frameworks, communication is usually encouraged and strengthened, which in turn can have a positive impact on transparency. With the help of artifacts, events or even predefined processes, it is made easier for us to work transparently. In Scrum, the so-called daily - a kind of meeting - helps developers to make challenges that influence the sprint goal directly visible. The retrospective promotes discussion about which working methods from the last sprint should be retained and which we could change.
In general, Scrum is an excellent example of empiricism. The framework itself promotes transparency, while all events bring with them the idea of review and adaptation.
Reviewing means assessing a process, result or way of working. During the inspection, we then record what we have noticed. For example, it could be that we regularly run late for a certain meeting, that we have guatemala consumer email list not achieved the last sprint goals or that the same people always clash in discussions. But it could just as well be that we have had far fewer changes to developer tickets since we started having on-site workshops with the customer. We could also find that the sprint goal is achieved more often and there are fewer open tickets at the end of a sprint since the developers actively negotiated the sprint goal with the PO.
We cannot review everything we do or everything that happens in our environment, nor can we adapt everything at once. Our time for change is limited. So we try to focus on the essentials. Within our environment, it is a matter of dealing primarily with the things that either promise the greatest success or need to be solved most urgently.
When it comes to adaptation, we first and foremost think very carefully about what we spend our time on. Time that goes into adapting processes cannot be invested in project business.
Once we have decided on something, we define the goal and try to limit the effort required to achieve it. How much is solving the problem worth to us? If there isn't enough time, we look back at what we have done, check what we still need to do and prioritize.
It's nice to be aware of all the problems, but that alone won't improve anything. So we need people to focus on implementing the highest priority ideas. That could be an individual, an outsider, or the whole team.
continuity
Empiricism works. It even works if I apply it once. But is that enough? Empiricism is less a process that you have to start in order to reach your goal; it is more a way of working and thinking. This means that only when empiricism has entered people's minds and is being lived does its true potential unfold. Values and culture can support us in this.
We don't just brush our teeth once every few days. And if you want to get a tan, you don't just lie in the sun once and then stop. It's not enough to have spoken about the fact that you're stuck and need help in one of many situations. If we then keep quiet the next time and just keep working, who is being helped?
If we find that our development cycle is taking too long and we reduce it from four weeks to two weeks, then it won't be enough if we never talk about the cycle again. Maybe after six weeks we'll find that the results have gotten even worse. How fatal would it be not to make this transparent so that we can ultimately change it and learn from it.
Empiricism thrives on a mindset of openness. On a culture of feedback. It can even be really fun to regularly discuss what went well, what went badly, what we want to keep and what we want to change, and then plan how to change it.
We review what we do and adjust it if necessary. We continue to develop and improve constantly. It's hard work, but anyone who has experienced success once wants to experience it again.
Do you question what you do, think about how you can improve and plan for this? How transparent are you in your work?