Road Trip

Imagine planning a long road trip, say from Texas to Alaska. Many Agile classes and presentations have used this as an analogy in exercises about adapting to change. The same analogy can demonstrate means of adaptation to using distributed resources on a multi-disciplinary team.

In the common analogy the trip is planned in great detail: the route, stopping points (restaurants, hotels, etc.), expected speeds, arrival time, etc.  Shortly into the trip, a relative calls requesting a favor.  Since the relative is close to your planned route you make a detour to help.  Alternatively, a newly discovered point of interest causes an unplanned stop.

Both cases put the plan at risk. After the side trip or stop, you can try to somehow return to your original plan but that might involve risking speeding tickets, potential backtracking, etc. It is more flexible to fall back to the high-level details—major milestones—and re-plan the rest as the need arises. The analogy further suggests starting with a high-level plan and adding details when needed is generally more effective and less stressful.

This analogy can be extended to talk about distributed teams. Consider planning the same trip with two vehicles. To help make the point, imagine it is the 1960s. The two cars of travelers would need to stay pretty close to each other.  Significant contingency plans would have to be made in case of separation. If a change to the overall plan were needed, the car wanting to deviate would need to wait for or catch up to the other car to tell them about the change. Then they have to update the plans on where to meet should they get separated.

In the 1970s, the two vehicles would be able to communicate with each other using CB radios. Should one want to deviate or if they are separated, they could coordinate over the radio—as long as they stayed within a few miles of each other.  They would still need a backup plan should they get out of CB range.

Today, we have mobile phones and text messaging with which we can stay in near-constant communication.  The cars would not need to stay in proximity and could still get in touch at a moment’s notice to ensure they ended up in the same place at the end of each day’s travels.  Contingency plans would be made in case one or both car’s lost their phones or lost cell coverage.  However, effective communication would be possible at any other time.

Similar advances have been made which allow distributed development teams to communicate. Years ago it might not have been possible for geographically-diverse teams to communicate on a regular basis.  Later, communication was possible but cost prohibitive.  Today, there are numerous tools (cheap intra-U.S. phone rates, IM, texting, VOIP, etc.).  Some contingencies are made in case the normal means of communications are interrupted however, there is no reason why a distributed team cannot communicate effectively and often to ensure they arrive at the same destination day-over-day, at the end of the sprint, and at the end of a project.

 

Global viewpoints: bright lines in the sand

Outsourcing is risky business. A large part of creating a company is building a set of values, organizing a team around a cause, creating and sharing a vibe with like-minded people. Hiring an outside vendor to do part of your company’s work is about sharing values and being on the same team with the people outside. Trying to share a vibe with people from afar, who belong to different cultures, can be extremely difficult and often leads to lots of great anecdotes, and many failed projects.

I recently came across an interesting blog post by Inna Kuznetsova, a CCO of a truly global company CEVA Logistics. Inna is no stranger to working with people from different cultures: she first made a career at IBM, where she originally joined Russian IBM headquarters, and later moved to a US-based post. Inna shared a few insights she’s discussed with a friend, an expert on understanding different cultures, on doing business in a global community:

• In some cultures, including American, once goals and milestones are set, the vendor is responsible for the execution. The customer expects to be notified of problems, and perceives lack of news as good news.
• In many other cultures, in particular, in India, the vendor expects the client to maintain tight control of the project. If the customer isn’t closely involved throughout the project, the vendor is genuinely surprised to learn at the end that the client has expected the work to follow agreed-upon schedule and quality standards, and is upset now.
• In Russia, a good boss is expected to take care of his people, both professionally and personally. In America, there are rules of the game which bosses and their subordinates follow: good corporate things happen to those who do their jobs well. In Holland, people want to feel equal across the corporate hierarchy, and thus the boss is expected to make suggestions, rather than final decisions, to the team.

When building a truly global business, learning and taking into account these differences is vital. However, cost savings on a typical software project for the American market rarely justifies the risk and the difficulties of managing a global, multicultural team.

Outsourcing across the globe brings drastically different expectations and experiences to the project, and almost never allows for the team members to build close enough relationships to discover and mitigate their differences for the benefit of the project.

Hiring a local vendor doesn’t guarantee success of a project, but it does make the project much less vulnerable to adverse business conditions.

Distributed Team Potential Pitfalls – Post #4: Distributed A(a)gile

This is the fourth in a series of posts on Distributed Team Potential Pitfalls.  This post will discuss potential risks when implementing the Agile methodology with Distributed teams.

No one will argue that having an Agile team all in the same place, on the same schedule, and 100% dedicated to the Agile project is the most ideal and most productive.  The immediacy and richness of the communications and interactions cannot be beat by any other method.  There are some whom say that even having a distributed team means you are not Agile.

However, unfortunately, that is not always the most cost effective for a business.  Businesses need to look at the tradeoffs between collocation and the possible delays using a distributed team.  The “Agile” in Agile Methodology is capitalized for a reason.  It has been changed from a verb, and the meaning has changed with it.  However, using the Webster Dictionary original agile definitions

• “marked by ready ability to move with quick easy grace”
• “having a quick resourceful and adaptable character”

can be more appropriate for what businesses need from a development team today.  A(a)gile adoption should consider the business needs in the true meaning of the word agile.

That being said, there will be little argument that multiple changes in the way the Agile Methodology is implemented will create a totally different “SDLC” environment in which the risks outweigh the benefits.  If having a distributed team is the only variance in the Agile philosophy then time is the only risk which will likely not be obviated.  The other potential risk, quality, can be assured by ensuring that all other Agile values and principles are observed.  Throwing any other Agile guideline by the way side could create more of a cargo cult and the risks start to grow exponentially.

I worked with one distributed team whom thought that the Agile Principle to “Welcome changing requirements, even late in development” meant that they didn’t have to create as many user stories as could possibly be known up front.  They opted to start with a subset of user stories and intentionally wait to write the rest.  Then to compound the challenge, they grouped remaining areas into epics with large story points and then provided a fixed schedule and cost estimate based on a different team’s velocity.  It didn’t take long to show, in this example, how the risks compounded.  It didn’t take long in the life of that project for them to compound as well.

I’ve seen some companies implement the Agile methodology with teams that have resources whom are only part time on that Agile project.  Again, compounding this with a distributed team environment increases the risk of failure exponentially.  All team members must be able to focus on the project at hand to avoid the time costs of context switching.  Likewise, each team member must be available for all other members at all times. This is even more important on a distributed team.

Obviously, as with any distributed team, there need to be tools and protocols in place at the beginning of the project to help the team communicate and mitigate that risk the distributed team incurs.  (This is discussed in two previous RuralSourceIT blog “POCs” and “Time Zones”.)  In today’s technological world there is no reason for distributed team members to not be able to communicate immediately with each other.

If having a distributed-team environment is the only deviation from the Agile Methodology then the risks can be minimized and a project can be successful.

 

Rural Sourcing Leads to Increased Productivity

 

Rural sourcing leads to increased productivity due to a less stressful environment.

Productivity of work is very important to the success of any individual, team or business. More and more businesses try to achieve greater efficiencies with fewer employees that allow the business to turn a higher profit.

In addition to factors including motivation, praise, self-discipline and healthy level of communication in the workplace, the employee’s life outside of work is extremely important when it comes to maximizing productivity.

Employee productivity can be significantly hindered by high levels of stress experienced in the living environment. In this regard, the amount of stress outside of employee’s work becomes a crucial point. Recently, it has been shown that a lower stress environment can significantly improve the productivity [1] of any individual. Furthermore, a stress free environment not only results in accomplishing a greater amount of work but improves its quality as well.

Rural sourcing is one of the possible solutions that can provide a lower stress environment. For instance, shorter commutes are big timesavers that allow individuals to efficiently utilize their time. Moreover, unlike big cities, rural environment has significantly smaller traffic volume that substantially reduces the possibility of stress. According to the recent research by U.S. census and statistics [2, 3] , in big cities on an average, a person spends 30 minutes in commuting just to work every day. Particularly, in the big cities like New York, Maryland and New Jersey it takes up to 90 minutes to commute to work.

Long commutes make one depressive and have serious health consequences as well [4]. In a seminal study, conducted at the University of California at Irvine, researchers found that driving alone under stressful conditions can actually cause or contribute to high blood pressure or stroke. According to this study, a long commute (more than 18 miles one way) may increase the possibility of heart attack. It’s not only the stress involved that can increase the heart rate and blood pressure, but also the exposure of commuters to high levels of air pollutants, which appears to be a risk factor for heart disease[5,6,7,8]. In addition, numerous studies report a direct link between driving and low back pain. For example, it has been reported in one study that driving 10 hours or more a week was associated with first occurrence low back pain.

Another important point is the close proximity of the open natural spaces, parks and recreational areas. According to the recent discovery [8], the color of the blue sky substantially improves the mood and heals emotions. In addition to the active lifestyle, rural areas contain small concentrations of cars and factories, and they normally have significantly lower air pollution levels [9] than urban areas. Furthermore, it has been shown [10], that mental health is also negatively affected mood and anxiety disorders are more prevalent in city dwellers [12, 13] and the incidence of schizophrenia is more common among people born and raised in cities. Living in less polluted area reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases [14] along with better stress resistance, overall physical and mental health.

It is worth mentioning; that lower cost of living [15] available in the rural areas is significantly reduces the stress in the current economic situation and financial instability.



Environment which is less stressful, more peaceful and has more open green spaces makes the person relaxed and happy. Happy people work better with others. Happy people are a lot more fun to be around and consequently have better relations at work. Stress free people are more energetic, creative, optimistic, motivated, have better health, better decision making and learning skills.

This means:

Better teamwork with your colleagues

Better employee relations if you are a manager

More satisfied customers if you are a consultant

Improved sales if you are a sales person

The size of businesses in rural areas is fairly smaller in comparison to big cities. This allows the employees to mingle more outside of work which fosters understanding and trust. Trust and open communication are two very important factors for the success of any team.

Rural sourcing provides stress free environment to increase productivity which results in success of any business.

 

References:

1. http://helpguide.org/mental/stress_signs.htm
2. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/commutetimes.htm
3. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf
4. http://www.beliefnet.com/healthandhealing/getcontent.aspx?cid=14237
5. http://www.bts.gov
6. http://www.grtma.org
7. http://www.umich.edu/~fasap/stresstips/contents.html
8. http://www.dot.gov
9. http://opfocus.org/index.php?topic=story&v=15&s=1
10. http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/about/index.htm
11. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10190.html#/ref8
12. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2010-08-09-yourhealth09_ST_N.htm
13. http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html
14. http://www.admwebstudios.co.uk/Pollution1.htm
15. http://irx.sagepub.com/content/26/1/86.abstract

 

“Us vs. Them,” Keeping Distributed Teams on the Same Team

We have all seen the scenario play out in sports where two players for the same team get in each other’s way.  Whether it is outfielders running into each other or a couple of big guys fighting for a rebound, coaches and managers can be seen shaking their heads while saying, “same team guys, same team!”

An analogous dynamic is commonly observed in distributed software development teams, where the internal employees mistakenly see the outsourced vendors as on a different team.  In these instances, managers can find themselves saying, “same team guys, same team…” much too often.  In addition to causing managers headaches, the “Us versus Them” dynamic can ultimately threaten the success of an engagement.  Standard conflict resolution techniques do not always apply, but here are some basic strategies managers can use to mitigate this risk.

Know your audience

Managers should always be mindful about the impact reporting and language can have on the perception of team members.  When reporting back to the team, managers can augment team cohesion by using metrics that apply to the entire team’s effort rather than separating out specific groups.  The metrics used should not allow team members to differentiate the progress of the external resources.  Likewise, the language used in the report should reference the team, i.e. use the language of “We”.

Managers will of course want to track the value obtained from their outsourcing efforts, but reporting progress to team members should vary greatly from reporting valuation to senior management.

In short, be mindful of your audience and report accordingly.

Team alignment

Pairing external with internal resources for story points or tasks can go a long way to create trust and teamwork.  For example, an internal resource can work on creating an API while an external resource is working on the front-end that will utilize the API.  They collaborate on the hooks to tie their work together.

Managers should know their resources sufficiently well to identify requirements that are best suited for a pairing, but an easy way to identify these opportunities is to pair a senior with a junior team member.  Senior resources generally appreciate the opportunity to flex their mental muscles and mentor a more junior resource.  On the other side, junior resources will generally respect the more extensive knowledge of a senior resource.

Empowering successful collaboration fosters camaraderie and respect.

Rural sourcing

A large part of the Us versus Them dynamic is due to superficial differences.  Whether it is language, culture, or schedule, no matter how superficial, differences can create serious rifts in a team.  Finding common ground outside of a project can be challenging for managers.  So, simply eliminating the differences where possible can be very effective to avoid the rift.

Given the similar language, schedules, and culture, rural sourcing is an excellent solution to mitigate the “Us versus Them” risk of distributed development.