Power to the people!

Video thumbnail (Frame 0) Video thumbnail (Frame 8569) Video thumbnail (Frame 17043) Video thumbnail (Frame 18235) Video thumbnail (Frame 19516) Video thumbnail (Frame 34025) Video thumbnail (Frame 37466) Video thumbnail (Frame 41746) Video thumbnail (Frame 43693) Video thumbnail (Frame 48507) Video thumbnail (Frame 56002) Video thumbnail (Frame 67825) Video thumbnail (Frame 69058) Video thumbnail (Frame 75126) Video thumbnail (Frame 84407)
Video in TIB AV-Portal: Power to the people!

Formal Metadata

Title
Power to the people!
Title of Series
Author
License
CC Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this license.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
2016
Language
English

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Abstract
It's all about the people, right? This talk is based on a mindset that puts people in the center, not in words or manifests, but in how you actually work. This is about people over process, people over standards, people over bureaucracy, basically people over anything else. We'll look at why breaking all the corporate rules might be a good thing, we will see what happens if you stop defining roles, how your responsibilities dictates your mindset, how standardization kills both innovation and exploration and we will also dig into what happens when you stop trying to make people follow your plan.
Keyboard shortcut Multiplication sign Parameter (computer programming) Mereology Rule of inference Information technology consulting Power (physics) Product (business) Architecture Different (Kate Ryan album) Utility software Software testing Process (computing) Internationalization and localization Computer architecture Rule of inference Projective plane Keyboard shortcut Bit System call Power (physics) Process (computing) Software Universe (mathematics) Formal grammar Self-organization
Slide rule Keyboard shortcut Sine Euclidean vector Direction (geometry) Multiplication sign Database Plastikkarte Focus (optics) Rule of inference Twitter Architecture Optical disc drive Facebook Goodness of fit Stagnation point Negative number Process (computing) Abstraction Computer architecture Form (programming) Area Rule of inference Focus (optics) Direction (geometry) Forcing (mathematics) Keyboard shortcut Projective plane Stagnation point Word Process (computing) Formal grammar Software framework Self-organization Right angle Whiteboard Procedural programming Diagram Physical system Force
Game theory God
Context awareness Length Multiplication sign Water vapor Mereology Mathematics Strategy game Stagnation point Office suite Stability theory Area Algorithm Fitness function Instance (computer science) Measurement Element (mathematics) Product (business) Exterior algebra Software framework output Self-organization Whiteboard Arithmetic progression Resultant Point (geometry) Random number Exploit (computer security) Black box Number 2 (number) Element (mathematics) Twitter Goodness of fit Iteration Whiteboard Term (mathematics) Software Selectivity (electronic) Mathematical optimization Graph (mathematics) Direction (geometry) Projective plane Length Evolute Exploit (computer security) System call Software Function (mathematics) Universe (mathematics) Strategy game Iteration Natural language Mathematical optimization
Point (geometry) Neighbourhood (graph theory) Optimization problem Moment (mathematics) Neighbourhood (graph theory) Maxima and minima Set (mathematics) Black box Exploit (computer security) Arithmetic mean Mathematics Strategy game Uniformer Raum Contrast (vision) Function (mathematics) Strategy game Selectivity (electronic) Data structure Mathematical optimization Local ring Mathematical optimization
Algorithm Strategy game Function (mathematics) Multiplication sign Exploit (computer security) Game theory Exploit (computer security) Game theory Twitter
Group action Electronic mailing list Self-organization Price index
Axiom of choice Keyboard shortcut Software developer View (database) Decision theory Multiplication sign Source code Checklist Product (business) Software bug Architecture Software Process (computing) Hazard (2005 film) Information security Computer architecture Form (programming) Self-organization Axiom of choice Hazard (2005 film) Software developer Keyboard shortcut Code Product (business) Word Process (computing) Order (biology) Self-organization Figurate number Information security Force
Rule of inference Dependent and independent variables Group action Key (cryptography) Software developer Projective plane Expert system Software industry Rule of inference Perspective (visual) Vector potential Mathematics Process (computing) Self-organization Energy level Data conversion Self-organization
Point (geometry) Greatest element Multiplication sign Mass Mereology Rule of inference 2 (number) Revision control Mathematics Goodness of fit Strategy game Software testing Process (computing) Commitment scheme Lie group Physical system Self-organization Focus (optics) Projective plane Moment (mathematics) Instance (computer science) Limit (category theory) Greatest element Exterior algebra Process (computing) Commitment scheme Architecture Chain Self-organization Physical system Electric current
Standard deviation Observational study Decision theory Multiplication sign Software industry Vector potential Rule of inference Product (business) Power (physics) Architecture Process (computing) Game theory Position operator Computer architecture Standard deviation Dependent and independent variables Regulator gene Building Forcing (mathematics) Cellular automaton Maxima and minima Data management Arithmetic mean Process (computing) Architecture Formal grammar Self-organization Game theory
Area Context awareness Software developer Physical law Projective plane Bit Mereology Flow separation Rule of inference Revision control Voting Process (computing) Software Causality Telecommunication Different (Kate Ryan album) Telecommunication Software Order (biology) Software framework Whiteboard Form (programming) Physical system
Point (geometry) Goodness of fit Arithmetic mean Process (computing) Strategy game Natural number Multiplication sign Video game Right angle Resultant
the data.
welcome this is the is. the walls global sourcing when the locals the than the z. to us this i work full power own on the day i'm going to talk about people i'm going to talk about always been working in powell for two years now powell is a company that produces software for the utility market mainland before a joy. when powell i have been a consultant for about thirteen years before or so most of my experience is actually from the consultancy world and in seeing a lot of organizations and a lot of different things. and today i'm going to soak a little bit around the because. i. the there that's me. i have kind of always being around in different organizations felt a little bit difference when i'm at conferences like this i kind of feel of people are talking and thinking the way the same way that i do better when i get back to the organizations have been working in. i kind of feel a little bit different and there's always been this these things said it's been kind and maggie me more than that things that i have felt that has been fundamentally wrong in the way that we actually produce off for the the interesting thing about me go. going from the consultancy world and into powell is that for the last two years have been in an organization that actually has produced software themselves and i've been a part of the organization have been able to see more of the organization and i have had a lot more organisational influence i would go. and from having influence in projects to start to see the whole organization and then and have an influence in the organization. and when i started the that influence like a piece is kind though fell in place i kind of started to understand that and that's what i'm going to talk about to them go talk about how i see the world mile. i'm going to talk about what i've done to change the things i've been writing me but let's first start first with how the traditional organization kind of thing it's going to go through that than going to try to argue or give their arguments as to why that's a good idea and when i'm talking about true. additional organizations i'm talking about pretty much every organisation that i ever saw. so. they can to say that say you start a project with the start of projects it kind of makes sense to have some defined corporate rules. it's kind of makes sense though some best practices it makes sense doesn't define process is this makes the sense to have a kind of grand architecture perhaps for the whole organization or at least for the project that makes sense to have some formalism to bind all this together right doesn't it because that's what. almost every organization has. let's go through these arguments for doing this to have defined corporate rules many times in many organizations as you see things like the huge use age because a call to center because we know it and because of paid for it. as a testing tool or more than that the but was in a lot of places on the thing there is the knowing something and doing the same thing over and over again and again. time to make sufficient or at least that's the argument and obviously you can't pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands so kronor or whatever for every new project to start to buy new products that you're going to use in to the mains a project so i think there's the main reason for having. those defined corporate rules efficiency saving money and so on and so on so for every organisation have seen i meet quite a lot of these corporate rules and then i see that we have a lot of the fire and best practices and define processes and that's kind of like we. from. that's the thing i heard a lot of time and in this organisation we describe him that's how we run run projects. different off the argument i think the argument is this is something as work before. and when it's worked before. or you could also say that but never mind if universe if it does work before. you reduce the risk of doing something new that isn't going to work you reduce the risk to try to do something that's going to completely fail this is work before so let's do it again. you don't have to reinvent really don't have to discover scrum all over again because here is to define scrum that to do in every project in this organization. and again they have to do the same thing over and over and over and over again. they at least they simply saying that you get more efficient by doing that. and again with the architecture a the grand architecture things like this you don't have to read it is just an example. i often seen many organizations to have a grand architecture for the whole organization.
which is kind of built and best practices its defined by some senior very smart person that obviously read some kind of book that has to be a very good book right you seen this before. the reason for this i think the reason for this is that you want to reduce your fear that people are running in every direction if you don't define this architect this is the way we're going to work or also going to run in every direction and make a lot of us right. and again it resists reduces the risk of doing something new that probably won't work we've done this before. and years save some time but i don't see you don't have to do all this democratic architectural discussions have been every project. and last in the traditional organization it kind of makes sense of some formalism to bind all this together like i were like to say that you have to have a way to force people to fall of all these rules idea. a blazing deadlines documents processes and so on and so on. ok he also in this now let's start over in a traditional organisation it kind of makes sense to how old is to find corporate rules best practices the fun process is an architecture and some form with him to bind together now doesn't it. the thing is to me it doesn't at all it makes no sense whatsoever because i'm going to try to sum up the things on wants live now. this is how i interpret the best way i can and i really tried to be opposed to this is how interpret the idea behind this using standardisation to make people efficient use it to avoid failures we want to do things that us work before we don't want to fail. by doing something new. and we do to avoid mistakes we want to kind of tell you do this don't do that because that's a mistake. the other thing we have areas that they want to force its kind of negative on what they want to make people actually doing it right. and this is the way i think i think this is the reasoning behind the traditional focus and i think most organ almost all organizations are doing this one way or the older and believes in this implicitly or explicitly thing this like this that. there are only two boards on this slide that i really like and that's people and it's official. i really like people and i really like efficiency really want to be a very very productive person so that's a good thing. no for the other words on the slide standardisation i don't like that what all because. when you really with the intention of the summer is a sin is trying to make people efficient the problem is. i think it makes people a lot more in the fission because firstly doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over on the run over again. works very good the second and this third time than you get more efficient but when you have done it a hundred times to get really really bored you start doing the states and start checking twitter and facebook can so that actually doing or so that doesn't make you a fishing. the other thing is with standardising everything is that you can to try to take one solution not fit untreated in to every problem. or could stand the architecture is done the process is the thing is that's there's a lot of bloat there's a lot of ceremony there's a lot the procedure there that you really doesn't really shouldn't have to do but to have to do it because it's a stone that so i think this makes it kind of inefficient. the other thing is a stand there is a shun course of stagnation i'll get back to this standard us something you fix it and say this is how we're going to do it for ever and that's a big problem or get back to another thing it's like this we try to avoid in the thing we try to avoid mistakes. this is very defensive. what i want to do with my team said i wanna make them achieve something and i really want them to achieve something big. so i don't want to talk about all the things we're not supposed to do our wanted people to really achieve something. i try to be more offensive. yeah. aiming for their standing solution not just avoiding things. and then the verse two words put together is obviously a force people and i think it's pretty obvious you won't get the best out of people by forcing them calm force people to brilliance it's that simple. oh ok. so i always been asking myself i don't like this and always been lost most of wells one odds.
when not to stop doing this. why don't we just stopped doing this my problem before us been that i haven't had that influence that i needed to stop doing this because this is an organizational thing this is not the project thing. the thing now when i saw him powell start to get that organizational influence nothing in my the apartment the thing with that there was that we actually just started to change this is just now i could. i'm going to talk about that today their first i want to say don't be afraid because when i discussed this with people the fair all these things all my god what's going to happen now.
on to going to do any of these things said no and don't be afraid i'm going to tell you to them on telly why it's going to work. i'll tell you how i see the world. i'll tell you what i did and how i made it work. game. let's start with the first thing.
how i see the world i have. and all rounder through three concepts. i think are very important to kind of those says put this into context the first concert a cold search and exploit.
this is about discovery of the most asian for doing something better finding something better improving. because the thing. everybody in this day and age can agree that stagnation sky and of the killer stagnation is the thing that we don't want everybody is all the time is talking about tell the world is changing how the competition is moving how technology is evolving and so on and so on another talk about the cold. for example for instance like the biggest company in the world when it came to camera to manual film. but suddenly went bankrupt and nobody really could understand how that can happen because the cold was kind of the only thing in that market. what actually happened what's also that. kind of an iron they invented the digital camera and less for the world is not the park this doesn't fit in to the way we make manas so let's forget about it and then obviously someone else picked up on did the digital camera and disrupt them out of business kind of the biggest company not the biggest companies. but then that's a area it was a big big thing and it's gone and that stagnation and i think everybody agrees that nation we don't want so. but if everybody agrees to this then there's a problem if you don't agree to my me being negative toward standardisation because the thing with standardisation standardising things is that it's aiming at stability it's aiming at stagnation. it's not aiming at change if you stand there was something you stagnate something. you don't change it it's much harder to change that makes it so much easier to be the next call back. so. hope the most for change i heard all the time or at least i had all the time at least in the agile decade we talked about optimizing for change. and when we talked about of to my sing for change everybody else nodding as a yes this great the are we doing this but the thing is you can sit in a conference and nod to the fact that the should off the mice were change we really low change that was what i often experience what was when i get. but back to the office on monday. no one was changing anything because it's easy to agree to be really we don't want to stagnate really want to stay in it. the thing is. if you want change something will actually have to change something will have to change you can't just agreed to it and not change anything. you have to change something. so what's a something. what to actually change. everything i think it's just a matter of creativity you can't change anything and everything should be up for elevation we're talking about how we write software how we run projects how we innovate and so on and so on everything the organization does should. the changeable easily. it's very easy to northern say year we've we really like change but changing the with these things isn't that easy it's actually very painful. but if you don't want a stag night you have to change something. ok so we're talking about change. its kind i think it's inaccurate to talk about change actually because change change something the thing areas we're really talking about improvement. we're talking about trying something else to see if it's better. and that's actually if you look in mathematical term such actually have to miss a shunt so i'm going to talk a little bit about have to miss a shun. mathematical precision and i want to get into the details but this is where relevant actually how you optimise something. now mathematical optimization is according to the compare their it's a it's a selection of the best element with regard to some criteria from some set the available alternatives and it's the last day of the conference and it's three o'clock so will help the outer all with an example. all of show you what this really means. micah it's a selection of the best element with regard to some criteria let's have an example criteria. running a black box or putting something in a getting a number of the criteria for being a best element is to be the highest number that you get out of this book's. from some set the available alternatives available input so let's say that you into this black books you can put some number between minus point five and pop five point five. and they're not too late they are related but you don't know the realization that so the real world works when not in to mathematics. you have a number between minus point five and five point five percent are black books and get another number. and hears back the black thing there is a graph actually but we don't know if so this is quite inspired by for me at least is very inspired by a genetic algorithms which is also talking about optimizing by the eye toy the lower wrong with that. but when i was at the university some twenty years ago. if you haven't looked into genetic algorithms it's really really cool search strategy it's which mimics evolution but i want going to tear the thing is that you don't really know you don't really know what's behind us so you kind of have to figure out a very good alternative by doing something on our. wayne in genetic algorithms turns how we do that the first thing i have to do now in this black folks have to start getting a lot just three numbers of stock with putin minus point five and i'll get that result. which i annoyed if that's good about because i can compare them thing the second is three point seven five which seems slightly better still i don't know if that's good the third number will put in his four point seven five weeks at least course a both siro and seems to score a lot better than to others. no no i'm going to try to find the highest alpert terror and four point seven five since the highest so far but as i don't know there's a lot of numbers i could put in and i can put in an unlimited i don't have an unlimited amount to try so i have to apply a stretch. to be defined in the eye. now i can fix the know i can use a strategy called exploit also term for from the genetic algorithms to exploit is to actually use something that you know already an old that's four point seven five gives a better result in the two others that's not much. call it for know something and try to exploit that knowledge so what i'll do now is to take two numbers just below and and than just a bow and see if it gets better or worse four point six gets worse four point eight now we have a better number. all try to exploit again gets more four point nine since even better. i'll try this of the another time and then i get for five point one one still four point nine is the best number of new kind of see that there's something you can kind of see that there's probably a grafter so i think i hit the high point two four point nine using exploitation. i got the number four point nine which seems ok now have optimized something so that's a good strategy for improvement as well as to exploit you take something that works and to tweak it to improve it this is like in the old scrum base when world is scrum scrum a kind of work will be the. did what you are supposed to do and the water was the fun part of scrum as such you could actually tweak it was the point so we tweaked its we tweaked the length of iterations of a tweet based a measure progress columns on the board and everything. so back in the old days we took scram it works but to tweet. the exploit the all of sudden works to make it even better and that's a very good strategy for improvement. but in this must the magical of them as sation problem air. there's another problem there's a big problem.
and that problem is called local optimum.
a local of them i'm aware of them sation problem is a solution or is optimal within a neighbouring set of candidates solutions were is which is opposite to a global up the moment which is the optimal solution among all possible solutions not just an a particularly neighborhood the wellies. now at the start mean. let's look at this again this black box in the real world when it's not just pure mathematics we don't really know what it was what i really looks like blog so we're. i'll show you what it looks like it looks like this now we have found quite a good solution. with four point nine their the problem is that that's a local optimum that's a different definition of a local of them because the global of them is there and if we had guessed that won that would be much better. the thing with the exploits strategy it's a very good at finding local of the mums but it stinks of finding the global up the mums so just tweaking makes things a bit better. but you probably won't find the much better solution. to find that you have to apply the other strategies that's kind of a random selection not exploiting and thing you're just randomly searching you're just. for guessing something know that didn't work know about didn't work know that didn't work but hey there's something i works ago. and now i have a new knowledge and then i can stop exploiting i am here something better. and i can go off to the global market so that's it all the structure for improvement its search. defined the global markets and we have to search some are completely different. get the thing is this was kind of mathematics mathematics but. this applies to our world as well because the thing is think about this.
if you're using scrum or whatever.
that's where we are today. there's i can absolutely guarantee you that there is something else that it's better they will always be something else that's better. the problem is you haven't found it yet. because you've been to weakening the scrum thing. i worked on this goes for everything there's always something better some are completely different. the thing with this is that this is very find the great leaps forward this is very refined the disruptive stuff this is where you find the game changers their summer completely different. and again obviously. to compare the competitors are searching the question is are you are you stagnating or use searching for the global of them or for the better local up them or i just stuck hopefully at least tweaking but i just stuck in that local up the kind of getting over. ok i described kind the three strategies for improvement the first was just a standardised everything which we kind of agree that think that wasn't as well it's a strategy for improvement if you don't want to improve anything but you're not improving anything if you're not doing different things so there are to you. exploit you improve working solutions and you search you find new completely different solutions. the thing with this is this you should be doing all the time if you look at genetic algorithms that say the search spotter the goal mutation you can't do that all the time because some they're just randomly searching all the time but we know something you should exploited obviously you get further. higher higher for. foster. the thing is exploiting improving the things you actually do tweaking you should do all the time all the time you should tweak tweet tweet tweet and searching doing something completely different you should do i would say to do it regularly. and use not just of wow i don't have to do that very often yes you do have to do it often not all the time but you have to do it often. well someone else to find it. before.
ok i was certain exploit the second comes up the want to talk about. is what i call it it's ok bubble.
i think about this. do you view the people here were cleared within your team a group department crew whatever you call it do you view them as idiots or as capable people. that's actually very good question i think question is do you really really trust your people to be able to achieve something very very important all on their own because i don't think anybody really want submit that while my. people their kind there that's better. the thing is. doesn't really matter what to think. the organisation you work for real see how your organisation use your people the people working in it. the organization behaves in different ways and that kind of reveals how they view the people that works within the organization of go through a list all indications that your organisation thinks that your people are idiots.
so if you can also yes to some of these questions your organization probably views are people as it is. do you stand the process like scrum not only because they believe in standardising which she really shouldn't believe in but also because your fair they want figure out a good way to organise themselves.
are they that stupid come to figure that out. do security check lists not only as a good reminder for on because it is i like security check lists because there's a lot of things to be reminded all but not only as a good reminder that you'll see use them because you fear people don't care enough about security. and you kind of feel you have to force them to care. are they a bit stupid. dear of for source products since a stepford staging step by staging process because in order developers are producing bugs everybody's human but they also have little interest in catching them. i heard the home before. are they stupid. do you dictate how a developer should testers offer. because otherwise they will take shortcuts because a lot to call but there's nothing about quality are heard that form the four. the think they're idiots. do you refuse to developers to deploy themselves into production. because they represent a security hazard. or and they will take very dangerous shortcuts in there. i heard that on a lot of times you think they're idiots. now do you have some kind of dedicated architect to decide the architecture including the technology choices because you don't dare to just two people to make all the choices themselves because developers generally make bad take decisions based on burst words not actual me. needs. i heard that one before. are they did its those people here working with. get your comment this for things like security the poignant them process that generates best practices for ever want to follow because you believe that the comic they actually knows what's best for your people and their people don't. and even if they did there wouldn't have the initiative to do anything about it on their own. your people in its. no idea treat them like it.
if you answered yes to some of these questions you kind of treating are people like idiots. thing is. i don't think the question now is i don't think that if people are idiots are capable i don't think that's the right question i think the right question is if your organisation produces idiots or capable people.
because let the telly about the indians fabric i think i strongly believe that organization influences how people think feel act and work. now in this kind the traditional way of organizing things put yourself into the people perspective of things. there is like this in our conversation where everything is already defined by someone else because i'm not good enough to be all sgt because they backed up by rigid often some slows rules rustic restricting my creativity and ability it's soup. for weis but expert show which i am obviously not because all those wise i will not do what they tell me too. this is the other side of the traditional standardisation organisation. and i perfectly understand why people it will mean these organisations behave like idiots. i don't think they are idiots. but rest the motivation in working like this. if. if you don't trust met all i will not take any responsibility other i will act like an idiot. so that i don't think they're very that's the thing that kind of simulate that the actions of it it's because they're working the organization that you. so what our own want you to start doing if you work with in search organisation which you probably do because that's what most lord in the seychelles that i've ever been kind to look like. you have to kind of start to change the organization. you have to rig the organisation to reflect the fact that you actually believe that your people can be capable of to start building the capable people. and that's why i was talking about this is not on the project level this is on the organizational level. because if you think about it. if you think about this i really believe that it's more rewarding and from for every person close to every person in the world do a good job and to do a bad job. that's kind of obvious we want it's more rewarding to do a good job. so if you give people a chance to do a good job they will i think that's pretty obvious of the another obvious thing is people react positive to positive influence as a negative to negative influences how you treat your people within the organization. kind of creates the response from them. so i will lay the trust of people are capable people. so you have to start building capable people now there's been. a local research into this and participation. in my work day seems to be the key. to building the capable people. being able to influence how i work and being able to create something to be creative work in the software industry and developers like many of the people less you work with are probably developer some have been a developer for many many years myself. and the things that you have to understand the developers although they have your very introvert and some a lot of us look kind of strange summit do strange things but the thing is we are very creative. so let us be let us be creative. give us an opportunity and that is what brings motivation and potential and this is what brings makes capable people. ok.
that was the second concept idiot are capable third concept i want to talk about what i call. made the best idea in.
yet there are two ways a problem limits but basically two ways to discover new things. which we kind of agreed at least i agreed on stage that change is a good things we have to discover new things and so on are two ways. how i see it. it's the top one way or the bottom up. well let me show this through an example. the exxon pulis. that were your organise how your organization discovers say get that's an example get many organisations already use it you probably should discover get because it's a good thing but but that's beside the point that's not the point that will ever get is a source control system but that's. but the point either but how we discover new things and change something in organization there are two ways to do this and then that's its first it's a top down way to do the trick with a traditional focus the hierarchical way to do it. in these kinds of traditional organisations which most organizations are the way to discover gifts or new things is that a key person like some committee member or chief architect or whoever important he asked to hear about it. but and learn the basics of as to see the potential get unlike get theirs to suggest and a change towards using it. knowing this traditional organizations the spine them we have a very smart person has discovered it but the problem is that if we're going to use get that kind of us to be a corporate rule to come to start using it we have to investigate so now that this key person was like it here. found it and they like to the test is on the even suggested that change toward its than we have to investigate if and how it fits in our organization. good now we have to consider every problem that could ever being counted because we're going to use it for ever on it will have a massive consequences because everyone is changing everything and what we did before that he did over and over and over and over again. we're so efficient and we won't do any more so we really have to look into what they say is going to do with our organization. you have to consider the tooling we have to consider the process what tools people should use. how they should work with it. this investigation is also very often done by some specialists. it's actually all so often done in quite the theoretical fashion be have to sit down and think about this ok. now the day sore the moment for running. but now a farm out or get this looks interesting and then we need a pilot project then we choose a project that has to test it. a couple of months more is running along and if everything goes well verne you can start using get this is this. more or less. how to use how it how it works with these kind of changes. this takes a lot of time. just keep person's often but discover says things let's look at alternative which is the made the best idea in the bottom up way to discover new things. so on. any on. in the organization. here is about and sees the potential get. this person tells his teammates shows it and argues for instance us look at this new thing i just tried it last night this is fantastic i read about it i saw it on a conference we should do this. in the team says. a cool we like that let's just do it right here right now on this project. so we do that. if it's a success. the team is going to start to talk about it within the organization and others will pick up scan like some organic growth this thing because this is a good idea of people who picked up the other was a good idea i can see that will try to slow if it was a failure. this is just won probably small project perhaps you can just turn back to the previous system. many people thinks this sounds like scary stuff. but. honestly it's not things are not as hard as you want them to be to be honest it's not that hard to turn back. chain source control system in one project is not part of a let's compare the top down versus bottom up. let's look at the discovery of how much discovery you're doing you're going from having a few key people in the top down strategy that actually can discover the news things. to everyone. everyone can suggest anything and if your team likes it should just do it. so you kind of getting a lot more suggestions remember the bolts on the search was searched. that's a lot of people dropping around being good ideas perhaps the methodist ok commitment thing was said about its kind of treating people like it is you go from having no influence almost whatsoever in this traditional organizations you. could also and you could tell the chief architect listen hair heard about it. and he can to say. for enough of think about it will go a couple of home phone you go asking and to do something about it in. two. from no influence to make the best idea in common try it if it's a very good idea better than the all their ideas have will do it if someone has better ideas will do that again that instead. you influence. and all foster were doing these things the discovery you go from yet the first lie there you it takes months to discover anything. just trying out discussing it doing it organically. ok. let me tell you.
where we started said. i work for paul a software company about a year ago i became the technical manager for for a four department. the and. when i said technical manager i think the people that game in that position as well as probably everybody else can the perceived me us the chief architect decision maker all make all the rules thing. what i did what all this in mind it's true why did a year ago i got the role. i like to say i on the decided one thing.
i have on the decided that there are no rules. i don't decide everything i read this either cells and that's we as in the people it's not we as in i for my department when i decide everything ourselves. and this doesn't mean because that's the problem with sounds of very win because it's my it's my full responsibility of full responsibility for every technical thing that happens in a department. under saying you decide yourself that sounds stupid for most people. but the thing is i am fully aware that i'm fully responsible but my problem is a problem or not. i believe in people i know that have turned out there is not going to work if my department is going to achieve something better than a minimum i have to do this because if i believe in wow just spent half an hour talking about i have to give them that power i can't have that. myself. that's the thing so i don't do this to be a nice guy. but i do this because i believe this is the only way they can work miracles this is the only way we can actually achieve something bigger than a minimum. that's why i gave them all the power. and it's kind of obvious i see that i will even people i believe they can change the world but i don't know i cannot force people to do things rules and regulations and process doesn't really change anything just stagnates things it stops things. this its make people achieve a minimum it makes people idiots. and that's the thing i have to believe in the people i want to achieve something so i can't decide everything myself i really can't decide anything apart from this they have to do it. ok remember talked about building capable people are participation is sticky. and i work in the thinker four hundred people in pau working quite a large organization when i started so this there are no pre-defined standards you don't have to listen to look at aniston the study ever saw there are no pre-defined product. this is there no pre-defined process there are no pre-defined architecture and there are no pre-defined formalism the team decides if someone else. in the organization tells you that there are rules you have to listen to tell them to talk to me that's my job. because they are not i won't allow them to screw up this i want to achieve something. i think about the discovery. all my people. are running around freely discovering things i don't have to discover for anything. what a traditional a do in their organization i was probable probably the one that should discover it and consider it but now in my team is discovering new things and their value at the new things all the time. because i'm searching. for those global maximums i don't just want us to stop here because i want to achieve something. i.
ok so again. people asked me and say and you might be thinking isn't this a bit chaotic what are you doing what's happening and the thing is the surprise it didn't surprise me a bit thing is it.
things are in so complex us who want them to be things aren't that difficult in fact. most things seems quite simple. it's it's working. one know the biggest problem we have had in this industry probably forever or at least i'm all for the fifteen the last year said i've been working in it where i see this over and unerring. the we develop purse started to talk about or and in erring on the technical side but we do everywhere. do you think if you have say of three developers do think they need a completely define process and how to work in order to write cold and do something is not kind of all were engineering. the thing is doing things too complex you don't have to do it now. what we do we add things when we need them. we don't define all these things before and if we see that we start to run around like it is we do something about it before. and actually. thing areas thing i discovered the last or it actually seems that your needs three things for this to work perfectly for them to just for voters the first thing in it is you need someone in your team your group. thus home experience with actually doing software successful you obviously need some experience or. somebody has to know how to do so for successfully and no on that most that will tell your well it was successful because we had to define process. that's not the success but someone has no that the other thing you really really need these so some motorway to be people and that you will get by the fall by giving them all responsible they are giving them free hands run around to do what you want to leave yourself organizing a motor the team any. and the third thing in aid if there's more than one person doing this you need communication because that's kind of how you self-regulating you have to communicate that we have to talk a lot about this they have to talk between themselves. in order to coordinate this thing is what i'm getting out of this is i'm getting a lot more innovation on exploration. and you have to remember. not blind these are people with experience preferences. contexts. there are in our team as they're not running blindly around doing everything picking miranda only form of board doing this i'm going to take this from or to they know the nominee of the this framework they don't do that their preferences the thing with the preference as. is that it can be easily challenge and it's no rule there are no rules. so that changed everything. and we're just if people start to run around and say we i don't just we all are just reflect the communicate we talk to each other. this isn't rocket science. i know for those who you that hasn't really done this have dared to do this it sounds scary. but it's easier than you think and it kind of works. you're getting a lot more out to have people been doing this. ok another voice that i have been. talking with my team about the law is you have to do something different. i said that. you remember this graph. the global of them that i'm really searching for. you have to do something different you have to change something and i was kind of the hard part what i do. i encourage we run your team run several quite a lot actually smaller projects so between projects instead of trying to standardizing things between project because i'm sick because i would be scared if my people are he did so i wouldn't understand and thing if we did different things. instead of trying to standardizing i encourage people to try and do different things. in different projects i really want to find that global optimum i want them to do different things. i. that's everything from source control system serve a cause boards frameworks processes. innovation moles how we know things everything i encourage them to do different things. ok.
one last thing. but perhaps the most important thing a wall. his best advice for have search team.
it has to be fun. i was kind and yeah right. i once worked in a company where i got it. i got that into the company's strategy it has to be from the because it's not just something i say thing would fall on the thing with having a meaningful job and joy in your work or two things to that there's a fool's of philosophical aspect its kind. so what's the point of being alive. thing is in an adult life. you spend. a third over time working a third of its sleeping on the third for the rest of it a third for what so many people actually call their lives. thing is hall off of your adult life. you're at work. think about this if you think to yourself and it doesn't really matter if it's fun to be at work and. i kind of feel good story for you. if your mother nature and thinks the people what works for you shouldn't have fun not work. i don't think i like you at all to be honest if you really think that your people should spend hall for their adult life not having a good time. that's about thing. the other side of phone is obviously the motivational side. if you really want the things that i'm looking for their mating results on their making new things. said you really need those highly highly motivated people and to get them you need participation they need meaning and they need fun. it's not just something i'm saying think about this. ok thank you as spent my time if if you have any questions you can come up to me i'll stick afterwards thanks for listening.
Feedback