All posts by Brian Rivera

How to Develop a Family Hurricane Checklist Using Military-Grade Planning

Concepts Applied in This Post: Red Teaming; complex adaptive systems; Sensemaking; High-Reliability Organizing; Mindful Organizing; Principles of Anticipation; Situational Awareness; Anticipatory Awareness; Mission Analysis; Shared Mental Models; Mission Command; Commander’s Intent; ; Cynefin; vector-based goals; challenge and respond checklists; and establishing a sense of urgency.

This post outlines how families can apply some elements of military-grade planning to develop a hurricane checklist. Moreover, this post also applies to business leaders interested in real agility, innovation, and resiliency.

The Rivera girls reviewing the plan

Background

With last week’s devastation in Houston on our minds and the looming threat of Hurricane Irma in the Atlantic, I thought it would be prudent to take my family through some basic hurricane preparedness planning. To do this, I decided to take my wife, six-year-old and soon-to-be eight-year-old daughters through the same military-grade agility, innovation, and resiliency lessons that I coach to FORTUNE 100 companies and startups. After all, a family is a team and a hurricane is a complex adaptive system, right?

This activity ended up providing valuable lessons for the entire family and as a result, we delivered a challenge and response checklist, reviewed and re-supplied our emergency kits, and more importantly, we became more aware of capabilities and limitations of the socio-technical system we call our home.

Feel free to apply the approach to your household or business.

Focus on Outcomes

To start the activity, begin with a basic statement, a vector-based goal that inspires action. The outcome statement I used:

Survive for five days in our house during and following a major hurricane

Notice that my Commander’s Intent does NOT contain a clear, measureable, achievable objective or SMART goal. Why?  Because we are dealing with complexity; we cannot predict the future in the Complex domain. When dealing with increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), emergent goals are fine, as you will see.

Effective Planning

Knowing that plans are nothing and that planning is everything, I used a military-grade planning approach to help the girls understand the system we live in, the wonders and dangers of a hurricane, and their roles in the event of a hurricane. To do this, I asked the girls to write down those things that may happen during a hurricane.

Anticipate Threats

Complex adaptive systems and high-performing teams anticipate the future. One of the common planning problems I see with executive and development teams is they fail to identify threats and assumptions (do not anticipate the future) prior to developing their plan. To help the girls understand this critical step, I asked the them to write down “what” can happen in the event of a hurricane.

Having watched the news on Hurricane Harvey, they were able to identify a few threats associated with hurricanes (e.g.  flooding, no power, damage to windows). However, just as adult team members do when they have meetings, my girls went down many rabbit holes to include discussions about Barbie and Legos. The best approach to overcome this natural phenomenon (cognitive bias) is to use the basic Red Teaming technique of Think-Write-Share.

With some steering help from mommy and daddy, our girls where able to get back on course and capture several more “whats” before moving on to the next step.

Red =Threats; Blue = Countermeasures; Green = Resources Needed.

Identify Countermeasures and Needed resources.

With the threats identified, we began to write down possible countermeasures and needed and available resources that overcome those threats.  As we were doing this, we noticed the emergence of a what appeared to be a checklist (see our blue notes in the above picture). Although not explicitly stated in the Commander’s Intent, we decided that we should add “build a checklist” –an emergent objective– to our product backlog (more on this later).

Apply Lessons Learned

“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.” ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Knowing that there are many lessons learned from people who have lived through hurricanes, I went online to find and apply those lessons learned to our countermeasure and resource backlog. I used the Red Cross as a source and discovered we missed a couple of minor items in our growing backlog.

*I recommend using external sources only after you develop countermeasures to your identified threats. Why? Because planning is about understanding the system; it is how we learn to adapt to change.

After we applied lessons learned, we used a green marker to identify those needed resources (see picture). These resources became part of our product backlog.

Build a Prioritized Product Backlog

A product backlog should be prioritized based on value. Since I was dealing with children who have a low attention span but were highly engaged in the current activity, I decided to prioritized our backlog in this order:

  • Build a Hurricane Checklist
  • Review with the team (family) what is in our current emergency kit
  • Purchase needed resources
  • Show the kids how to use the kit
  • Build a contingency plan –our contingency plan details are not covered in this post.

“Scrum” It

Since I coach Scrum as a team framework, and our family is a team, I showed my children the basics of Scrum. If you are not familiar with Scrum, you can find the 16-page scrum guide here.

We used a simple Scrum board to track our work and executed three short Sprints. As a result, the girls were able to pull their work, we were able to focus on getting things done, and we identified pairing and swarming opportunities. They also learned a little about what I do for a living.

Key Artifact and Deliverable Review: Challenge and Respond Checklists

With a background in fighter aviation, and having coached surgical teams on how to work as high-performing teams, I know from experience that checklists work in ritualized environments where processes are repeatable. To create a ritualized environment, we can do simple things such as starting an event at a specified time with a designated leader. Another option is to change clothes or wear a vest—by the way, kids love dressing up.

One advantage of a challenge and respond checklist is it can be used to create accountability and provide a leadership opportunity for a developing leader–perfect for kids and needed by most adults. For example, the challenge and respond checklist we developed (above) can be initiated by one of my daughters.  If we needed to run the checklist, one of my daughters would simply read the items on the left  and mommy or daddy would respond with the completed items on the right. Giving a young leader an opportunity to lead a simple team event and recognizing their leadership accomplishments energizes their internal locus of control and utimiately builds a bias toward action.

Feel free to use our checklist as a guide but remember, planning is about understanding your system.

The Most Important Step: Debrief

Yes, a debrief with a six and seven-year-old is possible. Remember to create a learning environment for them, ask them about the goal(s) they set out to achieve, and ask them what they learned. Walk them through the planning steps they just went through to reinforce the planning process. Also, ask them what they liked and what they didn’t like about working on the plan with mommy and daddy. Bring snacks.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

Share This:

Planning is Everything… If You Know How To Plan (Part 1)

In the next two minutes, you will learn what planning is and why it is a critical enabler in today’s VUCA world.

The above General Eisenhower quote and similar ones by Perter Drucker, Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke, and Mike Tyson, are peppered in leadership and team-building presentations at conferences, company off-sites, and in blog posts. Although powerful—just as strategically hanging posters of your company values above water coolers does nothing to change your organizational values—sharing a planning quote at the beginning of your planning sessions does nothing to improve your organization’s planning capability.

Background. As an Agile Coach with a military strategic and operational planning background, I’ve noticed that very few organizations and coaches know how to plan. A common planning mistake organizations make is throwing a group of people into a room for one, two, or three days to “plan” without showing them how to plan. As a trained and experienced military planner, I know that the science and art of planning (knowing how to plan) must be learned, practiced, and reinforced at every level of an organization.

Knowing how to plan is a human interaction skill and when combined with other cognitive and social skills such as closed-loop communication, the emergence of a collaborative and innovative organization becomes possible. 

What is planning? 

  • The primary goal of planning is not the development of detailed plans that inevitably must be changed; a more enduring goal is the development of teams and organizations who can cope with VUCA
  • Planning provides an awareness and opportunity to study potential future events amongst multiple alternatives in a controlled environment. Through planning, we begin to understand the complex systems we are trying to modulate.
  • Planning is an anticipatory decision making process that helps teams and organizations cope with complexities
  • Planning is continuous.
  • Planning is Fractal. A stand-up is a fractal of a sprint planning session. A meeting should be a fractal of a strategic planning session.
  • Planning is part of problem solving.

Why Plan? 

  • Builds individual and team situational awareness and the organization’s sensemaking capability
  • Helps build leadership skills
  • Planning helps individuals, teams, and leaders anticipate the future
  • Planning helps organizations navigate complexity
  • Planning helps individuals, teams, and organizations understand the system (operational environment) 

How to Plan?

For how to plan, I will save that for another day. There are great planning processes out there that an organization can start practicing today. In Part 2, I will provide a Rubric that will inform your planning how.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References 

Norman M. Wade. The Battle Staff Smartbook: Doctrinal Guide to Military Decision Making & Tactical Operations. Lightning Press, 2005

JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, 11 August 2011

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), March 2015. http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf

Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Share This:

Planning is Everything… If You Know How to Plan (Part 2)

In Part 1, I provided the “What” and “Why” of planning. The intent of Part 2 is to provide organizational leaders a planning Rubric, one that organizations can use to evaluate the adoption of a third-party’s planning process or to help leaders in the development of their organization’s planning “How.”

Based on my experience, training, and education in iterate planning, here are 10 criteria I find essential for any planning process:

  1. Context
  2. Goals | Objectives | Commander’s Intent
  3. Anticipate the Future
  4. Mitigate Cognitive Biases | Challenge Assumptions | Reduce Risk
  5. Low-Tech, High-Touch
  6. Contingency Plan
  7. Retrospective… Part of the Plan
  8. Simple
  9. Iterative
  10. Designate/Rotate the Facilitator

1. Context

You must understand your operating environment (system). Is your operating environment ordered, complex, or chaotic? Not sure? Use the Cynefin framework to help make sense of your context before developing your mission goals, objectives, or Commander’s Intent.

2. Goals | Objectives | Commander’s Intent

If you are operating in an ordered system, then you should be able to establish clear, measureable, and achievable objectives (SMART goals/objectives are okay if you like redundancy). However, this is an unlikely scenario given the amount of VUCA in most operational environments.

For organizations and teams that operate in a complex system—which should be most organizations and teams—using a defined outcome such as SMART goals is not so smart. Why? You cannot predict the future in complex environments. Since complex environments are dispositional, we need to start journeys over stating goals. Vector-based goals are fine—wanting more of X and less of Y is a good example of a vector-based goal and also serves as a decent Commander’s Intent.

3. Anticipate the Future

Complex adaptive systems anticipate the future. Your planning process should include a step that allows team members to identify potential threats to the goals, objectives, or Commander’s Intent. Threats include things such as holidays, days off, system availability, weather systems, outbreak of the flu, multiple futures, etc.

Anticipatory planning also includes identifying resources and people—both available and needed.

4. Mitigate Cognitive Biases | Challenge Assumptions | Reduce Risk

Use Red Teaming, liberating structures, or complex facilitation techniques to mitigate cognitive biases, challenge assumptions, and reduce risk. These tools also help identify weak signals—where innovation comes from—and serve as a check against complacency.

5. Low-Tech, High-Touch

Use a large canvas or board to plan. Sending PowerPoint decks back and forth is a horrible way to plan (Conway’s Law). PowerPoint is a presentation tool, not a planning tool. A high-touch, low-tech approach to planning requires people to be present, both physically and mentally, in a room or rooms.

6. Build a Back-Up or Contingency Plan

You cannot plan against every contingency—those items that you identified as threats or impediments—but your planning process should include a step where the team looks and plans against some of the known unknowns from the complicated domain. Do not spend too much time on unknown unknowns—an organizational adaptive mindset, partially developed from learning how to plan, is a great tactic for protecting against risks in the complex domain.

7. A Retrospective… Part of the Plan

Planning is part of problem solving and building situational understanding; however, a retrospective is far more important than planning and must be included in your plan. Daily re-planning sessions (stand-ups) should also be included in your plan.

8. Simplicity

You should be able to use your planning process as a way to lead a meeting or a stand-up (a re-planning session).

9. Iterative

Planning is not sequential, it is iterative. It is okay to go back and revisit a previous idea, assumption, objective, etc.

10. Designate a Facilitator

If your team and organization knows how to plan, you can eliminate the need to follow a coach who is an expert at putting planning quotes on the board. Leading a planning session builds leadership capability. It also creates team and organizational accountability.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References

Norman M. Wade. The Battle Staff Smartbook: Doctrinal Guide to Military Decision Making & Tactical Operations. Lightning Press, 2005

JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, 11 August 2011

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), March 2015. http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf

Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Share This:

Cynefin & OODA: Sense- & Decision-Making for Today’s VUCA World (Part 1)

Explicitly connected to Scrum and the Lean Startup, the OODA loop is becoming part of today’s business vernacular. If you attend a Big Data, DevOps, Agile, or Cyber conference, there is a good chance that you will hear a speaker talk about “getting inside your competition’s OODA loop” or “flying the OODA loop.” OODA has even made its way into politics as a way for pundits to describe Donald Trump’s ability, purposeful or careless, to create mismatches or ambiguity for his less agile opponents—a key feature of Boyd’s OODA loop.

A decision-making process for dynamic situations, the OODA loop represents forty years of John Boyd’s research captured in several briefings and papers. His OODA loop sketch—and that’s what it is, a sketch—did not appear until 1996 even though many conference goers often hear that the loop was created in the 1950s. John Boyd has clear guidelines about the use of his sketch: (1) it can be drawn any way you want; (2) do not simplify it; and (3) do not make it more complicated than it is.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of video-conferencing with Chet Richards, author of Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business, and long-time friend of the late John Boyd. The purpose of our conversation was to take a look at where Boyd’s OODA loop fits in Dave Snowden’s Naturalizing Sense-Making matrix (below) and to see how we can map OODA to Cynefin, a sense-making framework. This post will look at the former and save the latter following conversations with Dave Snowden, Chet Richards and others.

Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix: How Do We Avoid The Hype and False Promises (Dave Snowden)

On the left side of Dave Snowden’s 2×2 matrix is the scientific method. And on the right, is Observation + Hypotheses = Method. The items on the left scale at low risk and those on the right scale with high risk. Ideally, we want our management approaches that help us navigate VUCA to be in the bottom left; however, classic science is not applicable to human systems.

Methods that are supported by sound theory–those that can be replicated in different contexts—fall in the top left. The top left is good. Valuable methods derived from observations and hypotheses that have explanatory power fall in the top right. The top right is okay. Context specific methods that claim predictive power fall in the bottom right—most management approaches and Agile methodologies fall here—these are considered inappropriate. The bottom right heeds caution. To learn more about what methods may fall in each quadrant, watch this video or any of Dave Snowden’s recent talks.

Where Does the OODA Loop Fit in This Matrix?

The question Chet and I tried to answer during our call was, Where does the OODA loop fit in this matrix? Chet and I believe OODA falls in the top left. However, overcoming Popper’s falsification test is a current hurdle. And, I am sure Dave Snowden will have something to say about our justification.

Formative Factors Behind the OODA Loop: Air-to-Air Combat, Strategy and Science

Chet and I spent most of our 75-minute conversation examining the science that influenced Boyd and how he captured that in his OODA loop. Chet reminded me that Boyd defined science as “a self-correcting process of observations, synthesis/analysis, hypothesis, and test.” According to Chet, Boyd was deeply interested in how scientist learn and how knowledge grows; the work of Polanyi, Kuhn, and Popper influenced Boyd the most.

Natural sciences influenced Boyd’s thinking and are evident in several of his briefings prior to the 1996 unveiling of his OODA loop. In fact, science played a bigger role in the development of the OODA loop, more so than Boyd’s experience as a fighter pilot. However, most people associate the OODA loop with combat aviation, not the scientific method.

The sciences that provided John Boyd constraints and guidance on the development of his simple and elegant OODA loop sketch and his supporting briefings include Complex Adaptive Systems, Cognitive Science, Epistemology, Evolutionary Theory, Thermodynamics, Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, and Systems Thinking.

OODA Loop: How We Test Hypotheses

The OODA loop is how we test hypotheses. According to Chet, organizations that are trying to learn something new must use multiple safe-to-fail experiments, and through repeated OODA looping (observation, analyses & synthesis, hypothesis, and test), they see how their experiments work, and then add the results to their repertoire. To put it simply, OODA is the decision-making process that compliments the sense-making framework known as Cynefin. We will examine what this may look like in a later post.

Additional Notes

  • Chet wanted me to make it clear that Boyd took over 40 years to develop the OODA loop and one cannot learn the OODA loop in a two-hour seminar.
  • Many people use the OODA loop to sell their management and Agile methods—some of those methods fall in the bottom right quadrant of Dave Snowden’s Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix.
  • John Boyd’s cross-disciplinary approach in building his OODA loop is similar to Dave Snowden’s approach to Cynefin.
  • Boyd claims that agility is an outcome of OODA. And that agility is an external, relative measure. Not an internal one.

I look forward to your comments and help!

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References 

OODA Loop Sketch by HurricaneAllie Design

Special thanks to Chet Richards for taking time to discuss his passion. AGLX received prior permission from Chet Richards to use notes from our 12/21/2016 conversation.

Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix image created by AGLX Consulting and is used with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivs license. The Cognitive Edge method is ©2017 Cognitive Edge (USA) Inc., used with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivs license

Richards, Chet (2004-06-24). Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business. Kindle Edition.

Share This:

A Shallow Dive Into Chaos: Containing Chaos to Improve Agile Story Pointing

In May 1968 the U.S.S. Scorpion (SSN-589), a Skipjack-class nuclear submarine with 99 crewmembers aboard, mysteriously disappeared en route to Norfolk, VA from its North Atlantic patrol. Several months later, the U.S. Navy found its submarine in pieces on the Atlantic seabed floor. Although there are multiple theories as to what caused the crippling damage to the submarine, the U.S. Navy calls the loss of the Scorpion and her 99 crew an “unexplained catastrophic” event [1].

The initial search area stretched across 2,500 NM of Atlantic Ocean from the Scorpion’s last known position off of the Azores to its homeport in Norfolk, Virginia. Recordings from a vast array of underwater microphones reduced the search area down to 300 NM. Although technology played an important role in finding the U.S.S. Scorpion, it was the collective estimate of a group that eventually led to the discovery of the destroyed submarine. The U.S.S. Scorpion was found 400 nautical miles southwest of the Azores at a depth of 9,800 ft., a mere 220 yards from the collective estimate of the group [2].

The group of experts included submarine crew members and specialists, salvage experts, and mathematicians. Instead of having the group of experts consult with one another, Dr. John Craven, Chief Scientist of the U.S. Navy’s Special Projects Office, interviewed each expert separately and put the experts’ answers together. What’s interesting about the collective estimate is that none of the expert’s own estimates coincided with the group’s estimate—in other words, none of the individual experts picked the spot where the U.S.S. Scorpion was found.

A Quick Lesson in Chaos

According to Dave Snowden, Chaos is completely random but if you can contain it, you get innovation. You do this by separating and preventing any connection within a system. And when done properly, you can trust the results. Skunk Works projects and the Wisdom of Crowds approach made popular by James Surowiecki are great examples of how to contain Chaos [3].

Dr. Craven’s approach to finding the U.S.S. Scorpion is a controlled dive into Chaos; preventing any connections within the group, protecting against misplaced biases. Moreover, by bringing in a diverse group of experts, Dr. Craven ensured different expert perspectives were represented in the collective estimate.

To contain Chaos, three conditions must be satisfied [4]:

1. Group members should have tacit knowledge—they should have some level of expertise

2. Group members must NOT know what the other members answered

3. Group Members must NOT have a personal stake

Story Point Estimates: Taking a Shallow Dive into Chaos

Agile software development teams frequently estimate the effort and complexity of user stories found in their product and iteration backlogs. Individual team members “size” a story by assigning a Fibonacci number to a story based on their own experiences and understanding of the user story. A point consensus is not the aim but, unfortunately, is frequently coached and practiced.

To reduce cognitive biases, contain Chaos, and accelerate the story pointing process, AGLX trains and coaches clients’ software development teams to ask the product owner questions using various Red Teaming techniques, to include Liberating Structures. Once all team members are ready to assign points to the story, team members place their selected Fibonacci card or chip face down on the table.

On the “Flip” in “Ready…Flip,” team members turn their cards over and the ScrumMaster rapidly records the individual points. When all points are registered, the ScrumMaster takes the average of the points scored and assigns that number to the story (rounding to the nearest integer, if desired). No need to waste time re-pointing or trying to come to a consensus.

Example. A six-person software development team assigns the following individual points to a story.

Cards

The average is 6.5 (7 if rounding). In this example, none of the individual estimates match the group’s estimate. And, the group’s estimate is not a Fibonacci number.

In some High-Performing Organizations where psychological safety is well established, some development teams will have the team members who pointed the story with a 3 and 13 (using the example above) to present their reasoning using a complex facilitation technique—time-boxed, of course. The point behind this ritual is not to re-point the story but to have team members listen to the story outliers or mavericks for the purpose of identifying possible insights. Caution: This is an advanced technique.

Innovative and Resilient Organizations

Containing Chaos requires expert facilitation and will not happen overnight. However, simplifying your story pointing approach by not allowing consensus or team consultation (Condition 2) when it comes to story pointing is a small step to becoming an innovative and resilient organization—if that is what the organizations desires.

Although the loss of the U.S.S. Scorpion and her 99 crew was a tragedy, by sharing the story of how the collective estimate of a group of diverse experts found the submarine on the seabed floor is a great example of the power of cognitive diversity and containing Chaos.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop networks of high-performing teams. Contact Brian at brian@aglx.consulting.

[1] Sontag, Sherry; Drew, Christopher (2000). Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage. New York:

[2] Surowiecki, James (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books. pp. xv. ISBN 0-385-72170-6.

[3] Snowden, D.  KM World 2016 Keynote.  http://cognitive-edge.com/resources/slides-and-podcasts/

[4] Ibid

Share This:

Kanban vs. Scrum: Why This Argument is Futile

Kanban is a Group Tool or Group Methodology.

Scrum is a Team Framework.

Confused about the difference?  It all has to do with the definition of a team. The Agile community loves to talk about teamwork and teams but does not share a common definition of a team. Is this a problem? It is if you are trying to coach a group of people to function as a team when their work/tasks have a low level of interdependency.

Team

A distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/ objective/ mission [1].

Kanban

Kanban is a great group methodology that allows you to start where you are and focus on flow. However, Kanban is not time-boxed like a sprint in Scrum. Why does this matter? Look at the second part of the above definition of a team: “…shared and valued goals/objective/mission” imply time. Think back to SMART goals (by-the-way I hate SMART goals). Can you have a goal to lose 10lbs without a time-box? You can in Kanban. I’m on that diet now and I have not lost a pound.

Scrum

Scrum is a great team framework that exists in its entirety and is a container for other practices, techniques, and methodologies. You can use elements of Kanban in Scrum without renaming Scrum as long as Scrum exists in its entirety (three roles, five events, three artifacts).

Scrum is ideal for a set of two or more people who work interdependently toward a common goal. But hold on a minute, we all know that there are three roles in Scrum. So does a two-person Scrum team violate the definition of Scrum?

But there’s more…

According to research conducted by R. Wageman, placing a team framework on people whose work or tasks have a low-level of interdependency is a bad idea [2]. There is danger in thinking a pull system designed for the simple domain can be applied as a framework for teams who work in the complicated, complex and chaotic domains.

Bottom line

Kanban is a great group methodology and Scrum is a great team framework.  They are not perfect, they have flaws, but knowing where to use them is as simple as understanding what a team is and what a team is not.

 

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop networks of high-performing teams. Contact Brian at brian@aglx.consulting.

References

[1] Salas, Eduardo; Stephen M. Fiore; Letsky, Michael P. (2013-06-17). Theories of Team Cognition: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Applied Psychology Series) (Kindle Locations 7794-7796). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

[2] “But if managers inadvertently create hybrid groups by importing group processes into a high-performing system with individual tasks and reward systems, they may find that what they have actually have brought in is a Trojan Horse.” Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145-180. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393703 doi:1

Share This:

7 Ways to Hack Your Daily Stand-up to Create Psychological Safety

Data from Google’s Project Aristotle, a multi-year study of why some of the company’s teams were successful while others were not, revealed that psychological safety is the secret sauce behind its highest performing teams. (Psychological safety, according to Julia Rozovsky, an analyst with Google People Operations, is the dynamic that addresses: “Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?”[1])

But the multi-million dollar, 180-team study did not provide details as to how psychological safety is created. Fortunately, this teaming “discovery” by Google is not new. Thanks to human factors research in aviation and health care, creating psychologically safe environments is relatively simple — though not necessarily intuitive.

A psychologically safe environment cannot be established by simply proclaiming: “This is a safe environment.” And, as far as I know, Google does not possess a magic wand. Psychological safety, according to Amy Edmondson, a professor of leadership and management at Harvard Business School, must be created by leaders through simple behaviors and actions. Those leaders include perceived, functional and, most importantly, managers in the middle of the organization.

Before introducing key behaviors and actions that promote a psychologically safe environment, leaders should understand the benefits of establishing this critical condition that enables individuals working in groups to rapidly transition to becoming members of high-performing teams.

Psychological safety[2]:

  • Encourages speaking up
  • Enables clarity of thought
  • Supports productive conflict
  • Mitigates failure
  • Promotes innovation
  • Removes obstacles to pursuing goals for achieving performance
  • Increases accountability

Your daily stand-up is the perfect place to create a high-performance, psychologically safe environment for the team. As a leader, you can accomplish this by [3]:

  1. Being accessible and approachable. (Yes, managers are encouraged to attend Scrum events)
  2. Acknowledging the limits of current knowledge
  3. Being willing to display fallibility
  4. Inviting participation and valuing input
  5. Highlighting failures as learning opportunities
  6. Using direct language
  7. Setting boundaries

These seven key behaviors and actions will help you establish a psychologically safe environment for your team – no magic wand needed.


Practical Application to Daily Stand-ups (Scrum) and Your Typical Ineffective Meetings

Most Scrum teams blindly follow The Scrum Guide’s approach to stand-ups, where each team member answers the following three questions:

  1. What did I do yesterday to help the team meet its goal?
  2. What am I doing today to help the team meet its goal?
  3. What impediments are in my or the team’s way of meeting the goal?

Yuck!

This three-part daily Scrum Q&A is a recipe for a status update — which is not the intent of the daily Scrum, but is its typical outcome. To avoid this, and to create psychological safety during the daily Scrum, the event instead needs to be viewed as a re-planning session.

Below is an example stand-up and script that follows an effective planning process and provides several opportunities to display the behaviors and actions needed to create psychological safety.

Big Picture

“Good morning, team. It is 9:15. Today is May 6, the third day of Sprint. Our Sprint objective is to deliver the grommet and flipperdoodle functions for our elite users so they can bypass the ninth stage of zoom and provide us with rapid feedback. We have 12 stories with 68 points that support our objective. Our team goals are to use ATDD on 70 percent of our stories, practice closed-loop communication using SBAR, and to have at least four different team members other than the ScrumMaster lead the daily stand-up.”

With the big picture approach, we just created an opportunity for the person leading the stand-up to be viewed as approachable. We also established boundaries by starting on time (ending on time is equally important). Moreover, we repeated shared and common objectives and goals — the Sprint objectives are customer-centric and the goals are focused on teaming.

Failure Check

“Does anyone have a quick, individual failure from yesterday or today that you would like to share with the team?”

This is a great time for a manager, product owner, or functional leader to admit a failure, or show fallibility, in front of the team. Keep it short, 30 seconds or less. For a manager who is attending the stand-up, this is the only opportunity you have to talk until post stand-up.

Impediment Share-out

“What impediments, dependencies, or threats are going to keep us from achieving our Sprint objective and team goals today?”

This step invites participation and allows the team to build off of each other’s impediments. The idea is to share impediments, perceived or actual, and park them until all impediments are heard. There should be no discussion about individual impediments until the impediment popcorn stops popping and the team moves to the next step. The ScrumMaster will act as a scribe. Warning: This approach will uncover more impediments than The Scrum Guide’s stand-up process.

Plan of the Day

“What are you doing today to overcome the impediments and move us closer to achieving the Sprint objective and team goals?”

This question invites additional participation, where team members are free to use the information radiator and talk about what they plan to do today and with whom. They will also use this time to quickly discuss what they can do to overcome or remove team impediments. Each member is invited to talk and may include information from what they did yesterday. This is the re-planning part of the stand-up. Realize that this is just the start to the day’s conversations.

Adaptability Plan (or the What If? Plan)

If there are any leftover impediments that the team or ScrumMaster cannot solve, then the team should develop a “what if” plan. For example, Mike’s spouse is expecting and may deliver their first child during this sprint. By definition, this is an impediment to achieving the Sprint objective. The team should build a “what if” plan around Mike’s potential departure. Make sure to invite participation.

When you view the daily stand-up as a re-planning session, you’ll get more than just a status update — you’ll create a psychologically safe space for your team to reaffirm objectives and goals, identify impediments, and most importantly, create a plan for action.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and the co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly building and developing networks of high-performing teams.

References:

[1] Duhigg, Charles. Smarter Faster Better: The Science of Being Productive in Life and Bussines. Random House. Apple iBooks Edition

[2] Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Wiley. Apple iBooks Edition.

[3] Ibid

Share This:

Agile is Dead! The Rise of High-Performing Teams: 10 Lessons from Fighter Aviation

Software and hardware industry leaders are leveraging the lessons from fighter aviation to help their businesses navigate the speed of change and thrive in today’s complex and hostile environment. The emergence of the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) Loop—an empathy-based decision cycle created by John Boyd (fighter pilot)—in today’s business lexicon suggests that executives, academia, and the Agile community recognize that fighter pilots know something about agility.

For example, Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup and entrepreneur, attributes the idea of the Build-Measure-Learn feedback loop to John Boyd’s OODA Loop [1]. At the core of Steve Blank’s Customer Development model and Pivot found in his book, The Four Steps to the Epiphany, is once again OODA [2]. In his new book, Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time, Dr. Jeff Sutherland, a former fighter pilot and the co-creator of Scrum, connects the origins of Scrum to hardware manufacturing and fighter aviation (John Boyd’s OODA Loop) [3]. Conduct a quick Google book search on “Cyber Security OODA” and you will find over 760 results.

This fighter pilot “mindset” behind today’s agile innovation frameworks and cyber security approaches is being delivered to organizations by coaches and consultants who may have watched Top Gun once or twice but more than likely have never been part of a high-performing team [4].

So What?

According to Laszlo Block, “Having practitioners teaching is a far more effective than listening to academics, professional trainers, or consultants. Academics and professional trainers tend to have theoretical knowledge. They know how things ought to work, but haven’t lived them [5].” Unfortunately, most agile consultants’ toolboxes contain more processes and tools than human interaction knowhow. Why? They have not lived what they coach. And this is what is killing Agile.

Teaming Lessons from Fighter Aviation

To survive and thrive in their complex environment, fighter pilots learn to operate as a network of teams using the cognitive and social skills designed by industrial-organizational psychologists—there is actually real science behind building effective teams. It is the combination of inspect-and-adapt frameworks with human interactions skills developed out of the science of teamwork that ultimately build a high-performance culture and move organizational structures from traditional, functional models toward interconnected, flexible teams.

10 Reasons Why Your Next Agile High-Performance Teaming Coach Should Have a Fighter Aviation Background

OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide.-Act). According to Jeff Sutherland, “Fighter pilots have John Boyd’s OODA Loop burned into muscle memory. They know what agility really means and can teach it uncompromisingly to others.”

Empathy. A 1 v 1 dogfight is an exercise in empathy, according to the award-winning thinker, author, broadcaster, and speaker on today’s most significant trends in business, Geoff Colvin. In his 2015 book, Humans Are Underrated: What High Achievers Know that Brilliant Machines Never Will, Geoff pens, “Even a fighter jet dogfight, in which neither pilot would ever speak to or even see the other, was above all a human interaction. Few people would call it an exercise in empathy, but that’s what it was—discerning what was in the mind of someone else and responding appropriately. Winning required getting really good at it [6]” Interestingly, empathy is baked-in Boyd’s OODA Loop.

Debriefing (Retrospective). The most important ceremony in any continuous improvement process is the retrospective (debrief). Your fleet average fighter pilot has more than 1000 debriefs under their belt before they leave their first tour at the five-year mark of service. In Agile iterations years, that is equal to 19 years of experience [7]. Moreover, when compared to other retrospective or debriefing techniques, “Debriefing with fighter pilot techniques offer more ‘bang for the buck’ in terms of learning value [8].” Why is this? There are no games in fighter pilot debriefs, no happy or sad faces to put up on the white board – just real human interactions, face-to-face conversations that focus on what’s right, not who’s right. Fighter pilots learn early that the key to an effective retrospective is establishing a psychologically safe environment.

Psychological Safety. Psychological safety “describes a climate in which people feel free to express relevant thoughts and feelings [9].” Fighter pilots learn to master this leadership skill the day they step in their first debrief where they observe their flight instructor stand up in front of the team and admit her own shortcomings (display fallibility), asks questions, and uses direct language. Interestingly, according to Google’s Project Aristotle, the most important characteristic to building a high-performing team is psychological safety [10]. Great job Google!

Teaming (Mindset and Practice of Teamwork) [11]. Although not ideal, fighter pilots often find themselves in “pickup games” where they find a wingman of opportunity from another squadron, service, or country—even during combat operations. Knowing how to coordinate and collaborate without the benefit of operating as a stable team is a skill fighter pilots develop from building nontechnical known stable interfaces. These stable interfaces include a common language; shared mental models of planning, briefing, and debriefing; and being aligned to shared and common goals. Yes, you do not need stable teams and you they do not need to be co-located if you have known stable interfaces of human interaction.

Empirical Process. The engine of agility is the empirical process and in tactical aviation we use a simple plan-brief-execute-debrief cycle that, when coupled with proven human interaction skills, builds a resilient and learning culture. The inspect and adapt execution rhythm is the same around every mission, whether it be a flight across country or 40-plane strike into enemy territory, we always planned, briefed, executed the mission, and held a debrief. There is no room for skipping steps—no exceptions.

Adaptability/Flexibility. The ability to alter a course of action based on new information, maintain constructive behavior under pressure and adapt to internal and external environmental changes is what fighter pilots call adaptability or flexibility. Every tactical aviator who strapped on a $50M aircraft knows that flexibility is the key to airpower. Every flight does not go according to plan and sometimes the enemy gets a vote – disrupting the plan to the point where the mission looks like a pick-up game. 

Agility. Agility is adaptability with a timescale.

Practical Servant Leadership Experience. Fighter pilots have practical experience operating in complex environments and are recognized as servant leaders. But don’t take my word for it; watch this video by Simon Sinek to learn more.

Fun. Agility is about having fun. Two of my favorite sayings from my time in the cockpit are “You cannot plan fun” and “If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right.” If your organization is truly Agile, then you should be having fun.

So, who’s coaching your teams?

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams.

[1] “The idea of the Build-Measure-Learn feedback loop owes a lot to ideas from maneuver warfare, especially John Boyd’s OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loop.” Ries, E. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. (Crown Publishing, 2011)

[2] “…Customer Development model with its iterative loops/pivots may sound like a new idea for entrepreneurs, it shares many features with U.S. warfighting strategy known as the “OODA Loop” articulated by John Boyd.” Blank, S. The Four Steps to the Epiphany. Successful Strategies for products that win. (2013)

[3] “In the book I talk about the origins of Scrum in the Toyota Production Systems and the OODA loop of combat aviation.” Sutherland, J. Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time. New York. Crown Business (2014).

[4] I do not recommend the movie Top Gun as an Agile Training Resource.

[5] Block, L. Work Rules! That will transform how you live and lead. (Hachette Book Group, 2015).

[6] Geoff Colvin. Humans are Underrated: What high achievers know that brilliant machines never will, 96, (Portfolio/Penguin, 2015).

[7] Assuming two teams with iteration length of two weeks. And 100% retrospective execution.

[8] McGreevy, J. M., MD, FACSS, & Otten, T. D., BS. Briefing and Debriefing in the Operating Room Using Fighter Pilot Crew Resource Management. (2007, July).

[9] Edmondson, A.C. Teaming. How organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Wiley. (2012)

[10] Duhigg, C. Smarter Faster Better: The Secrets to Being Productive in Life and Business. Random House. (2016).

[11] Edmondson, A.C. Teaming. How organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Wiley. (2012)

Share This:

OODA: The Mindset of Scrum

Recently, a trusted source reported that the Oracle of Scrum, Jeff Sutherland, has proclaimed that OODA is the Mindset of Scrum.  A few weeks ago I tried my best to explain this “Mindset” when I co-coached with Joe Justice during his Scrum in Hardware – Train the Trainer course. It was a daunting task considering I was surrounded by some of the world’s finest Scrum Trainers and Agile Coaches and was asked to deliver the “Origins of Scrum” using Scrum, Inc.’s slide deck. Not easy.

Knowing that much has been written about the connection between Scrum and OODA including Steve Adolph’s 2006 paper, What Lessons Can the Agile Community Learn from A Maverick Fighter Pilot, I decided to spend my limited presentation time focused on two lesser known features of OODA: empathy and fast transients. Before rolling-in on these two features, here is a quick-and-dirty introduction to OODA and Scrum.

OODA and Scrum

Over the skies of Korea, years before Jeff Sutherland and his RF-4C’s Weapons System Operator’s (WSO) flight plans were constantly disrupted by North Vietnamese gunfire, SAMs, and fighters, John “40-Second” Boyd was trying to understand how a seemingly inferior aircraft, the American built F-86 Sabre, had a kill ratio of 10:1 over the nimbler, more agile MiG-15. As an F-86 pilot who regularly engaged with MiG-15s, Boyd realized that it was the F-86’s bubble canopy that provided American pilots better situational awareness (the ability to better observe and therefore process reality) over MiG-15 pilots. It was from fighter combat, a 1 v 1 dogfight (a socio-technical system vs. a socio-technical system) that the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) Loop was born.

According to Jeff Sutherland, Scrum’s origins are in OODA and hardware manufacturing, not software. In fact, for those of you who are Lean Startup practitioners you may want to adopt OODA as your mindset as well considering the Lean Startup is based on OODA. Similarly, Cyber Security borrows from Boyd’s OODA Loop as do several product design approaches.  Back to Scrum.

Scrum is widely practiced by software development teams but is applicable across the routine-complexity-innovation continuum. For example, in the past two weeks, I coached Scrum to a world-class surgical center, an aerospace giant’s flight test team, and a geographical combatant command (GCC). Best place to learn about scrum is the 16-page Scrum Guide. If you happen to fly fighter or commercial jets, then it should not surprise you that CRM is applicable to coaching Scrum…but that’s another story.

OODA: The Mindset…

As I had limited time during my “Origins of Scrum” presentation, I decided to focus on empathy and fast transients, two lessor known characteristics of OODA.

Empathy: Get inside the mind of your customer

A 1 v 1 dogfight is an exercise in empathy, according to the award-winning thinker, author, broadcaster, and speaker on today’s most significant trends in business, Geoff Colvin. In his 2015 book, Humans Are Underrated: What High Achievers Know that Brilliant Machines Never Will, Geoff proposes that “Even a fighter jet dogfight, in which neither pilot would ever speak to or even see the other, was above all a human interaction. Few people would call it an exercise in empathy, but that’s what it was—discerning what was in the mind of someone else and responding appropriately. Winning required getting really good at it.” (Page 96) In his 1995 briefing, The Essence of Winning and Losing, John R. Boyd points out that analysis and synthesis are dependent on implicit cross-referencing across different domains including empathy.

Fast Transients: The organization that can handle the quickest rate of change survives

The ability for your organization to transition from one state to another faster than your competition will ensure your organizations survival. Moreover, “Fast Transients” will bring confusion and disorder to your competition as they under or over react to your activities.

Orientation is Schwerpunkt (focal point)

Orientation is the “genetic code” of an organism and cognitive diversity is key to creating innovative solutions to complex problems.

Focus on Feedback Loops

One feature of complex adaptive systems are feedback loops. Learn how to provide feedback. Effective retrospectives are a great start.

Leverage Uncertainty

We live in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world.

Agility is Adaptation with a Time Scale

Adaptability is a cognitive skill found in High-Performance Teaming™ and Crew Resource Management. Agility is adaptability with a time scale and that time scale is rapidly shrinking.

Non-Linear Systems Have Inherently Identical Structures

When looking for solutions to problems, look outside your industry. The future already exists.

I look forward to your feedback and comments.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams.

Share This:

17 Ways to Stop Your Organization’s Agile Transformation

In 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), now known as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), published the Simple Sabotage Field Manual which provides organizational saboteurs—let’s call them managers and employees who are on the wrong bus—a guide on how to interfere with organizational development and transformation.

As an Agile and High-Performance Teaming™ Coach, I have observed the following 17 tactics found in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual skillfully employed by managers and employees who clearly do not want their organizations to survive and thrive in today’s knowledge economy:

  1. When training new workers, give incomplete or misleading instructions.
  2. To lower morale and with it, productivity, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers, complain unjustly about their work.
  3. Hold [meetings] when there is more critical work to be done.
  4. Demand [documentation].
  5. “Misunderstand” [documentation]. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such [documents]. Quibble over them when you can.
  6. Make “Speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great lengths.
  7. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
  8. Insists on doing everything through “channels” [and email].
  9. When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible–never less than five.
  10. Spread inside rumors that sound like inside dope.
  11. Contrive as many interruptions to your work [and team] as you can.
  12. Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment.
  13. Never pass on your skills and experience to anyone.
  14. If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management. See that procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence of large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on.
  15. Give lengthy and incomprehensive explanations when questioned.
  16. Act stupid.
  17. Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams.

Share This: