RE: Summing up and moving on (I hope)

Glen,

> > Let me take a shot at this.
> > 
> > > Here's one we just finished over lunch. "Without programming" will
> be
> > > operationally defined as talking about our work process and using
> the
> > > phrase "Programming occurs here" (which does use the word of course,
> so
> > > pre-excuse please).
> > 
> > I'm thinking that what you mean is you don't talk about how programming
> > is done. Is that right? Is this any different from other activities?
> 
> [>] Yes

OK... I take that as yes to both questions.

> > For example, do you talk about how stories are written? About the
> > proper way to engage a customer during a planning session? About
> > the nature of design? About the granularity of tests? I'm guessing
> > that you don't.
> 
> [>] How stories are written? No. That stories or some of functionality
> partitioning is needed? Yes. Granularity of testing? Certainly, but not
> at the "doing" level only at the level "that we need to have this done."

Cool. What I would assume.

> > So - if I've got it right - you're not particularly singling out
> > coding as something not to talk about. And your lack of talk is
> > not a lack of interest in the results, but is based on a belief
> > that these things will be taken care of at another level.
> 
> [>] Well we are singling it out because the peer group at lunch is two
> levels above the managers of coding. So we try to avoid delving into
> coding discussions, since it's not the topic of the lunch time meeting.

Just as you avoid delving into the other stuff you don't discuss?

I'm trying to figure out if your lunch group feels staying out of
the coding is even _more_ important than staying out of the other
stuff that's two levels down, or if it's just one of many low
level details you don't get into.

It seems to me that the focus on not discussing coding is just
an example of a low-level thing, and that it's not particularly
coding your adverse to... or am I missing something.

> > Assuming I'm on track so far, what happens if these things are
> > not taken care of where they should be?
> 
> [>] They're taken care of two levels down. We review the progress of
> those managers and staff weekly and their work is visible daily in the
> EVMS systems and Time and Labor, but we rarely discuss the actual
> details of writing code in "our" group

Could you explore the boundary condition for me? What would justify
your group getting down to this level of detail - whether about
coding or any other kind of thing.
 
Charlie Poole
[email protected]
www.pooleconsulting.com
www.charliepoole.org




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/