Skip to main content

Our idea of group work



Our team has a practice of dynamically splitting down to work groups to solve different goals. Grouping happens through our normal weekly process, respecting these common ideas:

*****

1. Each bigger task or project should be done within a work group of at least 2 devs + qa + ba

Because we believe that in the long run it is through teamwork that we can “deliver fast and with good quality every time”

*****

2. Work group is created based on (suggested) people voluntarily deciding to work on it, but still ensuring enough competence.

Because being able to affect on what you work on is good for your motivation. And motivation is key.

*****

3. Work group is responsible for deciding, planning, implementing, and releasing the next most important task(s) on the project.

Giving freedom and responsibility to the people who know best.

*****

4. Planning is done with whole group; when needed, when starting on the next task(s), or if there is a need to do some planning.

“Plans are useless but planning is indispensable”

 Planning within group keeps all inline and provides many perspectives.

*****

5. It is good to have both consistency, but also some variation on the work group (not always the same, but not always different members either) 

Because focus is important. And variation keeps you fresh and away of tunnel vision.

*****


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testing drunk

(My first blog writing ever.) I've been thinking a long time that it's funny how many bugs I find by accident. Try to do something, make a mistake and boom - a bug is found.  Making the mistakes intentionally doesn't quite work - that's why they are called accidents I guess.. So I've thought of ways to make myself more prone to accidents, coming up with an apparent one; testing drunk. TUI (testing under the influence). So this I gotta try. More to come on that later.
3 comments
Read more

Periodical retrospectives are lame

  "You got nothing, not a single thing?! Well lets just end this here then." I remember well when I said this, being very frustrated. About ten years ago I had been working as a Scrum master for a team some months, and putting quite a lot of effort into planning our scrum teams sprint retrospectives. Lot of work also because I felt we were not getting too much out from them; not very good discussions, very few actions, and even the few actions we did come up with did not stick.  And then it happened: a retro where none of the participants came up with anything to say about the sprint. Regardless of the retro topic boxes, reading of books on retrospectives, getting inspiration from tools like retromat.org, having them in different places, using all kinds of different formats and rainbow coloured post-it notes. Not a single thing. Blank.  So then I said the words, out of frustration, mainly to myself. Why couldn't I get this thing everyone is so hyped about to work? Af...
Post a Comment
Read more

The miseducation of Exploratory Testing

I've been noticing a phenomenon lately, that is the over/misuse of the term Exploratory testing. As many testers seems to have kind of settled for the Exploratory testing paradigm and have moved to new frontiers like checking vs testing , it seems many other parties are really getting into it, and of course understanding it in different ways. Couple of examples of this phenomena: 1. In my final days as a consultant one of our sales people, had visited a customer who had no experiences about testing, but specifically requested the sales man to give a offer on Exploratory testing 2. I just looked at the program of Agile testing days 2013 , and really many of the testing related talks were labeled about Exploratory testing, although to me many seemed to talk/practice testing in generally It's nice that the Exploratory testing is gaining momentum, but I am also a bit worried about it. The examples listed above could be supported by many others, which kind of give me the impr...
2 comments
Read more