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

Popular posts from this blog

I don't report bugs

I don't report bugs . Bug is such a loaded word that people understand very differently, that instead of using it and explaining what I mean by it I rather just use other words. Like observations, thoughts, surprises, ideas, alternatives, or something similar. (And no I don't use fault, defect, or error either). Bug has also quite a negative connotation. "Reporting a bug" is kind of like telling someone that they've been served. And as we are actually giving away the gift of information, why wrap it in such a nasty package? And maybe more importantly it is very likely that whatever you might have to say is wrong. If not plain wrong, then at least incomplete. So I like to approach the kind of situations with the assumption that I am probably wrong. Cutting off anything that might sound arrogant makes stuff quite a lot easier. Especially after you realise later on that you have been wrong. I leave plenty of observations unreported . I don't want to waste

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.

Testers of past be the IT stars of the future?

Been noticing two a bit conflicting themes lately. 1. Testers getting (or pushed) to be more technical and write test automation code 2. Articles listing future IT core skills as widely non-technical So whereas many testers are moving to work more on test automation, the vital skills of the future may be such as: - Creativity -  Analytical (critical) thinking  -  Activ e  learning  with a growth mindset   -  Judgment and decision making -  Interpersonal communication skills - Complex Problem Solving Which sounds almost like a list of vital skills needed for an exploratory tester.  So we should perhaps remind the ones starting a testing career or moving away from it, that also these skills are something that can be quite valuable in the future as well. Maybe even the most valuable.