Published on 03 October 2014 by @mathiasverraes
My blog post on Small Controlled Experiments landed me an invitation to speak at Agile Cambridge. As the slides are probably not that useful if you haven’t seen the presentation, I advise you to read the blog post instead.
The project was of to a bad start: an inherited legacy codebase, a waterfall contract, and a projected loss. The promise of Kaizen or Continuous Improvement seemed very appealing. But when we tried to incorporate this into our process, it didn’t catch on. Biweekly retrospectives didn’t seem to expose any problems we could improve upon. The ceremonies we tried, like Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles, added too much overhead. We were doing something wrong.
Continuous Improvement implies that you know exactly where to focus your efforts. Like scientists, we started to experiment, without deciding upfront what we expected the outcome to be. The rules? Make every experiment as small as possible. No meetings, no consensus, no cumbersome evaluation process. We let the results speak for themselves. This talk explores the successes and failures of a team that went from survival mode to learning mode over the course of a year.
Peter Decuyper drew this while I gave the talk at PHPBenelux 2015:
Follow @mathiasverraes on Twitter.
|Advanced Domain-Driven Design||DDD Europe||workshop||Brussels, Paris||2018|
|Design Heuristics||DDD eXchange||keynote||London||April 2018|
|DDD for Messaging Architectures||ExploreDDD||workshop||Denver||Sep 2018|
|Design Heuristics||Kandddinsky||talk||Berlin||Oct 2018|
|Tactical DDD||Kandddinsky||workshop||Berlin||Oct 2018|
This work by Mathias Verraes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License.