|Cognitive Hazard by Arenamontanus|
Donella Meadows has left behind quite a legacy, and has great observations on how people work within overarching systems. Systems are everywhere and are often composed of yet other systems - just as it is with how people manage their workload every day. In particular, Donella notes the traps that systems can cause which cause things to go completely awry. Let's see if we can identify any of these traps within the context of enterprise software development:
- Policy Resistance (think of "The War on Drugs," where two sides are trying to leverage the same system)
- Tragedy of the Commons (exhausting a shared resource)
- Drift to Low Performance (goals are eroded because negative feedback has more resonance than positive feedback)
- Escalation (one side is attempting to out-produce the other, without a balance in between the two sides)
- Competitive Exclusion (success to the successful)
- Shifting the Burden to the Intervenor (an addiction has removed a system's ability to shoulder its own burdens)
- Rule Beating (finding loopholes)
- Seeking the Wrong Goal
Any of those sound familiar in your current software engineering practice? No matter if this is exhibited between the business and the engineers, or PM's and engineers, or between engineers - these are universal pratfalls.
There are ways to influence systems and avoid the traps we often fall into. These leverage points within the system can allow you to alter behavior and encourage positive results. A tricky point remains that some of the leverage points that are easiest to alter have the smallest impact, and some of the largest impact leverage points are very difficult to manipulate. If we look at an Agile software scrum, you might identify least impactful to most these leverage points as:
- Numbers, Constants and Parameters. It often feels like you're changing things because you have the most control over these knobs and dials... but all too often reactions are delayed and are cushioned by buffers within the system. Sure, you can change your sprint velocity or begin estimating bugs, but those are just different views on the same result.
- Buffers, or the sizes of stabilizing stocks that act as reservoirs of results. A buffer may delay or even out the consequence of a change within the system. Changing buffers would be like changing from a two to a four week development sprint in Agile - you may give yourself more time to recover, but more than likely you're just delaying an inevitable fail.
- Failing that, you might try to alter the real, physical parts of the system and how they interact. This can happen, but they are often difficult to change and result in a game of whack-a-mole. This is more fondly called "re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic," and often is exhibited by swapping out team members but keeping the system the same.
- The next leverage point might be to try and change how quickly you respond to changes by reducing delays, which in turn alters how quickly the system changes. However, Donella does demonstrate that shorter reaction time can very easily result in greater volatility, and things can become so volatile that they crash. This is what Agile is meant to guard against by locking down a sprint and ensuring priorities aren't changed on a day-by-day basis.
- In order to get a grasp on things one may also overlook the balancing feedback loops - or safety measures - that safeguard the system in times of emergency. The excuse is generally that "the worst is unlikely to happen," however this drastically reduces one's survival range. Adaptability is important, and if you take away the ability to adapt you can crash even harder.
- Monitoring for reinforcing feedback loops is something that becomes crucially important. This tasks requires one to watch for runaway chain reactions, which can cause a meltdown if not kept in check. Here bad decisions and bad reactions begat even more bad decisions and bad reactions, causing a runaway system. Look for balance instead of infinite feedback loops; if you can keep pushing your tasks to the next sprint, you're only encouraging a runaway backlog of tasks.
- Information flows can save a system. If information is in your face and always available, it influences even small decisions. Look at the Nest thermostat or smoke detector - here are devices whose primary purpose is to give you a nonstop flow of info wherever you are. The more info you have (such as how many hours heat was pumped into your house), the more you make small alterations to find balance. This is another part of the Agile process in the form of burndowns/burnups/velocity graphs. This info is meant to be viewed and reflected upon often.
- Rules (incentives, punishments, constraints) often have to take place to enforce all the above points. In order to kill feedback loops, ensure emergency systems are maintained and information is shared some rules of the game have to be put into place.
- Self-organization, which is an odd juxtaposition of the above rule about rules, is something that Donella prizes most about not only the human condition but systems in general. Usually if you let the component pieces of a system find their role, they will find a way to work with other components in harmony. This is the proof against micro-management; the more you manage, the more you can threaten a system's success. Let developers go free within the confines of the sprint, and don't hover over them (aside from a daily standup).
- Find the right goals to change a system. If you focus on GDP, you will focus on gross domestic product at the exclusion of other things. Picking the right goal is tougher than it sounds - you need to know what you want first. However if you can clearly identify and communicate a measurable goal, you can have a huge amount of control over the system. Define what the business actually wants to see - and involve them in the decision making process.
- Change your mindset. This is effectively what EVERY project management methodology attempts to do - make you think about the same problem in a different way. If it gives you a renewed perspective, this can be helpful. However...
- ...ultimately you should transcend paradigms and realize no paradigms are true. This is what supposed "anti-patterns" are meant to exhibit, and it can be helpful to realize that Agile, just like Waterfall, will ultimately come and go. Just ship early, and ship often.
Just as we have "Gang of Four" or "Enterprise Integration" patterns, the above are system patterns that can help us decompose and deal with a system. Look for the common traps that always happen - and then evaluate your leverage points to counteract them.