Some thoughts on trainings

In my whole professional career in IT I have been training others. I am not an educated trainer not do I want to be fulltime trainer but I have always find myself some possibilities to train others. I am more or less self-educated wanna-be trainer but that haven't stop me. 

I have learned that interactive lessons are far better than lectures. I have done many of basic Agile trainings utilizing LEGO®  bricks. And I know I am not the only one playing with legos in Agile trainings. 

Some interesting examples from others

• Lego Simulation Scrum Workhop
• Book "lego4scrum"
  
• Case study "Lego Digital Solutions"

I know quite many have been participating trainings or workshops with lego games. I as a trainer am getting little bit tired for these lego games and I have heard trainees telling the same. After a while we all want something different. 

I haven't been conducting any basic Agile training for long times but if I'd definitely looked for something else. Nowadays, due to Covid-19, everything is happening remotely and for sure lego games wouldn't work really well. All around the world trainers have been looking for different ways to make trainings interactive in remote context. 

I co-facilitated couple of SAFe trainings before I changed job this autumn. Due to restrictions in organization we used MS Teams and  features made available for us. That was challenging but totally possible. It was up to us trainers and participants make these trainings interactive. I don't think it is fair to stay passive and complain afterwards that training should have been classroom training. 

It is totally possible to stay passive also in classroom trainings. In groups there can be someone who makes others do all the work and in worst case (s)he might be the one who complains all the time so that no one enjoy the training. I have meet these people - as well as a trainer and a trainee. And I have to admit - I have been one myself also. 

I have been wondering myself what does it tell about me or the others who are not willing to participate trainings which require interactions with other trainees. In Agile teams, collaboration and cooperation are important. What if you are not able be interactive and cooperate with your colleagues in one training - can you really be a team player. 

Well, of course, there are people who simply hate games. For them these games are the worst nightmare. I have been wondering often what we should do with these guys. Maybe if I had degree in education I would have answer for that question. 

I have never been in training where I wouldn't learned something. Even the facilitation training I hated truly - even from that training I took something with me. Sometimes I feel that people are not taking the responsibility to learn. It is not your trainers fault if you don't learn anything or pass the exam. I so do think taking ownership and responsibility of your own learning is the key. 

Taking ownership, being responsible, collaborating - all that you need when being part of Agile team. No matter whether you follow Scrum or are part of Agile Release Train - you need those actions. If you don't like lego bricks or hate games consider how you can contribute and don't be the stick in the mud. 

Is it Done or Done-Done

Quite often I have discussed with teams whether something is Done or not. Is it Done or really Done, which we call Done-Done. I know I am not the only one struggling with this. 

There have been different reasons for this discussion.

"We don't have any QA in our team." >> Sounds pretty much similar to discussion I once had with one developer. He told me he doesn't need to unit test his code because we have a tester in our team and he can't do her job. Can't or won't? 

>> Also reminds me that in some teams they had historically, before starting to follow Scrum, done so that business experts had tested what ever they had done. Situation changed when the team were forced to start use Scrum board and practices. None of our backlog items were completed during the Sprint because business experts were not available. Even after we tried to discuss with them about schedules and dates.

"We develop in this Sprint and testers test in next Sprint." >> Same team didn't want include testing effort in estimations. They also wanted to close development issues and create new one only for testing. Because testing is not part of coding. They also considered refinement is not a team activity - it is job for business analyst. 

Why I still see teams who consider testing being something happening outside of the team, someone else testing somewhere where developers and testers don't ever meet? I am - also - certified trainer for course "Whole Team Approach for Agile Testing" and I feel really sad when teams don't see the key point - it is team's responsibility.

Today I wrote kind of poem for this. This I will share with my current teams and stakeholders at some point. 

Is it Done or is it Done-Done - that is the question:

Whether it required to be tested

Whether it is enough when developers tested

Whether we prefer manual testers to be involved

Is it Done or is it Done-Done - that is the question:

Whether we have build quality in 

Is Product Owner interested in

Does Customer want fix quickly in

Is it Done or is it Done-Done - this is the answer:

Well-functioning agile teams don’t need two concepts - Done and Done-Done

A PBI is a complete slice of product functionality, 

One that has been designed, built, integrated, tested, and documented 

And will deliver validated customer value

By the book

While reading book Coaching Agile Teams (by Lyssa Adkins) I got first time ever introduced to Shu-Ha-Ri. How your style as Agile Coach or Scrum Master changes with the team as the team move between Shu, Ha, and Ri. 

(source: https://www.kimusubiaikido.com/blog/meaning-shu-ha-ri)

Shu Ha Ri is a term the Japanese use to describe the overall progression of martial arts training, as well as the lifelong relationship the student will enjoy with his or her instructor.

Shu can either mean "to protect" or "to obey." The dual meaning of the term is aptly descriptive of the relationship between a martial arts student and teacher in the student's early stages, which can be likened to the relationship of a parent and child. The student should absorb all the teacher imparts, be eager to learn and willing to accept all correction and constructive criticism. The teacher must guard the student in the sense of watching out for his or her interests and nurturing and encouraging his or her progress, much as a parent guards a child through its growing years. Shu stresses basics in an uncompromising fashion so the student has a solid foundation for future learning, and all students perform techniques in identical fashion, even though their personalities, body structure, age, and abilities all differ.

Ha is another term with an appropriate double meaning: "to break free" or "to frustrate." Sometime after the student reaches dan (black belt) level, he or she will begin to break free in two ways. In terms of technique, the student will break free of the fundamentals and begin to apply the principles acquired from the practice of basics in new, freer, and more imaginative ways. The student's individuality will begin to emerge in the way he or she performs techniques. At a deeper level, he or she will also break free of the rigid instruction of the teacher and begin to question and discover more through personal experience. This can be a time of frustration for the teacher, as the student's journey of discovery leads to countless questions beginning with "Why..." At the Ha stage, the relationship between student and teacher is similar to that of a parent and an adult child; the teacher is a master of the art. and the student may now be an instructor to the others.

Ri is the stage at which the student, now a kodansha (high ranking black belt), separates from the instructor having absorbed all that he or she can learn from them. This is not to say that the student and teacher are no longer associated. Actually, quite the opposite should be true; they should now have a stronger bond than ever before, much as a grandparent does with their son or daughter who is now also a parent. Although the student is now fully independent, he treasures the wisdom and patient counsel of the teacher and there is a richness to their relationship that comes through their shared experiences. But the student is now learning and progressing more through self-discovery than by instruction and can give outlet to his or her own creative impulses. The student's techniques will bear the imprint of his or her own personality and character. Ri, too, has a dual meaning, the second part of which is "to set free" As much as the student now seeks independence from the teacher, the instructor likewise must set the student free.

Shu Ha Ri is not a linear progression. It is more akin to concentric circles, so that there is Shu within Ha and both Shu and Ha within Ri. Thus, the fundamentals remain constant; only the application of them and the subtleties of their execution change as the student progresses and his or her own personality begins to flavor the techniques performed. Similarly, the student and teacher are always bound together by their close relationship and the knowledge, experience, culture, and tradition shared between them. Ultimately, Shu Ha Ri should result in the student surpassing the master, both in knowledge and skill. This is the source of improvement for the art as a whole. If the student never surpasses his master, then the art will stagnate, at best. If the student never achieves the master's ability, the art will deteriorate. But, if the student can assimilate all that the master can impart and then progress to even higher levels of advancement, the art will continually improve and flourish. 

I have often introduced this concept to the teams by explaining it shortly

• Shu - Follow the rule
• Ha - Break the rule
• Ri - Be the rule

I want to introduce this concept to the teams to make them realize that in the beginning of their journey, when they don't know so much and they don't have experience in Agile ways of working, it is better to follow the rules so that they learn how to do things "by the book". I know there is no way to do everything by the book or it doesn't make any sense trying to fit all teams into one way of doing things. My role as a Scrum Master or an Agile Coach is to teach. 

As the team grows and matures we start breaking the rules. It usually happens quickly. We might stay in state or Shu in some areas and in some other areas we step into Ha. That is when I move more into coaching mode. I don't anymore teach and tell what to do but I help teams to find their adoption of the rules. Teaching has had its place but the longer I stay in teaching mode the longer teams rely on me. But as said I might in some areas stay in teaching mode -  e.g. when I think team benefits from me introducing some new practices. 

And finally teams reach level of Ri. They create their own rules. 

All teams go through these stages whether they realize it or not. But it is not only teams who have these stages. Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches can see themselves going through similarly these stages. All of us start from scratch. We start learning and in the beginning our only option is to follow the rule: what ever we read or learn - we follow that. After a while we realize that not everything can fit into these rule. We start bending the rules and experimenting. Only the real gurus - in my honest opinion - can say they have reached Ri. 

I myself have seen this happening with myself. When I started I didn't know anything about Agile or how to coach teams. But I have learned throughout the way. In some areas I am more matured and in some others I am in the beginning of my learning path. 

When I first time read Lyssa's book I draw one pagers for each part of the book and in third part "Getting more for yourself" I draw the actions in my journey becoming an Agile Coach. I love this book and I am getting back to it time to time. I have a look these one pagers and if needed, I open the book and refresh my memory. 

I sometimes have seen how team or organization get stuck in Shu. They keep repeating "we have to follow the rule" and are afraid to take the next step and start adjusting. I have been wondering what might be the reason for that kind of habit. One thing which come to my mind is the maturity of the leaders. It can be Scrum Master who is afraid to let the team to take next steps. It can be the competence level or insecurity of  Scrum Master, Agile Coach or leader. If they are not confident themselves they don't know how to reach the next level. 

I have also heard when a person in higher position in an organization said "we have to follow the book or otherwise we are doomed". I couldn't help myself thinking if that person have any trust on the people doing the actual work. If we don't have trust on people we don't have anything. Even in that case teams and most of people were ready to take next steps but as they were forced to follow the guidance they kept doing things by the book and lost the opportunity to grow and mature even more. 

Staying too long in this "by the book" mode we restrict ourselves getting more for ourselves, teams and organizations.