6 ms·

Denise's case studies are coming from time at Pivotal, which performed a lot of turnarounds by embedding client teams in order to demonstrate the possible world

Denise's case studies are coming from time at Pivotal, which performed a lot of turnarounds by embedding client teams in order to demonstrate the possible world. I've also worked at Pivotal and I was allocated to several rescue missions in both Labs and R&D. A lot of the work was patiently modelling the possible and continuing to make small, incremental steps towards the better condition. From week to week the situation may appear to be impossible, but one day you look back and realise how much better things are than 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months ago.

urbanetrellis 6y ago
As someone who got to embed with a mixed client/Pivotal team, this was a great experience for me. I had never seen pairing or TDD done in a disciplined and thoughtful way, or participated on a team that was "Agile" in more than just name and appearance. We certainly had plenty of room to keep improving, but by the end of my time on the project we were deploying a high-quality product on an ongoing basis, making good design choices, and delivering substantial value for the users every few weeks. It felt great and I'm sorry to say I haven't gotten to experience it again since.
twic 6y ago
I spent about thirty or forty years of my life working with enterprise clients in Pivotal Labs, which i think lasted two and a half calendar years. A year or so of that was leading engagements with one particular enormous and highly dysfunctional retail bank. Every week, we tried to demonstrate that a better world was possible, and every week, they remained resolutely stuck in their world of suffering and not delivering software. Some time after i left, i asked after that client. Apparently their organisation is agile, the projects shipped successfully, and they're really happy. I have no idea how that happened. I'd love to think that i was making a difference and just not seeing it because i was stuck at the coalface, but it's probably just that people much better than me got involved after i left!
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  Ah yes, the banks. By far our hardest clients. I think we took on too many bank engagements.
  - dajohnson89 6y ago
    what about banks make them so difficult to work with?
    - jacques_chester 6y ago
      It's a mix of things. The biggest is that they're just enormous, so nearly every engagement is pretty much from scratch. As in: single departments of single divisions could dwarf us in headcount and revenue. It can be dispiriting for Labs consultants and I know people who quit because of it. A lot of the time you hit what I call "veto culture". You are forever running into groups, committees, boards, bureaus, offices of the whatever etc etc who have the power to gate some change. Those folks almost always say "no". The logic is simple: if they say "yes", and something goes wrong, and they are blamed for it, then they might lose their job or at least risk a bonus or promotion. But if they say "no", there's no risk to them. In practice it drives everything productive underground. We often relied on discovering the nomenklatura who actually did things as we went. The parallels to the USSR's experiences (as I understand them) were fascinating. It's important to note that I don't see any of this as being a deliberate outcome. In general folks don't wake up and ask "how can I make my company less productive and pleasant today?". People do what makes sense to them, based on their experiences. But I have seen how culture can drift into a bad place that's hard to dig out. Big banks seem to have even more of this than regular megacorps. I know some folks who worked in the Federal sector had some similar experiences, but overall it seems like a lot of the time it seemed more manageable due to different incentives. In fact a lot of the compliance / standards folks were often thrilled that someone wanted to talk to them.
      - thebigbank 6y ago
        This is very true. I work for a big bank and purposely overestimate any work because: 1) the veto culture; and 2) it allows me time to do work not counted in the "sprint". The actual amount of development I do is between 20-30%. The rest is taken up by "agile ceremonies" and convincing multiple layers of veto holders not to veto. Often times I'll spend 2-3 days developing a prototype and then 2-3 months convincing people its a decent idea. (I put "sprint" and "agile ceremonies" in quotes because its waterfall presented as agile)

urbanetrellis 6y ago

As someone who got to embed with a mixed client/Pivotal team, this was a great experience for me. I had never seen pairing or TDD done in a disciplined and thoughtful way, or participated on a team that was "Agile" in more than just name and appearance. We certainly had plenty of room to keep improving, but by the end of my time on the project we were deploying a high-quality product on an ongoing basis, making good design choices, and delivering substantial value for the users every few weeks. It felt great and I'm sorry to say I haven't gotten to experience it again since.

twic 6y ago

I spent about thirty or forty years of my life working with enterprise clients in Pivotal Labs, which i think lasted two and a half calendar years. A year or so of that was leading engagements with one particular enormous and highly dysfunctional retail bank. Every week, we tried to demonstrate that a better world was possible, and every week, they remained resolutely stuck in their world of suffering and not delivering software. Some time after i left, i asked after that client. Apparently their organisation is agile, the projects shipped successfully, and they're really happy. I have no idea how that happened. I'd love to think that i was making a difference and just not seeing it because i was stuck at the coalface, but it's probably just that people much better than me got involved after i left!

jacques_chester 6y ago
Ah yes, the banks. By far our hardest clients. I think we took on too many bank engagements.
- dajohnson89 6y ago
  what about banks make them so difficult to work with?
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    It's a mix of things. The biggest is that they're just enormous, so nearly every engagement is pretty much from scratch. As in: single departments of single divisions could dwarf us in headcount and revenue. It can be dispiriting for Labs consultants and I know people who quit because of it. A lot of the time you hit what I call "veto culture". You are forever running into groups, committees, boards, bureaus, offices of the whatever etc etc who have the power to gate some change. Those folks almost always say "no". The logic is simple: if they say "yes", and something goes wrong, and they are blamed for it, then they might lose their job or at least risk a bonus or promotion. But if they say "no", there's no risk to them. In practice it drives everything productive underground. We often relied on discovering the nomenklatura who actually did things as we went. The parallels to the USSR's experiences (as I understand them) were fascinating. It's important to note that I don't see any of this as being a deliberate outcome. In general folks don't wake up and ask "how can I make my company less productive and pleasant today?". People do what makes sense to them, based on their experiences. But I have seen how culture can drift into a bad place that's hard to dig out. Big banks seem to have even more of this than regular megacorps. I know some folks who worked in the Federal sector had some similar experiences, but overall it seems like a lot of the time it seemed more manageable due to different incentives. In fact a lot of the compliance / standards folks were often thrilled that someone wanted to talk to them.
    - thebigbank 6y ago
      This is very true. I work for a big bank and purposely overestimate any work because: 1) the veto culture; and 2) it allows me time to do work not counted in the "sprint". The actual amount of development I do is between 20-30%. The rest is taken up by "agile ceremonies" and convincing multiple layers of veto holders not to veto. Often times I'll spend 2-3 days developing a prototype and then 2-3 months convincing people its a decent idea. (I put "sprint" and "agile ceremonies" in quotes because its waterfall presented as agile)