Andy's Mind

I have been in Warsaw yesterday to meet with Dave Prior, chair of the PMI‘s IT&Telecom SIG who was there attending PMI’s Polish Chapter annual conference. We had a very interesting discussion on agile, project management and… Banana Scrum, most of which was videotaped by Dave and will be made available as a part of IT&Telecom SIG videocast.

This is part of Scrum practitioners and traditional IT PMs trying to come closer together. This will be a hard effort, because of cultural divide (which we discussed too) but it will be definitely worth it and traditional PMs are very attracted to agile. When it comes to getting work done knowing other methods can’t hurt.

Dave, it turned out, is also a huge fan of our humble Banana Scrum tool. It was really cool to meet someone who likes and uses what we have built. Gave me another incentive to make sure our fall hiring campaign will allow us to get more resources to work on the tool. I’d like to finally add a few bigger features to Banana that have been waiting on the backlog for weeks now. It would be good to have something for Christmas for our users.

For those of you unfamiliar with PMI SIGs a few words of explanation. PMI is the most known organization of project managers (yes, those dreadful guys with Gantt charts, shamanic metrics and ugly waterfalls), inside of it there are Special Interest Groups – groups that focus on a certain aspect of project management or projects in general. IT&Telecom SIG is the group that is most interested in agile – they know best how miserably waterfall’s record in software development has been.

During the last Scrum Gathering Jeff Sutherland delivered a talk on hyper productive Scrum teams. One of his interesting points was that extreme data points (extremely well performing teams) are worth looking at, as people behind them must be doing something right. And that makes sense – if we are all to look for improvements in the way we do our projects we must look at those who make it better.

Another interesting thing Jeff described was how some companies – like Xebia – do Scrum with dispersed teams with productivity that is on par with co-located teams, which is quite an accomplishment. I found this very interesting, because for now we have whole our team in one office, but with time we might have to do something like this too and it is good to know how to do it well.

Luckily I don’t have to recount all that myself, as I just found that Jeff delivered the very same talk at Google a month earlier and they did put it on YouTube, so you can just enjoy the original.

So I’m at the Scrum Gathering in Stockholm right now.

Did my talk in the morning – it went reasonably well, did get some very good questions at the end. I think I could improve it now also after what I learned at another talk on the same subject. That talk itself wasn’t very inspiring but the discussion with other participants was very good and informative. Many companies now are thinking how to sell agile software development services, especially how to sway clients away from the fixed bid culture that is doing them no good. Another common problem is how to formulate “agile contracts” – that is contracts that are helping form this kind of relationship. I think we have pretty good standard agreement and model now, but I did pick up a few nice ideas from others that we could possibly use.

Jeff Sutherland had a very interesting lecture on “super-performing teams” that got me thinking seriously on how we could improve the way we measure our productivity. The thing he is saying – and many others have been for some time – that you can achieve more productivity while at the same time cutting the number of hours worked. Seems like impossibility, but from my own experience in agile I know this is true. I just wonder whether we did all we could in that area.

This was also my first time I could see Ken Schwaber in person. In the video from his talk at Google he comes across as a drill sergeant in civilian clothes – when you actually talk to the guy it turns out he is much nicer a person than that. Same with Jeff Sutherland, who also has this kind of military-“warrior”-like appearance – but at least Jeff was actually in the USAF once.

I’m overall positively surprised by the whole event, it will probably be much more valuable for me than Agile Development Practices was a year ago. I think I’ll seriously consider skipping this year edition of it.

My recent little post has spawned a debate in the combox essentially about whether Mr. Brin is right supporting homosexual “marriage” or not. However, my main point is not whether this is good or bad – after all Mr. Brin is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else. But, he somehow felt that his own name is not enough, that he has to make it his company’s official position. My main point was that this action is bad and has serious implications.

For example all Google employees who are Muslim or christian or just believe differently than Mr. Brin find themselves in a strange position of working for a company that has an official position on a moral and political issue that is strongly against their own. One could say this is their problem, but I find this troubling.

Is it right for a company manager or even founder to impose his views on all of his workforce in this way? Isn’t this arrogance (as rightly pointed out by CMR)? After all he is not representing those people in any way when it comes to issues like this one. Would it be ok if Mr. Brin said that it is official Google position to support Obama or McCain for president? Would that mean he represents the votes of his employees?

Again, I believe private corporations should be allowed to hire whoever they want or do jobs/projects they want (so I find a recent case of prosecuting a photographer for not wanting to cover a homosexual “marriage” outrageous) or have their own criteria for benefits etc. But all this is quite different from publicly weighting on a piece of legislation pertaining to moral or social questions.

Next, someone called me paranoid for even suggesting that Google’s search results and not only results might be affected by their management’s views. A few words on this one too.

First, please notice that over-reliance on Google can affect your worldview anyway – which is something I wrote about long ago. Notice too, that Google is dealing with lots of content, they are not only delivering search – they also host web sites, they host videos, they host groups, they gather and process news (through news.google.com) etc. They have immense power over what is getting through to the majority of Internet users, especially in the English-speaking countries. This power goes unnoticed, people concentrate on press and TV – but truth is newspapers circulation is down, and TV is evolving towards Internet, not away from it.

Now, call me paranoid all you want, but I find this combination of power and strong political views troubling. I have no proof that Google is meddling with search results as such, but considering supportive evidence I don’t think one can rule this out and continue to trust them.

What supportive evidence? Well, there is even a page on Wikipedia devoted to Google’s censorship and you can easily find cases of troubling disappearances of content from Google’s sites:

• Censored by Google Alerts – Crossed Crocodiles on AFRICOM,
• Google Censors Media Outlet Supportive of UN Whistleblowers.

Then there is the case of Google’s refusal to run pro-life ads while at the same time running abortion clinics ads. This is clearly using the power they have over what contents get through according to their own beliefs and views.

Reasons why all those things happen might be different, but those are all examples of power Google has over content. As I wrote above – add strong opinions to power and trouble is likely.

To sum it all up: I think Mr. Brin has stepped over the line he shouldn’t have crossed. At least for me it means I can’t trust Google anymore to provide fair and equal treatment to all opinions in their handling of web content.