Saturday, August 13, 2022

How to Run a Standing Team Call



A standing team call is any call where a group of people meet regularly.  Every time you notice that it’s coming up, try to take a few minutes to do these things:

Figure out what type of call it is, then ask, does this call still need to exist? Some possible answers:

  • The call provides a status update. Well, couldn’t that be done asynchronously? There are definitely cases where asynchronous is effective, but if you have important information to share you might need a standing synchronous opportunity in addition.
  • The call provides a decision forum. Well, couldn’t that be done asynchronously? Maybe a lot of things are getting done that way, but it’s still helpful to have a place where the decision is Made and Communicated, so that it doesn’t float in limbo.
  • The call provides a social forum for people to work together. This is critical in a distributed team; water-cooler video chats are great, paired programming sessions work, but structured whole team time for triage and status sharing is where the team-formation-and-maintenance rubber meets the road. 
  • The call has always been there. Like Chesterton’s Fence, it was set up before any of us got here and we’ve just kept it going. Maybe the CEO asked for this but no longer has time to attend? Maybe it’s a social forum for leaders who rarely interact? Every re-org or change of management is an opportunity to revisit the calendar. A much-welcomed power move is to review standing meetings with overlapping personnel and consolidate them into a single meeting. 

If you can’t come up with an answer for why this meeting exists in your own head, ask the attendees. Maybe they’re heartily sick of this call. Maybe they think it’s important. Get information. 

If the call remains useful, proceed.

Review the call materials and invitees. I find my most productive status update calls are done by openly reviewing a document that I’ve already prepared or had a direct report prepare. Any gaps in my knowledge are corrected in realtime in front of our stakeholders. Any questions from stakeholders are captured in that document and answered later if we can’t answer them there. Do your call materials allow that? Are they editable by the right people so that your team can help you prepare? Are they readable by the right people so that stakeholders who can’t attend could asynchronously review? Are you all still getting value from the log that this material represents? Standing meetings generally exist in response to trauma, is this one working to reduce or prevent traumatic events? Do new team members know why it's there and what's appropriate to discuss? Do new stakeholders have an invite?

Run the call. You are the emcee, and this is your show. Get it done snappily. Use humor if you’re able to do so safely, but be aware that clever can fail badly. Be energetic, honest, clear, and above all concise. The written materials can provide detail and link to resources, you’re just here to encourage people to talk about their project status. Call them out, gently shut them down if they go into too much detail, and summarize what they said verbally and in the written materials. When you call on someone, watch their status icons. If they’re struggling to unmute, acknowledge that… if it’s a pattern, maybe note in your next one on one that this is a call where participants are expected to be on the ball and get the communication done crisply. Don’t let anyone drone on for several minutes, any meeting’s hold on a group of people is tenuous to begin with.

Praise in public, criticize in private. If team members are doing well, call them out. If they aren’t, schedule a 1:1 or 2:1 with their manager to discuss your concern. Enforce this standard with your stakeholders as well; if someone wants to complain that your work for them is running late, tell them you’ll take this conversation offline. If someone brings up a surprise for you, note it and move on. You're not here to get answers, you're here to find questions.

Watch the clock. Start it as soon after the scheduled time as you can, and wrap it up as quickly as you can smoothly achieve. Some socialization is fine if you’ve got a “one-pizza” team. Two pizzas on the call, it’s time to be a little strict. More people than that, they don’t want to hear about anyone’s vacation. Use a stopwatch app if you need, and publicly acknowledge as a team success if you’ve ended the call early. You’re here to get the objective of the synchronous call done as fast as possible. If you book thirty minutes for a call and get it done in ten, no one is going to be sad about that. If you do that regularly, you'll get more attendees.

That said, at the end of the call be sure to open it up. I like to use specific catch phrases like “open floor, any questions or issues from the team?” In a standing call, that rhythm and predictability helps the half-listening realize that this is their time to talk. Give them thirty seconds to get off mute, then wrap it up.

If the meeting is to be recorded, make sure you click record before you start and post the recording to the location where it belongs before the day ends.

Make sure that the location of materials (written notes, resource links, recording storage, metrics dashboards, &c) is in the calendar invite.

Mission Statements

 

A good mission statement is an aspirational goal that helps everyone move in roughly the correct direction. 

It is not strictly descriptive of what the organization is currently like, but it should reflect the best moments attained. An aspiration that is not grounded in the possible is easily ignored, or worse yet leads to folly.

It should be short. “The bandwidth for communication in a large organization is about six words”, says @clintsharp, meaning you can’t get complex ideas from top to bottom or side to side. Try for a fifth grade reading level, not a doctoral dissertation. Simple words, simple sentences, declarative voice. Picking on a semi-random example, AT&T: “to exploit technical innovations for the benefit of AT&T and its customers by implementing next-generation technologies and network advancements in AT&T’s services and operations.” That might seem a little mercenary for some folks, so it’s softened with this statement of values: “Live true. Think big. Pursue excellence. Be there. Stand for equality. Make a difference.” Note the values statement tries to follow the same rules, but has to have a 244 word explainer page with lots of pictures and shouty fonts. “Exploit technical innovations for the benefit of AT&T and its customers” doesn’t need a lot of explaining, but if you’re still not clear on your job in the biggest American telecom, it’s to “implement next-generation technologies and network advancements”.

If it is working correctly, the mission statement is used in internal disagreements and may help to settle them. Reasonable people will disagree about implementation details, but if a proposal is clearly not in line with the simply stated mission, it should be rejected. Organizational failure to do so doesn’t mean the mission statement is bad though. Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Seems clear. So how the heck did this happen? Maybe the increased focus of an enterprise software instead of consumer and enterprise focus would help. Elastic helps people do great things with data. Splunk makes data accessible, usable, and valuable to everyone. Snowflake enables every organization to be data-driven. No chat clients yet, but maybe Zawinski’s Law is still coming for them.

If it is not working correctly, the mission statement may be ignored or mocked as a pointless artifact. This can happen when the aspiration is too vague or too disconnected from day to day reality.  If your mission statement says to do a thing that no one in the company ever works on, it might as well say that you’re all here to solve the problem of warp drive. 

Monday, July 18, 2022

Supporting a Product’s Cluster Headaches

 


Cluster headaches are problem reports that make everyone else in the organization ask “are we seeing that too?” and pile on. Alice suspects a memory leak and files a report. Bob tags his customers to it as well. They start discussing general performance questions in a chat or a meeting with a broad audience. Charlene through Zachariah pile on with more detail, some of which is relevant. A few days later, the root cause of Alice’s problem is found in an environmentally specific misconfiguration, but by now you’ve got an executive asking when you’re going to fix the memory leaks.

As a product manager, you may find these incidents annoying. They distract and disturb the engineers and stir up trouble with the field. However, people are people and they’re going to pattern match. Its not in your best interest to pour cold water on field people trying to help. Instead, look for ways to use these incidents to drive improvement.

  • The best disinfectant is sunlight. Open conversation about the troubleshooting process keeps everyone aware (Slack is great for this, ideally with daily summation to the ticket, but some teams use long-term meetings instead). As it becomes clear that Alice’s ticket is not what everyone else thought, their willingness to pile on decreases. There is a limit to effective openness though: people can misinterpret comments and egos can get bruised. The time lag of email based ticket comments is particularly bad for this. Someone may need to referee and keep conversation productive. 
  • Recognize that there is a problem. As a development team, perhaps you can look at this situation as a symptom of something to resolve. The X to this Y may be that there are legitimate concerns about resource utilization, and that troubleshooting those concerns is difficult. Can your team do something to improve that experience? Adding metrics and alerting on known bad states is almost always useful.
  • Where there’s smoke, there’s often fire. If cluster headaches keep popping up around the same component, that’s a signal of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Increase enablement for that component, and listen to what the field says. If they don’t trust it they won’t sell it, so you will not be successful until they understand and trust it.


Saturday, July 9, 2022

Planning R&D Time

Granted that reality will disrupt the plan, I still find it useful to do a quarterly planning exercise. I'm fond of doing this with a zero based budget of person-time that has already had maintenance requirements removed. So you've got N full-time equivalent (FTE) people. They're going to be sick and vacating and training 25% of the quarter, and they're going to spend 40% of the remainder in meetings. If you have 10 people (keeping math simple), that’s 1920 hours of development in a quarter. Divide that in half to get the budget for feature work: 710 hours for maintenance, 710 for roadmap feature cards. Now, scope and prioritize the features you will try to deliver in this quarter. Scope doesn’t have to be perfect, an engineering manager’s estimate is plenty at this stage.

This exercise can be done in all sorts of ways, the tools and structure don’t matter. I’ve participated as everything from company leader to middle manager to product manager to subject matter expert. Maybe it’s a bunch of people in a room with post its and masking tape on a wall. Maybe it’s a series of screen share calls or physical meetings with a spreadsheet or a project tracking tool. Maybe meetings are with the whole leadership team, or subsets, or mixed. I have some dislike for a spreadsheet approach: specific project management tools or post it’s on a wall make it harder to accidentally over-allocate resources. Nothing can stop a team determined to tell themselves fibs about capacity though.

Here is the hard part: you have to leave the maintenance work untracked at the roadmap level. It’s whatever engineers feel is necessary. That budget isn’t open to negotiation or justification, it is a requirement of selling software that needs to be maintained. When a leadership team breaks this rule, then the maintenance work is no longer protected from the budgeting process. That invariably leads to it getting deferred, because hope of making money from a new feature is more pleasant than fear of losing money from decreasing quality. That deferred maintenance eventually comes back to haunt the organization, producing the highly prioritized “product get-well initiative”.

My advice to give engineers freedom to maintain is not absolute, to be clear: maintenance occurs within a budget of time. Want to refactor everything or start over in a new language? You should have to convince the entire organization to sign off on that. But you shouldn’t have to fight the budget wars in order to fix bugs.

Monday, July 4, 2022

Internal Transfers

Role, tech stack, and culture. A new hire for a role must come up to speed on all three areas, and will be coming from behind on at least one. Some organizations are lucky enough to have a broadly common set of cultural or role expectations so that people can easily transfer skills from elsewhere. Some operate in a popular tech stack that many others use as well. However, no organization is completely identical to any other, and a new hire must adjust to stated and unstated requirements.

An internal hire is already familiar with two of the three areas. Consequently they can be way faster to come up to speed. They are also a known cultural quantity, since the hiring team has had a lot more opportunities to interact than any interview cycle can provide. This means internal transfers are more likely to be a net positive than external hires when they are possible. Hiring managers will prefer them, all other things being equal.

There are arguments against “allowing” “your people” to transfer to other teams, which are largely nonsense. It's far better for the company to transfer and grow people than it is to lose them when they're ready to move beyond their role, and very few organizations have realistic growth opportunities that involve staying in one team. Put differently, if kept in one role an individual contributor (IC) can grow to be an IC over more stuff (broad instead of deep), an IC with more influence (formal guidance role), a people lead of some sort, or a combo of those things. But not everyone can meet all of their needs without a substantive role change, and there are not enough slots to allow that many role changes. Let's say you hire really well and grow 30% YOY. If half of your organization’s ICs feel ready to move up a notch in a year, at best you can serve half of them, and that's if your team gets an equal share of the growth pie. Much more likely that there's one or two growth roles per team per year and a half dozen people who should get one. If your organization doesn't have a way for them to grow inside, maybe they're going to go outside. If that IC moves to another team in your organization instead, you have much more potential to replace them on your schedule with a hire of your choice. Note the assumption of a backfill req; the ability to backfill hasn’t got anything to do with where the IC left to.

An internal hire is not guaranteed to be successful though, particularly when the role is more challenging or not well understood. Product management roles have a notably high level of bounce-off from internal hires in my experience. 

There is also the potential that an internal candidate won't pass the interviews. If it's made clear how and why they didn't pass and therefore where they might improve, they may be reenergized to serve in current role while preparing for another run at this or another new role. Without that clear feedback, the person could feel like they’re just being unfairly blocked from a hierarchy. In the absence of information many people assume the worst. They may become unmotivated or immediately move to seeking external alternatives.

Managers need to ensure the team goals are met and need to support the people who report to them in seeking their own goals. You may have wants like “minimize disruption” and “do more projects” but it's important to note those are preference rather than requirement. As a manager participating in an internal transfer, it is important to recognize the transition promptly. Set a timeline to stopping the old work and starting the new, then honor it.

Sunday, July 3, 2022

Executive Dashboards


Executive dashboards go through the Tuckman model… like team members, they have to be understood before they are accepted. 

Forming: a need for a dashboard is recognized and that dashboard is introduced to the executive staff. It may or may not be challenged, but its place is not certain.

Storming: if not at introduction then soon after, the dashboard’s ability to accurately reflect reality will be challenged. Where is this data from, how is it generated and collected, what biases does it reflect, how much delay does it contain, what role will Goodhart’s Law play if we rely on it. Perfection is usually recognized as unattainable, but most executives will want to know what risks are encoded in the tool. This process is ideally conducted offline as preparation for staff or board meetings; it’s a sign of ill health if regular meetings are derailed with storming about the tools.

Performing: Once the dashboard is understood, the executive team can work with it without a deep dive into the data that backs it, until something changes. Conditions of reality are altered, there’s additions or subtractions in the executive team, or the tools used for reporting change. Then the model starts over.

As below, so above; as above, so below. A similar process can be so served in relationships between field (sales and support) and factory (product and engineering). The list of hot issues is a dashboard.

The best choice for discoverability is spreadsheet: links to data are relatively easy to follow, and formulas and lookups are readily followed by executives with varied backgrounds. Unfortunately spreadsheets make it easy to break data links and introduce staleness. Worse, their legibility makes them corruptible; anyone working with it can accidentally change the behavior. There are mitigations and workarounds to all problems but they add brittleness. More modern data reporting systems can reduce risk of corruption by using role based access control at more granular levels. They can also help with staleness by being closer to data collection. Unfortunately, most of these systems lose the discoverability of a spreadsheet, so in my experience the most common dashboard tool for planning is still a spreadsheet.

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Gambling or Groceries?



Following on the post about sustaining software, here’s an opposing argument. 

Go big or go home. Deliver shocking value. Focus attention on exponential results instead of linear ones. Leverage your investment into the biggest possible return.

All of those exciting phrases are exciting because they mean increasing risk. Some are drawn to that risk, preferring to be a dead eagle than a live turkey. “No one ever achieved greatness by playing it safe” said Harry Gray. There’s truth to this statement: taking risk does not guarantee a reward, but a high degree of risk avoidance can guarantee the absence of reward.

And so, the question becomes how to balance pursuit of risk against safe bets, which luckily is the sort of thing that businesses have been thinking about for a long time. Unfortunately, some of the tools available to the finance department may not work as well for a product team. For instance, diverse asset allocation makes a ton of sense for a financial advisor, and is a legitimate company goal up to the point of market saturation, but becomes less great when you’re spreading your development efforts across unique and unrelated product efforts. The essence of strategy is making choices, after all, and it's potentially hard to be unified behind a single strategy as well as diversified in your investments. Still, the idea of isolating risk budget from non-risk budget has merit.

Therefore we think of gambling versus groceries, or more prosaically, Research and Development. The gambling side of the house does research into ideas that become new products, and the groceries side of the house develops and maintains the products that already exist. A very sensible model, but one that has been known to produce a house divided. If internal political pressures or external market drivers shift an R&D organization into full groceries or full gambling, then another organization will most likely be formed or funded to solve the other need.