Some ‘obvious’ dangers for your project teams
In life some things seem obvious. When you get in your car, you should put on your seat belt. If you are going to be in the sunshine, you should wear sunscreen. And if you have kids, you are going to have a fair number of sleepless nights, right? Perhaps at first glance these examples may seem obvious, however, with some further thought it becomes apparent they may not be. There are a variety of reasons why these examples are less obvious for many individuals including cultural, geographical, environmental, personality, and perception differences.
How obvious are things in the workplace and on our project teams? Within our fast paced, ever changing industry of software development, believing anything is obvious is a real danger. Labelling something as obvious implies it is readily apparent, easily perceived and understood. Consider the following examples that are often dangerously deemed to be obvious:
• Terms and terminology,
• Roles and responsibilities;
• Best practices;
• Best fit tools or technologies;
• Complexity or simplicity of a technology, tool, or technical design;
• Complexity or simplicity of testing.
Organisations, departments, projects, teams and individuals are unique. The context of each situation is unique. When you consider that each situation is unique then combine that with the complexities of communication, there are bound to be ‘obvious’ disconnects.
Perhaps one of the most fundamental challenges is that all forms of communication leave a lot of room for interpretation. Let’s take the ‘Get me a rock’ game as an example. In this exercise an individual is asked to “…get me a rock”. Upon retrieving a rock, the participant is informed “…that isn’t a rock, go get me a rock!” After several attempts the participant begins to look for clarification and specifications in order to successfully retrieve an appropriate rock. In communication, things are seldom as obvious as they appear. A rock is a rock, or is it?
Another significant challenge is in recognising differences in individual perspective and situational context. I attended a conference session in 2009 titled “User Acceptance Testing: A context-driven perspective”, presented by Michael Bolton. In the session the attendees formed groups of four and captured their ideas on index cards in response to “What is User Acceptance Testing (UAT)?” The groups also brainstormed definitions for ‘Users’, ‘Stakeholders’, ‘Acceptance criteria’ and other industry-related terms. Like many attendees I shared my definitions within my group, confident in my understanding of these industry recognised terms.
By the end of our brainstorming the walls were covered in index cards. To my surprise there were an astounding number of diverse definitions for each of the terms. With this insight I had my “ah ha!” moment grasping the intent of the exercise. Despite our initial response to the question, it became apparent that a term so commonly used in industry such as UAT could be meaningless without context.
I now approach each of my projects and colleagues with the awareness that my perspective on UAT may a) differ from the other individuals of the project and b) differ from needs of this project. With this insight, I encourage the team members to collaborate to establish an understanding of UAT and other terminology that is specific to the project’s context.
There are many dangers in assuming our perspectives are understood and shared by others. Be wary of expecting others to have the same understanding, even for the things that seem incredibly obvious to you. What is obvious to one person may be an absolutely foreign concept to another. Sometimes disconnects are purely in the terminology and the individual has a solid understanding of the fundamental concept. The first step is to be mindful of the context of the situation and recognise things may not be as obvious as they seem. With a heightened awareness to this risk, you can actively seek confirmation of a common understanding in order to meaningfully communicate.
Consultants Lynn McKee and Nancy Kelln’s feature article ‘Place Networking at the top of your to-do list’ will appear in the June 2010 issue of T.E.S.T magazine.
