Kudos

“..real-time, multi-modal, 3dimensional, face-to-face communication with question and answer is the most effective way to transfer information and see that it was received. Two people standing at the white board, talking, questioning, drawing, maybe typing on the computer if that is the issue..”

Building on my last post, as I continue to explore Alistair Cockburn’s article on software development as a cooperative game, I want to address idea #2 – White boards:

As discussed in my previous post, for communication to be effective we must ensure that proper context is shared between participants of a communication process.

This assertion requires us to decide which communications medium is the most effective in transferring context. Alistair provides this list:

(Form of communication vs. effectiveness; (1) being the most effective) 

1. Two people at the white-board
2. Two people on the phone
3. Two people using Email
4. Videotape
5. Audiotape
6. Paper

[ I'd humbly add to this list: 2.5 instant messaging applications].

I’m assuming that some research went into the compilation of this list, but even without academic verification most of us will probably attest from personal experience that the ordering seems to be right. But, while it is easiest to convey meaning face to face, it’s the most difficult form of communication to archive for future use. 

Also, we need to make a distinction between ongoing communication during project development vs. planning and specification during project start-up.

During project planning  we want to make sure that all team members are up to date on the software specification, how implementation is going to be achieved and what key points have been included in decision making. The important point here is to make sure all members are up to date on the game plan. All too often, misconceptions are discovered when it’s too late, and entire sections of code need to be re-written.

To achieve this, Alistair proposes that, once design is finalized, the architect/analyst will hold a group session in order to discuss the plan and answer questions, using a white board. The session should be videotaped. Once it ends we can add markers to index interesting points on the video tape for future use. The tape will be attached to the design documents as a contextual reference, to be used by anyone who missed the session (like a new team member).

Using such a solution, we can retain the most from our face-to-face session (body language, tone inflection, Q&A, white-board) while maintaining archival capabilities. I might add that one could try to use tools like Microsoft’s OneNote which records the entire session while associating whatever you scribble on your tablet’s touch screen with the relevant audio, thus including one’s own thoughts while eliminating the hassle of manual indexing.

As to ongoing communications, there is absolutely no replacement for meetings. It is my experience that a single phone call can solve a problem that has been discussed over Email for a week, and a face-to-face meeting can clear obstacles that seem to be unsurpassable. I always keep telling people, talk to your customer. It’s interesting, but when a development project hits obstacles, people usually talk less to their customers (possibly because they don’t want to get criticized). So, here it is again – Talk to your customer, especially when you hit obstacles!

The other methods for communication are more orthodox, each having obvious pros and cons (Email lacks tonal inflection, which has gotten me into trouble in the past. Phone calls are hard to archive. Extensive written specifications are expensive to produce. Audio tapes lack visual cues). Each is easier to use in certain scenarios, and should be employed accordingly. The important note here is to remember that documentation is important. It is used for reference while communicating via “live” means with your team members or customers.

In the last two posts we covered context as a prerequisite for effective communication, and possible means for maintaining maximum levels of context when transferring knowledge. On my next post I will discuss Alistair’s next idea – #3 People are active devices.

פוסט זה פורסם בתאריך 6 בApril, 2007 בשעה 7:26 pm בנושאים management. ניתן לעקוב אחרי התגובות בעזרת RSS תגובות. לא ניתן להגיב לפוסט.