Addressing Transactive Memory Risks On Agile Teams

If we agree that transactive memory is a common feature of teams’ institutional memory and accept the benefits, then we must address the risks. That should not be a major assumption. In many situations it makes sense. Knowledge can be stored in a single place and then accessed by the team as needed. The idea of having one version of data was one of the reasons I was taught normalization when I was working in the database realm. Transactive memory acts as a form of normalization so teams can reduce redundancy and conflicting truths. When the process works, a team will be more than the sum of its parts. While this seems very mechanistic, I would not suggest ignoring the idea in a fit of humanistic pique. I have not found a team or relationship that has been together for more than a few days that is not leveraging transactive memory. However, as described in our overview, there are two macro scenarios where transactive memory causes problems for a team adopting new approaches. They are:

 

SPaMCAST 665 – SPaMCAST – Organization Culture Drives Teams, Decisions at Last Responsible Moment, Essays and Conversations

The Software Process and Measurement Cast 665 features our essay on the organizational aspects that impact teams. Teams don’t live in a vacuum, so when the word organization gets used it reflects the influence of all sorts of organizations. Organizations facilitate teams to a greater or lesser extent. In the workplace, the employer’s organization will have the most significant impact on how teams form and perform but it is not the totality. Other influences can affect the structure and performance of teams. 

We will also have a visit from Jon M Quigley who will bring his Alpha and Omega of Product Development column to the podcast. In this installment, Jon and I discussed the idea of making decisions at the last responsible moment. We decided on the topic just before we began recording (just kidding). 

 

Teams: Organizational Attributes

Teams don’t live in a vacuum. Every team is an intersection of boundaries of all sorts of organizations. Organizations facilitate teams to a greater or lesser extent. In the workplace, the employer’s organization will have the most significant impact on how teams form and perform but it is not the totality. Other influences can affect the structure and performance of teams. In the short run, many organizational factors are difficult and slow to change (not impossible).  Many of the behavior factors noted earlier in this thread might be an affectation of the organization. A few of the most critical attributes to consider are:

 

Teams: Skills Attributes

Most outcomes in software development and information technology are reflections of team activities. Whether coding a new function or provisioning a server people work together to achieve a goal. The great majority of these collaborations yield positive results; sometimes the results are even extraordinary.  The team or teams doing the work have a HUGE impact on the results.  A coach or a guide needs to be able to read the tea leaves so they can help teams improve. In Teams: The Heart And Soul Of Work, I identified three categories of attributes of good teams. They are:

1. Skils,
2. Behaviors, and 
3. Organization.

 

SPaMCAST 644 – Teams Are Important, Static and Dynamic Testing, Essays and Discussions

In the SPaMCAST 644, we talk teams. At the core of agile is the belief that the team is the fundamental building block of work. Because they are so important, organizations put tons of effort into helping and guiding teams. The problem is not that teams aren’t important or that we aren’t working hard to make them better, teams are still chronically messed up. We discuss a framework for guiding support for teams. 

 

Collaboration Fails

Collaboration is not easy. If we start with the premise that collaboration is important, even critical, why does it often fail to emerge or wither on the vine? This is not a rhetorical question. Knowing what can break collaboration is just as important as understanding the prerequisite. Four of the most common ways collaboration gets messed up include:

 

SPaMCAST 626 – Custom Software Development, Entrepreneurship, Leadership, A Conversation With Jacob Glenn

The Software Process and Measurement Cast 626 features our interview with Jacob Glenn.  Jacob and I began talking about custom software development and then branched into entrepreneurship and leadership. Finding and enabling people are critical skills for building solutions.  

 

Collaboration

I recently interviewed several successful technical entrepreneurs. Most have created multiple successful organizations. They have shared several common threads. One of the most basic of those threads is the need for a collaborative culture. Jacob Glenn, President of M Genio (SPaMCAST 626 posting on 17 November 2020) said that he hires people to fit in a collaborative culture. Collaboration is a powerful tool yielding results that include increasing innovation, employee energy, creativity, and productivity. Because the promise is so large, people apply the term to many scenarios where it doesn’t belong. Two of the scenarios that are often confused with collaboration are:

 

SPaMCAST 597 – Intentional Serendipity, A Panel Discussion with Laberge, Parente, Voris, Sweeney, and Cagley

http://www.spamcast.net

Play Now!
Listen and Subscribe on Apple Podcast
Listen and Subscribe on Google Podcasts

The SPaMCAST 597 features a special panel of leaders discussing working from home now and after the initial reaction to being remote has worn off. One of the important points that we discussed was the need to make space for intentional serendipity. The panel is composed of Paul Laberge, Susan Parente, John Voris, Jo Ann Sweeney, and your host. 

Panelist Bios

 

SPaMCAST 593 – Be Happy and Thrive, An Interview With Scott Crabtree

http://www.spamcast.net

Listen Now! 

Subscribe: Apple Podcast
Check out the podcast on Google Play Music

The SPaMCAST 593 features my interview with Scott Crabtree. Happiness at work might sound squishy, but happiness has rigorous science behind it. Simply put, happiness yields better outcomes both in terms of value delivered and our own perception of our value.