Throughtput: Changing the people

First, I just want to mention that I haven't posted anything for a month because I've been really distracted with my current assignment, which is three months in India (Bangalore) to be a trainer for ThoughtWorks University -- an intensive six week introduction to consulting and software development the TW way for entry-level new hires. I'll start blogging about that in my next post. But now, more about throughput:

In my previous post on this topic, I said that if you felt you weren't getting sufficient business value in each release, or it took too long between releases, then you had a process and/or people problem. I wrote that people problems required changing the people.

I want to clarify that. Superficially, it would seem that I am recommending getting rid of staff. That's one solution but not necessarily the right solution. Changing people may also mean making changes to people's job descriptions and assignments. Remix the people who make decisions about new features and enhancements. Add some new faces or switch/promote people into different roles.

It may also mean changing how you relate to your staff so that people understand you expect them to be creative and innovative about the software and the decision process. Let them know they'll score more points with you by taking chances, and you will support them, even when some of their ideas don't pan out as well as others.

Chapter 7 of Scott Berkun's new book, "The Myths of Innovation", does a very good job of explaining the tension between innovating and managing. On page 96, he writes: "... few managers recognize that their training and experience, designed to protect what exists, work against the forces needed for innovation ..."

On page 98, he quotes from Peter Drucker, "... management tends to believe that anything that has lasted for a fair amount of time must be normal and go on forever. Anything that contradicts what we have come to consider a law of nature is then rejected as unsound."

Finally, on page 100, Berkun writes, "... most management, most of the time, is sensibly directed at maintaining good business.... However, when managers raise the flag of innovation, the goals change, and the methods must follow. Many depend solely on Taylorism-inspired behavior .... as a rule ... they avoid all risks, never yield creative authority and operate with self-centric hierarchical control over the flow of ideas."

That's thing that has to change, the behavior, not necessarily the staff composition.