LitheSpeed : Lean & Agile
LitheBlog: Exploring Lean and Agile

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Death by Team Room, or Teamroom-A-Cide
David Bulkin


Agile teams are often co-located with all team members sitting in one physical room.  The rooms are often spacious, with ample natural light, an effective layout, nearby private space, etc., and, as a result, productivity is high.

But, there is an anti-pattern; productivity-robbing team rooms that please no one (OK, maybe the cost accountants are happy).

A Good Team Room

Let’s start with a quick look at some attributes of good team rooms.
  • Ample storage for personal possessions in cabinets and cubbies.
  • Ample space for team members to comfortably stretch out.
  • Nearby private space, often called caves, for private calls, deep thinking or collaborative work between two or three people.
  • White boards, tack boards and other mechanisms that support big visible charts.
  • Natural light / windows.
  • Ample ventilation.
  • Large screen monitors to support collaboration.
  • Full size keyboards to support ergonomics.
Team Room Anti-Patterns

Sometimes agile team rooms are designed from inception into new floor plans, or as a well thought out redesign to an existing floor plan.  In other cases, team rooms are put together with little focus on productivity.
  • Perhaps a cost conscious company is focusing on square foot per person (an example of metrics misuse).
  • Maybe a manager just has no place to put a new team.
  • Or worse yet, perhaps a manager mistakenly believes that packing everyone together will result in increases in productivity, irrespective of the conditions (a belief in agile magic).
The instantaneous conference room conversion, a.k.a., ICRC

Let’s look at one near worst-case scenario, the instantaneous conference room conversion, a.k.a., ICRC.  With an ICRC, existing employees re-locate from their cubes or offices to a conference room, often joined by new staff members (consultants or new employees).

Let's look at a theoretical, but all too common, example of an ICRC Anti-Pattern:
In our example a team of 18, eight existing employees, two new hires, and eight consultants, are packed into the conference room (hey, why not, 20 people can sit there for a meeting).

This conference room, like many, has good ventilation and natural light. Additionally there is ample white board space upfront. 

On the other hand, there is no tack board or magnetic boards for cards, so one on wheels is brought in, which takes up just enough space to make it difficult for those sitting in front of the board to get in and out of their chairs.  When people come by during the day to look at cards, it is a tight fit, which sometimes results in a few spilled cups of coffee.

Power and network connectivity is available only at the two ends of the room so long wires are dangerously snaked throughout the room.

There is no place for private stuff so team members place their personal possessions under the table and in the desks of friends who are located elsewhere. 

Many of the team members used to use separate full size keyboards and an external monitor, but with the reduced space, ergonomics is a luxury that can’t be afforded. 

Taking personal calls now requires a hike to the lobby area or outside, the most private spaces still available for the team.  Conference calls are conducted several times a week in the room, and although collaboration is important, it is rare that all 18 team members are required for a call, but they really have no option other than listening.
The Productivity-Robbing Result

As a result, our team experiences a significant increase in stress.  They also experience minor injuries like tweaked backs from leaning at odd angles, carpal tunnel syndrome from typing on a poor laptop keyboard and eyestrain.  No surprise, illness is also passed around quite rapidly.

Productivity is low to non-existent, and 18 team members produce output that a team of four could easily create.

Management eventually notices, and mercifully, the team is disbanded.  Unfortunately, this was the first agile project, and the entire transition to agile is canceled based on the poor results of this one effort.  Apparently no one in management seems to understand just how detrimental the poorly designed team room was.

Conclusion


Despite what the above scenario may lead you to believe, I am an advocate for team rooms, assuming they fit the needs of the team, are designed by the team, and provide basics like ample space, ventilation, light, windows, ergonomics, storage, nearby private areas, etc.

But, as extreme as the above scenario seems, truth is often, stranger, and worse, than fiction. I had to make the scenario sound plausible so I couldn't use the real examples I have seen (you wouldn't have believed them)!  As agile usage continues to grow, and as companies continue to face tough economic realities, anti-patterns like the Instantaneous Conference Room Conversion will likely occur more and more frequently.

As agilists, we have to dispel the notion co-location equals agility.   We also need to accept the fact that if the space isn’t available, perhaps it may be better to:
  • Delay the project start until space becomes available for an appropriate team room.
  • Form a smaller team.  Perhaps a productive team of five is better than 18 non-productive members.
  • Not execute the project at all.
  • Execute the project without co-locating the whole team in one room!  Yes, old fashion cubes and offices can be better than a poorly designed team room.
Please respond with your thoughts and experiences.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

At my company, what you describe is the norm.

David Bulkin said...

In respect to the above comment about the pervasiveness of poor team rooms in an organization, the details matter, so recommendations that work for one organization may not work for another.

With that being said, if the problem is limited to only a handful of teams, it is likely easy to address. If the problem is pervasive it may be very difficult to undo.

So, I strongly recommend anyone reading to act early once they see a single poor team room, i.e. don't let it become a pattern.

Anonymous said...

We have a great team room in our company- problem is it's too nice. The team rarely emerges from the room to collaborate or interact with the business. There's enough food, soda and beer in there to survive Armageddon. As a chicken, I recommend the pigs come out of their pen and spend some time in the yard...

David Bulkin said...

In respect to anonymous above, who said that the team room is so nice that the pigs rarely come out of their pen, I love the creative vocabulary.

Although this is a problem most teams would love to have, it is still a problem. In some ways, this is a frequently heard criticism of Scrum, as it can create an insular culture for the team.

As a chicken, there is a good chance that you are not at the retrospectives, but if you are, perhaps you could bring this issue up. For the follow up, you can then work with the pigs on a strategy to correct this.

If you are not at the retrospective, perhaps you can recommend a special retrospective, held with the same people that attend the review (i.e. a larger set of people include business stakeholders) to discuss broader issues like this. Even better, hold it in the team room.

This type of retrospective, will, in itself, expand the viewpoint that the pigs have.

On the flip side of the coin, if the pigs don't come out to play, perhaps you and other chickens can make your way into the pen.

I would love to hear more about the particulars of the problem (hey, it will make a good future post), so if you are comfortable doing so, please contact me (David dot Bulkin at Lithespeed dot com).

Steve said...

If you have a good team room, should the whole team spend all day in it?

David Bulkin said...

In respect to spending the whole day in the team room, assuming it is a good one, opinions vary.

Some think that spending as much time as possible together is appropriate, as it allows for opportunistic sharing of information, keeps the energy level up, makes it easier to coordinate, etc.

My take is that most, but not all, people, need some time alone, or in very small groups (such as two or three) to be most effective. Having two or three hours a day in a nearby cave (i.e. private space), is appropriate for many.

This will vary greatly depending on the work that needs to be done, but when a team room is created, ample cave space must be allocated or created, even if it will sometimes go unused.