Recently we came to hear that Dr Christopher Avery would come around to present his new book.
Without hesitation from within Co-Learning we took the opportunity to organize a workshop given by Christopher himself.
I guess you might be wondering why I’m that enthousiast about a person coming over to Belgium.
A few months ago I was on an assignment where there was a clear request to use physical cards for their stories. It helped to give an overview by laying them on a large table. Always good to hear that people are thinking out of the box when searching for ways to visualize their work.
In a previous article, I’ve talked about an elegant experiment from 1962 we’ve re-done.
At the moment of writing this article, we’ve completed 2 dry runs: One with a small group of students, and one bigger group of agile coaches, managers and scrum masters.
We got plenty of feedback, and improvement is on its way.
Lately I discovered an interesting experiment described in a book about transparency by Warren Bennis. It was not that much in detail, but the references -as in all good reads- were well mentioned.
The experiment we’re talking about was done in 1962 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ikigai is a Japanese concept meaning "a reason for being". Everyone, according to the Japanese, has an ikigai. Finding it requires a deep and often lengthy search of self. Such a search is regarded as being very important, since it is believed that discovery of one's ikigai brings satisfaction and meaning to life.
I recently attended a 3 day class on Sociocracy 3.0 (S3) by James Priest and Liliana David. This pattern language, based on Sociocratic and Agile principles, radically challenges a number of behaviours we see in companies and collaborative structures.
One of the recurring questions throughout the training was: "How do you make sure everyone is heard in the decision making patterns described in S3?". The answer seems very simple: Artful Participation (and an observant facilitator).
It is frequently seen that even though people are working on the same delivery there still is misalignment on the way of working, with what degree of finish (D.O.D. interpretations), etc.
This especially happens with different skills and contexts that imply different perspectives on how to look at software.
Either way you place it: knowledge sharing is lacking.