How and why to design your teams - DOES EUR 2017 - Matthew Skelton
•
5 j'aime•722 vues
For effective, modern, Cloud-connected software systems we need to organize our teams in certain ways. Taking account of Conway’s Law, we look to match the team structures to the required software architecture, enabling or restricting communication and collaboration for the best outcomes. This talk will cover the basics of organization design, exploring a selection of key team topologies and how and when to use them in order to make the development and operation of your software systems as effective as possible. The talk is based on experience helping companies around the world with the design of their teams. Talk given at DevOps Enterprise Summit EUR 2017 - https://events.itrevolution.com/eur/schedule/
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Plus de Skelton Thatcher Consulting Ltd
Plus de Skelton Thatcher Consulting Ltd (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
How and why to design your teams - DOES EUR 2017 - Matthew Skelton
- 1. How and why to design your teams for modern software systems Matthew Skelton | Skelton Thatcher Consulting @matthewpskelton | skeltonthatcher.com DevOps Enterprise Summit / @DOES_EUR / #DOES17 06 June 2017, London UK
- 2. Today •Conway’s Law (or heuristic) •Cognitive Load for teams •Real-world Team Topologies •Guidelines for team design
- 3. About me Matthew Skelton @matthewpskelton Co-founder at Skelton Thatcher Consulting skeltonthatcher.com
- 4. Books
- 5. Organisation design for effective software systems Tutorial / Workshop Weds 27 Sept 2017, London https://ti.to/skelton-thatcher-consulting/organisation-design-workshop-sept-2017 skeltonthatcher.com Use code “DOES17" for 25% discount
- 6. Team-first digital transformation 30+ organisations UK, EU, DE, India, China skeltonthatcher.com
- 7. We build modern capabilities by mentoring your teams
- 9. How and why to design your teams for modern software systems
- 10. Safer, more rapid changes to software systems (Business Agility)
- 11. TEAM
- 14. (assumption) the team is stable, slowly changing, and long-lived #NoProjects
- 15. Conway’s Law (or Conway’s Heuristic)
- 16. “organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations” – Mel Conway, 1968 http://www.melconway.com/Home/Conways_Law.html
- 17. “if the architecture of the system and the architecture of the organization are at odds, the architecture of the organization wins” – Ruth Malan, 2008 http://traceinthesand.com/blog/2008/02/13/conways-law/
- 18. “We find strong evidence to support the hypothesis that a product’s architecture tends to mirror the structure of the organization in which it is developed.” – MacCormack et al, 2012 MacCormack, Alan, Carliss Y. Baldwin, and John Rusnak. ‘Exploring the Duality Between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the “Mirroring” Hypothesis’, 1 October 2012. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=43260.
- 19. homomorphic force (#Conway #Yawnoc) HT @allankellynet (same) (shape)
- 21. ‘Reverse Conway’ Tobbe Gyllebring (@drunkcod)
- 22. A B A B
- 24. Design the organisation architecture to produce the right software architecture
- 26. Cognitive load the total amount of mental effort being used in the working memory (see Sweller, 1988)
- 27. Cognitive load Intrinsic Extraneous (Irrelevant ) Germane (Relevant)
- 28. ‘Hacking Your Head’: Jo Pearce See http://www.slideshare.net/JoPearce5/hacking-your-head-managing-information-overload-45-mix @jdpearce
- 29. We have SCIENCE!
- 30. Science since 1988 • Driskell et al, 1999 ‘Does Stress Lead to a Loss of Team Perspective?’ Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 3, no. 4 (1999): 291. • Fan et al, 2010 ‘Learning HMM-Based Cognitive Load Models for Supporting Human-Agent Teamwork’. Cognitive Systems Research 11, no. 1 (2010): 108–119. • Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1993 ‘Effective Team Performance under Stress and Normal Conditions: An Experimental Paradigm, Theory and Data for Studying Team Decision Making in Hierarchical Teams with Distributed Expertise’. DTIC Document, 1993. • Johnston et al, 2002 ‘Application of Cognitive Load Theory to Developing a Measure of Team Decision Efficiency’. DTIC Document, 2002. • Sweller, John, 1994 ‘Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design’. Learning and Instruction 4 (1994): 295–312. • Sweller, John, 1988. ‘Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning’. Cognitive Science 12, no. 2 (1988): 257–285.
- 31. “stress impacts team performance … by narrowing or weakening the team-level perspective required for effective team behavior.” – Driskell et al, 1999 Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1999, Vol. 3, No. 4,291-302
- 32. (not just ‘pop’ science!)
- 33. High-performing teams are hugely effective Optimise for the team
- 34. Match the team responsibility to the cognitive load that the team can handle
- 37. Development & Testing IT Operations / Web Operations Anti-Type Database / DBA DevOps activity SRE Component Supporting (Tooling / Platform / Build)
- 38. (Can you spot an important team type that is missing?)
- 39. Anti-Types
- 40. Anti-Type A – Separate Silos devopstopologies.com Dev Ops
- 41. Anti-Type B – Separate DevOps Silo Dev OpsDevOps devopstopologies.com
- 42. devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps Anti-Type C – “We Don’t Need Ops”
- 43. Anti-Type D – ‘DevOps’ as another Dev team devopstopologies.com Dev Ops DevOps
- 44. Anti-Type E – DevOps as new SysAdmin team devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 45. Anti-Type F – Ops embedded in a Dev Team HT: Matt Franz (@seclectech) devopstopologies.com Dev Ops DevOps
- 46. Anti-Type G – Dev-DBA gap! devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDBA
- 47. Types
- 48. Type 1 – Smooth Collaboration devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 49. Type 2 – Fully Embedded devopstopologies.com Dev Ops
- 50. devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps Type 3 – Infrastructure-as-a-Service
- 51. Type 4 – DevOps-as-a-Service devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 52. devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps Type 5 – Temporary DevOps Team
- 53. devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps Type 6 – ‘Facilitating’ DevOps Team
- 54. Type 7 – SRE Team (Google) SRE HT: @kwdhinde devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 55. HT: @jascbu devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps Type 8 – ‘Just run my Containers’
- 56. Type 9 – DB capability in Dev DBADB Dev devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 57. Type 10 – DB as a Service DBaaSDB Dev devopstopologies.com Dev OpsDevOps
- 58. There is no single ‘right’ team topology, but several ‘bad’ topologies for any one organisation
- 60. Collaboration vs X-as-a-Service Collaboration X-as-a-Service devopstopologies.com
- 61. Collaboration vs X-as-a-Service Collaboration X-as-a-Service devopstopologies.com Rapid discovery No hand-offs Comms overheads? Ownership clarity Less context needed Slower innovation?
- 62. Supporting & Business Domain Supporting Business Domain devopstopologies.com
- 63. Inner Topologies Collaboration XaaS Within any group there may be internal collaborations AND other X- as-a-Service (XaaS) relationships devopstopologies.com
- 64. Team types Component team Platform / ’substrate’ team Supporting / ‘productivity’ team Product/Feature team devopstopologies.com
- 65. Team configuration devopstopologies.com Platform / ’substrate’ team Product/Feature team
- 66. Team configuration Component team Platform / ’substrate’ team Product/Feature team devopstopologies.com
- 67. Team configuration Component team Platform / ’substrate’ team Product/Feature team Supporting / ‘productivity’ team devopstopologies.com
- 68. Discovery vs. Predictability Team 1 Team 2 Team N Discovery, rapid learning Predictable delivery devopstopologies.com
- 69. Established platform (PaaS) Predictable delivery devopstopologies.com
- 70. Evolution of team topologies devopstopologies.com DISCOVER ESTABLISH
- 71. Evolution of team topologies Team 2 Discover Discover Team N Team 3 Use Use devopstopologies.com Team 1 Establish Establish …
- 72. Evolve different team topologies for different parts of the organisation at different times to match the team purpose and context
- 73. Summary
- 75. Design the organisation architecture to produce the right software architecture
- 76. “stress impacts team performance … by narrowing or weakening the team-level perspective required for effective team behavior.” – Driskell et al, 1999 Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1999, Vol. 3, No. 4,291-302
- 77. Match the team responsibility to the cognitive load that the team can handle
- 79. There is no single ‘right’ team topology, but several ‘bad’ topologies for any one organisation
- 80. Team configuration Component team Platform / ’substrate’ team Product/Feature team Supporting / ‘productivity’ team devopstopologies.com
- 81. Evolution of team topologies Team 2 Discover Discover Team N Team 3 Use Use devopstopologies.com Team 1 Establish Establish …
- 82. Evolve different team topologies for different parts of the organisation at different times to match the team purpose and context
- 83. Caution
- 84. Team topologies alone will not produce effective software systems
- 85. Also needed: culture, good engineering, sane funding models, clarity of business vision
- 86. Safer, more rapid changes to software systems (Business Agility)
- 87. Organisation design for effective software systems Tutorial / Workshop Weds 27 Sept 2017, London https://ti.to/skelton-thatcher-consulting/organisation-design-workshop-sept-2017 skeltonthatcher.com Use code “DOES17" for 25% discount
- 88. teamtopologies.com Upcoming book: Team Topologies for effective software systems by Matthew Skelton & Manuel Pais
- 89. thank you Matthew Skelton & Manuel Pais @SkeltonThatcher skeltonthatcher.com