How to FLEX your Agile teaching muscles!
Series: Part 2 of 2
CORE FLEX CHALLENGES
In the previous Part 1 of this two-part series, I introduced 4 core FLEX challenges (tabulated below) consistently experienced when delivering Agile training along with several techniques to address each one:
| Core FLEX challenges in Agile training |
| Feel for the class (learning styles and work culture) |
| Lack of participation or availability (engagement) |
| Eluding the Agile mindset (values/principles) |
| X-formation non-support for Agility (management) |
In Part 2 of this series, more proven techniques will be shared to address other Agile training challenges that my PMC colleague, Bruno Bouchard, and I successfully presented in late May at the XP2019 conference, sponsored by Agile Alliance and held for the first time outside of Europe in Montreal, Canada and has been accepted to be presented later this year in late November at Agile Tour Montreal 2019!
EXPANDED FLEX CHALLENGES
The following table expands on the previously covered 4 core FLEX challenges, with 7 more commonly observed and experienced challenges when delivering Agile training as highlighted below:
| Expanded FLEX challenges in Agile training |
| Feel for the class (learning styles and work culture) |
| Lack of participation or availability (engagement) |
| Eluding the Agile mindset (values/principles) |
| X-formation non-support for Agility (management) |
| Identification of Agile levels (maturity, skills, org.) |
| Block in Agile message (not getting through) |
| Indifference to Agile (resistance to change) |
| Logistics for Agile training (room, materials, visuals) |
| Investing in Agile training (unable to link to value/job) |
| Terminology used in Agile (jargon, practices) |
| You’re wrong! (a.k.a. GOD complex) |
The following pages will provide proven techniques to address each of the above highlighted expanded FLEX challenges collectively empowering a facilitator with true Agile training FLEXIBILITY !
Identification of Agile levels
When delivering an Agile training, a common challenge an Agile facilitator encounters arises from course participants possessing various levels of Agile knowledge, skills, experience and overall Agile maturity.
Addressing this challenge is a key factor that directly contributes to successful Agile training. A technique I successfully use to address this challenge is an activity at the start of each course where participants are asked to find a course partner (ideally someone they don’t know or know the least) and gather from their partner the following 3 pieces of information:
- How much (if any) Agile experience does partner have and capture their latest examples if applicable.
- On top of official course objectives, what are partner’s course expectations to make course a success.
- Something unique about partner (known by very few others).
In the case of an odd-number of course participants, the course facilitator can participate in this activity. Each pair then addresses the class and introduces their partner sharing the above captured information.
The main benefit of this activity provides the course facilitator critical information to quickly ascertain and leverage the various levels of participant Agile maturity to allow for appropriate corresponding course delivery adaptation and on-the-fly customization; thus, greatly promoting optimal learning, engagement and meeting of participant expectations of the Agile training.
This activity offers more benefits serving as a great ice-breaker that helps build class participant synergy and relationships and introduces key Agile concepts of self-organization and time-boxing of the activity.
Block in Agile message
Despite the level of expertise and experience of an Agile facilitator, undoubtedly a situation will arise where course participants simply “don’t get it” and the intended message or meaning is “not getting through”.
This can even occur after an Agile trainer has tried explaining and teaching the Agile concept in various formats, taking into account the course participant preferred learning styles for example based on the VARK model (Visual, Auditory or Aural, Reading/writing or Kinesthetic) as was covered in the part 1 of this series.
Effective techniques addressing this challenge can range from the Agile facilitator breaking down an Agile concept to a more basic and easier to consume idea (a.k.a. KISS – Keep it Simple and Straightforward), or using a metaphor to help explain the Agile concept in another context that the students can relate to or better understand for example describing the various members, roles and responsibilities in a family to help explain the cross-functional and multi-disciplinary nature of effective Agile teams.
Another proven technique to mitigate this blocking of an Agile message challenge is using co-facilitation; having another Agile trainer complement your experience and teaching with their own further reduces the likeliness of this challenge occurring while all at the same time making the learning more rich and dynamic.
Indifference to Agile
Another commonly observed challenge when conducting Agile training, especially as part of an Agile transformation in an organization where Agile is completely new, is an observed indifference to Agile and general resistance to change.
Even if an Agile trainer can be very experienced and engaging, if the students are indifferent and don’t demonstrate a genuine interest to learn but instead resist change, this will make the understanding of new Agile concepts practically impossible.
This situation is different from the “lack of participation or availability” challenge covered in the part 1 of this series where training participants don’t engage not because of indifference to Agile but rather due to the misperceived benefits of the Agile training commonly known as the WIIFM (What’s-In-It-For-Me) factor.
This challenge deals more with the “why” are we even going down this Agile learning path in the first place. The student mentality of this challenge aligns with the expression, “Don’t fix something that isn’t broken”. This challenge commonly manifests in environments where Waterfall approaches are pervasive and as covered in the part 1 of this series, are common factors that negatively impact a successful Agile adoption.
The key to addressing this challenge is linking the Agile training to real pain-points being experienced by the Agile training participants in their actual work environments. An Agile trainer can use simulations or role-plays of real-life work scenarios to get the training participants to actively discuss and expose these pain-points. Further root-cause analysis can be quickly performed with the use of the “5-whys” allowing then for the Agile trainer to link the Agile concepts and techniques being taught as part of potential solutions to address the identified pain-points and their corresponding sources.
An experienced Agile coach and trainer would have often observed similar pain points and can provide practical examples of how Agile successfully addressed a work, business or client challenge. A common example of a pain-point is delivering a solution that didn’t meet client expectations. A typical root-cause is due to late feedback from a Waterfall big-bang approach whereas as an Agile incremental approach would have allowed for much earlier feedback, even if that feedback was negative, allowing for positive adjustment.
Logistics for Agile training
While logistics for any training in general is a key success factor, it’s especially true for Agile training that often includes a lot of team workshops requiring sufficient wall and class space to promote collaboration.
An Agile trainer should make the effort to get access to the training room prior to the training or coaching engagement to ensure training room layout and content will support the targeted Agile training. For example:
- layout of desks to support interactive group work and effective workshop facilitation
- availability of wall space, whiteboard and/or flipcharts to promote group collaboration
- use of projectors, smart-boards and other multi-media tools to allow for audio-visual aids
- required course materials such as course binders, sticky notes and markers are distributed
In some cases, prior access to the training facility is not possible or feasible. In such cases, an Agile trainer should always have a plan A, B and C. For example, in a recent Agile training I was delivering, my plan A was that training room desks would be correctly setup in a clustered format, I would have enough wall space for 3 teams to create Kanban-style boards, I would have access to a projector to display course slides and that corresponding course binders were delivered along with supporting course handouts.
When arriving to the training room early in the morning, I quickly realized my plan A was far from reality: the desks were setup in a U-shape, the room had practically no walls; instead had many large windows, the projector lamp was burned out rendering the projector non-functional and I was notified by the course administrator that shipping delays would result in the course binders to only arrive during lunch time.
Fortunately, I had a plan B and even a plan C that allowed for a successful Agile training. I typically arrive 30-60 minutes prior to an Agile training. This allowed for the time to rearrange the desks in the optimal clustered format. As part of my plan B, I had brought with me painter’s tape that allowed me to recreate the Kanban boards on the classroom windows. I also had a portable projector but even if I hadn’t, my plan C was to be able to teach the course without any projector or course binders by bringing with me large flipchart sticky paper that allowed me to visually share key course information with the participants in place of the projector or until the course binders arrived.
Investing in Agile training
One of the most important and limited commodities in an organization is people’s time. An Agile training that can range from a 1 hour coaching session, to a 2-4 hour workshop, to one or more days of formal Agile training requires a corresponding investment of time.
Both the participants attending the Agile training and the management that is investing in the Agile training want to get the most value out of the Agile training to justify them not performing their usual job functions.
A great technique for an Agile trainer to get feedback on received value of the provided Agile training, with respect to the invest time, is called ROTI (Return On Time Invested). This has participants visually communicate to an Agile trainer with their fingers the perceived value as illustrated below:
The ultimate validation and confirmation of the ROTI is for the Agile trainer to follow-up with the course participants either by active Agile coaching and observation or with post-training workshop to have the training participants provide practical examples of applying the learnt Agile concepts and techniques linking to enhancing the performance of their job functions and demonstrating how it has helped them achieve organizational, professional, and/or personal objectives.
Terminology used in Agile
Backlogs, sprints, epics, user stories, information radiators…and the list of Agile jargon goes on and on; this can be quite confusing, intimidating, and/or discouraging to individuals starting an Agile learning journey.
Effective Agile trainers are very aware and conscious of this challenge related to the terminology used in Agile. The reflex for many Agile trainers is to start off with teaching an Agile concept’s terminology, theory and technique; let’s say there’s a situation for example to teach estimating poker (a.k.a. planning poker).
Most Agile trainers will try to explain relative estimating versus conventional quantitative estimating, the use of a modified Fibonacci series and their application to estimating poker cards for an Agile team to relatively estimate their user stories.
For new Agile learners, more often than not, Agile trainers will quickly start seeing a glossy-eyed expression of confusion in the faces of the students when trying this “explain-first” approach.
As a coach of various sports, I have often observed the same type of confusion when coaching both children and adults in learning the rules, roles and terminology of a new sport.
A proven technique I have used in both a sports context and in Agile training to link a new concept, with the corresponding terminology and to ensure its effective learning, retention and application is called the DECR technique: Demonstrate, Explain, Correct, and Repeat. So how does this DECR technique work?
The DECR technique promotes starting off with a practical demonstration of the Agile concept, ideally as close to a situation that the participating students can relate to in their own environments while ensuring strong face-to-face communication during the demonstration with the Agile learners.
I only then start explaining the corresponding theory while referencing the various aspects of the delivered demonstration.
Once I observe there is a “minimum” level of comprehension, I let the students get their hands dirty in applying the learnt Agile concept while actively coaching and correcting any mistakes.
I repeat this process until the students are consistently and correctly applying the Agile technique.
I emphasized above starting off by establishing a “minimum” level of comprehension with just enough demonstration and explanation needed for the Agile training; it doesn’t have to be perfect. You want the students to start applying the Agile concept asap and then for you to proactively coach and teach, allowing for improvement through repetition. This DECR technique greatly promotes engagement, learning and retention of Agile terminology and concepts!
You’re wrong!
Though this challenge rarely occurs, once in a while there will be a student in a group that is knowledgeable in Agile and wants everyone else attending the group Agile training to know it! This often manifests itself by that student challenging the Agile trainer often using that expression…“You’re wrong!”. Experienced trainers sometime refer this FLEX challenge as the “Know-it-all” or “GOD complex” where the student thinks the know everything about Agile or at least more than the Agile coach or trainer.
In these situations, I have witnessed experienced Agile trainers ignore these confrontational participants to avoid conflict and to focus on the other group participants. While this approach can allow the Agile training to proceed, this FLEX challenge can (and dare I say should) be addressed with a completely opposite strategy by actively and positively engaging these type of participants; making them part of the success of the training instead of the white elephant in the room making all participants (and the trainer) uncomfortable.
Effective Agile trainers demonstrate strong servant leadership putting the needs and learning benefits of the group ahead of their own ego. Agile trainers should not be threatened nor insulted by a “know-it-all” participant but rather should instead empower them by offering to them to co-facilitate by sharing with the rest of the group their experience and perspective in the Agile concept being taught.
This sharing of the teaching stage not only enriches the Agile training promoting active group participation but also directly demonstrates strong Agile values of respect and humility, while indirectly defusing the original conflict by proactively providing a healthy outlet for the participant’s need to be noticed.
By: Michael Delis B.Eng. PMP, PMI-ACP, SPC4, ACC, CDAP, CLP, CSP, CSM, PRINCE2
I’m a senior Agile coach, trainer and consultant for the Project Management Centre (PMC) and welcome your feedback to the above as well as any other Agile training techniques and challenges you may have experienced that are not covered above or in the previous Part 1 of this series.
