Skip to main content

Developing The Organizational Language

This is another follow-up post on my first year at eyeo.

In a company where the norm was to shun any hype, and avoiding cargo-culting by all means, it was not easy to use the language I had come to learn in the industry. Mentioning "Agile" would derail any discussion into shoot-downs, anecdotes and personal opinions and experiences. Few of the agile values, principles or practices were taken at face value. The more experienced colleagues had bad experiences with "agile transformations", and the large majority of younger colleagues had not recognized the pains of silofication, nor experienced the joy of successful organizational change.

As is the norm these days, "DevOps" has already been reduced to infrastructure engineering. Scrum was a fad, XP forgotten, Kanban was a board on the wall. Sprints were pointless, we'd rather ship when there's a big enough reason to ship. Conway's and Little's laws were unknown, as were Lean, theory of constraints and other constructs I took as being common sense or industry "standard" (if there were such a thing).

Rationality, skepticism and pragmatism ruled. Which can be good, but it can also grind conversations about organizational improvement to zero velocity (pun intended). How can we even discuss without having words for the things we see and the things we want?

The Survey

Around a month into joining eyeo, I started with a survey: "What should we call the things". The main goal was to manifest the separation between temporary projects and more permanent value streams, and separating the idea of cross-functional teams from profession groups.

This lead to the introduction of some new entities that never really had organization-wide definition:

  • Groups of people in the same profession were termed departments
  • Project teams would be our cross-functional groups (the ones working on a project or product together)
  • A project team would own one or more work streams which were the categories of work they would do or take care of.

The people and teams graph

Armed with these basic terms, we got management support and rolled on by beginning to map out the organization. I began building a graph database of persons, teams and departments to give a graphical overview of the relationships in the organization. This was useful for me to gain an understanding of the layout of the company, but it was more useful as a device for explaining others how we are a social network with many kinds of relations between many people and their areas of work.

Screenshot from 2016-11-22 00-57-32.png

At some point, the database counted almost a thousand relationships in a company of less than a hundred! In retrospect, this is where we blundered by investing too long and too much time in analysis rather than learning through experimentation. We spent almost half a year before we went public with our findings and plan for the new organizational structure. A month would've been enough to get something good enough to try, and rather give people themselves the ability to chart out this graph in detail.

Launching the new organizational language

When we figured we had a very solid model of the organizational layout, basically a spreadsheet saying who belonged in a project team together, we published it along with a declaration of rules on how project teams could continue to change.

While that launch and the following 6 months were bumpy and would be worthy of several blog posts in its own right, the short story is that while it alone failed at transforming the organization into where we wanted it to go, it successfully blasted the new terminology into the company.

People began questioning and challenging both our new and the old organizational units placed around their own work - a crucial precursor to organizational development. Cross-functional teams and their work became a first-class citizen in our organizational language.

Popular posts from this blog

Encrypting and Decrypting with Spring

I was recently working with protecting some sensitive data in a typical Java application with a database underneath. We convert the data on its way out of the application using Spring Security Crypto Utilities. It "was decided" that we'd be doing AES with a key-length of 256, and this just happens to be the kind of encryption Spring crypto does out of the box. Sweet!

The big aber is that whatever JRE is running the application has to be patched with Oracle's JCE in order to do 256 bits. It's a fascinating story, the short version being that U.S. companies are restricted from exporting various encryption algorithms to certain countries, and some countries are restricted from importing them.

Once I had patched my JRE with the JCE, I found it fascinating how straight forward it was to encrypt and decrypt using the Spring Encryptors. So just for fun at the weekend, I threw together a little desktop app that will encrypt and decrypt stuff for the given password and sa…

Managing dot-files with vcsh and myrepos

Say I want to get my dot-files out on a new computer. Here's what I do:

# install vcsh & myrepos via apt/brew/etc
vcsh clone https://github.com/tfnico/config-mr.git mr
mr update

Done! All dot-files are ready to use and in place. No deploy command, no linking up symlinks to the files. No checking/out in my entire home directory as a Git repository. Yet, all my dot-files are neatly kept in fine-grained repositories, and any changes I make are immediately ready to be committed:

config-atom.git
    -> ~/.atom/*

config-mr.git
    -> ~/.mrconfig
    -> ~/.config/mr/*

config-tmuxinator.git  
    -> ~/.tmuxinator/*

config-vim.git
    -> ~/.vimrc
    -> ~/.vim/*

config-bin.git   
    -> ~/bin/*

config-git.git          
    -> ~/.gitconfig

config-tmux.git  
    -> ~/.tmux.conf    

config-zsh.git
    -> ~/.zshrc

How can this be? The key here is to use vcsh to keep track of your dot-files, and its partner myrepos/mr for operating on many repositories at the same time.

I discovere…

Always use git-svn with --prefix

TLDR: I've recently been forced back into using git-svn, and while I was at it, I noticed that git-svn generally behaves a lot better when it is initialized using the --prefix option.

Frankly, I can't see any reason why you would ever want to use git-svn without --prefix. It even added some major simplifications to my old git-svn mirror setup.

Update: Some of the advantages of this solution will disappear in newer versions of Git.

For example, make a standard-layout svn clone:

$ git svn clone -s https://svn.company.com/repos/project-foo/

You'll get this .git/config:

[svn-remote "svn"]
        url = https://svn.company.com/repos/
        fetch = project-foo/trunk:refs/remotes/trunk
        branches = project-foo/branches/*:refs/remotes/*
        tags = project-foo/tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/*

And the remote branches looks like this (git branch -a):
    remotes/trunk
    remotes/feat-bar

(Compared to regular remote branches, they look very odd because there is no remote name i…

Joining eyeo: A Year in Review

It's been well over a year since I joined eyeo. And 'tis the season for yearly reviews, so...

It's been pretty wild. So many times I thought "this stuff really deserves a bloggin", but then it was too inviting to grab onto the next thing and get that rolling.

Instead of taking a deep dive into some topic already, I want to scan through that year in review and think for myself, what were the big things, the important things, the things I achieved, and the things I learned. And then later on, if I ever get around to it, grab one of these topics and elaborate in a dedicated blog-post. Like a bucket-list of the blog posts that I should have written. Here goes:
How given no other structures, silos will grow by themselves This was my initial shock after joining the company. Only a few years after taking off as a startup, the hedges began growing, seemingly almost by themselves, and against the will of the founders. I've worked in silos, and in companies without the…

The End of GitMinutes (my podcast)

I'm just about ship GitMinutes episode 46, which is going to be the final episode. I'll just paste the outro script here, as it sums up the sentimental thoughts pretty well:

I’m happy to have finally finished [publishing the last episodes from Git-Merge 2017], just in time before Git-Merge 2018 takes place in March. I won’t be going there myself, so I’m counting on someone else to pick up the mic there.

It’s sad to be shipping this one as it is probably the last GitMinutes episode ever. To go a bit down memory lane, 6 years ago, my daughter was born, and as I used a little of that paternity leave to set up my podcasting infrastructure and produce the first few episodes. Initially it was just going to be 10 episodes and call the experiment finished. Instead, I got to 46 episodes, the last dozen or so lazily tailing the last few Git-Merge conferences.

To every one of my guests, thank you so much again for coming on to share your passion in this little niche of computer science a…