One of the biggest issues I see on struggling software teams (although this is not limited to software) is problems with communication. Modern software is complex, and therefore our software teams can be complex. There are many groups within and external to the team that require information for successful delivery
- Developers
- Testers
- Engineering managers
- Product managers
- Business stakeholders
- Customers
- Upper level management
Here are my quick thoughts on HOW we choose to communicate.
This list is in ascending order — bias to use the ones at the top over the ones at the bottom
|
Discussion (meetings, phone, IM) |
Best for complex updates and impactful events. Maximizes understanding and reduces conflict via interactive communication. Have a whiteboard (or virtual equivalent) to ensure understanding around complex technical or business logic |
| Issue management / ticketing systems |
Best for long term item tracking, history, and status snapshot (NOT good for conveying major changes unless accompanied by discussion) |
| Wiki / OneNote / shared collaboration documents |
Best for capturing discussion outcomes and project status. May not need if tracking system offers rich enough experience to accommodate these. |
|
Best for “simple” updates. Email can point to Issues/Reports or Wiki. OK to start discussions which require documents or spec review (providing pointers to those) and then complete discussion outside of email |
I am obviously biased towards agile. The following Agile Manifesto values are represented here
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Note on meetings
Meetings when done wrong go to the BOTTOM of the list. Specifically having too many people present who do not have a clear contribution to the meeting and/or meetings without clear goals. Bias for short meetings with small groups — a quick ad-hoc 2-person face to face (or virtual equivalent) often suffices. Then follow up with one of the other three communication tools to verify all are aligned on what was agreed, and to provide a history.