Background: what happens when bad communication is present
The Challenger disaster was a catastrophic event that occurred on January 28, 1986, when the NASA Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds after liftoff, leading to the deaths of all seven crew members aboard. The tragedy was caused by the failure of an O-ring seal in the shuttle's right solid rocket booster, which allowed hot gases to escape and damage the external fuel tank and shuttle attachment points. The incident led to a 32-month suspension of the Space Shuttle program and prompted a thorough investigation by the Rogers Commission.
The Rogers Commission was formed to investigate the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which resulted in major changes to improve safety and management practices in NASA's space exploration efforts. The commission's report was released on June 6, 1986, and it identified the primary cause of the accident and made recommendations for future flights.
The fifth finding of the commission dealt with communications. There was a failure in communication between NASA and the contractor responsible for the SRBs, Morton Thiokol, as well as within NASA's own ranks. Critical information and concerns did not reach key decision-makers.
Engineers had expressed concerns about the O-rings, which are rubber seals in the solid rocket boosters, becoming less resilient in low temperatures. However, these concerns were not adequately communicated to decision-makers.
The commission found that there was a culture within NASA that discouraged open communication of concerns and dissenting opinions. Engineers who raised concerns about the O-rings were often pressured to conform to the decisions of higher management, leading to a breakdown in communication and a lack of accountability.
A solution when bad communication is present ...
The Dojo Mindset and Agile circles mimic Socratic Circles in many aspects.
A Socratic Circle, also known as a Socratic Seminar, is a teaching and discussion method based on the Socratic method of inquiry.
To implement a Socratic Circle, a facilitator selects a text or topic for discussion and assigns it to participants in advance. Participants are expected to read and reflect on the material before the seminar.
The facilitator begins by posing open-ended questions related to the text or topic. Instead of providing answers, the facilitator encourages participants to explore the questions together through dialogue. Participants take turns responding to the questions, offering their perspectives, asking clarifying questions, and engaging in back-and-forth exchanges.
The Socratic Circle aims to foster critical thinking, deep understanding, and meaningful dialogue among participants. It encourages active engagement with the text or topic, respectful listening, and the exploration of diverse perspectives through open-ended questioning and dialogue.
Sometimes the Dojo Mindset and Agile circles topics are selected before the meeting, but participants are always encouraged to bring topics to the mat during the call. The open dialogue among the participants encourages an exchange of ideas with room for growth and changed opinions. Each circle is an opportunity to learn. The Dojo circles allow for open communication, questions, clarifications, and dialogue.
How is this applied in real world examples?
We worked on this pattern first in the weekly Dojo circles, until this pattern was ready to be applied to our own processes. We were ready to reflexively apply the pattern to our own processes.
Our organization immediately benefited by the Dojo Mindset and Agile Circle model. Specifically we implemented:
1. Assumption mapping calls. Assumption mapping helps identify and categorize assumptions the teams may have on upcoming projects. [1]
2. Mind mapping. We utilize mind mapping to brainstorm early in the project process to expose and identify knowns and unknowns. [2]
3. Architectural decision records. We record critical architectural decisions with a record that captures the context and reasoning behind our choices. [3]
4. RACIs. We capture the ownership of projects, especially when ownership is in doubt and the project has strict time boundaries and the project is of a critical nature [4]
5. Decision trees. We utlized decision trees to verify that requirements could be mapped to yes/no choices that could be directly implemented via code. [5]
What all of these processes have in common is that we implemented the Dojo Circle idea of open and safe dialogue with a facilitator and participants.
We mapped the dialogue to specific expected process outputs for each model listed above.
When we implemented this process, both our cadence and confidence in deliveries improved. In addition, the well being and engagement of team members increased.
After going through the Dojo circle process, we implemented the steps for a datacenter buildout. We achieved the highest functionality yet for any datacenter project within memory.
For improved organizational outcome, please consider engaging with and participating in the Dojo Circle today.
For more information see the Communities section for the corresponding Domains here: https://sap-samples.github.io/dojo
Contributors:
Further Exploration:
- https://whiteboards.io/blog/assumption-mapping/
- https://www.mindmapping.com/
- https://adr.github.io/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree
- https://sap-samples.github.io/dojo
- https://github.com/SAP-samples/dojo
