Sparklemotion: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|projects|[[File:Sparklemotion.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Don’t ever question ''my'' commitment to sparklemotion.]]}}
{{a|projects|[[File:Sparklemotion.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Don’t ever question ''my'' commitment to sparklemotion.]]}}
The [[JC]]’s own internal skunkworks.
How to build your own internal skunkworks.
 
===The original :Lockheed principles===
*'''Have a set of core values that define the team''': Favour what is right for the project and the outputs, even if it requires breaking with company common practices and culture.
*'''Have sponsors''': Develop sponsors outside the group who can help cut through the red tape and institutional resistance.
*'''Give free rein''': Let the team manager have complete practical control of all aspects of the programme".
*'''Keep it small''': The number of people on the project "must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good ­people (ten to 25 per cent compared to the so-called normal systems). This should self-select.
*'''Be like a shark: keep moving''': Let the team collaborate and [[iterate]] easily. Promote agility. Lightweight tools. Like SharePoint. Favour agility over robustness. Quid pro quo: act with ''urgency''.  Set strict milestones, deadlines and budgets so everyone acts with a sense of urgency.
*'''Delivery early, continuously, and iterate''':
*'''Log everything''': Keep as much data on everything as you can: you need to explain what you’ve been doing and why it was worthwhile even if it didn’t work. Have as few reports as you can, but document important work thoroughly.
*'''No secrets in the group, top secret outside it''': Let the people in the group have the big picture. Tell people what you ''have'' achieved, not what you're planning to achieve. Hence: no business plan.
 
===Additional ones===
'''Have a kill switch''': if a project is working out, be prepared to nix it. Ask: what have we learned? What could we tweak which realistically might make a difference? If you can’t think of anything, let it go. But record your results.
 
{{tabletopflex|47}}
{{tabletopflex|47}}
{{aligntop}}
{{aligntop}}
Line 7: Line 21:
{{aligntop}}
{{aligntop}}
|
|
*'''Diverse''':
*'''Fun''': stimulating, challenging, intellectual, entertaining, and empowering.
*'''Fun''': stimulating, challenging, intellectual, entertaining, and empowering.
*'''Social''': It really does depend on that serendipitous spark that tinkles off employees of a large organisation when they bump into each other in the lift, at the gym, in disciplinary processes etc.
*'''Social''': It really does depend on that serendipitous spark that tinkles off employees of a large organisation when they bump into each other in the lift, at the gym, in disciplinary processes etc.
Line 16: Line 31:
*'''A talking-shop''': This can’t be an excuse to kick back and yarn. You need some outputs: no organisation will tolerate that kind of frivolity. You need a plan, you need to get on with it, and you need to report back about it. But up to you how you do that stuff.
*'''A talking-shop''': This can’t be an excuse to kick back and yarn. You need some outputs: no organisation will tolerate that kind of frivolity. You need a plan, you need to get on with it, and you need to report back about it. But up to you how you do that stuff.
*'''A moan-fest''': Go write a wiki if you want to do that.  
*'''A moan-fest''': Go write a wiki if you want to do that.  
*'''An objective on your end-of-year appraisal''': This one I’m conflicted about because punters need some kind of cover, but [[goal]]-setting, and [[performance appraisal]]s, are exactly the sort of behaviour we are trying to avoid.
{{tablebottom}}
{{tablebottom}}
{{sa}}
*[[Project method]]