The 16 Rules of DMAIC

07/17/2022:

This multi-part article is the last in a series of five serialized parts that explores why all businesses, all

organizations, and all enterprises should consider daily standups as an integral part of their overall

project and operational communication planning.

Despite the adoption of the Agile framework globally, having a daily standup seems to have been thrown

to the side as a waste of everyone’s time. This article asserts the contrary, that maintaining a disciplined

daily standup regimen is absolutely necessary from a communication and conflict resolution perspective.

It explores eleven common reasons why projects – and by extension, daily operations – fail, and how

daily stand-ups are a necessary first step to achieving overall outcome success.

Go to Previous Part 4

Eleven Good Reasons for Daily Standups – Part 5

Conflict and Communication

Cultural change, by itself, is neither good nor bad; it is a reaction. It is how humans are hard-wired by the

DNA we share in common. From a sociological perspective, it allows the group to adapt to changes in

their external environment, and to solve new problems that require individual and group action in

cooperation and coordination with others, both internally and externally.

Figure 1: The Cultural Change Process

Initially, cultural change is always an internal challenge to the group’s status quo by an individual, or

group of individuals, within the group. The challenge is in response to some change or condition that

demands action that cannot be satisfied or resolved within the current status quo structure. Whether

initiated by formal leadership or internal thought leaders, the response always leads to conflict and -- if

not adequately resolved -- escalating conflict behavior.

By one means or another, the change that is sought is brought to the attention of a sub-group of the

whole. If received positively, it will be considered, exemplified, encouraged, engaged, and enabled. If

negatively received, it will be ignored, mocked, rejected, or punished. Most attempts to change or modify

culture will result in both positive and negative responses within the group. Invariably, this leads to

internal conflicts that may in turn lead to external conflicts.

It is the conflict generated by cultural change that makes it problematic. In a truly ironic dichotomy of

complementary opposites, humans are equally resistant to change, as well as having the innate ability to

adapt to change. To quote Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, “there’s the rub”; to adapt to change it is necessary

to initiate internal change at the appropriate interface points. Initiating internal change often creates both

internal and external conflict that demands resolution.

Most managers -- most individuals -- are ill prepared to deal positively with conflict in the work place

because so much of it is covered by employment law and multiple strata of hierarchal authority. Almost

any organizational friction that escalates beyond a “tolerable level” can easily fall under the very large

umbrella of Human Resources. Ultimately, a very complex and expensive process, regardless of

outcome.

To resolve these issues before they escalate into something disruptive and dysfunctional, facilitation is

required.

Facilitation is nothing more than a deliberative, cross-communication process guided by a third-party,

preferably a neutral third party; someone who has no stake in the conflict’s eventual outcome, other than

a Win-Win solution for all. Short of that outcome, a negotiated agreement by all parties to take joint action

that will further clarify the options to move forward together. And short of those outcomes, a negotiated

agreement by all parties to refrain from any action that will prevent the parties from moving forward

separately.

Cultural change, and the inevitable generation of interpersonal, role, and resource conflicts that often

result, are always best resolved at the lowest level possible. It is always best to resolve conflicts well

before they become project and operational impediments. Before they become section and departmental

food fights. Before they come to the attention of high-level leadership, and certainly well before they

require the intercession of human resources and legal action. Matters of law are about advocacy and

winning. Dispute resolution and facilitation are all about controlled communication flow, discovering areas

of mutual need, and negotiating an agreement framework where all sides feel that they have gained

enough of what they require to move forward.

This requires more than a one-size fits-all approach. Individuals, the various groups they belong to, their

institutions, and their situations are different, if for no other reason than shifting circumstances and

fluctuating context. Groups within same organization often have very different work cultures and

subcultures. What worked with one group may not work with another. What worked in one situation may

not work in one that appears to be similar.

Fortunately, much of the basic thinking and codification of conflict analysis and dispute resolution

techniques have been crafted and tested over the past half century. It is well past time when these

basics models and techniques be acknowledged as basic every day skill sets that ought to be taught,

practiced, and encouraged as an industry best practice by all.

For an abundance of social and business reasons, we need to finally start the movement away from

merely managing interpersonal and group conflicts, and start the much more efficient and effective task

of actually trying to resolve them.

Why Daily Standups Matter

When everything is said and done, groups and organizations accomplish common goals through

cooperation and communication. Communication can be accurate or inaccurate. Depending on the

circumstances, the roles and responsibilities involved, and the context, any combination of

communication, miscommunication, or lack of adequate communication can often create both internal

and external social conflict. Where, when, and how the conflict presents itself, and the issues and the

parties involved, will determine on how the conflict should be approached.

The phrase “conflict management” has a specific meaning in the lexicon of conflict theory. It refers to

processes that have proven to be efficient and effective in bringing a conflict to a truncated end; where

the details of how and why the conflict has been concluded are often less important than the fact that it

has been curtailed. Within the context of business disputes, a lawsuit is the domestic equivalent of

warfare. Walking away from conflict despite a specific party’s strong feelings of aggrievement is the

domestic equivalent of surrender. Of course, in both cases, the conflict may be “managed” though

accommodation, avoidance, compromise, or tacit collaboration, but in many instances, its underlying

causes remain unresolved.

Under such circumstances, a rekindling of the underlying conflict between the parties is likely.

Depending on circumstances, the phrase “external conflict” can have two meanings: either a conflict with

another individual or group within the organization, or a conflict with another individual or group from

outside the organization.

Whether you call it a standup, a daily standup meeting, a daily scrum, a scrum meeting, or even a

morning roll call, the modern purpose of this event is generally the same: to periodically convene a brief

meeting at the beginning of the workday to establish who is available to do work, to review the status of

efforts from the previous day, to review the current day’s activities, and to seek assistance in the removal

of any constraints that impact the timely completion of those tasks.

There has been considerable complaint about daily standups being more dysfunctional than functional.

Complaints abound that it is a waste of time, arguing that its only purpose is to make managers feel the

team members are working hard and under their control, rather than provide actionable insight into how

well the team is progressing against their short-term goal.

I disagree with those assessments. Rather, it suggests a failure to adequately communicate the purpose

of standup meetings to the team, or to its newest members. It is a leadership issue.

If a daily stand up takes more than fifteen minutes to accomplish, either the team is too large, or the

incorrect kinds of information is being shared. As illustrated in Figure 2 -- barring technical difficulties and

with a five-minute cushion to allow managers to get to or to dial into their next higher tier daily standup --

the entire upward communication path, from the teams to Leadership, can be accomplished within a time

duration of an hour-and-a-half and two hours; with no individual needing to spend more than a half-hour

of their time in the entire daily process.

Figure 2: Daily Standup Use Case

One need only consider the amount time and resources wasted in the various daily combinations of

communication, miscommunication, lack of adequate communication, and unnecessary conflict Daily

standups are a small price to pay for clarity.

The purpose of a daily standup is not task status. Rather it is problem identification, constraint

identification, and the status and initiation of action items and remediation efforts to clear bottlenecks and.

Task status can easily be updated by utilizing a team Kanban. Daily work status and progress updates

can be maintained by updating individual task progress at the end of the workday, available for a quick

pre-meeting review by each successive tier lead.

It is not uncommon for a standup to take far less than the allotted fifteen minutes to accomplish, with

individual reports taking far less than a single minute to complete. This leaves a sizable portion of the

allotted time to focus on the real purpose of the daily standup: workflow issues, shifts in priorities, and the

removal of constraints by managers and leads.

Constraints generally mean that groups of individuals are not, cannot, or will not work together

cooperatively. This leads, inevitably, to conflict.

If there are no issues to discuss, it will be a short meeting. If issues do exist, then collaborative work

meetings can be quickly scheduled to discuss and assign individual action items, trigger communication

flows for information and clarifications, and always to keep in the forefront that projects and operations

ultimately fail because of people, no technology.

Conclusion

So long as humans make decisions about key pathway choices that impact internal and external

processes, communication and the likelihood of escalating human conflict will continue to be relevant to

business operational and project success.

Each of the eleven factors contributing to project failure require efficient and effective daily

communication. Its purpose should be to detect and report any issues or constraints that are preventing

tasks or operational responsibilities from moving forward as planned.

One of the weaknesses of current process improvement theory and implementation is that it completely

ignores the human element; it tends to treat individuals as replaceable parts in a larger machine. This is a

typical managerial, top-down, tunnel-vision perspective that leave line-supervisors and managers -- who

eventually become executives -- completely unprepared to be either efficient managers or effective

leaders. When implemented at all, communication and conflict resolution tend to be mechanical and

uninspired.

Communication between individual teams, and collaborative team networks need to be dynamic and

proactive. Short, focused daily standup meetings for all is a necessary first-step toward that end.

(Note: The full article can be downloaded at MCL's published articles page.)

References

agilemanifesto.org_1. (2001, Feb). History: The Agile Manifesto. Retrieved from agilemanifesto.org:

http://agilemanifesto.org/history.html

agilemanifesto.org_2. (2001, Feb). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Retrieved from

agilemanifesto.org: https://agilemanifesto.org/

Axelrod, A. (2008). Bradley: A Biography. Hounmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley

Longman, Inc.

Burton, J. W. (1969). Conflict & Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International

Relations. New York: The Free Press.

Clark, T. R. (2022, Feb 21). Agile Doesn’t Work Without Psychological Safety. Retrieved from Harvard

Business Review: https://hbr.org/2022/02/agile-doesnt-work-without-psychological-safety?ab=hero-

subleft-1

Fischer, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In; Second Edition.

New York, NY: Penguin.

Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps:

Building and Scaling High Performing Technology Organizations. Portland, OR: IT Revolution.

Hansson, H. (2020, FEB 14). Purpose of Meetings. Retrieved from dockethq.com:

https://www.dockethq.com/resources/purpose-of-meetings/

Kaplan, F. (2016). Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Masli, A., Richardson, V. J., Weidenmier Watson, M., & Zmud, R. W. (September 2016). Senior

Executives’ It Management Responsibilities: Serious It-Related Deficiencies and CEO/CFO Turnover.

MIS Quarterly , September 2016, Vol. 40, No. 3, 687-708.

MCL & Associates. (2022, 03 17). PEOPLE: What the heck do we do with them? Retrieved from MCL &

Associates, Inc., Business Transition Blog: https://www.mcl-associates.com/People-

what_the_heck_do_we_do_with_them.html

Opendoor Technology. (2021, Nov 25). The Standish Group Reports 83.9% of IT Projects Fail – How to

Save Yours. Retrieved from opendoorep.com: https://www.opendoorerp.com/the-standish-group-

report-83-9-of-it-projects-partially-or-completely-fail/

Porter, J., & Baker, E. L. (2006). Meetings, Meetings, and More Meetings. Journal of Public Health

Management and Practice (Vol. 12, No. 1 (January-February), 103 - 106.

Powell, C. L. (2003, Oct 28). Why Leadership Matters in the Department of State. Retrieved from

GovLeaders.org: https://govleaders.org/powell-speech.htm

RingCentral, Inc. (2022, MAR 27). Meet with a Purpose: 5 Types of Meetings. Retrieved from

ringcentral.com: https://www.ringcentral.com/guide-to-better-meetings/types-of-meetings

Second Rise LLC. (2022, MAR 27). https://www.lucidmeetings.com/meeting-types. Retrieved from

lucidmeetings.com: https://www.lucidmeetings.com/meeting-types