Fork me on GitHub
#z-do-not-post-here-old-ask-the-speaker
<
2019-11-02
>
Jerreck21:11:05

It seems to be the consensus in this community that the most effective way we've discovered so far to enable learning - especially for teams - is dojos, but I was curious to know why that has been so effective and what other teaching/learning techniques folks have tried - especially since dojos don't seem to be a thing that smaller organizations like mine could afford to support on a full-time basis. Seems like the concept of enabling teams as described in Team Topologies by @matthew and @me1208 could be similarly effective - potentially maybe more cost effective for smaller organizations. They are a very similar concept to dojos, with the differences to me being that enabling teams are short-lived whereas dojos are long-lived, and with enabling teams the challenge is the actual work that needs to be done whereas dojos seem to be more focused on artificial exercises based on common engineering problems. I guess another difference is that the enabling team comes to the team whereas teams go to the dojo. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had experience with organizations that tried both and if any evidence emerged that supported one or the other being more effective and under what circumstances? Mostly directed toward Matthew, Manuel, @bryan.finster, @roger.d.servey and Stacie Peterson (doesn't appear to be in slack) but would love to hear from others also.

Jerreck21:11:05

It seems to be the consensus in this community that the most effective way we've discovered so far to enable learning - especially for teams - is dojos, but I was curious to know why that has been so effective and what other teaching/learning techniques folks have tried - especially since dojos don't seem to be a thing that smaller organizations like mine could afford to support on a full-time basis. Seems like the concept of enabling teams as described in Team Topologies by @matthew and @me1208 could be similarly effective - potentially maybe more cost effective for smaller organizations. They are a very similar concept to dojos, with the differences to me being that enabling teams are short-lived whereas dojos are long-lived, and with enabling teams the challenge is the actual work that needs to be done whereas dojos seem to be more focused on artificial exercises based on common engineering problems. I guess another difference is that the enabling team comes to the team whereas teams go to the dojo. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had experience with organizations that tried both and if any evidence emerged that supported one or the other being more effective and under what circumstances? Mostly directed toward Matthew, Manuel, @bryan.finster, @roger.d.servey and Stacie Peterson (doesn't appear to be in slack) but would love to hear from others also.

Rui Marques07:06:23

I'm too late to this party... Here at Vonage I'm part of the 1st Engineering Enablement Team. @me1208 and @matthew book was the inspiration. It's working out really good and I truly have the desire to replicate this team model across all engineering 😄

👍 2
👏 2
Matthew Skelton (co-author of Team Topologies)07:06:23

Sounds good, Rui - It will be great to hear from you how this develops!