We somehow need our common definition of "culture" and "team play" to be front and center as people are answering these questions.
It's not realistic to expect them to open up the playbook every time and find the section buried in stats page.
UI Design
Add link to playbook at top of retro panel.
Add framing sentence to culture contribution question:
Rate your agreement with the following statement:
"Based on {{subject}}'s culture contribution, I want to work with them on future projects."
Consider how they helped to balance and develop the team along the 5 dynamic tensions: belonging, efficacy, growth, mastery, and flow.
Add framing sentence to team play question:
Rate your agreement with the following statement:
"Based on {{subject}}'s team play skills, I want to work with them on future projects."
Consider the behaviors of a good team player: is receptive to feedback, focuses on results, practices flexible leadership, reduces friction.
Rationale
There's an uncomfortable truth to our retros, which is that the contextual knowledge required to complete them is much greater than what can adequately or appropriately be expressed in a 360px x 800px window.
Providing a full rubric for each question would be overkill. We can't have paragraphs of explanation with every question (especially since learners will read it every time).
So I'm aiming for something more modest, but still effective.
With a brief "framing" sentence nestled in between the statement itself and the text box for answering, learners will be reminded of how they are meant to address these (admittedly difficult) questions.
More experienced learners will be familiar with the LOS/COS and will have clear associations brought to mind with the terminology used (e.g. "growth", "receptive to feedback"). Assuming that learners will have already seen/discussed/debated the terms used, what I'm aiming to do here is to give them enough of an orientation so that the task at hand feels comfortable, and they don't have to spend any extra energy searching for guidance on how to think through the question.
Less experienced learners will still need exterior aid and training to be able to answer these questions effectively. The retro form is not (IMHO) the appropriate place for this training to occur.
Yo @shereefb - moved this back to the Backlog since I wasn't actively working on it before the switch, and it's a bit strange to change owners of an issue in mid-progress.
So, the process. This is the DESIGN board. So, @tannerwelsh AFAICT, @shereefb is thinking about this one correctly.
Issues should always flow left-to-right:
Backlog --> (To Do†) --> Game Mechanics --> UI Design --> Review --> Ready For Implementation
If an issue doesn't need UI, then "UI Design" (@tannerwelsh) can simply review the issue, make a comment as such, and move it straight-away to "Ready For Implementation".
This of course means that cycle-time will be increasing as things linger in the UI Design queue while they're not actively being worked on. But this is right and good. If we notice really high cycle times, and a deep WIP queue of things in the UI Design column, that's a hint to us that we're short on "UI Design" resources. In other words, the metrics are signaling as they should. This is actually the main strength of Kanban, IMO, and it's true for any stage / column.
† To Do may go away (as I'm feeling like a more "pure" kanban approach is better
@tannerwelsh -- not sure what you mean by swim lanes ... but basically we have two review stages: one for design / spec and one for implementation. Trying to avoid yet another board for just UI design.
This helps. But I really, really, think that a link to the playbook or a pop-over, or something where I can hover and see the rubric would create a ton more value, and really move us more towards the two strategic goals this issue impacts.
As moderator, this wouldn't be enough for me to lean on. I would continue to remind people of the stats page, link to it in echo, and tell them to scroll to the relevant sections.
@shereefb: ok, moving closer to compromise: what about including a link to the stats section of playbook at the top of the retro, but not within each question?
I'm very reluctant to bury external links within our survey data, and generally opposed to tight coupling the retro to playbook (the inverse is fine - documentation should reference the source, but not the reverse).
But I could swallow that and put a helpful tip at the top of a retro panel with an external link, so long as it stays in the view layer of game.
@shereefb I think it depends on how much content to put in the tooltip - can you give me a better sense of what copy you think is most necessary to include from the playbook? The entire rubric for each, or just parts of it?
heyheyjp
commented
7 years ago
@shereefb commented on Thu Sep 01 2016
Strategic Goals this issues impacts
Description
We somehow need our common definition of "culture" and "team play" to be front and center as people are answering these questions.
It's not realistic to expect them to open up the playbook every time and find the section buried in stats page.
UI Design
Add link to playbook at top of retro panel.
Add framing sentence to culture contribution question:
Add framing sentence to team play question:
Rationale
There's an uncomfortable truth to our retros, which is that the contextual knowledge required to complete them is much greater than what can adequately or appropriately be expressed in a 360px x 800px window.
Providing a full rubric for each question would be overkill. We can't have paragraphs of explanation with every question (especially since learners will read it every time).
So I'm aiming for something more modest, but still effective.
With a brief "framing" sentence nestled in between the statement itself and the text box for answering, learners will be reminded of how they are meant to address these (admittedly difficult) questions.
More experienced learners will be familiar with the LOS/COS and will have clear associations brought to mind with the terminology used (e.g. "growth", "receptive to feedback"). Assuming that learners will have already seen/discussed/debated the terms used, what I'm aiming to do here is to give them enough of an orientation so that the task at hand feels comfortable, and they don't have to spend any extra energy searching for guidance on how to think through the question.
Less experienced learners will still need exterior aid and training to be able to answer these questions effectively. The retro form is not (IMHO) the appropriate place for this training to occur.
@tannerwelsh commented on Wed Sep 21 2016
Yo @shereefb - moved this back to the Backlog since I wasn't actively working on it before the switch, and it's a bit strange to change owners of an issue in mid-progress.
@shereefb commented on Wed Sep 21 2016
Got it. Sorry, I'm confused by our process and need support understanding it. I thought I was just sliding it into cue for UI.
@jeffreywescott commented on Wed Sep 21 2016
So, the process. This is the DESIGN board. So, @tannerwelsh AFAICT, @shereefb is thinking about this one correctly.
Issues should always flow left-to-right:
If an issue doesn't need UI, then "UI Design" (@tannerwelsh) can simply review the issue, make a comment as such, and move it straight-away to "Ready For Implementation".
This of course means that cycle-time will be increasing as things linger in the UI Design queue while they're not actively being worked on. But this is right and good. If we notice really high cycle times, and a deep WIP queue of things in the UI Design column, that's a hint to us that we're short on "UI Design" resources. In other words, the metrics are signaling as they should. This is actually the main strength of Kanban, IMO, and it's true for any stage / column.
† To Do may go away (as I'm feeling like a more "pure" kanban approach is better
@tannerwelsh commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
Thanks for the clarification @jeffreywescott - I was under the impression we were doing a "separate swim lanes" approach, but this way works too :)
@jeffreywescott commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
@tannerwelsh -- not sure what you mean by swim lanes ... but basically we have two review stages: one for design / spec and one for implementation. Trying to avoid yet another board for just UI design.
@jeffreywescott commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
Rather, I know what you mean by swim lanes, but ... not sure what you were thinking here. Are you saying you might need multiple review stages?
@tannerwelsh commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
Nope, I don't think we do (at least not at this point). I just misread an earlier message of yours.
@tannerwelsh commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
Ready for feedback on UI (and mechanics, to the degree that they apply) \cc @shereefb @LearnersGuild/software
@shereefb commented on Thu Sep 22 2016
This helps. But I really, really, think that a link to the playbook or a pop-over, or something where I can hover and see the rubric would create a ton more value, and really move us more towards the two strategic goals this issue impacts.
As moderator, this wouldn't be enough for me to lean on. I would continue to remind people of the stats page, link to it in echo, and tell them to scroll to the relevant sections.
@tannerwelsh commented on Fri Sep 23 2016
@shereefb: ok, moving closer to compromise: what about including a link to the stats section of playbook at the top of the retro, but not within each question?
I'm very reluctant to bury external links within our survey data, and generally opposed to tight coupling the retro to playbook (the inverse is fine - documentation should reference the source, but not the reverse).
But I could swallow that and put a helpful tip at the top of a retro panel with an external link, so long as it stays in the view layer of
game.@shereefb commented on Fri Sep 23 2016
Totally your call @tannerwelsh I get the tight coupling is ugly. What about a hover-over help?
@tannerwelsh commented on Mon Sep 26 2016
@shereefb I think it depends on how much content to put in the tooltip - can you give me a better sense of what copy you think is most necessary to include from the playbook? The entire rubric for each, or just parts of it?
@bundacia commented on Mon Sep 26 2016
+1 for a link to the playbook. I'm not sure I understand the downside of linking to the documentation from within the app.
@tannerwelsh commented on Mon Sep 26 2016
Ok, let's go with a link to the playbook for now. Will be doing a more thorough UI rehash soon.