The software industry seems so caught up in certifications and learning the latest framework, method or approach. The focus is on the wrong thing. It should be on learning how to learn, learning how to do our job better, learning how to collaborate better.  This has sometimes been talked about with the shu-ha-ri metaphor:

• Shu – initially obey traditional wisdom – that is, just do the techniques without question.
• Ha - Break with the traditions to go further than the initial practices
• Ri - Transcend the traditions to do what is truly needed.

I am not sure of the value of this metaphor as I’ve not seen people to use it to spur people on to good actions.  Mostly it’s been a way to justify telling people to do practices without explaining principles (the Shu).  But then I don’t hear people say how to leave a practice via Ha (instead it’s called Scrum-but).

The real challenge is that we’re doing knowledge work – not martial arts. And many people take the metaphor too literally.  In the beginning of studying the martial arts, you are not doing real fighting.  Following practices by rote is ok, because you are in a safe place.  When we start learning an Agile method we are engaged in “battle”.  What’s exacerbates the situation is that many people use sensei’s, er, I mean consultants, who specialize in only one approach.  This means, however, that the range of options is narrow and it is not as likely people will be starting close to where they should.  If one size doesn’t fit all then starting with one-size means you very likely will get a less than optimal starting point.  This is why I recommend finding a consultant who embraces multiple approaches.

We need a better way.  We need to look at how we learn not how to adopt a framework or method.  There are a lot of insights that will help you do this, but I’ve seen two that are critical to understand when transitioning people to a new approach:

1. As people learn, they go from wanting an answer to wanting to create their own path
2. Whatever approach we start with may not be the approach we want to be using after a while – so we need to learn to think outside of our approach, a way of transcending our methods

The first point can be characterized in Dreyfus’ model of learning.  People start out as novices, move to advanced beginners, becoming competent, then proficient and finally expert.  In working with people I have found the following table to be useful:

In other words, any approach we undertake should have the following:

• A method to decide where to start that’s best for us
• A well-defined starting point where people can be pointed in the right direction
• A method to select new choices as challenges arise and/or the abilities of the teams improve
• A way of navigating these choices
• A set of principles on which all of this is based so the now proficient people will be able to create their own roadmap

Navigating these paths mean we have to learn how to question our approach. We have found that a method called double loop learning is essential.  Double loop learning is the modification or rejection of a goal / approach in the light of experience.  Double loop learning recognizes that the way a problem is defined and solved can be a source of the problem. "Single-loop learning" is the repeated attempt at the same problem, with no variation of the method and without ever questioning the goal.  Both Scrum and the Kanban Method incorporate single loop learning, but neither use double loop learning (if they did, Scrum and Kanban Method consultants would be telling you when to not use Scrum and Kanban Method, respectively. 

The bottom line is we need to have our focus be on learning how to improve and how to learn.  It shouldn’t be focused on how do I do X (whatever X is).