Authority and Responsibility are the same thing

September 20, 2018

Inspired by Ron Jeffries‘ “Manager Responsibilities” article, I responded…

I like that you gave the word “Responsibilities” such prominence. While in some ways I have been quite critical of “management” lately, I think that my issue lies more with the question of authority and responsibility.

I think that…

Authority and Responsibility are the same thing.

And that this is important.

I think that those who try to delegate or impose responsibility on others, while denying them the necessary authority to act are frauds.

And I have seen quite a few people over the years misusing agile concepts to do that. “This is SCRUM.” they say, “And you take full responsibility for your commitment to deliver all these things by the deadline (… regardless of anything I or others do to you). This is ‘your commitment(that I’m imposing on you).” And (sometimes) then, they actively sabotage your efforts and yet still insist on holding you “responsible” for “your commitment.” I find such behavior fraudulent. You give both or you take both. You can’t give one and keep back the other.

Further…
To clarify…

If you use your authority, then you are taking responsibility.

When you intervene and tell your people to stop doing this, and to do that instead… When you tell people to stop doing things the way they think is best, and do things your way instead… Then you have used your authority to override others. And by doing so, you have taken responsibility for the results. No matter how much you might try to deny it. No matter how much you might try to appeal to “their professionalism” or “their job title” as reasons why they should give up everything and possibly “do the impossible” to “deliver on their commitments,” you have used your authority in ways that affect the outcome, and so you are responsible for that.

When I am working as a leader or manger, I strive to keep that in mind: That it’s impossible to delegate responsibility without also delegating authority. And when I use my authority, I am taking responsibility.

I have found that that works well. And I wish that others would also keep that in mind, and do the same.

Advertisements

My Experiences with Requirements Traceability

August 3, 2011

With some positive feedback on my post on the Yahoo Test-driven Development group, I thought I’d post my comments here, to make them more accessible:

— abrar arshadwrote:

Yeah I know requirements traceability has always been related to formal requirements specification and in agile with don’t have formal documentation. … For instances, how do you know where to make changes if your client wants you to change a feature which already has been developed. There is a chance that changing one feature might effect the others as well. …

I was involved in Document-Driven approaches for quite a few years before joining the XP community. “Requirements Tracability” was always a promise of the document-driven approach, used in part to justify its high cost. But honestly, I have never seen it deliver as promised:

Requirements tracability advocates say that it will show you where to make a new change, and that it will highlight conflicting requirements. I have never seen this happen in practice.

Consider this example: We have a system that is computing hourly pay in several divisions at several union plants. There is a fair amount of hard-coded conditional code. We just renegotiated the overtime rates for one of the divisions at two plants.

For requirements tracability to be useful, it has to be easier to find the original requirements for these divisions and to trace these requirements down to code than it would be to find the code directly. And to see conflicts, one would have to go from all the requirements that are relevant to the code back to the requirements documents — and then somehow figure out what to do with a whole bunch of requirements statements — to see if they conflict or overlap in any way, and how to resolve the issues.

Generally, in practice, it’s pretty easy to find the relevant code, even without any external requirements documentation. It’s easier to find the code than to trace through a tangled mess of requirement number references.

And to make the change… Add or change tests. Then change the code so that it passes the tests. If there are conflicting requirements, other tests will fail. You’ll look at the other tests and probably learn something. Sometimes it’s a technical issue, easily solved. Sometimes it is a real conflict in the business requirements. In that case, you will probably have to go back to the business requirements and maybe to the people who specify them to resolve the business issue.

So requirements tracability is not only costly and quickly out of date, it turns out to not be very useful. About the only good thing I’ve seen requirements tracability do is to serve as a checklist of all the things the system must do: When they’re all checked off, then you have reason to believe that the system does everything that’s been requested. User stories with automated acceptance tests also do this — with much higher justifiable confidence levels.


Tim Ottinger’s “Technical Debt” card

February 12, 2009

I like Jeff Langr and Tim Ottinger’s “Technical Debt” card, as a suitable reminder of the costs of accumulating technical debt. I posted one in our workspace. Thanks to Tim and Jeff (L.)!