1. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap1 Team Software Project (TSP) June 05, 2007 Planning, Quality, Risks

2. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap2 June 5 Class Outline Survival Recap Deliverable & Team Meeting Clarifications Team Project Plan Presentations Concept Phase Topics Review Goals Commitment Risk Management Planning Phase Topics Configuration Management (if time, probably next week)

3. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap3 Scoring Grid Team SteveGregRon Average Individual Score (Add scores from A4 & B4) Divide by # on team 705654 Team Score (Add scores from A5 & B5) 484240 Gain (Loss) Score (Avg indiv – Team) 2214 Percent Change (Gain_Loss / Avg Indiv) Best Individual Score 633632 # of Members better than team score 011

4. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap4 Synergistic Decision Making “Effective” Decisions Quality of Decision x Degree of Decision Acceptance Synergistic Decision Making Premise: when people are supportive of one another & follow a rational sequence of activities in dealing with a problem, they can perform beyond the sum of their individual resources (2+2 = 5) Interpersonal Process Listening Supporting Differing – constructive, not defensive, conflict Participating equally

5. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap5 Rational Process Analyzing the situation Sort out facts from assumptions Avoid leaping to conclusions & making hasty decisions (slow down) Setting objectives Identify objectives (e.g. survival) and distinguish them from activities Discuss constraints & forces working against achievement View actions as possible strategies Considering alternative strategies Advocacy method is typical Alternately, brainstorming (generate ideas, no judgment) After generating & understanding all alternatives, then discuss & evaluate Discussing adverse consequences Identify possible adverse consequences Estimate likelihood of consequences Estimate severity Compare consequences of alternative strategies

6. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap6 Listening Characteristics of lack of listening Interrupting each other Jumping from subject to subject Carrying on more than one conversation at a time Preparing a response while someone else speaking Active Listening Anticipate where the conversation is going Objectively weigh what has been said Try to understand contributions from speaker’s point of view Periodically review & summarize what has been said

7. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap7 Supporting Tendency to focus on what’s wrong rather than what’s right Result: Good ideas go unrecognized Frustration Defensiveness How to be supportive: Assume that others have useful ideas & viewpoints Point out useful aspects of ideas Build on these aspects Avoid unnecessary criticism

8. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap8 Differing Some people tend to avoid differing for fear of conflict Some people live for conflict (possibly unconsciously) Constructive differing: State differences as their own concerns (do not judge) Clearly specify differences Focus on reasons for the differences Treat differences as a source of ideas

9. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap9 Participating Beware group discussions dominated by the few All members need to be comfortable enough to express ideas Equal participation requires: Recognize group is facing the problem Determine whether everyone agrees with statements regarding group’s position Ask less talkative members for their ideas & opinions

10. 6/5/2007SE 652 - Survival Exercise Recap10 Reaching Consensus Effective Decision = Quality x Acceptance Lack of agreement on / acceptance of a decision places its execution in jeopardy. Recognize there is typically no single “right” answer Consensus more likely when members understand that their way is not the only way to see the problem. Consensus most likely when: Voting & majority rule are not used to defeat dissenting members Priority is placed on sequences activities in a way that all members can live with Alternatives & rankings are modified to satisfy members with serious reservations Members build on what they agree on (rather than focusing on what they disagree on)