Formalize swarm process in progress

2025-01-20 15:29:04 +00:00 · 2018-03-29 12:26:19 +08:00 · 2018-03-29 12:26:19 +08:00 · 86b257ca0b
commit 86b257ca0b
parent 071a3e0997
2 changed files with 147 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ state it is in.

 | Idea                                                              | State       | Success metrics?       | Exit criteria?         | Clear roles?           | Future iteration?      |
 |-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
+| [120-swarm-process](ideas/120-swarm-process.md)                   | In Progress | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes |
 | [83-energy-efficient](ideas/83-energy-efficient.md)               | In Progress | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes |
 | [80-onboarding](ideas/80-onboarding.md)                           | In Progress | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes |
 | [68-core-metrics](ideas/68-core-metrics.md)                       | In Progress | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes | :white_check_mark: Yes |
--- a/ideas/120-swarm-process.md
+++ b/ideas/120-swarm-process.md
@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+## Preamble
+
+    Idea: 120-swarm-process
+    Title: Formalize swarm process
+    Status: In Progress
+    Created: 2018-03-30
+    Requires (*optional):
+    Replaces (*optional):
+
+## Summary
+Swarms are the primary structure we use to turn ideas into reality at Status.
+People who are excited about bringing an idea to fruition commit to it and make
+sure it happens.
+
+At an individual level, this ensures individual contributors are enabled to
+achieve autonomy, mastery and purpose, while still ensuring accountability.
+
+At a product team / organizational level, swarms allow us to see what is going
+on and which OKRs are targetted, which are not, and generally track progress at
+a reasonable level of granularity.
+
+However, the process for creating, running and completing swarms is currently
+ad-hoc, lacking in accountability and follow-up, and knowledge of how to do this
+properly isn't evenly spread throughout the organization. This swarm will fix
+this.
+
+## Swarm Participants
+- Lead Contributor: @oskarth
+- Evaluation ('knowledge spreading'): Voting mechanism (Polly survey)
+- Evaluation ('OKR coverage'): OKR spreadsheet coverage and/or @chad and/or @nabil (TBC)
+- Evaluation ('enable experimentation'): @martin
+- Contributor: @martin
+
+- Possibly UX for communicating things during Town Hall, etc.
+
+## Product Overview
+There are two constraints that govern how this structure is designed and
+cultivated. One is that Status the company wants to ship a product, and the
+other is creating a decentralized autonomous organization. Since we are moving
+towards the latter, the structures we are building must be compatible with this
+latter vision, while still being mindful of the first.
+
+The primary difference between the two is that in the former, we are speaking on
+behalf of users, and people are generally compensated on a salary or salary-like
+basis.
+
+We thus distinguish between swarms (Type-1) as a general concept for bringing
+ideas to fruition and getting compensated by it, and 'Status LLC using swarms'
+(Type-2). The fatter might have more constraints given its immediate goals
+and current compensation model. This allows us to be efficient and effective
+while the rest of the organization is being built up.
+
+For example, a reasonable requirement for a Type-2 swarms is that they target
+OKRs and that PM/UX/Eng should approve an idea before it is given go ahead,
+whereas these requirement might not make sense for a Type-1 swarm.
+
+### Product Description
+This swarm is trying to work towards the majority of swarms working on
+collectively identified OKRs and following processes that:
+
+- are open
+- have discrete steps
+- stay up to date
+
+#### Type-1 vs Type-2
+
+Specifically to what extent things will differ for these remains to be seen. We
+can make one comment regarding the concept of evaluation already though.
+
+Right now we are conflating a few different dimensions:
+
+- external (reality) vs internal self/group-evaluation
+- as a person/role or as a mechanism
+- as acting on behalf of something or someone (like users)
+
+This has been talked about a lot in various contexts, but there's lack of
+clarity around terminology, as well as difference between rules constraints and
+optional/possibly desirable customs.
+
+For Type-1 swarms, this ties into discussion around proportional payouts
+(internal self-evaluation) and anon evaluation panels / user meditation
+(external interface).
+
+For Type-2 swarms, we might want e.g. UXR/PM/Eng to take this role by default,
+and/or let swarm lead evaluate themselves (downside: not compatible with
+marketplace/nature(ecosystem, evolution pressure), not working in byzantine env,
+upside: ease of use and implicit trust good for team cohesion).
+
+### Requirements & Dependencies
+
+### Minimum Viable Product
+Goal Date: 2017-04-06
+Description:
+i. Ensure new draft / in-progress ideas use PR review process.
+ii. Measure Core/Swarm OKR coverage and communicate this/needs.
+iii. Evaluation terminology and expectations are clarified in manual.
+
+### Iteration 1
+Goal Date: 2017-04-20
+
+Description:
+i. Ensure participation commitment (and ideally availability) is captured.
+i. Ensure iteration check-ins is captured for in-progress swarms.
+iii. Town Hall presentation outlining lifecycle, well-definition and roles.
+iv. Send out survey through Polly.
+
+### Iteration 3
+(Buffer)
+
+Possibly something related to Type-1 swarms and communication thereof, but to me
+once success metric 3 is achieved this is a slightly different focus and thus
+ideally a different swarm.
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+Three primary success metrics.
+
+### 1. CORE KNOWLEDGE SPREADING.
+90% of core contributors surveyed answer yes to following questions:
+
+1.1. It is clear to me when a swarm starts
+1.2. It is clear to me when a swarm ends
+1.3. It is clear to me what it means for a swarm to be well-defined
+1.4. It is clear to me what is expected of a swarm lead
+1.5. It is clear to me what is expected of an evaluator
+
+### 2. CORE SWARM/OKR COVERAGE.
+80% of Core OKRs are explicit covered by well-defined, in progress swarms.
+
+### 3. ENABLE EXPERIMENTATION.
+Ensure the following steps are encoded as discrete steps in order to enable
+future experimentation and compensation tied to it:
+
+3.1. Swarm as it moves throughout lifecycle (draft, in progress, done/aborted)
+3.2. Participant commitment
+3.3. Iteration check-ins
+
+## Exit criteria
+
+This swarm will be time-boxed to one month and marked as completed May 1 OR when
+success metrics have been met.
+
+## Supporting Role Communication
+
+## Copyright
+Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).