Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

Quality Circle Genealogy

By

It has been variously argued that the notion of Quality Circles has been around for perhaps half a century, and that Kaoru Ishikawa, he of the Fishbone or Cause and Effect Diagram fame, is known as the ‘Father of the Quality Circle Movement’. Common in manufacturing environments and ISO-based quality initiatives, Quality Circles bring a small group of people together voluntarily to solve their work related problems or improve their work environment. Handled appropriately, the shared participation fosters teamwork, cooperation and more broadly effective solutions. 

All good stuff, to be sure, but it is safe to say that solutions through peer collaboration are a bit more than a 50 year old concept. 

For hundreds of years, North American Aboriginals have been managing affairs through the use of circles of various kinds, such as healing circles as a means of supportive improvement and recovery and sentencing circles to develop consensus on fair and reasonable consequences to crimes. A little research shows that these long-standing practices have a number of strengths that would make them valuable to adopt as a means of managing change in software organizations. 

One of the key elements of these circles is that everyone is involved in the decision, and the party to be changed (either healed or sentenced in the circles above) requests to participate in the circle process – it is not something that is mandated down. When participating within the circle, an environment is provided where it is safe to speak your mind without recrimination – openness and honesty are critical for success. All participants are empowered in the process, as they all have a voice and a shared responsibility in finding constructive resolutions for change. 

Beyond the strengths of circles to address immediate problems, the shared decision-making process helps build a sense of community and capacity for resolving conflict, and it promotes these community values. 

Indeed, it appears that sentencing circles include healing circles for the victim and offender, as well as follow-up circles to monitor the progress of the offender, providing what appears to be a much more comprehensive solution that the systems we are accustomed to, and can be effective at addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, rather than just punishing that behaviour or simply masking the symptoms. 

Many changes in software development would benefit from a similar holistic approach for change. In the small, as we address changes to the software product through Change Review Boards, broad participation is critical to ensure that impact is appropriately analyzed and disseminated, and significant changes can be effectively fostered through to the rest of the team. Maintaining an environment where any change can be voluntarily brought to the Board in a proactive basis will tend to reduce the need for the more severe form of ‘sentencing and recrimination’ that would be used to address situations where the build is broken and needs repair. 

For more significant changes (to the product or the process), broad participation will promote buy-in across the team and dramatically improve the quality of the ideas that contribute to the change process. Collaboration and shared awareness improves the sense of community, which can only serve to improve or sustain team dynamics over time. 

Whether you follow the lead of the Quality Movement or acknowledge that the principles of collaborative problem solving have much deeper roots, there is great value in leveraging the practices of circles within your teams.

Jim Brosseau of Clarrus Consulting Group
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home