Ask HN: The most efficient method of conveying information is face-to-face
Agile Manifesto states: The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
But from what my experience, written word one-on-one has many advantages. It is easy to look up what was said. Another difference is that written word is persistent, meanwhile spoken usually isn't. You could use some technology to transcribe it and store the text somewhere to get these advantages, but It is not very common (assuming it works flawlessly, text always does). It also has advantages of not having various time constrains. This mostly means eliminating the urgency of having to answer immediately (which you still can) and therefore you can think about it more. Furthermore, it's easier to receive these messages rather than having a talk, and therefore it's easier to intertwine the downtime of not having a quick answer with another activity.
Which one do you folks prefer and why?
22 comments
Yeah the agile manifesto has some problems and I feel like the bits that are problematic (like information is best transmitted face to face) are often pursued, while the bits that are really important (people over processes) are often ignored. I mean an entire, widely followed cult (scrum) has grown up around the idea that process is more important than people and that if you just follow the process everything will be amazing.
On topic. I think it depends on the information. Factual information, design requirements, anything quantitative, anything that needs to be referred back to, should be communicated in writing. Justifications and decision making however is often best done face to face as the latency is kept to a minimum. Asking someone why did you take this decision, why that, how about, could we? over email takes a lot of time, whereas doing it face to face allows you to quickly bang through all the important questions and sign off on decisions.
Really important thing in these types of meetings is to have a note taker / scribe who is independent, or get an automated transcript so you can refer back, especially if you are working in an adversarial environment with competing interests / views.
On topic. I think it depends on the information. Factual information, design requirements, anything quantitative, anything that needs to be referred back to, should be communicated in writing. Justifications and decision making however is often best done face to face as the latency is kept to a minimum. Asking someone why did you take this decision, why that, how about, could we? over email takes a lot of time, whereas doing it face to face allows you to quickly bang through all the important questions and sign off on decisions.
Really important thing in these types of meetings is to have a note taker / scribe who is independent, or get an automated transcript so you can refer back, especially if you are working in an adversarial environment with competing interests / views.
> assuming it works flawlessly, text always does
Uhm, text never works flawlessly!
Direct face-to-face communication has the benefit of additional cues (facial expression) and ability to interrupt and explain any disagreements and misunderstandings right away.
Text has the benefit of being easily referenced (whether for clarification or historical referral), as you point out, and allows one to think through before replying (though that's not excluded from live conversation: "I need some time to process this").
As others point out, this means there is no universal answer: but it also means that for whatever tough decisions you need to communicate, it's best done with a live conversation, followed by a written note.
Uhm, text never works flawlessly!
Direct face-to-face communication has the benefit of additional cues (facial expression) and ability to interrupt and explain any disagreements and misunderstandings right away.
Text has the benefit of being easily referenced (whether for clarification or historical referral), as you point out, and allows one to think through before replying (though that's not excluded from live conversation: "I need some time to process this").
As others point out, this means there is no universal answer: but it also means that for whatever tough decisions you need to communicate, it's best done with a live conversation, followed by a written note.
The other way around: get the facts on the table beforehand. Written, so that everyone knows what it's about.
Then do the negotiation and decision face-to-face.
Otherwise your face-to-face talk is just everyone waiting for their turn, trying to remember which points they still need to reply to, and nobody listens to anybody else.
Then do the negotiation and decision face-to-face.
Otherwise your face-to-face talk is just everyone waiting for their turn, trying to remember which points they still need to reply to, and nobody listens to anybody else.
Sure, face-to-face without any prep is only acceptable for one-on-one talks (depending on the type of conversation, maybe a small number of people too).
Having a clear goal (that everybody knows) for any discussion involving multiple people is a must, definitely.
Having a clear goal (that everybody knows) for any discussion involving multiple people is a must, definitely.
There's no universal answer here. It depends quite a bit on the people, the topic, the prior context each person has, their abilities to formulate their thoughts effectively and (last though perhaps not least) their writing/typing speeds. Heck, even when all of these factors are the same, different modes can be more efficient in different situations, depending on what kind of outcome you want (say, an exhaustive analysis vs. a quick sketch of an idea). I'm not sure why anyone would claim or expect a universal answer here.
For remote work, async communication via email - often long discussions over weeks and months, with links, lists, and images. For me, that is superior to any synchronous forms of communication that require all participants to be there at the same time (around the world), such as video, voice, or text chats.
For family, friends, and personal relationships, there's nothing that replaces being together in the same time and place. But that's for conveying emotions, not only information.
For family, friends, and personal relationships, there's nothing that replaces being together in the same time and place. But that's for conveying emotions, not only information.
> long discussions over weeks and months
I think you effectively support agile manifesto's point here: there is nothing agile about long discussions over weeks and months.
I think you effectively support agile manifesto's point here: there is nothing agile about long discussions over weeks and months.
> Agile Manifesto states: The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
I refute this claim explicitly.
Written communications which are competently complete are superior to face to face in that memory and real time interpretation fail in comparison to the availability of objectively empirical reference.
The operating imperative is “complete”, and that all sides are “competently” literate.
I refute this claim explicitly.
Written communications which are competently complete are superior to face to face in that memory and real time interpretation fail in comparison to the availability of objectively empirical reference.
The operating imperative is “complete”, and that all sides are “competently” literate.
> The operating imperative is “complete”, and that all sides are “competently” literate.
That's completely false. There are so many ways to misinterpret any communication.
I've so far learned that it's not even sufficient to be "completely" precise: people will "read between the lines" or simply glance over some words and not give weight to every word you may have chosen carefully. And that's normal in a human communication.
Sweet point to me is having a video call (in remote work) where you are taking notes together and agree on summary points (actions, decisions, any points of confusion and contention...) at the end.
That's completely false. There are so many ways to misinterpret any communication.
I've so far learned that it's not even sufficient to be "completely" precise: people will "read between the lines" or simply glance over some words and not give weight to every word you may have chosen carefully. And that's normal in a human communication.
Sweet point to me is having a video call (in remote work) where you are taking notes together and agree on summary points (actions, decisions, any points of confusion and contention...) at the end.
what you describe is the kind of incompetence that makes companies require degrees.
I don't see how that is in any way related?
Is this an example of "complete" writing that anyone "competently literate" should get? (I obviously fail, though maybe it's due to me having a degree)
Is this an example of "complete" writing that anyone "competently literate" should get? (I obviously fail, though maybe it's due to me having a degree)
I don’t mean to sound like a troll, though if you’ve ever wondered why companies require degrees (which I don’t have yet I am above average literate and acknowledge their purpose), this is an example.
Those who are not “competent” readers, those who skim without obligation, those who lack established conventions for due diligence, they are troublesome and put the burden of minimum standards upon others.
A minimum degree is one way of establishing that such standards are met.
It may not be seen as relevant, though college level literacy is a standard which supports my point, and is undermined by your response.
I recommend taking responsibility for becoming a more diligent reader. You will benefit in many ways! Such as knowing and appreciating concise qualitative written requirements when you see them.
Those who are not “competent” readers, those who skim without obligation, those who lack established conventions for due diligence, they are troublesome and put the burden of minimum standards upon others.
A minimum degree is one way of establishing that such standards are met.
It may not be seen as relevant, though college level literacy is a standard which supports my point, and is undermined by your response.
I recommend taking responsibility for becoming a more diligent reader. You will benefit in many ways! Such as knowing and appreciating concise qualitative written requirements when you see them.
It's a bad example because it's incomplete and false. Even your elaboration is incomplete and false.
Job postings require degrees for a multitude of reasons other than introducing a common standard of communication (like proof of experience and background, certification and legal purposes)
I am a pretty dilligent reader. Does not help at all when everybody else is not a dilligent writer (and even those who are, they are not all the time).
You can either keep enforcing your point in your work (and social) environment and get frustrated, or accept that any form of communication requires repeating, examples and explaining in a different way, no matter how precise, concise and to the point you are. I've tried the former, and while it allows you to consider yourself smarter than everybody else, even that wanes after a while.
Job postings require degrees for a multitude of reasons other than introducing a common standard of communication (like proof of experience and background, certification and legal purposes)
I am a pretty dilligent reader. Does not help at all when everybody else is not a dilligent writer (and even those who are, they are not all the time).
You can either keep enforcing your point in your work (and social) environment and get frustrated, or accept that any form of communication requires repeating, examples and explaining in a different way, no matter how precise, concise and to the point you are. I've tried the former, and while it allows you to consider yourself smarter than everybody else, even that wanes after a while.
Prefer face to face for the latency but nothing beats immutable text. I kinda wish we had a popular hybrid between Zoom and email that had the same real-time expectations of a Zoom call with the benefits of the written word.
I find real time makes people lazy and “take things for granted.”
How many times have you spent hours+ discussing a topic only to walk away and someone to say “oh, and one more thing…” only to finally get to the most important missing piece?
If you don’t expect others to be there “at the beck and call”, where your arse will be on the line for functional results, the pseudo-contract of explicit text is king!
How many times have you spent hours+ discussing a topic only to walk away and someone to say “oh, and one more thing…” only to finally get to the most important missing piece?
If you don’t expect others to be there “at the beck and call”, where your arse will be on the line for functional results, the pseudo-contract of explicit text is king!
We're social by nature.
I'm quite extroverted, face to face is risky for me I'll have a great time but miss the point if I'm not focused. Text removes the pleasantries and makes it business-first.
In the WFH/post-COVID era the main reason we (in engineering) still do face to face is to keep Agile grifters in a job. Would be terrible if people could just write what they wanted without a handler there to marshal.
I'm quite extroverted, face to face is risky for me I'll have a great time but miss the point if I'm not focused. Text removes the pleasantries and makes it business-first.
In the WFH/post-COVID era the main reason we (in engineering) still do face to face is to keep Agile grifters in a job. Would be terrible if people could just write what they wanted without a handler there to marshal.
Your self awareness is appreciable.
I’m an introspective introvert, so don’t mind me!
I’m an introspective introvert, so don’t mind me!
Wow, mind blown. Effectively refuting a core principle of the Agile Manifesto, as you have done, calls the entire Manifesto and Agile itself into question.
Agile manifesto is not written by and for true engineers. It is written for those who must accommodate the requirements of imperfect people developing good enough software on behalf of uncertain (evolving) requirements.
This is my subjective opinion, and I would like to know what others think. I might very well be objectively wrong for all I know. The manifesto was written 20+ years ago, when the situation might have been different, so I wouldn't be calling it out because it might have been true in that time.
The Agile Manifesto lists ideas and guidelines, not inviolable rules from a burning bush. The author didn’t have all the answers or a crystal ball. Take what you can use, adapt what you can.
One thing decades of software development teaches us: no one knows how to do it right reliably and consistently. No silver bullet. No one right way. Try ideas that seem to make sense and have worked for others, but avoid ideologies and self-proclaimed experts.
One thing decades of software development teaches us: no one knows how to do it right reliably and consistently. No silver bullet. No one right way. Try ideas that seem to make sense and have worked for others, but avoid ideologies and self-proclaimed experts.
How about face to face then write it up? Then both to agree the minutes are accurate.