วีดีโอ

Well if that is the biggest problem, great!

You are probably overthinking this - the example is for the software/tech industry which is predominantly male and white. And the median age ~40 is also not so bad of a guess. And if - like in his example - most colleagues have gone through the same universities around the same time chances are very high they think alike when problem solving. He also does not say that you want to hire woman ONLY for being a woman. This BTW goes the other way around... a group of all female colleagues will probably profit from bringing in males. Not because males are smarter or whatever, but just because they are able to offer a different angle.

"most colleagues have gone through the same universities around the same time chances are very high they think alike when problem solving" I disagree. Firstly, my colleagues are from all kinds of places all around the world. At lest in London it is a norm. Secondly, where I studied even within the same university people had a variety of approaches and ideas when solving problems. I think it is strange to believe that, say, hiring specifically a woman would somehow "add diversity to thinking" by having to a "different angle". My views are based on a few decades of experience of working in several teams and in two different countries. My female colleagues provided much value to the teams but that had nothing to do with being females - their contribution was identical to their male peers.

@@rtvdenys Kevlin literally said in his example that they have graduated from the same unis. He was not talking about YOUR experience or your client but HIS. And in this context you have to understand my comment. If YOUR experience is different then you might for your own professional life draw different conclusions.

@@tetsi0815 Please do not get so upset. Yes, I understand that Kevlin has mentioned a specific example where everyone was from the same uni(s). So what? Does it mean that they actually think the same? Really? I worked for a company where almost everyone (~99%) was from the same uni. I would not say the company lacked a diversity in thinking. Perhaps it is a US thing that the the way a person thinks is defined literally by a combination of two factors: a uni they graduated from and the genitals they have between their legs. I do not know. Never been there. But you can be sure that is not a norm on this planet. At least, that is my conclusion so far.

Usually in companies "stuff", meaning features (user stories) for a product is measured as estimates in man-hours or man-days planned ahead of dev. After development you plot the stuff versus how much time you actually took to code the "stuff". But this speed (velocity) does not actually give you stuff per day, a measurement of development speed. Since you plot estimated time versus actual time, it only gives you the quality of your estimates, not a speed. This can be useful but it does not give you a sense of how much "stuff" are you doing.

Ironically should have listened to his own lessons on scale :)

He's name is Kevlin. Not a joke.

It is a wonderful idea Kevlin introduces. There *are* units of amount of stuff: for example, the mole (or the dozen).

Words only have meaning in cultural context, Physics doesn't own a word exclusively, quark is still a dairy product and charm is also a personal quality; until the general context changes to particle physics. Agile development to me suggests flexibility and responsiveness, opportunistic; I never even considered a meaning like rapid.