What is Competence Bias?

Ever been so sure about something, only to discover later that you were way off the mark? That’s a touch of competence bias for you. But when this creeps into professional areas like software engineering or product management, the implications can be significant. Let’s dive in!

What is Competence Bias?

Competence bias is that sneaky feeling that convinces you you’re more proficient in a task than you truly are. It’s not about confidence, but an over-inflated belief in your abilities. Kinda like thinking you’re the LeBron James of coding, even if you’re just starting out.

Why It Matters

In the context of software development and design, this bias can have profound implications on the quality, usability, and reliability of software products. Here’s a breakdown of how competence bias can affect the solutions built by your team:

1. Flawed Code: A developer who overestimates their coding skills might skip rigorous testing or overlook best practices, leading to software that is buggy or unstable. They might believe their code is robust when, in reality, it has vulnerabilities that could be exploited.
   
2. Inefficient Solutions: An overconfident developer might believe their solution is the most efficient when there might be better, more optimized methods available. This can result in software that consumes more resources than necessary or performs slower.
   
3. Usability Issues: If a UX/UI designer believes they fully understand user needs without proper research or testing, they might design interfaces that are confusing or non-intuitive for the actual end-users.
   
4. Missed Opportunities for Innovation: Overestimating one’s competence can lead to a closed mindset. Developers or designers might resist new technologies, methodologies, or ideas, believing their current knowledge is sufficient. This can stifle innovation and prevent the adoption of newer, better practices.
   
5. Poor Collaboration: Individuals with competence bias might undervalue or outright dismiss feedback from peers. In a team setting, this can hinder collaborative efforts, as the individual might resist changes or improvements suggested by others.
   
6. Scope Creep: Overconfidence in one’s abilities can lead to underestimating the time and resources required for features or projects.
   
7. Security Vulnerabilities: One of the most critical implications of competence bias is the potential overlooking of security aspects. An overconfident developer might assume that their code is impervious to attacks, neglecting to integrate the latest security protocols or not staying updated with emerging threats. This can make the software product vulnerable to hacks, data breaches, and other malicious activities.
   
8. Poor Documentation: Believing that their code is self-explanatory or universally understandable, a developer might neglect thorough documentation. Proper documentation is essential not just for end-users but for other developers who might need to understand, maintain, or upgrade the software in the future. Inadequate documentation can lead to prolonged issue resolution times and difficulty in onboarding new team members.
   
9. Reduced Product Lifespan: A software product designed and developed under the influence of competence bias might not be as adaptable or scalable as required. Overconfidence can prevent teams from considering future growth, technological shifts, or changing user needs, leading to products that become obsolete faster.
   
10. Economic Implications: Mistakes arising from competence bias can be costly. Rectifying bugs, addressing security breaches, redesigning flawed interfaces, or even potential legal challenges due to inadequacies can lead to significant financial implications for companies.
    
11. Impact on Team Morale and Dynamics: An individual’s competence bias doesn’t just affect the product; it can also influence team dynamics. If one member consistently overvalues their input and undervalues others, it can lead to friction, reduced morale, and even turnover. Collaborative environments thrive on mutual respect and open communication, both of which can be hindered by unchecked competence bias.
    
12. Customer Trust and Brand Reputation: In today’s digital age, news travels fast. A software product with significant issues, especially those concerning security or data privacy, can tarnish a company’s reputation. Loss of trust can have long-term implications, including reduced user adoption, negative reviews, and potential loss of market share.

In wrapping up, competence bias, while a natural human tendency, can have far-reaching effects in the domain of software development. Recognizing and addressing it is crucial, not just for the sake of creating superior products but also for fostering healthy team dynamics and maintaining a positive brand image. It’s imperative for organizations and individuals to cultivate an environment of continuous feedback, learning, and humility, ensuring that confidence is always grounded in reality.

How Planning Poker could help to avoid competence bias?

Planning Poker is an agile estimation technique used to estimate work in software development and project management. It combines expert opinions to derive more accurate estimates, mitigating the influence of individual bias and competence.

1. Team Collaboration: Team members gather to estimate the effort required for tasks.
2. Relative Sizing: Tasks are assigned story points based on complexity, not time.
3. Anonymous Voting: Each team member privately selects a card representing their estimation.
4. Discussion: Team members discuss their estimates to understand varying viewpoints.
5. Revote and Consensus: If estimates differ significantly, the team revotes until consensus is reached.
6. Bias Mitigation: By involving the entire team in estimation, individual biases like competence bias are reduced.
7. Accuracy: Combining diverse perspectives results in more accurate estimates.
8. Collaboration: Planning Poker encourages open discussions, enhancing team communication.
9. Engagement: Team members are actively engaged in the estimation process, fostering ownership.

Avoiding Competence Bias with Planning Poker

1. Educate the Team: Introduce the concept of Planning Poker and its benefits.
2. Select a Moderator: Choose someone to moderate discussions and guide the estimation process.
3. For remote teams: Create an online planning poker game at https://planningpokerweb.com
4. Estimation Rounds: Conduct estimation rounds until a consensus is reached.
5. Documentation: Record estimates for reference and improvement in future iterations.

Overcoming Challenges with Planning Poker

• Biased Moderation: Ensure the moderator doesn’t influence estimations with personal biases.
• Remote Teams: Utilize video conferencing tools for virtual estimation sessions.
• Complex Tasks: Break down complex tasks into smaller components for more accurate estimations.

Unlike traditional methods where a single expert’s estimate prevails, Planning Poker considers various perspectives, leading to more reliable estimates.

Limitations of Planning Poker

• Time-consuming: Planning Poker can take longer than individual estimations -> “would you like to trust one person to decide the complexity of a task or a team? Try to miss the launch time of a digital product to understand what is time consuming”.
• Subjectivity: Estimations are still influenced by team members’ perspectives -> “And when subjectivity happens by just one person and not in a discussion with the team?”.
• Learning Curve: New teams might initially struggle to grasp the technique .

Conclusion

Competence bias can hinder accurate decision-making and project planning. Planning Poker serves as an effective tool to counteract this bias by involving the entire team in estimation processes. By acknowledging and addressing competence bias, teams can make more informed and precise decisions, leading to improved project outcomes.