August 09, 2007
A Cautionary Tale - Delaying Agile Adoption
What happens when you delay adopting agile? Well, one large client I have worked with has found out...
Because this story is a story of failure, and because most people don't like to have their failure's exposed, I have anonymized this story and changed some details to protect the innocent (and they are innocent! Failure is a learning opportunity, not something that's bad).
I started working with BigCom about two years ago. They got a whole bunch of training from me; in total about 60 people received some in-depth training in agile methods. They also decided, wisely, to get me to help coach them organizationally and for some of their Process Facilitators. What they didn't do is heed some good advice: start iterating.
They decided that they needed to do some important up-front architectural research on their huge product re-write/porting project. They had an existing product used by many clients and built over the course of several years. This product was implemented in a legacy programming language and in order to make it easy to add features and keep it up to date, BigCom decided to re-write it in a more modern programming language... but they couldn't decide which one: Java or .NET. Because it was a pure porting job with little if any functional change, they already had a good detailed knowledge of the functional requirements. But this one question of the platform to build upon stalled them. Their research committee studied this questions (and some other less important ones) for four months.
I had advised my client that they should feel free to go ahead and do the research, but that they would be well served by starting to iterate and build the new version of the product, even if it meant building it on two platforms simultaneously. The actual experience of trying to implement real functionality in both Java and .NET might seem like a waste, but actually would provide valuable information for the research effort and help speed the decision-making.
Perhaps my advice was too scary. Or perhaps there was some legitimate reason for many capable people to sit idle for four months while the committee researched, deliberated and failed to make this important decision. In any case, product management and dev management finally got tired of waiting, and they started up the work.
Of course, without the decision made, the work initially was a real mess: developers were left to choose when to use Java and when to use .NET. Sometimes functionality was duplicated in both languages. Sometimes it made connecting functionality extremely difficult. It wasn't systematic. But it was experimental, and it did help clarify the issues quite quickly. After only four weeks of doing actual work on the functionality of the product, it became clear how to use these platforms (for the curious: Java on the UI and .NET on the back end).
The research committee had very little to do with the final decision other than to rubber-stamp it.
Time passed. BigCom continued the development work, features were implemented, and eventually the deadline for releasing the product loomed. And then it passed. Six weeks after the deadline, the product was finally released. Nine months after the start of iterations. Thirteen months after I recommended that they "just start".
Four months wasted... and a deadline missed by six weeks. Was it worth it? Might have been nice to distribute some bonuses for coming in ten weeks early instead. Oh well!
Please, just start iterating!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 09:55 AM | |
January 04, 2007
Coaching and Agile Work
Someone recently said to me that I should offer individual coaching assistance to people based on Agile Work. This would be completely non-technical life/profession style coaching. It's an interesting idea. I don't think I'm quite ready for it, but here are a few links to coaching, life improvement, and related things.
We'll start with the Wikipedia entry on Coaching. This article provides some good definitions and links to a number of articles about specific types of coaching.
Esther Derby is a person I have met a couple of times through the agile community. She has a wonderful approach to training and facilitation. This article about coaching is a simple introduction to the tools of a coach.
This is a brand new blog about lifestyles. There are only two entries so far, but both are interesting. I enjoy the style of writing which is quite personable. The author seems to be positioning the blog as a lifestyle coaching resource.
And the International Coach Federation which seems to be one of the most well-known bodies that promotes coaching as a profession.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 09:44 PM | |
January 02, 2007
Top Ten Most Popular Entries from 2006
If you are new to Agile Advice, these are not just some of the most popular articles, they are also some of the best! Take a look around; you will find ideas to inspire you, challenge your thinking and maybe that one little thing that will make the difference in applying agile methods in your situation.
1. How Two Hours Can Waste Two Weeks - 25,617 unique views
This little hypothetical story by Dmitri Zimine was very popular on Reddit, and Joel on Software ranted a bit about it.
2. The Case for Context Switching - 2,936 unique views
My rebuttal to Joel's rant. Goes well with Dmitri's article. Emphasizes the idea of building trust in an organization.
3. The Qualities of an Ideal Test - 1,579 unique views
Six qualities that will help make your tests as valuable as can be. Similar to the ACID properties of databases or the INVEST properties of user stories.
4. The Pros and Cons of Short Iterations - 1,555 unique views
A few words that will help you decide how long to make your iteration length. This is an important decision, and most teams and organizations don't know the factors involved.
5. Five Signs of Trouble in an Iteration - 1,489 unique views
A good howto on using burndown charts to discover problems in an iteration.
6. Seventeen Tips for Iteration Planning - 1,427 unique views
A good list of hints and tips that can make the difference between struggling with iteration planning and having it go smoothly and effectively. This is a key part of the Agile Work process, so getting good at it is a high priority for any team new to Agile Work.
7. Change is Natural - "Embrace Change" - 1,397 unique views
A short riff on the universality of change. Also introduces the idea of the "horizon of predictability".
8. The Art of Obstacle Removal - 1,287 unique views
This is a good reference article on types of obstacles and methods for removing them... a critical practice for Process Facilitators.
9. The Seven Core Practices of Agile Work - 1,285 unique views
Agile Work is really quite simple. This is a concise list of the practices that make up this effective methodology.
10. Interview with Alistair Cockburn - Agile and House Renovations - 902 unique views
Applying agile methods to home and garden renovations! Learn a bit about how this luminary of the agile world has taken agile practices out of the software world and into the hardware world.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 06:32 PM | |
November 24, 2006
How to Avoid Context Switching
Given the huge interest in the article by Dmitri Zimine about context switching, and despite a couple of good articles about how to determine iteration length, there has been no empirical method described, only reasoning processes. This article describes a simple method to quickly determine iteration length by experimental means.
Step One
Start with an iteration length that feels right. Use the two articles below to try decide a reasonable length. In software development, this should be no longer that four weeks. In larger volunteer communities it might be as long as three months. In a work environment where you have to deliver daily, your iteration length might be two hours.
Step Two
Build your Work Queue, and plan your first iteration. Mark the tasks that come out of your iteration planning meeting so that you know that they are tasks that were planned. As you go through this first iteration, track all the interruptions you get by writing up a task for each interruption. Each interruption task should be marked so that you know it was an interruption. If you are using note cards on a visible task board, I like to have "normal" tasks on white cards and interruption tasks on fluorescent orange cards to help them stand out!
Step Three
At the end of your iteration, determine which interruption tasks could have been deferred. In other words, determine which were truly urgent and needed to be handled in the already short time of your iteration, and which could have been put on the Work Queue, prioritized, and therefore deferred to a later iteration. This will require collaborating with your Queue Master and possibly other stakeholders.
Step Four
Count how many non-deferrable interruption tasks your team had in the iteration. For this experimental method, you can assume that this is going to be your normal number of interruptions. Divide the length of your iteration by the number of non-deferrable interruptions. For example, if you had a ten day iteration, and two non-deferrable interruptions, you would have a result of five days. Also consider what was the maximum reasonable response time for these non-deferrable interruptions. The lower of these two values becomes your experimentally determined iteration length. But you are not quite done!
Step Five
Do it all again to verify your iteration length. Note that because of your shortened iteration length, you hopefully will have far fewer non-deferrable interruptions. After your second (shortened) iteration, you can adjust the iteration length shorter if necessary... but don't adjust longer (for now).
I've worked with enough teams to know that for a substantial portion of them, this method would result in very very short iterations. In the software world, a team is often asked to work on a project and support their previous project. This support work tends to mean dealing with various bugs in deployed software. This is one reason why I have become such a strong advocate that quality is not negotiable.
I worked with one team that did something similar to this method (although not as rigorously) and we decided that we needed to try an iteration length of two days. This was painful for the team, but they badly wanted to build trust with their stakeholders. Their interruptions were causing them to constantly fail on their commitments. By switching to these two day iterations, they were able to defer the bulk of their interruptions and meet the commitment they made as a team in the iteration planning meeting.
Articles about iteration length:
Mike Cohn's article: "Selecting the Right Iteration Length for Your Software Development Process"
Mishkin Berteig's article: "The Pros and Cons of Short Iterations"
Now that you have gotten to the end of the article, I can admit something to you: this article is badly named. It should be named "How to determine how often to context switch so that you can meet your commitments and build trust with your stakeholders."
What this article doesn't help with is the pain of context switching. The teams that I have see that use short iteration lengths all find ways of making context switching less painful. Automation, good tool choices, workspace arrangements, etc. all play a part in this. But there is no secret ingredient to make context switching painless. Sorry!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 07:55 AM | |
November 15, 2006
The Case for Context Switching
Recently, Dimitri Zimine wrote an excellent little story about context switching. Joel Spolsky writes in "From the 'You Call this Agile' Department":
Dmitri is only looking at one side of the cost/benefit equation. He's laid out a very convincing argument why Sarah should not interrupt her carefully planned two week iteration, but he hasn't even mentioned arguments for the other side: the important sale that will be lost.
Okay... I'll bite.
Let's look at that argument from the perspective of the sales person first since that is where Joel's concern starts:
The Sales Guy Perspective
"I need the 'ezhibal' feature now! Big bucks coming soon if we can get it now."
Let's suppose that this urgent email has come in somewhere near the start of our two week iteration. The normal response to this in Scrum is to push back a little. The ScrumMaster says something to the effect of: "Look if you wait 7 days we can put this on the top of the list for our next iteration."
First reaction, and it's a normal one, is for Sales Guy to freak out. I've actually heard people saying things like "You're going to lose your job over this! I'm getting the VP involved and he's not going to like it" and then they stalk off to find the big dog to come and bark at us. Anyway, let's pretend that the Sales Guy is willing to be reasonable and not instantly escalate the "problem". So what he actually says is: "Look, this is super important, it'll probably only take a few minutes for us to talk about it and then we can figure out how long it will take to fix. Let's just do a quick phone call and yadda, yadda, yadda, blah dee blah..."
Enough of the Sales Guy perspective.
Nowadays, if I'm in this situation, I do a value assessement. I tell the team to keep working on their plan, nothing's changed yet, and I sit down with Sales Guy and the person who's sponsoring the current work and we start a discussion about the options of which there are really only two that work in Scrum:
- Stay the Course
- Cancel the Iteration
First, let's talk about how we decide which option to take. Then we'll talk about why.
Deciding on the option is easy. You look at the value of the work currently being done and compare it to the value of the work that Sales Guy needs. You take into account probabilities. If Sales Guy doesn't have a signed contract, then it's hard to day if there's going to be any real revenue from the 'ezhibal' feature. Still, you might be able to do an assessment of the probabilities based on your level of trust and history with the client, etc. You also need to take into account the time value of money. Does delaying the current work have consequences for another client or stakeholder? What is the cost of those consequences.
This is a relatively simple cost/benefit analysis and comparison. If you're not comfortable with money and numbers and spreadsheets, you better get comfortable!
Okay, so we have a way of comparing the two bits of work. Now let's look at the two "allowed" responses and a third "bad" response.
Stay the Course
Turns out that the potential benefit of the stuff Sales Guy wants is not quite as high as the potential benefit of the stuff that Suzie Stakeholder prioritized for the current iteration. Well, that's easy. Put the request from Sales Guy in our prioritized list of work and get to it when there is an appropriate level of benefit relative to the other work.
Cancel the Iteration
The stuff Sales Guy wants is super-valuable. So let's get the whole team to stop what they are doing and everyone supports this very valuble work. Stopping the whole team is appropriate because obvioulsy, the stuff they're working on isn't as valuable. Oh, and because we treat a team as a unit in Scrum. And because the team needs to commit to work, not individuals. This isn't so obvious... more later.
Peel Sarah off to do the 'ezhibal' Feature
This is what normally happens, and in a "normal" non-agile environment, it's probably okay. In a non-agile environment, Sarah hasn't made any commitments (she's been forced to agree to dates and scope, etc., but she hasn't made a commitment that she is empowered to live up to). So if she goes off and does this one little thing, it probably will be just business as usual. In an agile environment, the team has made a commitment and doing this work this way invalidates the team's commitment.
Why do we do it this way? The main reason is around trust and commitment. Yup, it's that soft icky stuff that we're so incredibly bad at that customers think that bugs are normal, that management shoves the kitchen sink into projects in the frustrated hope that they'll get something out of the IT team at the end of the project. Sound familiar to anyone?
Anyway. An iteration is a commitment. It is a firm and solid commitment. The team as a group of smart and honorable people is making a definite commitment to the rest of the organization to get a certain amount of work done in a fixed amount of time. In return, management is agreeing to give the team every support in reaching this commitment. When a team is new at this, they might get it wrong. But having done this with dozens of teams now, I know that after a few tries, the team gets the hang of it and commits to appropriate amounts of work, and management provides appropriate levels of support.
This commitment is essential for developing trust. And anything that comes in the way of the team meeting its commitment is considered "BAD". An obstacle to do away with.
This is interesting, because Joel's second example is about defects. And I strongly agree that defects are "BAD" and need to be dealt with at a very high level of priority. The reason is simple: they prevent a team from meeting its commitment.
One team I was coaching was constantly bombarded by these types of it'll-just-take-a-few-minutes-need-it-asap requests. They had many stakeholders and very very limited resources to service these requests. They had several small projects that were taking literally years to do because they couldn't get enough concentrated time on any one thing. This was considered normal and good in their environment.
The trouble is, no one had really looked at the overall consequences. Everyone was doing local optimization. For us geeks, we all know that local optimization is something to be avoided if possible. We climb a peak only to discover that we have to climb back down a ways to get up to the higher peak we now see is next to this one. We climb up that one only to discover yet another higher peak even further along thus requiring us to climb down and up again... When really what we should have done is stepped back a ways, looked at the lay of the land and said, "hey, that peak over there is the highest of them all, let's go climb that one."
Scrum helps us avoid local optimization by forcing all feature requests for a team to be prioritized in a list of work, and by allowing the team to complete small pieces of work so it actually gets _something_ done that you can learn from.
Joel said:
Agile is not supposed to be about swapping out one set of bureaucratic, rigid procedures for another equally rigid set of procedures that still doesn't take customer's needs into account.
True enough! But it also demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about what is being done in Dmitri's example! First of all, without being agile at all, it is possible to switch from 18 month projects to two week projects. Both can be bureaucratic as you please (well, actually, there's only so much bureaucracy you can cram into two weeks and still get something done). The shorter projects will allow you to be much more responsive to customer needs... by definition!
So what happens when you add in all the other things that agile really is about? Transparency. Truthfulness. Creativity. Learning. Meta-Learning. Prioritization. Self-Organizating Teams. Eliminating Waste.
Well, first of what you get is something that's damn hard to do right. It goes against almost everything we've been taught to do: the extreme of heroics of the extreme of careful planning and process.
Secondly, what you get is something that needs safety zones and meta-rules. Like mutual, freely-given, team-to-stakeholders commitment. Like assuming positive intent.
And thirdly, what you get is an environment where not only is the business getting what it needs more than it used to, but also, the team likes working with the business, and the business likes working with the team.
I admit that the point Joel is making isn't too different. Yes: look at the costs and the benefits. But agile isn't quite about instantaneous responsiveness. That's a red herring and I'm suprised that Joel threw it's stinky carcass into the discussion. Agile is also about balancing that responsiveness with the overall view of value for the team and the organization. The tool for doing that is the prioritized list of work, not the email message from Sales Guy to Sarah.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 04:13 AM | |
November 14, 2006
Process Facilitator "Smells"
I have now trained over one hundred people in my Agile Project Managmenet / ScrumMaster Certification course. I'm starting to see and hear some of the results of this training. There are a couple specific "smells" that I have become aware of.
Fortunately, I've been able to provide coaching to some of the organizations that have sent people to my course. There are quite a number of good things that happen, but there are a couple of things that seem to be "natural" misunderstandings.
- Spectating
I put a lot of emphasis on the idea of a self-organizing team in my course. There are a number of exercises, an hour-long section, and many other points during the course when it comes up. With all of this emphasis, it seems that a few people have come away from the course with an extremely hands-off approach to the Process Facilitator role (ScrumMaster/Agile Project Manager). I think this is a natural and probably good reaction to the heavy-handed command & control approach that these people come from. However, there are a few things that should be considered minimum levels of engagement (listed below). - Problem Solving
There is also a great deal of emphasis put in the course on removing obstacles. I have seen several cases where it becomes the habit of the Process Facilitator to start solving every problem. This can happen in day-to-day work, and also in the retrospectives. Again, this seems to be a natural consequence of the desire to get in there and be of value. However, if the Process Facilitator writes down all the "things that need impovement" from the retrospective and then says "Okay! I'll take care of these things." then you know that the Process Facilitator has gone too far.
Appropriate Process Facilitator Engagement
Here are a few ideas on an appropriate level of engagement. Finding the right balance of enagement is not easy and there is no exact formula to follow. Partly it depends on your personality and skills as a Process Facilitator, partly it depends on the capabilities of the team, and partly it depends on the constraints of your work environment. Nevertheless, there are some types of engagement that you can persue with confidence. Here are a few concrete guidelines:
- Team Membership
If you aren't saying "we" when referring to the team, you aren't engaged enough. The Process Facilitator is a member of the team. - Colocation
Most of your time should be spent sitting with the team. If the team isn't colocated, then you should be spending most of your time physically visiting each team member. - Obligations
The Process Facilitator is a catalyst. You must track all the obstacles and "needs improvement" things that the team raises, and then make sure that they get fixed... without going in and fixing everything yourself. Ultimately, your job is to work yourself out of a job. - Assertiveness
The organization that the team is working in will be creating some of the obstacles that the team is facing. Being assertive is critical to helping the organization face and then overcome some of these obstacles.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:49 PM | |
November 12, 2006
More on Scaling Agile
One problem with having multiple teams working on the same project will be the tendency to compare the teams' performance. Why is this a problem?
Why Not Compare Team Performance?
One of the main reasons is that the teams need to be collaborating not competing. There can be a small amount of friendly competition that might come naturally, but as soon as management starts paying attention to differences in team performance, the competition starts to get serious.
In the case of multiple teams working on the same project, the goal should be to maximize overall performance, not individual team performance. Too much competition can lead to unintentional or deliberate sabotage: failed communication, incomplete communication and downright dishonesty.
Motivating Teams without Comparing Them!
As Mary Poppendieck has written, measure up [pdf]. In a single-team situation this means that individuals are measured and rewarded based on team performance (their sphere of influence). In a multi-team environment, that means that the group of teams should be measured as a group and compensated as a group. This will encourage all teams to work towards the success of the overall project. I personally believe there is some room for individual-based compensation, but the way it is handled needs to be done so that it does not encourage sub-optimal behavior.
As well, each team can keep track of their velocity. Some coaches recommend using "ideal hours" or some other units to determine velocity (velocity = estimated work remaining completed / iteration). The trouble with doing this with multiple teams is that there will be a very real tendency to want to compare each team's velocity. Since velocity is a useful measure for team capacity, it is important to still have a way to measure it. One simple way to do this to prevent comparison is to use different units for each team. Team One might be measuring velocity in Estimated Ping Pong Balls Completed / Iteration... Team Two in Estimated Bananas Completed / Iteration... Team Three in Estimated Bogo-MIPS Completed / Iteration... etc. etc.
Motivating Collaboration
First off, management must make visible commitments to eliminating barriers to collaboration. For example, it is a great sign of commitment to re-organize office spaces so that all the teams are sitting near to each other. Every time the Process Facilitator identifies an obstacle that relates to collaboration (tools, process, physical environment, etc.) management should get right on it and fix it.
An ongoing investment in team-building training, workshops and exercises is also helpful. This type of investment helps people gain the skills necessary to work effectively with other people. Again, individuals need to see and believe that management cares about and values teams.
Finally, one of my pet peeves: when a project is over, keep the team together! Do not break them up and redistribute your "resources" to other efforts. The value of those people working together is substantial. The value of those people working together as a high-performance team is incredible! In a multi-team situation, it is reasonable to take teams from the overall group and re-distribute their efforts... but just don't break up the individual teams.
Miscellaneous Notes on Scaling Agile:
Twelve is still the maximum recommended size for a single agile team. Seven is really the sweet spot. A team larger than twelve people just takes too long to get into the Performing stage of team development. If you feel like your project needs more than twelve people actively involved, then you probably want to split into two or more teams... and then you have "scaled" agile.
If you have three teams of five people (or some similar configuration of people just over the 12 person limit), then they will work as a very close-knit group and a lot of the time will act as if they were a single team. They will probably plan iterations and do demos and retrospectives together.
Twelve teams working on the same project at once is about the maximum number before communication overhead is slowing everyone down too much. This is largely a factor of trust: with 150 or fewer people involved in an effort, it is possible for everyone to know everyone. More than that many people and it is no longer possible. Trust is just not an option anymore and bureaucratic controls take over.
If for some reason you need to do something in a small amount of time and you think it's going to take more than twelve teams of twelve people...? Break the effort into smaller chunks. Divide and conquer. Division can be across functional areas, structural areas or time.
Although I have heard of agile methods being used with groups larger than this, I haven't heard any success stories :-)
Check out my earlier introductory article on Scaling Agile in a large project situation.
Dean Leffingwell has an article about practices needed for scaled-up efforts at the Agile Journal. I glanced through it, but I admit that after I disagreed with his very first point (Intentional Architecture), I started to pay less attention.
He claims that refactoring of large systems is not possible (or at least infeasible). The odd thing is, most large projects that I have been involved with are being done exactly because an old system is not refactorable. A large telecom system, a large insurance system, a large data warehouse and a large GIS system are all being done with scaled up agile methods exactly because the old systems that are currently in place have become ossified to the point where they must be replaced.
These old systems were originally built with phase-based development approaches. At some point, people stopped refactoring because they were not given the space to do so. This drop in code quality turned into technical debt. The technical debt accumulated to the point where it was unbearable (maintenance costs, cost of change, etc.).
The problem with intentional architecture is that it goes back to the old assumption that you can do a good design for a system without the constant feedback from review, deployment and use done on a very short cycle time. Over and over, we are faced with the painful consequences of this attitude, and that is one of the key reasons we started to work with agile methods in the first place.
Martin Fowler makes a good case that scaling agile is the last thing you should do. I don't disagree! Scale your agile teams at your own risk!
It's nice for me to be able to say that I've worked on some agile projects over $10,000,000 in size, but the fact is that the cost could have been reduced substantially if the team size was lowered and the deadline extended. It is (relatively) simple to do a cost/benefit analysis of cross-team-coordination-overhead vs. the time value of early delivery of more functionality... although I've never seen anyone do it! If you know of an example of an organization doing this in a realistic way, I'd love to hear about it!
Are there other ways of supporting cross-team collaboration that you have seen?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 09:13 AM | |
September 11, 2006
Agile Team Launch - a Howto Guide for Managers
Starting off on the right foot is just as important as it ever was. However, with Agile Work, this takes on a significantly different meaning than it does in other methods as the emphasis of what is "right" is also significantly different. This is a short guide on how to successfully launch a team using Agile Work.
0. Do what you need to in your organization to get a project and its budget approved. This usually involves some sort of business case, project charter and approval process. This may sound obvious, but the organizational support that this provides is essential.
1. Management must have a basic understanding of the method and in particular the roles: Queue Master, Process Facilitator and Team. This can be accomplished in a number of ways: reading, attending a workshop, or bringing a coach in to do a brief presentation. By "management" is meant at least the person sponsoring the launch of an agile team.
2. Individual people must be identified to fill the Queue Master and Process Facilitator roles. At first, these people should be assigned to these roles full-time and relieved of their previous duties. Ideally, the people filling these roles are volunteers from a pre-selected group of appropriate candidates.
3. The Queue Master and Process Facilitator must both get some initial training. For this, the following books are recommended for both roles: Agile Estimating and Planning (Robert C. Martin Series)
4. Form up the team. Getting this right is not easy: the team needs to remain relatively small (5 people is about right), but at the same time include people with all the skills necessary to deliver the whole project. You need people who are good at the various technical skills needed, the people skills needed, the problem-solving and analysis skills needed, and the administrative skills. All these people need to be part of the team right from the start. Again, for emphasis: do not start the project before all these people and their skills are dedicated to the team and they have been relieved of their previous duties. Forming the team includes logistical concerns such as where the team will sit, making sure they have the right equipment for their work, etc.
5. If you are trying agile for the first time, don't consider using a distributed team or off-shore resources. Nor telecommuters. This type of stuff is better left for once your organization has more experience with agile methods.
6. Provide initial training to your team. Include the Queue Master and Process Facilitator in this training (they are considered part of the team). Also include any significant stakeholders in the results of the project. Give them, at a minimum, a one-day introduction to agile.
7. The Queue Master creates an initial Work Queue. The rest of the team should participate in this process. The creation of this Work Queue must be timeboxed. I advise that it should only be given 1 or 2 percent of the overall project time. Decide before you start on how long will be given to this. The end result of this is a Work Queue that has some number of work items defined, understood by the team, valued, costed, and prioritized. The Work Queue does not have to be "finished". It is more important to hold to the timebox than to get the Work Queue "right". Remember that the Work Queue will continue to be refined as the team progresses in its work. Do not under any circumstances create the initial Work Queue in the absence of the team!
8. Run a brief project workshop. In this workshop, the team answers basic questions about the nature of the project run with agile methods such as:
- what is the length of our iterations?
- what are the team's core hours (when do all the team members commit to working together as opposed to working on administrivia)?
- what other teams/groups do we need to work with?
- are we missing any critical skills (now that we have seen the initial Work Queue)?
- what are the priorities of the project (quality, scope, time, budget, experimentation, etc.)?
9. OPTIONAL ITEMS:
- Consider doing a workshop on corporate culture and agile methods to help the team understand some of the challenges it will face and where it can find support
- Consider doing some initial team building exercises. Particularly if people on the team haven't worked together previously, this can help the team to get over some initial hurdles.
- Consider getting junior members of the team some additional training on the techniques, technologies or tools used in the team's work. This can be arranged so that it is done simultaneously with some of the team's early iterations.
- Consider engaging a coach or mentor for your Process Facilitator. This coach can be someone inside the organization who has extensive experience with agile methods or an external consultant who comes for a limited time to help your Process Facilitator.
None of these optional items should unduly delay the start of the first iteration.
10. Start your first iteration. There should be little or no delay or waiting between the creation of the team and the start of the first iteration. At this point the Process Facilitator is responsible for the process, the Queue Master is responsible for the value delivered, and the Team is responsible for delivering results.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:36 AM | |
September 04, 2006
Pair Problem Solving - Sudoku!
In a training course I recently delivered, I tried a new simulation exercise. Using the game Sudoku, I divided the class into two groups: a group that would solve the game in pairs, and a group that would solve the game solo. My hope was that I would be able to demonstrate some interesting aspects of working in an agile team, particularly around communication and problem solving.
The setup for the simulation exercise was fairly simple: print out the same Sudoku puzzle multiple times, give the group basic instructions about how to do the puzzle, divide the room (1/3 are solo, the other 2/3 pair up), hand them out flipped upside down, make sure people had pencils, and then let people work on the puzzles for ten minutes.
After ten minutes, everyone put down their pencils and we listed out how many spaces had been filled in for each solo/pair. Since some people did not know how to do the puzzle, there was a large variation in the actual times.
The interesting part came with the discussion.
One important observation was that a person who was experienced at solving Sudoku puzzles felt hindered by having to work with someone who wasn't experienced. It was difficult for the experienced person to take the time and explain every time why he was putting a number in a particular spot.
Someone else mentioned that she felt time-pressure and did not enjoy that.
These two observations together led to a good discussion about how agile methods timebox everything and therefore there is always time pressure. However, scope pressure is meant to be relieved somewhat so there should be time to help bring junior / new team members up to speed. The frustration we feel when trying to work with someone who doesn't know how to do the work is often because we feel time pressure - we are impatient. Agile methods use timeboxing as a counter-intuitive way of relieving the time pressure.
There was also some discussion about how problem-solving for Sudoku may be easier in pairs because it is easier to search the overall solution space. Some of the pairs tried putting numbers in randomly and then seeing if the placements resulted in inconsistancies. Although no one solved the puzzle in the ten minutes given, there was a feeling by the pairs that their approach may have been able to solve the puzzle fairly quickly. This is something to explore further!
One person working solo said that she had felt frustrated because she did not understand the puzzle. That immediately led to a pair piping up and saying that even though both of them had never done Sudoku before, they felt mutual support and therefore it was fun rather than frustrating.
The next time I try this, I would like to try solo, pair and trio work. I would also like to give better instructions: that the puzzle should be solved purely using logic, no guessing, that the puzzle has exactly one correct solution (and making sure I have it available for comparison). I would also like to give the class fifteen minutes instead of ten minutes to work on it. I will start collecting times to see if there are any statistically significant relationships between group size and number of cells correctly filled in.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:15 PM | |
June 15, 2006
Upcoming Agile Training and Certification
Agile training including ScrumMaster Certification, Introduction to Agile Work and Adult Learning for Agile Coaches. Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Beijing. Reserve your spot on the schedule of public agile courses offered by Berteig Consulting Inc.
The Berteig Consulting agile training courses are designed to help the attendees of the course learn about agile methods, make the needed mental shift towards agile concepts, and start the change in their habits of behavior. We do this in the following ways:
- Extensive simulation and discussion exercises to practices and investigate core agile principles and practices
- Opportunity for participants to see agile methods modeled (demonstrated) by the instructors in the running of the training course itself
- Several "Aha!" exercises designed to viscerally affect attendees' mental models and kick-start the shift to agile thinking
- Full disclosure of the difficulty of implementing agile methods and the radical change of thinking and habits required
- Reflective exercises about the learning process itself so that the attendees learning needs are dynamically met during the training course
- And of course, sufficient time for in-depth coverage of the materials so that most questions about agile methods, agile practices, agile experience and agile principles can be answered
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:01 AM | |
May 04, 2006
Is There a Difference Between Coaching and Training?
Today I had a very interesting and unique opportunity. I went through my agile project management training materials with a single individual instead of a class. Was it training, or was it coaching?
The materials are from my ScrumMaster certification course. They are meant to be delivered to a group of 5 to 20 people in a training seminar setting. Many of the exercises are pair or small group exercises, including three very critical exercises. They are built as a presentation deck (in OpenOffice.org). So of course, I normally use a projector as I'm conducting the course.
Today however, due to low enrollments in a course I had originally scheduled for today and tomorrow, I made alternative arrangements with the few registered participants. One of those participants has accepted a one-on-one training engagement in lieu of the classroom environment.
When I arrived at the office to deliver this course, and after this individual and I did brief introductions, I made a very substantial disclaimer:
1. I've never delivered these materials to just a single individual so I don't know how well they will work
2. Much of the benefit of the course comes from the exercises and most of them we will not be able to do without more people
3. One possible advantage will be an ability to go in-depth on questions specific to this person's concerns
As it turns out, I needn't have been too worried. The course has been delivered numerous times and refined over the past eight months to the point where it is quite effective. There are very few typos or other errors in the materials. The content is very focused to the target audience: potential agile project managers/ScrumMasters/process facilitators. So, much to my surprise, the course went along with it's normal very good timing. Of course, we spent a little less time on the exercises (although we still reviewed them), and we spent more time than normal on open discussion. But at the end of the day, I was exactly at the end of the first day's materials.
This got me to thinking: what difference is there between coaching and training? My training materials work very well in this one-on-one environment. They are a very compressed way of communicating a great deal of information in a way that ensures good comprehension. In fact, in many ways, the one-on-one format is more effective than a class format since I am able to have a very good feeling for the receptivity, comprehension and needs of my "apprentice"... much more so than I am able in a class setting.
My experience coaching is usually a combination of team coaching and one-on-one coaching with a designated "apprentice". This combination is effective for getting a team going with agile and making sure that early stages of team development go relatively smoothly. However, the majority of my high-impact work with the team is in the initial training and in the few other critical points that occur over the course of 8 to 12 weeks. Much of my coaching time is just being there as a safety net while the team and the process facilitator try out the new practices I've introduce to them. As a result, I've recently decided that I will avoid full-time coaching engagements. Instead, I prefer an approach that gives the team and the process facilitator much more time on their own.
So again, this starts to look a little like training: I do an initial 3 or 4 days of high intensity training to get a team going then do a bit of facilitation and "spot" training on specific topics as the need arises.
Conclusions? Well, first of all, I really enjoy working one-on-one, and I also really enjoy the classroom type training. Both seem to me to be very effective and that makes me feel good :-) The distinction between the two approaches is now very blurred for me and I feel that I can offer my clients a more nuanced approach along a spectrum that I wasn't really aware of before. To me that means being more flexible, more agile :-) and hopefully, more valuable.
P.S. I tried to keep the blatant self-promotion to a minimum, but please be aware that some of the links up there are to my business site where I hope you will find something you would like to have me do for you :-)
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 10:54 PM | |
April 24, 2006
Link: Eight Barriers to Effective Listening
On the Retrospectives Yahoo Group, Michael Webb posted a link to his article Eight Barriers to Effective Listening. This article provides practical advice on how to improve communication. Since one of the basic practices of Agile Work is to maximize communication, this article is essential reading!
Barriers to Effective Listening
Just in case you don't go follow the link from my introduction, here is a bit more info to help convince you:
As a process facilitator, one's responsibility is to remove obstacles. This is a list of obstacles to communication and includes for each barrier a strategy to overcome the barrier. Therefore, anyone who is a process facilitator (agile coach, scrummaster, etc.) should look this over and incorporate it into their skill set.
Here is the list of the eight barriers to effective listening:
- Knowing the Answer
- Trying to be Helpful
- Treating Discussion as Competition
- Trying to Influence or Impress
- Reacting to Red Flag Words
- Believing in Language
- Mixing up the Forest and the Trees
- Over-Splitting or Over-Lumping
Mr. Webb ends his article with a very nice self-referential comment:
We can make a difference in the world by learning to listen better and by telling others about better listening. But only if they listen.
Update 20070911:
Interestingly, I believe there are two more barriers to effective listening:
1. Distraction! I know that I have a hard time listening if I am tired, if I am worried about something, if I have sensory overload from another source, or (to my embarrassment) even if I just have my email open while talking on the phone.
2. Poor communication tools! It is much easier to listen effectively if I am face-to-face with the other person. Any type of technology that is used to communicate between two people becomes a barrier to effective listening: email, telephone, chat, etc.
Here is an interesting online quiz/presentation about the barriers to effective listening. In this presentation, there are seven barriers to effective listening listed:
- Content of the message
- Appeal of the speaker
- External distractions
- Emotions
- Clarity of language
- Selective perception
- Inappropriate feedback
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 10:50 AM | |
April 21, 2006
Agile Adoption Stages for Teams
We know that teams go through identifiable stages of development: forming, storming, norming and performing (1). What exactly does this look like for an Agile team?
Forming
Here the team is typically innundated with three sources of new information: the Agile process and practices, the nature of the project and the other people in the team. This can be overwhelming and people will react in diverse ways: calm wait-and-see, rebelliousness, passive-aggressive, excitement, etc. If the team has an effective coach or mentor shepherding them through this, then feelings will tend towards excitement. The reality of learning so much at the same time will make the first few weeks of the team's time together quite exhausting. People will be actively fighting old habits, and people around the team will be asking lots of questions. Retrospectives will usually show that the team is impressed with their own teamwork and communication and will also show some disappointment with specific agile work practices.
Storming
After only one or two iterations, the team will transition into the Storming stage of development. Because Agile methods "front-load" the learning and the crisis, this forming stage comes fast, but it is also relatively mild. (Front-loading the learning means that all the problems that an organization has that hold it back from delivering quality work quickly are made visible in the first couple of iterations.) People are not used to a project being in crisis right at the start. It is critical for a coach or mentor or manager to be aware of this effect and expecting it. Again, for emphasis: an Agile project is in crisis immediately!... and this is perfectly normal and healthy. If the organization and the team are able to find means of dealing with this early crisis, then the project will continue and build larger and larger successes. On the other hand, if the organization or the team try to ignore or hide the problems, then very quickly work will revert to the old way: bureaucracy or chaos.
Norming
After about four to eight iterations, the team will reach a fairly comfortable place: the basic agile processes and practices are understood, the organization and the team have removed some basic obstacles to getting work done (and consciously left some obstacles in place in all likelihood), and everyone on the team has a basic level of comfort with their role. The challenge at this stage is to avoid falling into the trap of complacency. Although comfortable, this level of performance is probably not all that much better than the old way. There will be real advantages: regular delivery of work, good communication between stakeholders and the team. But there will be many obstacles still to be removed, and the team has a long way to go in its development. If the team becomes complacent, then it is critical that a catalyst be introduced to incite the team to further development. Often, this can be as simple as a systematic and intensive program of capability building. As team members learn and practice new skills: process skills, technical skills, people skills, strategic skills, business skills... and as they become more and more aware of each other's capabilities, they will also become more and more aware of areas for improvement. Incentives need to be provided to help team members focus dilligently on self-improvement and team improvement. The iteration retrospectives become critical to help with this process... the tricky bit is that this is the stage when people start to think the retrospectives are no longer necessary!
Performing
The transition into the Performing stage for an agile team is gradual and happens over a fairly extended period of time. The definition of "getting to done" will gradually expand to allow the team to go from zero to full delivery of the end results every single iteration. There will be a temptation to split up the team and use these experienced team members to seed new agile teams - resist this temptation! Breaking up the team at this point destroys the value of time and effort invested in the team. It is much more effective to start a new team from scratch. The essence of a performing agile team is not the transferrable knowledge about agile processes and practices. Rather, the most important result of the team-building process combined with the agile process is the team itself.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:57 PM | |
April 12, 2006
Follow the Principles and Adjust the Practices
In "Built to Last : Successful Habits of Visionary Companies
Follow the Principles
What exactly are the principles? The foundation starts with Trust and Truthfulness. "Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues." Everything we do with agile should be about truthfulness (visibility, transparency) and building trust.
With this as a strong foundation, we can look at the Agile Axioms:
We are Creators
Reality is Perceived
Change is Natural
All of the other principles and practices associated with Agile Work flow from these basic assumptions about the world. We can't prove that the above three axioms are "true". But they either resonate with us or they don't. If they do, then it will be easy to use these axioms as a checkpoint for all the activities we engage in using Agile Work, wherever we apply it.
We are creators... therefore we derive our sense of value from our ability to create. If our creations are accepted by others, our team, our stakeholders or our community, all the better. But fundamentally, this is inherent to us as human beings. However, sometimes this natural drive is suppressed or repressed. In order to activate it, we need to work in empowered teams.
Have you ever experienced inspiration or "flow" or joy when working with someone else? Perhaps you were solving a problem. Perhaps you were playing a musical instrument - jamming - and got into a fertile groove. Perhaps you were teaching your children and created the light of understanding in them. Perhaps you built a beautiful set of bookshelves for your home. Or maybe you told a joke that created a brief moment of genuine levity in a group of friends. We are all constantly creating!
This basic principle then means that Agile Work methods and practices should not be imposed. Taught to us, perhaps... given to us as a template, perhaps... but once we understand the practices and are familiar with them, we should immediately be given the freedom to use the learning cycle to be creative with the process and practices of Agile Work itself. If we do not participate in creation, we become dis-empowered and that eventually leads to resentment or apathy.
Reality is perceived... therefore we need to work hard to build a common perception of reality if we are to work together effectively. We need to amplify our learning. We can't assume that our own understanding of a situation is going to be shared by others. At the very least we need to check: "do you see this?"
Let's recognize that in some way or another we are all blind:
Again, the learning cycle comes into play. The guidance, detachment, love, courage and search we go through all help us to build a common understanding of reality. This allows us to see new ways to apply the Agile Work principles and practices that make sense not only to our context, but also to everyone else participating in the work.
Change is natural... therefore instead of fighting change, we need to anticipate it, adjust to it, embrace it, and be gracious or even enthusiastic. Not only does change happen to us, but we also instigate change. If things get to boring, whatever the circumstance, we find ways to change things. We rebel at stasis and ennui.
Each practice and procedure done in the context of Agile Work must be explicity and implicitly accomodating of change. If a procedure can't tolerate change it will either lead to a dissonance or conflict... or if we are embracing change, then we will modify or discard the procedure. Our creative nature loves to create, but if we become too attached, too "in love" with our creations, we will support them past their point of relevance.
Our latest greatest idea will be good for a while. But eventually change will make it irrelevent.
So we see that all three Agile Axioms are also interrelated.
Our creations will be washed away through change and if we are lucky or wise we will perceive the change in reality - be truthful to ourselves and others - and allow a new creation to take the place of the old one.
When we perceive a certain truth, and try to share that with others, we will be asking those others to change their own perceptions. This change can be difficult and may even require the destruction of a mental model created with love and care over a lifetime. Sensitivity to this loss and encouragement to build a new creation will help build a shared perception... as long as we too are open to new perceptions!
Adjust the Practices
And of course, all this foundation of creation, perception and change must be connected to the practical day-to-day reality of our lives. Our family lives, our work lives, our social lives, our volunteer lives, our intellectual lives, our emotional lives, our spiritual lives... our whole lives.
The Agile Work practices are simple to state:
Manage Ourselves
Deliver Frequently
Adapt our Plans
Communicate Powerfully
Test Everything
Measure Value
Remove Obstacles
These practices provide a starting point. A basic set of activities that will assist you, your team or your organization to advance quickly towards whatever goal you have set for yourselves. The way these practices succeed is by making sure that the Agile Axioms are always remembered and their implications accepted. These practices will set up a virtuous circle by building trust and allowing truthfulness. More trust and truthfulness will allow a fuller and more nuanced expression of the practices...
But if these practices become canonized, if they become a rote process imposed and followed blindly, then it means that we have lost sight of the Axioms. We have forgotten to check our practices against the context of creation, perception and change.
The reason we follow these practices is because we believe that we are all creators, that we can learn from our diverse perception of reality and that change is a force of growth. We don't believe these Axioms because we blindly perform these practices.
This is all available as a nicely formatted pdf: Agile Axioms - a Brief Exposition.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:45 AM | |
March 31, 2006
How the Process Facilitator can Help the Team Handle Out-of-Scope Work Requests
Sometimes an agile team is innundated (or maybe just slightly distracted) by requests for individuals on the team to do work for people or groups outside the team's official stakeholders. This can happen, for example, in a corporate culture that promotes the exchange of favors. This past weekend at our Agile Coach's gathering, Deborah Hartmann shared her method of detecting, exposing and discouraging this unofficial work.
The mechanism is actually very simple: track the work in the team space using cards and a variation on the burndown chart.
The Cards:
During the team's status meeting, or any other time that a team member mentions doing some of this outside work, immediately request that that person write it down on a task card. The task card should be visibly distinct from normal task cards: either a different color or a different size or in a substantially different location. The task should also get an estimate in the same units you are using for the other tasks.
For each task identified, contact the person who requested the extra work. If the person who is doing the work has made a committment to the requestor then let the requestor know that the team has accepted the work but that there is a consequence: the team may not get all its other work done on time. As well, the requester should be informed that in the future, all extra work for individuals on the team must be prioritized by the team's product owner.
Encourage the team to reveal this work by mentioning it at the start of the status meeting, in any iteration planning or retrospective meetings, or in any one-on-one meetings you have with team members.
The Burndown Chart:
Now that all the extra work is reflected in cards with estimates, the burndown chart can track this work too. The key difference is that it is tracked as a separate part of the work. If there are 80 units of normal work remaining, and 20 units of this extra work remaining, then the burndown chart will have a mark at 20 and a mark at 100. The mark at 20 should be made in a different color (I recommend red) so that it is highly visible. One ends up with a burndown chart that looks something like this:
The Product Owner:
It doesn't take much more than a single iteration for the Product Owner to get the message loud and clear: this extra work is eating up the team's capacity! The Product Owner now sees the consequences of not being the go-to person for all work items.
Deb's experience with this was that by the next iteration there were no further requests of the team for unofficial work, and the team's capacity to do work for the Product Owner took a nice leap upwards.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:26 AM | |
March 30, 2006
Bombs and Agile
The coach's gathering last weekend also got me thinking about the ethics of Agile Work and coaching. Is it okay to use agile methods for destructive purposes?
Let's first look at the Agile Software Manifesto for guidance. We see four statements of values and a number of principles. None of them provide an ethical framework that helps us determine where to use agile methods. In fact, there are many types of work that we could ask an equivalent set of questions about:
Is it okay to use agile methods to assist research in bio-weapons?
Is it okay to use agile methods to build software systems for nuclear missiles?
Is it okay to use agile methods to run a hate campaign?
Is it okay to use agile methods to ... ?
The agile community lacks a statement of ethics equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath. Do we even need one? As coaches, should our Middle Way to Excellence be grounded in a strong moral sense or is the middle way adrift?
I feel like we need a moral grounding. I think that the basis of it should be the recognition of the Unity of Humanity. I believe that both justice and mercy are important. Trust and Truthfulness are part of the foundation as well.
Is there any way to state a professional creed for Agile coaches that we can all agree upon? Has anyone tried?
For what it's worth, the ICF has a code of ethics that might be a starting point.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:04 PM | |
March 20, 2006
Methods of Prioritization
In Jean Tabaka's new book, "Collaboration Explained : Facilitation Skills for Software Project Leaders
1) Round the Group prioritization:
group size 3-8
item list size < 15
Items are written on cards and placed in random order linearly either vertically or horizontally.
The members of the group each take turns placing the items in the order they think is the proper priority order. While doing so, each person moving the cards is welcome to explain their reasoning. However, the other group members refrain from commenting on the new prioritization.
This continues around the group as many times as it takes to find a stable order.
2) Ping Pong Balls:
group size 1-12
item list size > 15
(Thanks to Ken Schwaber for this method)
A fixed number of ping pong ball units are given to the group. The ping pong balls represent units of one dimension for prioritization such as value, risk or cost.
The group discusses how to allocate ping pong balls to each item in a dynamic fashion until everyone agrees that the allocation makes sense.
For very large lists, this is easiest to do in a spreadsheet with fewer people involved.
3) Variation: 2-stage multi-voting with voter freedom
group size 5-20
item list size < 50
This is identical to the public multi-voting system Jean describes with the following changes:
First, there is no restriction on how votes are allocated to items. A person can put multiple votes on a single item and can withhold some or all of her votes.
Second, after everyone has "finished" voting, the facilitator calls for everyone to step back and think about the results. Some discussion is allowed about the consequences of the results. Finally, everyone is given an opportunity to move their votes.
For large groups with large lists this can be somewhat awkward as people might forget where they voted. In this case, and if anonymity is not required, each person can use small post-it tabs with an identifying mark on them so that they can easily be moved around in the second stage.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:25 PM | |
March 10, 2006
The Art of Obstacle Removal
One of the best ways to go faster is to remove the things that slow you down. This "obstacle removal" is an integral part of many agile methods including Scrum and Lean. Sometimes it is obvious where an obstacle is. There are a few small things that can be done easily to go faster. But to get going really fast, we need to have a deeper understanding of obstacles... and the Art of Obstacle Removal.
What are Obstacles?
An obstacle is any behavior, physical arrangement, procedure or checkpoint that makes getting work done slower without adding any actual contribution to the work. Activities that do add value to our work may be slowed down by obstacles, but are not obstacles in and of themselves.
Obstacles and Waste
Obstacles are the causes of waste in a process. There are many types of waste, and for every type of waste there are many possible sources (obstacles).
Types of Obstacles
Personal
Personal obstacles are related to us as individuals. There are several levels at which these obstacles can show up.
Outside factors in our lives such as illness or family obligations can become obstacles to our work at hand. These obstacles are hard to remove or avoid. Even if we would want to avoid an obstacle such as illness, it is hard to do anything about it in an immediate sense. However, as part of our committment to the group we are working with, we should consider doing things to generally improve our health. Good sleep, healthy and moderate eating, exercise and avoidance of illness-causing things and circumstances are all possible commitments we can make to the group. Likewise, we can make sure our personal affairs are in order so that unexpected events have the least impact possible. This topic is vast and there are many good sources of information.
Physical Environment
Obstacles in the physical environment can consist of barriers to movement or communication, or a lack of adequate physical resources. Sometimes these obstacles are easy to see because their effects are immediate. For example, if a team room lacks a whiteboard for diagrams, keeping notes, etc., then the team may not be able to communicate as effectively.
Other physical obstacles are not so obvious. The effects of physical environment can be subtle and not well-understood. Poor ergonomics take weeks, months or years for their effects to be felt... but it is inevitable. A too-small team room can lead to a feeling of being cooped up and desperation to get out... and eventually to resentment. Again this can take weeks or months.
Here are some guidelines on a good team room.
Knowledge
A lack of knowledge or the inability to access information are obstacles. A team composed of junior people who don't have diverse experience and who don't have a good knowledge of the work they are doing will have trouble working effectively. There may be barriers preventing the team from learning. Common barriers include over-work leading to a lack of time or mental energy for learning. With junior people in particular, there is a lot of pressure to be productive and that can often be at the expense of a solid foundation of learning.
Other times, knowledge-related barriers can be more immediate. If a critical piece of information is delayed or lost this can have a large impact on an Agile team that is working in short cycles. The team may be temporarily halted while they wait for information. Building effective information flow is critical to a team's performance.
Organizational
One of the best sources of information about this is the two books by Jim Collins: "Good to Great" (Review) and "Built to Last" (Review).
Cultural
In organizational culture, one thing I constantly see is a public espoused value of teamwork, but a conflicting behavior of individual performance reviews and ranking. This is cultural. It is also a barrier to the effective functioning of an Agile team. For corporate environments I highly recommend the Corporate Culture Survival Guide by Edgar Schein.
Dis-Unity
Dis-unity is one of the most subtle and common forms of obstacle. Competition, legal and cultural assumption of the goodness of "opposition" and habits of interaction including gossip and backbiting all combine to make united action and thought very difficult.
This is an extremely deep topic. There are many tools and techniques available to assist with team building. If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend reading "The Prosperity of Humankind".
Removing Obstacles
The ability to identify obstacles and understand why they are causing problems is only the first step in removing obstacles. In Agile Work, the person primarily responsible for identifying and removing obstacles is the Process Facilitator. The Process Facilitator has several approaches available for the removal of obstacles. A process facilitator has similar responsibilities to a change agent.
Direct
Deal with the obstacle directly without involving other people. This can be as simple as getting up and moving an obstacle impairing vision, or as nuanced as running interviews and workshops throughout an organization to gradually change a cultural obstacle.
Command and Control
Identify the obstacle and give precise instructions for its removal to a person who will directly perform the removal. This can sometimes work if removing an obstacle takes a great deal of time, effort or specialized skills that you yourself do not posess. However, the overall approach of "command and control" is not recommended for Agile environments since it is disempowering.
Influence
Identify the obstacle and suggest means to deal with it to a person who has the authority or influence to get others to deal with it. This indirect method of obstacle removal can be slow and frustrating. However it usually has better long-term effects than command and control.
Support
Offer to assist and encourage the removal of obstacles that have been identified by other people. In many respects this is a very effective method. It can assist with team-building and learning by example. People are usually grateful for assistance.
Coaching
Train others on the art of obstacle removal including obstacle identification, types of obstacles and strategies for dealing with obstacles. Observe people's attempts to remove obstacles and give them feedback on their actions.
Creating a Culture of Obstacle Removal
Encourage and measure obstacle removal at all organizational levels until it becomes habitual. In many ways this is the essense of the lean organization.
Strategies for Dealing with Obstacles
Diagrams are a great way of communicating the essense of a concept. Feel free to share the following diagrams with anyone (but of course keep the copyright notice on them).
Remove
Remove the obstacle altogether. This method of dealing with an obstacle is usually the most immediately effective, but is also one of the most difficult methods.
The best way to actually remove an obstacle is to get at the root cause of the obstacle and change that. This type of change results in the longest-lasting and most stable elimination of an obstacle.
Move Aside
Take the obstacle and put it in a place or situation where it is no longer in the path of the team.
In a team's physical environment, this may be as simple as changing the tools that the team is using. For example, if the team is all in a room together, move computer monitors that are blocking team member's views of each other. If there is a useless checkpoint that work results have to go through, get management to eliminate it.
Shield
Build a shield or barrier to hide the obstacle so that it's effects no longer touch your team.
If a team is distracted by noisy neighbors, put up a sound barrier. If a team is unable to see their computers due to late afternoon sunlight, put up window shades. If a manager is bothering the team with meetings or tasks unrelated to the work of the team, then put yourself between the team and the manager (or get someone in upper management to do that).
Shielding is excellent for immediate relief, but remember that the obstacle is still there and may become a problem again if the shield cannot be maintained.
Transform
Change the structure or form of the obstacle so that it no longer affects effectiveness.
In general, this method requires a great deal of creativity and open-mindedness. This is one that works particularly well on people who are obstacles: convert them into friends of the team!
For example if the team needs approval of an expert who is not part of the team, this can cause extra work preparing documentation for this person and long delays while the expert revies the documents. If the expert becomes part of the team, then they are well-informed of the work being done and can give approval with very little overhead.
If done well, this can be a very long-lasting method of dealing with an obstacle. Make sure that the transformation is true and that it takes hold... and beware that the obstacle doesn't revert back to its old nature.
Counteract
Find an activity that negates the effects of the obstacle by boosting effectiveness in another area.
As a coach or Process Facilitator, this is what we spend our time in early in a team's adoption of Agile Work: we get them to work in the same room, use iterations and adaptive planning, we focus them on delivering work valued by the stakeholders as defined by the Product Owner. All these things are enhancing the team's ability to get work done without actually directly dealing with any obstacles.
Watch out for barriers avoided this way to come back and bite you later on.
Removing Obstacles and Learning
Organizational learning, as well as adult learning have a strong relationship to obstacle removal. Organizational learning can be either single-loop or double-loop learning. Adult learning can be either normal or transformative. We can approach obstacle removal from a surface level where we only deal with the immediate symptom, or we can work at a deeper level where we deal with the symptom and its chain of preceding causes. One effective method for examining the deeper causes is the 5-why's exercise.
Obstacles Inherent in Agile
Agile methods do not perfectly eliminate all obstacles. Some obstacles that are inherent in agile methods include overhead due to planning meetings at the start of iterations, the use of a dedicated process facilitator. As well, the use of iterations can become a barrier to certain types of work items: repeating items, investment in infrastructure, one-off tasks that are not directly related to the work at hand.
At some point, our teams will have matured to the point where agile methods are no longer necessary and we can pick and choose what parts of agile we use.
Go Forth and Demolish Obstacles!
As a Process Facilitator, coach, ScrumMaster, manager, change agent or stealth agile advocate, you have the ability and the knowledge to make a big difference in people's lives and in the success of the organizations they work within. Removing obstacles is one of the most important duties you have.
Do you have stories about obstacles you have removed or seen removed that have made a big difference? We would love the hear the anecdotal side of this as well!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:10 PM | |
March 02, 2006
Five Signs of Trouble in an Iteration
During the course of an iteration, an agile team is able to track it's own progress through the use of burndown charts. The team and the process facilitator can use the burndown chart to watch for signs of trouble. As a coach, I find the following five burndown shapes are common indicators of trouble.
But let's first show the idealized "normal" burndown. This burndown shape shows that the team is on-track to get to done exactly at the end of the iteration. The work remaining has had a constant slope down through the course of the iteration.
Now the warning signs:
1. Too Much Work
In this burndown, the team sees that it has likely selected too much work for the iteration. The process facilitator and the product owner need to work with the team to decide how to change the scope so that the team can get done. One might be tempted to add people to the team to get the work done faster, but this is rarely successful.
2. Not Getting Done
Frequently, when a team is just starting out with agile work, it commits to slightly too much work. It is hard to detect this at the beginning of an iteration. Instead, it is only near the end of the iteration that it becomes apparent that the team isn't quite going to make it to done. The process facilitator must work with the team to determine the root causes of this and change things so it doesn't happen again.
3. Early Learning
When a team is starting the iteration, it can discover new things about the work it has committed to accomplishing. This can include dependencies, new tasks, extra components that need to be built, etc. This discovery process is normal, but needs to be monitored closely. If the burndown doesn't start going down again after about 15% of the iteration is over, then there is likely trouble brewing.
4. Unresolved Obstacles
Sometimes the team will run into an obstacle that will completely stop their progress. Although the process facilitator is responsible for dealing with obstacles, it may be impossible for an obstacle to be fixed quickly. If the team finds that all the work it committed to for the iteration is dependent on someone who is sick or on vacation, that can lead to an unresolvable dead halt. This may be an opportunity to cancel the iteration.
One interesting example of this was observed by a coach I work with frequently, Deborah Hartmann. She was away from her team for a few days and when she came back, she observed this "flatline" burndown. After poking around a little bit to try and find the obstacle, someone finally described what had happened. At the time of the flatline, a Vice President in the organization had come into the team's area, looked around, and loudly declared something to the effect of, "I don't know why you guys are doing this project. It's totally worthless!" Suffice it to say that the team was seriously demoralized. It wasn't a technical obstacle, it wasn't a procedural or bureaucratic obstacle, it wasn't even a cultural obstacle. It was just a serious blow to morale. Of course, to fix this, the actual sponsor of the project had to be brought in to assure the team that it was actually an important project and that there were people in the organization who needed the work that the team was doing.
5. Scope Creep
This last case is rarer for an agile team if the team and the product owner have been educated well about the rules. Nevertheless, it can happen. The product owner, or some other stakeholder, pushes the team to add scope to the iteration. The process facilitator is normally responsible for preventing this from happening. If despite this it does happen, the burndown chart makes the consequences of this scope creep.
Special Quiz Section!!!
What are the possible explanations for the following burndown shape? I have heard/experienced at least six different possible reasons. Leave your answers in the comments.
Update: at Agile Chronicles, there is a short article about this topic which mentions one more burndown chart pattern that is a bad sign: the "Late-Breaking Decline".
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 01:34 PM | |
October 11, 2005
Is There a Single "Most Important" Agile Work Practice?
There are a few times that I have been involved with implementing agile pratices without management knowledge or direct support. In these cases it has usually been necessary to gradually introduce the practices. An unsupportive or apathetic environment cannot be changed instantly and big-bang introduction of agile tends to bring too much negative attention too quickly.
In reflecting on those experiences, as well as "normal" agile implementations, I have felt that there are some specific practices that can stand alone.
Self-Organizing Teams
The practice of a self-organizing team consists of frequent regular status meetings, face-to-face, reporting to the other team members accomplishments, work commitments and obstacles. Scrum has a very strict method of doing this on a daily basis but I have found it valuable to do more or less frequently depending on the team and its environment (generally any less than every second day is not enough). The team, or some assistant of some sort, tracks the barriers and works to resolve them quickly. Management, if it exists, must be contacted through trusted channels to assist with the removal of barriers. And stakeholders must be able to attend the status meetings or receive reports immediately after the meetings.
This single practice tends to have the ability to bootstrap the others. The identification and clearing of barriers provides a way for the team to practice all three Agile Work Disciplines (Empower the Team, Amplify Learning, Eliminate Waste). Reporting accomplishments to the other team members Amplifies Learning. Committing to work is empowering.
Some teams have done only this single agile practice and seen great improvements in productivity, morale, and stakeholder satisfaction. However, there are some pitfalls that must be acknowledged and dealt with.
Pitfall: Speculative Work
The team can tend towards speculative work if there is no strong representative of the stakeholders. This does not always happen since most people are sincere in their desire to "make a difference". However, if as a team you adopt only this practice and find yourselves doing lots of "what-if?" or "wouldn't it be neet if..." or "what exactly is our purpose?" discussions, then you need to find some external stakeholder support for your effort.
Pitfall: Failing to Deliver
In many organizations, failure to deliver is an endemic problem and a self-organizing team will break through and start delivering. However, failure to deliver can also become a cultural mindset for an organization or group. A self-organizing team must maintain a goal (not a plan) for itself, and that goal must include delivering something valuable. Again, finding an external stakeholder to support the team's efforts can help to avoid this pitfall.
Pitfall: No Barriers
Sometimes a team will get into a habit where no new barriers are being exposed. This can often happen when the progress in the work becomes steady and is recognizably better than it was before. The team falls into a "local optimum". In this case, the team needs a fresh way to view their work. This can happen in a number of ways: a crisis, an external observer, or a change in environment among others.
...
Do you have experience with successful but incomplete agile implementations? I would love to hear of other experiences and opinions about this.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 02:42 PM | |
October 10, 2005
Agile, the Adult Educator and Ethical Considerations
A review of Tara J. Fenwick's “Limits of the Learning Organization: A Critical Look” (article found in Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult education
This article is a critique of learning organization literature (as presented in the works of Peters, Senge, Watkins, Marsick, Argyris, Schon and others). I chose to do a review of it because learning organization literature can and does inform the work of Agile practitioners. The writer, Tara Fenwick, offers a critique of this literature as an academic and practitioner in the field of adult education. Even though the language and tone of the article is judgmental and at times affronting to the corporate trainer audience, it is never-the-less challenging and valuable because she raises interesting ethical questions that can serve as cautions against potential trends that can distort agile practice. I will summarize her argument in the some of the areas most relevant to Agile practice.
Fenwick's summary of the model of learning organization found in the literature, is an organization that: “creates continuous learning opportunities, promotes inquiry and dialog, encourages collaboration and team learning, establishes systems to capture and share learning, empowers people toward collective vision and connects the organization to its environment.”
The following is a summary list of some of Fenwick's critiques:
Who's Interests are Served
Although the learning organization literature holds great promise for a more humanitarian and egalitarian workplace, it has the potential to distort learning “into a tool for competitive advantage” and in turn, exploit people as resources in the pursuit of profit. To explore this idea she asks a valuable question: “Who's interests are being served by the concept of learning organization, and what relations of power does it help to secure?” She argues that learning organization literature tends to serve the interests of educators working as trainers in organizations and managers interested in their own self preservation.
How Learning is Defined
Learning, in learning organization literature seems to be defined as that which benefits the organization, all other learning falls into the dysfunctional category. This perspective negates other ways that people create meaning and learn and potentially causes a person to become “alienated from their own meaning and block flourishing of this learning into something to benefit the community.”
Assumptions about Learners
The learning organization literature subordinates employees by seeing them as “undifferentiated learners-in-deficit”. Educators and managers are the architects of the learning organization while employees are busy “learning more, learning better and faster” trying to correct their knowledge deficit. In the learning organization workers become responsible for the health of the organization without the authority to determine alternative ways to reach that health. The fear of being left behind in a quickly changing market environment is used to create anxiety and fear as motivations for learning. All of these factors serve to put serious limits on the potential of people to learn in the work environment.
Diversity and Privilege Overlooked
Perspectives of race, class and gender -which research has shown affects the way people learn and collaborate- are lacking in the literature. Fenwick challenges the notion of achieving a democratically ideal situation for open dialog -that the learning organization literature calls for- when all people in the work place do not “have equal opportunity to participate, reflect, and refute one another” (for example because of the status of ones job, character, gender, class, age etc.)
Fenwick sheds a clear light on where the good philosophies of the learning organization are found wanting. The Agile community can benefit from asking some of the same ethical questions she asks in relation to our work. Her critique is a good challenge for Agile practitioners. It challenges us to:
- Continue to strive for higher levels of ethical excellence in our work
- To consider issues of power in our work
- To become conscious of how we use our own power
- To give thought to what voices are included / excluded in the creation of the learning organization
- Pay attention to how we motivate learners
- How to foster collaborative environments that are conscious of the privileging of some over others
- Think about who decides what is valuable knowledge and learning and how that affects the knowledge creation process
Reflecting on these issues will go a long way to contributing to the development of agile practice.
The full text of an old version of Fenwick's article can be found here.
Posted by Shabnam Tashakour at 09:35 PM | |
October 07, 2005
Agile Coach/Mentor Job Description (Process Facilitator)
Given the Agile Axioms and Disciplines then an agile coach or mentor should have some really specific experience and capabilities. This list constitutes a first attempt at a job description.
Experience:
- working in strictly timeboxed iterations with adaptive planning using some sort of prioritized work list
- working in a "test-driven" manner (e.g. writing a document for a client where the client specifies acceptance criteria)
- participating in frequent status meetings where the team members report to each other, commit to work and identify barriers
- building and maintaining big visible charts to show progress and status (e.g. the standard thermometer chart to show progress towards a numerical goal)
- fashioning appropriate tracking and performance metrics that encourage team work rather than individual competition
- helping other people to adopt and adapt all these practices
Capabilities:
- promoting collaboration in challenging circumstances
- searching for truth/a solution relentlessly
- honesty and trustworthiness
- a learning attitude (proactive and learning from mistakes)
- humility and assertiveness
- guiding people without controlling them
- detachment (ability to step out of a situation)
- an attitude of service without expecting recompense
- understanding of transformative learning
- conflict resolution as learning (not negotiation)
- encouraging creativity
Not Required:- technical experience related to the work of the team - the Agile Coach (process facilitator) should not be a performer on the team
- domain experience related to the goal of the work - the Agile Coach should not be a direct stakeholder in the results of the work
However, technical experience and domain experience can sometimes help...
Suggestions and ideas are greatly appreciated!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:33 PM | |
September 28, 2005
Agile Infrastructure Projects - Lessons Learned
I've worked as an agile coach on three infrastructure/maintenance projects in a row. One was a software/hardware upgrade, one was implementing agile for a defects/enhancements team, and my most recent was a data warehouse decommissioning project. In all cases, the interesting part for me was taking the basic principles of agile and applying them in a way that works when not doing new product development. Here are some lessons I've learned:
1. Figure out what is going to deliver value (usually cost savings). In the case of infrastructure projects, one is usually focused on cost savings. Find a way to tie your work items directly to cost savings. You need a good financial model to do this. Mary and Tom Poppendieck talk about this a little in their Lean Software Development book. In the decommissioning program, there was a very explicit dollar cost associated with disk space and cpu utilization. Every user/MB decommissioned saved a measurable amount of money. As well, it allowed us to easily prioritize our backlog.
2. Focus project/program organization more on Lean principles than agile. A good understanding of queuing theory will go a long way to helping with throughput. In a team doing defects/enhancements work, the small pieces lend themselves well to certain types of streaming through the team. Iterations are not necessary to chunck work. Instead, iterations become checkpoints solely for process reflection.
3. Technical infrastructure projects can benefit greatly from automation. Test automation including test generation can sometimes be possible. Automating parts of a regularly repeated process that is used for every work item can be extremely beneficial for increasing speed. In the case of the decommissioning effort where every database table needs to be considered separately and where they all go through the same process for decommisioning, there are many opportunities for automation. The project/program/team can invest in doing this automation to great benefit to NPV.
4. The basic axioms (We are Creators, Reality is Perceived, Change is Natural) and disciplines (Empower the Team, Amplify Learning, Eliminate Waste) still apply. Even though it is not "new" product development, the creativity of people is essential for problem solving, and finding ways to do the work faster. Stakeholders still need to have their perception of reality acknowledged, and the teams still has to do constant checking to make sure they are on track with that perception. And of course, things are always changing including priorities, our understanding of the work, resource availability etc. Having an empowered team makes short work of many obstacles, but that wouldn't happen without an explicit acknowledgement that we have to constantly be learning and eliminating waste. Teams get better and better at these disciplines over time.
I would be very interested to hear other peoples experiences with infractructural/operational projects.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:00 PM | |
September 27, 2005
Tools Versus Capabilities Approach To Agile Training
Which approach is most valuable in training that fosters collaborative work for the purpose of optimizing the performance of an organization: a tools / methodologies approach or an inner capabilities approach? The typical orientation that most organizations take is often external and rule-based. This consists of creating methodologies, rules, boundaries, systems and processes to enhance collaboration.
These external approaches ultimately fail to have a lasting effect on people and the culture of the organization because they don't address change at the level of habits of mind. People then work in the new structure with the same patterns of behaviour. Behind this kind of surface approach to change are assumptions about human nature. At worst this consists of a belief that people are base (greedy, selfish etc.) by nature. At best that people are fundamentally good but cannot improve except through external measures. It is true that we need external systems and structures to give expression to our inner capabilities, to test, foster and develop them in action. However all the investment that companies make in tools, systems, methodologies are obviously not enough. We need both external and internal approaches to training people in collaborative processes. Systems and tools provide only a framework that then need