November 09, 2007
Agile Contracts
One of the Certified Scrum Trainers, Chris Sterling from SolutionsIQ, recently posted a good set of links on Agile Contracts. Hopefully these links will help you understand how to "sell", set up and execute on agile contracts. Here are the links:
Chris wrote:
Mary and Tom Poppendieck have great presentations and a workshop on this topic. Here is a URL to a Powerpoint presentation from them:http://www.poppendieck.com/pdfs/AgileContracts.pdf
Also, here is some data from a workshop:
http://www.poppendieck.com/agilecontracts.htm
And Alistair Cockburn has a great page on Agile Contracts here:
http://alistair.cockburn.us/index.php/Agile_contracts
Martin Fowler has a page on “Scope Limbering” here:
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ScopeLimbering.html
Hope these help.
Thanks Chris! Here are a couple more links:
Leading Answers - Agile Contracts - blog entry with some good references.
Contracting Agile Projects - by the Cutter Consortium
I'm not an expert on agile contracts myself. I would be interested in hearing from people if they have any stories about actually using (or failing to use) contracts in an agile environment.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 07:17 AM | |
October 12, 2007
Agile Classroom Management
I'm fascinated by the idea of applying agile methods outside of software... be it to business management, family and household, or, as I and my father have been exploring over the last two and a half years... agile classroom management. Here's how I do it in my Agile Project Management / ScrumMaster Certification courses:
My father, Garry Berteig, had been using agile methods in his classroom for over two years before I tried it myself. I had gone into one of his courses at Keyano College in Fort McMurray to give a presentation to his second-year media students on agile and Scrum. They used it for a video project (see "A Student Documentary Film Project" and "Scrum Saves the Day for Media Student". Out of that experience, and others, he developed the idea of the Learning Circle as the basic cycle in an agile learning environment.
In the meantime, I became a Certified Scrum Trainer. Back when I did it, this just meant co-teaching a Scrum class with Ken Schwaber. He had a standard slide deck which he presented as he masterfully guided a class through two days of Scrum training. I (as expected) took that deck and made it my own by reformatting, rewording, changing a few of the exercises, and changing the emphasis in a couple of spots. And then I used that deck with minor corrections and updates and some expansion over the course of the next 16 months.
In the meantime, I was also doing a fair amount of training for teams and organizations that didn't care particularly for Scrum, but just wanted to know more about this "agile" thing. Sometimes it would be a one-day course, sometimes as much as five days (that was exhausting!!!). I developed a substantial body of modules including exercises, case studies, and special topics. Eventually, I found that I was having a hard time fitting my fixed agenda materials into the time I had allocated. For example, I was commonly doing a three-day course and would find that by the end of the first day I was a little behind on my agenda and by the middle of the third day I would certainly be running out of time and miss possibly even two or three modules in the agenda.
Finally, last Sprint, I got a big client who asked for training for a large number of their staff. This gave me the opportunity to: a) work with the same materials and agenda at least three times, and b) involve an assistant in all three deliveries. The first time through, I had the typical problem where the third day was a terrible rush. The second time through, it happened again, but I had de-scoped and re-arranged some of the material so it didn't seem as bad. After that second time, my assistant, an excellent coach, David Chilcott, suggested that I try to apply a more flexible... agile... approach to handling the materials. We did a quick revision of the materials to support this idea and then the third class was run as an "agile training environment". What did this mean?
The main insight was that the time allocated to the class was timeboxed. This meant finding a way to prioritize the work of the class so that the majority of the participants would get the best value possible for their time in the class. We did this in two ways:
1) As questions came up, we found that some of them needed to be deferred because they would be answered in a later module or because there was background material that needed to be covered first. So, for every question that needed to be deferred, we wrote it up on a 3x5 note card and put it up on the wall. Now, in order to keep track of this, we also had all the course modules written up on 3x5 note cards and up on the wall too. Most of the question cards would immediately be put up with the associated module card.
2) We drastically cut back the core required modules for the three days and made everything else optional. We then decided on a simple in-class mechanism to choose from those optional modules. At the end of the first day, we had time for one optional module so the class voted and we chose the module based on that vote. Likewise at the end of the second day. By the third day, we had a substantial portion of the day un-allocated. As soon as we finished with the required materials, we got the class to choose the next module to cover. As soon as that module was covered, the class chose again from all those still remaining.
It was a bit of a mess and our mechanisms didn't work perfectly, but it got the job done. At the start of our second day, the cards we were using to track modules and questions looked like this:
After we finished the course, we did an in-depth reflection and decided on some changes to be made. One of the most important was actually very simple: make the module cards much larger so that it was possible to put many question cards right on the module card. Here is what this looked like in a recent class:
The left is the module card at the start of the course with questions that were generated by the course attendees when asked what they wanted to learn from the course. The right is the same module at the end of the course. You can see that one additional question card was added between the start of the course and the time when the module was actually covered. You can also see that I use big check marks to show to the class that the module is complete.
Another change to the method of doing this agile classroom management came in the further refinement of the module content and sizing to be more appropriate for doing the modules in unpredictable sequence. This included things like checking definitions, improving some of the introductory material (to make sure all the concepts were introduced, not just some of them), finding references to other modules and removing them, and in some cases moving material from one module to another. There are still improvements to be made in this area.
Thirdly, we now are better at explaining to the class how this will all work at the start. We are modeling an agile process in the way we run the course. This means that the attendees will have an opportunity to influence what material is covered and in what depth. It also means that if the class takes a lot of time with questions early on with the basic material, it leaves less time at the end for optional modules. The people in the class can now visibly see these tradeoffs.
Here are two photos from a recent class. The first was taken at the end of the first day (note that I forgot to use the check marks on these cards). The second was taken at the end of the third day. You can clearly see how the modules of the third day were chosen entirely by the participants from the available optional modules.
This mechanism of managing a classroom using an agile approach has had some very interesting results:
1) Every class is substantially different. Before, the differences were always in the details: timing, specific questions, etc. Now, the actual material covered is uncertain. I always make adjustments to the course materials after every course. Now, not only are those differences in play, but also the actual modules covered might be different. The fascinating thing is that now, by the time we get to the last module, most of the people in the class are giving off a palpable sense of satisfaction: their urgent questions have been answered. Sometimes, this is so strong that I do the graduation "ceremonies" right before covering the last module so that people not interested in that last module can leave a little early.
2) I get far fewer comments in my feedback forms that indicate a desire that the course was longer. Before I started using this agile learning environment, I would get a substantial number of comments to the effect that it was really too bad there was not another day. Now I rarely get those comments.
3) The attendees in the class see how an agile approach actually works in a real life situation. They see that allowing the requirements to change over time is actually a good thing. Every single time I do this, there is a pattern that shows up on the third day that relates to the way the class prioritizes the next module. I count up the votes and choose the next module to cover. All the other modules have their scores written on them as well. After a module is covered, instead of using those old scores, the class takes another vote. Every single class, the priority changes between votes. This clearly demonstrates the power of allowing stakeholders to change their minds after seeing real results.
4) Participants in the course are engaged at a deeper level. There are lots of "tricks" for keeping people engaged: discussions, exercises, simulations, questions, presentation eye candy, etc. All of those things have their place and are important. However, by having participants steer the course itself, the level of engagement suddenly becomes much more substantial. The participants are responsible for the results of the class in a way that is quite unusual in most educational environments. This responsibility is granted to them and they take it seriously. I rarely see anyone refuse to participate in this process, and I never see anyone attempt to subvert it.
If you are interested in learning this mechanism of classroom management, I strongly recommend:
1) Learn up on agile. The openagile.org web site is starting to define an agile method that is abstracted away from the software legacy that agile methods currently are shackled with. This site is still in its infancy so treat it gently :-)
2) Come try one of my courses! (Yes, that's a blatant shameless plug!) You will get to experience and learn the agile method in a focused setting. The courses are IT/software focused in some respects, but since they are non-technical courses, and really about agile project management and human interactions, almost anyone can attend (I've had dancers, administrative assistants, educators, artists, community workers, executives, and actors all attend).
3) Get in touch with me to find out more of the details that didn't make it into this blog entry. The best way to do this is (really) through my business web site: berteigconsulting.com where you can find both email and phone contact information.
Well, I finally got around to writing this up. This is part of a series of related articles "tagged" as USEFUL started by Scott who writes at Tyner Blain. His article, which started the game of tag, is called Software Product Success Stories. Scott... I'm sorry this article isn't about software!!!
I would like to now tag a few people who write useful blogs:
Mike Vizdos who writes the Implementing Scrum blog. This blog is best known for the fabulous cartoons of the Chicken and the Pig, but also has a lot of great and practical insight on the challenges of, you guessed it, implementing Scrum!
Tobias Mayer who writes at Agile Thinking. He doesn't write often, but his articles are always fantastic! I hope that Tobias will take the time to write something in this "useful" stream and pass along the tag.
Mark Levison writes Notes From a Tool User and discusses many things, not just agile. His writing is fun and he's in the trenches doing real serious work getting his company to use agile. He's got good insight.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:46 AM | |
September 24, 2007
Agile Benefits: Five Essential Reasons to Try Agile
Although there many other benefits of agile, and although those provide us with other reasons to try agile, the five essential benefits of agile are:
Rapid Learning - disciplined application of the scientific method to explore the best ways to deliver valuable results.
Early Return on Investment - opportunity to use the results of work starting with the work delivered at the end of the first iteration.
Satisfied Stakeholders - engagement in the process in a way that allows meaningful contributions from all stakeholders.
Increased Control - mechanisms to track/measure and therefore steer the direction that work is going so that it meets goals.
Responsiveness to Change - processes, tools, roles and principles that allow a team and an organization to embrace change rather than reject, control or suffer from change.
These reasons are sufficient and apply to operations work, project work and open-ended research work, whenever humans are involved. The above links take you to more detailed descriptions of each of these benefits.
What are some of the other benefits of agile?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 10:47 PM | |
Agile Benefits: Responding to Change
The fact that agile methods increase return on investment, accelerate learning, increase stakeholder satisfaction, and enable better control of work are all an interesting result of this final benefit: responding to change.
Responding to Change
The whole idea of "agile", and one of the primary reasons for the choice of this word is the final item of the Agile Manifesto: "Responding to Change". It is clear that this is one of the distinguishing features of agile as compared to a more traditional waterfall or phase-based approach to working. Not so obvious is that this is also true about agile compared to a more chaotic or ad-hoc way of working.
Agile and Waterfall - Change "Control"
In most waterfall or phase-based approaches to working, change control is a technique used to evaluate change requests and then accept or reject them. The practical consequence of this is that "control" often becomes a euphemism for "prevent at almost any price", and we end up with results that satisfy no-one because life changes.
There are, of course, some changes that are accepted even in a change control environment. These changes tend to be the ones that have both a powerful sponsor and a "wealthy" sponsor. The next problem with change control relates to the fact that change becomes very expensive in a phase-based process. It usually means going back to the "beginning" and re-examining the other requirements, the analysis, the design/architecture, the development/construction, the testing and the impact is necessarily large for all but the most trivial changes.
Agile methods turn this on it's head. By allowing (nay, building in!) change every iteration, every cycle, the team and the organization start to get good at accommodating change. The value of this effect cannot be over-estimated; getting good at doing change is a natural consequence of accepting change all the time in a structured manner, and in fact, leads to all the other four benefits: increased learning, increased ROI, increased stakeholder satisfaction, and increased control. The cost of change stabilizes over time instead of increasing exponentially!
Agile and Chaos - The Illusion of Changability
Unfortunately, I am not aware of any studies that target chaotic (non-process) environments to see what kind of results they have in delivering results. (If anyone is aware of such studies, please let me know in the comments!) That said, I think almost everyone has had some experience in environments where the winds of change were so severe and fickle, and the structures to support working with change were non-existent, that chaos reigned. These environments are almost completely negative: things don't get done in a timely manner nor with an acceptable level of quality.
Often the reason for this lack of structure is about flexibility, needing to work in an environment which is also extremely chaotic. Sometimes its worse though: management or stakeholders are the cause of chaos without understanding the consequences of their actions.
Agile methods put a sufficient structure in place to build some discipline, and still remain adaptable. This sufficient structure is often built by gradual application of various agile practices until there is "just enough". This process does require dedication and will, but because it is gradual, it is often much easier than trying to suddenly put in place a full-scale disciplined process.
As these practices are implemented, the team and organization gradually become better and better at accommodating change.
Agile Benefits: Rapid Learning
Agile Benefits: Early Return on Investment
Agile Benefits: Satisfied Stakeholders
Agile Benefits: Increased Control
Agile Benefits: Responsiveness to Change
Agile Benefits: Summary Article
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 07:35 AM | |
September 20, 2007
Agile Benefits: Increased Control
One of the reasons that agile provides stakeholder satisfaction is because of increased control. This increased control is a benefit in its own right. The word "control" must be used carefully... some agile approaches and practitioners are justly wary of the word and its common uses. This particular benefit of agile is often a little surprising to people how have believed the myths around agile that it is a chaotic-anything-goes type method. Let's look at how an agile approach provides more control.
Increased Control
The person responsible for prioritizing the work (the Product Owner, Queue Master, Product Manager) is the locus of business control in an agile environment. This person exercises this control in a number of ways. First and foremost is through the constantly evolving queue of features or results to be delivered by the agile team. Here the Queue Master has final authority based on influence, knowledge, experience and formal appointment. The Queue Master can control the immediate and long-term work of the team through the use of this prioritized, never-frozen list of work. Every iteration, the team will accept the highest priority items according to their capacity (or velocity) and complete those. This fine-grained direction of the team is impossible in a traditional phase-based approach to working where often the "change control" process is a bureaucratic nightmare whose end result is the team preventing the business from getting what it needs.
Clearly there is more control. At what cost? Well, the previous three benefits of agile mentioned indicate that there is no financial cost (in fact there is a benefit), there is no intellectual cost (again there is a benefit), and there is no decrease in satisfaction (yet again, there is a benefit). So what is the cost? There is, unfortunately, one very deep and difficult cost: the team doing the work loses control over deciding what is valuable (cost-benefit). I know that in many IT organizations, this is a terrible political cost to pay for IT management and it is a terrible "status" cost to pay for technical folks.
Fortunately, even these losses are offset by other aspects of the agile process and its benefits... again, around the question of control.
In exchange for taking complete control over value determination, the Queue Master must grant complete control over solution discovery and implementation to the team. Of course, ideally there is close collaboration. However, if there is disagreement, this is the standard dividing line of responsibility in an agile environment. So now, to the benefit of those doing the work, they are given complete control over how to do the work and this can be an incredible benefit: it allows the full run of creativity and problem-solving skills to come into play.
Agile Benefits: Rapid Learning
Agile Benefits: Early Return on Investment
Agile Benefits: Satisfied Stakeholders
Agile Benefits: Increased Control
Agile Benefits: Responsiveness to Change
Agile Benefits: Summary Article
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 09:17 PM | |
September 17, 2007
Agile Benefits: Satisfied Stakeholders
So far, we've discussed learning and value as benefits of agile. Now we turn to a more human side: satisfied stakeholders. Agile methods provide multiple roads to satisfaction for customers, users, business people, bureaucrats (okay, maybe not _all_ bureaucrats), team members, managers, shareholders, and interested passer-by. There are three primary mechanisms by which this occurs: engagement, trust-building and feedback-control. [UPDATED: added link to explanation of Commitment Velocity]
Satisfied Stakeholders
There are so many different stakeholders for any given project or work effort, it is impossible to make generalizations that apply to them all. This is one reason why methods such as Scrum do not define any roles for the stakeholders. Nevertheless, as a concept, stakeholders are important people to consider when thinking about an agile approach to working. How is this method going to improve the satisfaction of our stakeholders?
Engagement
Some stakeholders are satisfied simply to be involved, to know what's going on, to be part of something that is progressing. They have no need for specific results or specific contributions. Rather, these stakeholders might be looking to learn, trying to increase their influence, or simply curious about the work being done.
Agile methods provide improved engagement for these stakeholders using two simple mechanisms: visibility and frequency of delivery. Visibility comes in that anyone is welcome to come to the demos, to walk through the team room, to examine the burndown charts or task boards, or simply to ask questions of the team members. Frequency of delivery through short iterations gives a stakeholder the opportunity to see progress (or change) on a regular basis. This visible change satisfies engagement simply because of the potential it represents: hope for the future, opportunity to influence.
Trust-Building
Another set of stakeholders are more concerned about results. And not just any results, but reliable, predictable results. Results that you can depend upon. Agile methods are ideally suited to help these stakeholders. The visibility, capacity measurement and commitment aspects of agile methods all help these stakeholders come to understand, rely-upon and ultimately trust the work of the team and the organization.
Here there is a substantial pitfall. There are a few agile practices that _must_ be put in place and followed rigorously in order to develop this trust. First, the team must keep a consistent time box for both duration and effort of work. Every iteration or Sprint must be the same amount of work time. Secondly, the team must use estimation and tracking of tasks that is compatible with "commitment velocity". Thirdly, the team must use iterations short enough that these stakeholders don't get frustrated waiting for the commitment velocity to stabilize. Fourth, the team must get it's work up to a level of quality where defects are rare rather than expected. Finally, the team must be protected from interruptions. Don't forget: two hours can waste two weeks!
All this is not easy, and doesn't happen quickly. Trust is a deep and important quality for both people and organizations so it is worth the investment.
Feedback-Control
Then there are the contributors. The people who, for various reasons, some legitimate, need to make their mark on the work. This group should include the team members themselves! These stakeholders are interested in providing input into the process, seeing the results of that input, and then being able to have another chance based on those results. Business people want to see the results of their work in the marketplace and use those results to get better. Users of software, consumers of media want to have a say in what the next version looks like. This is the level of active engagement.
Agile methods provide opportunities for active engagement, for feedback and control, through the backlog or queue of work, through the demos, through participation in the team's discussion about the work, and through the visibility of seeing their contributions take effect in "real time".
Now control is obtained through the specific rules of engagement in one's particular agile method. In Scrum, this is through the role of the Product Owner and the Product Backlog, the daily Scrum, etc. Each agile method has a defined set of practices and guidelines about how ideas, suggestions and criticisms are handled. Fortunately, those mechanisms are oriented around visibility, adaptability and speed so that frustrating delays in seeing results are rare.
Other Satisfactions
In some methods, team members are ignored or downplayed as stakeholders. In many agile methods, the importance of the team's well-being is given high priority. Agile methods reduce micro-management, reduce command-and-control management, reduce shoddy workmanship. Agile methods increase the need for creativity and problem-solving, the level of responsibility, support an honest working environment, increase the chances of delivering something that will actually be useful (and used), increase the challenge without causing "death marches". All that said, agile methods are not for everyone!
Agile Benefits: Rapid Learning
Agile Benefits: Early Return on Investment
Agile Benefits: Satisfied Stakeholders
Agile Benefits: Increased Control
Agile Benefits: Responsiveness to Change
Agile Benefits: Summary Article
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:12 PM | |
September 11, 2007
Agile Benefits: Early Return on Investment
We wouldn't do agile if we didn't think it was better in some way. More and more, I am seeing the adoption of agile methods being driven by business management (rather then engineering). There is a clear reason for this: agile methods offer the possibility of early return on investment compared to other methods of working. This benefit is only one of five essential benefits of agile, but it is one of the most practical and easiest to measure. Therefore it is important to clearly understand how agile methods can deliver this benefit... and how they can fail to do so!
Early Return on Investment
The basic process structure of agile methods consists of the short cycles (iterations, Sprints) of delivery of valuable results. The key word there (aside from "short") is "Valuable". Now in software, "valuable" is relatively easy to define. One definition that works nicely is "Running Tested Features". In other industries or types of work, valuable is defined in some other way.
An agile process delivers valuable results every single iteration. This provides the basis of early return on investment. The organization can then take those results and start to realize their benefits immediately after the very first iteration... ideally... (which we will come back to in a moment).
Here's a graphical contrast between a traditional waterfall approach versus an agile approach that maps value delivered vs. time.
The waterfall project delivers all its value at the end - the red spike. An agile project starts delivering value very early on, increases to a maximum rate of value delivery and then gradually tapers off. The reason for the shape is simple: at the start of the project there is often a fair amount of uncertainty, and some dead-ends are pursued before getting to the really valuable work, and then as that work is completed, the team starts working on lower and lower priority features.
The early delivery of value has an additional benefit. By delivering value early, the time value of that investment is increased. Revenue or cost savings can be realized sooner and therefore more funds are feed up for other investment.
Sounds great, what's the catch?
Agile Pitfall: Not Getting Done
This benefit being realized rests completely on the assumption that the work delivered at the end of each iteration is actually valuable. If for some reason it's not, then this benefit falls apart completely. Most organizations when starting with agile, cannot realize this value immediately because their teams do not deliver completed valuable results. Rather, most organizations are set up so that a team delivers an intermediate result which is useless on its own. Realizing this benefit of agile methods often requires substantial, strenuous, disciplined change in the way that people work, teams are set up, bureaucracy functions, and management supports it all. Perfecting agile is sometimes a lengthy process. Fortunately, the other benefits of agile do not depend so heavily on this assumption.
Agile Benefits: Rapid Learning
Agile Benefits: Early Return on Investment
Agile Benefits: Satisfied Stakeholders
Agile Benefits: Increased Control
Agile Benefits: Responsiveness to Change
Agile Benefits: Summary Article
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:08 PM | |
September 06, 2007
Four Methods of Perfecting Agile
Most organizations start doing agile (or Scrum or lean or ...) imperfectly. Someone introduces a few practices or a manager gets a team some training, or a person starts using agile terminology. And things might improve, particularly with the use of iterations. One of the core ideas of agile methods is to have frequent delivery of valuable results. In fact, this core idea can be used to drive the improvement of an agile process. How? Here are four methods of perfecting agile by expanding the definition of done.
Perfecting Agile
Let's suppose you already understand the benefits of agile. With these benefits in mind, you would like to improve the organization's ability to deliver working, valuable results at the end of every iteration so that you can get better at realizing those benefits. The primary way to do this is by expanding the definition of done. You can imagine this like so:
On a regular basis, the team/organization find ways to bring work done in either the preparation stage or the close stage into every iteration of the agile portion of the project. By moving the work from these "bookend" stages into the iterations, you reduce the amount of time spent in those stages and simultaneously create a more complete delivery every iteration. The "definition of done" is now expanded to contain the results or value delivered by the work that was taken out of the startup and shutdown stages of the project. By expanding the definition of done, each iteration delivers a more "complete" increment of value, and there is less work done before or after iterations in order to plan or deliver. This gradual process allows the team to get better at doing agile.
There are four methods for transferring work from the start and end of a project into the iterations of a project.
Expand the Agile Team's Skill Set
In some ways, this is the simplest and most common approach to expanding the definition of done in the agile portion of a project. By training, coaching, mentoring, re-assigning or hiring, a team's capacity to do work is expanded and used to expand the definition of done. As a simple example, a software developer might learn to use an automated unit testing framework and therefore expand the definition of done to include some amount of unit test coverage of delivered code. In general, training, coaching and mentoring existing team members should be preferred over adding people to the team since the addition disrupts the team's development and can increase communication overhead among team members.
Expand the Agile Team's Authority
Sometimes, a team is not able to do part of the preparation work or close up work because they are not authorized to do so. This may be a policy, a unspoken assumption or a bureaucratic procedure. By giving the team (or some person on the team) the authority to do this work, the team can find ways to do it every iteration instead of having to work through another non-team individual. Again, a simple example here is a situation where a technical person is given permission to talk directly to an end user in order to reduce the need for up-front requirements gathering and analysis and reduce the need for end-of-project user acceptance testing. The obvious challenge to do this is the question of trust (or lack thereof).
Automate an Existing Manual Process
Automation is often given far less than its due consideration. This is primarily be cause automating a process is an investment of work in and of itself. Fortunately, it is often easy to measure the ROI or savings involved with automation. In many agile environments, heavy automation is critical and a huge enabler for very short iterations. Automated testing, automated translation, automated build processes, are all common areas of improvement. Agile teams should always be looking for opportunities to automate their own work. In this way, the automation work itself is transformed from a separate project to a responsibility of the team.
Remove Wasteful Processes
There are some parts of the project preparation work and the project close up work that are pure waste! There is no independent value to these activities, nor is there indirect value to them. An excellent example of this sort of thing is an approval process that _always_ grants approval ("rubber stamping"). One insurance organization I worked with as they were converting to an agile approach discovered that their "second stage" approvals always allowed proposed projects to proceed. Since they often incurred a 4-6 week delay for this approval process, it became obvious that they should "get rid of it". Now, what they actually did is made it so that it became a parallel review process rather than a gated approval process; this was so that the true purpose of the activity could still be met: to help stakeholders understand the projects that were being worked upon. Here, there is no need to take this approval process and somehow work it into every iteration. An agile approach tends to increase the visibility of the work anyway, so it may be discovered later on that the review process can also be done away with.
Agile is often implemented in a limited fashion when it is first adopted by most teams and organizations. The four methods of expanding the definition of done can help a team or organization get better at doing agile and therefore reap more of the benefits of agile. These methods are simple: expand the agile team's capacity, their authority, have them automate manual processes and remove wasteful activities from the process.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:32 AM | |
August 18, 2007
Agile Management Tools
Ah, tools...
For agile training and consulting, I always recommend starting with the standard physical tools of note cards on a wall plus a whiteboard and digital camera. However, I am still interested in what tools people have used when they have found that note cards are not sufficient. Here is a list of the tools that I am aware of, as well as a link to a survey...
This list is in alphabetical order:
Custom In-House Tool
Defect/Enhancement Tracker (e.g. Jira)
Spreadsheet
Wiki (e.g. Fitnesse)
The survey is extremely short (four questions) and will be closed on Sept. 15th:
Click Here to take the Agile Management Tools survey
I will publish the results here.
If you know of other tools (open source, products, etc.) please let me know in the comments!
Here are more tools for managing agile projects/requirements/planning that have been mentioned by folks in the comments:
Thanks to everyone for including the urls in the comments!!!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 02:36 AM | |
August 01, 2007
Agile Estimation and Pairing
I just read a recent article on PMHut called "Schedule Questions: Pair Programming and the PNR Curve". There is much in this article that is important for agile project management... and much that should be avoided at all costs!
Estimating Projects
The bulk of the article is an explanation of the PNR curve (Putnam Norden Rayleigh curve). The explanation is sufficient and can be checked against other web articles about software estimation. The basic idea of the PNR curve is to find an ideal number of people with which to staff a project based on an estimate of overall project size (e.g. 72 man-months).
Take a moment to go read Fantasy Estimation (the comments here provide good additional material).
It should be clear now that any initial sizing estimate based on units such as man-months is ridiculous. So what is our alternative? What about an agile approach to estimation and planning?
Agile Estimation
Well, at a minimum, in an agile approach to estimation, we need to resolve some of the problems identified in "Fantasy Estimation". So, we:
- Get the whole team that will be doing the work to do the estimation
- We weight estimates based on team maturity, knowledge of tools, knowledge of the business domain and the physical proximity of team members to each other
- We adjust our estimates of work remaining based on our results for work completed
The great thing about an agile approach is that it allows all these things to be done and to be done well. Scrum has a specific set of "Drag Factors" that can be used to weight the team's estimates. And using a team's past estimates vs. "actuals" is possible on an iteration by iteration basis... and this is possible because every iteration the team is doing the "same thing": delivering an increment of valuable results (working software, edited video, organizational change, whatever is contributing to the project goals).
The other thing that agile methods allow is to make a distinction between estimation for planning and estimation for commitment.
So. It's cool to learn about the PNR Staffing curve and the thinking behind it. It's a little scary to see it being applied in an agile context when we have tools that are much better.
Pairing and Estimation
At the end of the PMHut article, the author, Mike asks a question:
What about pair programming? When using pairs on a team we could either:
- Continue as is, use the model to determine optimal team size and then encourage pairing to increase efficiency.
- Treat a pair as one hyper-effective person, so count pairs not individuals and increase team sizes accordingly.
This second option seems counter intuitive to agile, we strive for small teams to reduce communication channels, so I’m not convinced by this idea. I would be very interested to hear people’s thoughts on agile staffing curves. So, lots more questions than answers in this post, please let me know if you have any research or thoughts on the matter.
I wrote in response:
Mike, I feel like the options you present in your question at the end actually miss the true point of pairing… which has to do with communication. I have never seen pairing done in such a way that two people always work together as a pair. Rather, pairing is promiscuous: people switch pairs frequently throughout a day, iteration or project. This switching has two communication effects: 1) the human interaction and gradual diffusion of information as people switch pairs 2) helping everyone understand all parts of the work as a result of frequently working on many different things. From an estimation standpoint, I expect that neither of your two options is quite right. Rather, the third option is to continue as is with existing estimation and then encourage pairing to increase communication. Increased communication shows up in a number of different ways, not just efficiency: risk mitigation, accelerated individual and team learning etc.
I would like to expand on this just a little. To me, pair programming or pair work of any kind has always been able to provide a number of benefits to projects. Problem avoidance is one benefit (lower defect rates, better code quality through constant inspection, spotting each other). Better communication is another benefit. Increasing the Truck Factor is yet another benefit.
None of these benefits have any direct bearing on estimating a project at the start, particularly since most projects sacrifice quality for schedule. From an agile perspective, since planning estimation is not commitment, it actually doesn't even really matter! Get a conservative estimate for you project using whatever method you like, then start working and get a commitment velocity and see what the team can really do.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 10:04 AM | |
February 22, 2007
Strategic Plan
Okay, this is only marginally related to agile, but I thought it was interesting nevertheless: How to Write a Detailed Strategic Plan. The main connection to Agile Work, is that you need to have a clear performance goal in mind towards which you are working. This may be a great way to clarify your thoughts about such a goal.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:43 AM | |
January 27, 2007
The Freedom of Limited Capacity
Something that I would have thought impossible has happened. By understanding how incredibly limited my capacity to do work is, I am getting a greater and greater sense of freedom and contentment.
My "experiement" to run my business using Agile Work practices is starting to bear some fruit. The trouble is, that so far, that fruit is simple better knowledge of my extremely limited capacity to get things done during a single week-long iteration. I can do 3 or 4 items from my Work Queue which works out to about 15 or 20 tasks. This seems ridiculous to me! Surely one hard-working guy can get more than that done!
But I can't. I'm getting to the end of my fourth iteration and it's the same thing again!
I know some of the reasons for this: interruptions, unexpected work, unremembered work, and my general nature of being easily distracted by shiny things!
In some ways this has been quite frustrating. I have a huge queue of work I want to get done for my business. But the other side of the coin, the one that looks different than I expected, is that knowing just how limited my capacity is... is liberating! I don't feel nearly as stressed as I did four weeks ago. I have the courage to commit at an appropriate level. I can start to believe my plans. I can see - realistically - just how much I need help to achieve my goals. I can see how soon I will be able to do cost/benefit analysis on hiring vs. doing the work myself (can't do that yet). I can even start to believe that I might be able to reach my original goal of reducing my working hours from 80+/week to 50 or less... as long as I make sure that my Work Queue is properly prioritized with that goal in mind.
I have worked with a number of teams that have gotten to this point of certainty about their capacity. I've seen this happen in others... and now I recognize it for what it is: relief. One team I worked with after only two iterations had a very clear idea of their capacity, and you could feel the comfort level of everyone with this new agile thing skyrocket. Another team I worked with got a clear sense of its capacity after only three iterations. This team settled in and then started to work to increase their capacity and did a fabulous job by using automation tools, eliminating various organizational bottlenecks, etc. They wow'ed the rest of the organization with their incredible, consistent delivery of value. One of my former students, Dmitri Zimine, gave a presentation at the XPToronto group where he talked about the incredible level of trust that developed between his team and the rest of the organization after consistently, iteration after iteration after iteration meeting their commitments.
All of this is only possible by a rigorous application of timeboxing, careful and consistent task breakdown, and good, honest tracking of results. I wrote a previous article called Seventeen Tips for Iteration Planning. Look it over and see what new ideas you can apply in your situation. If you are frustrated by a team continually over-committing, you will find a lot of valuable advice there.
As a parting shot: consider how you feel right now. Are you stressed out? Over committed? Failing to meet your commitments? Feeling guilty? Working insane hours? Not spending enough time with your family? Killing yourself!?
What about the team or organization you work in? Is it constantly being bombarded by problems it can't handle? Surviving on pure heroics?
I can't tell you that following a careful iterative planning approach will fix your problems... but I can tell you that it will reduce your stress levels, help you (or your organization) make appropriate commitments, and let you see the reality of your situation (good or bad).
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:07 AM | |
January 22, 2007
Cancelled Iteration
Last week went totally wonko for Berteig Consulting. My planning was bad, bad, bad!
For planning, I totally forgot about three very important scheduling things:
- a ScrumMaster certification course on Thursday and Friday which required not just time in class, but also three hours of commuting each day.
- my birthday for which I had planned a very informal party on Saturday (normally a very productive work day) which consumed the whole day from morning to late at night.
- the departure of my brother Alexei and his wife Ma Jin so that Sunday would be my last day of visiting, again, taking up my whole day from morning to late at night.
Suffice it to say, a 3-day work week was not what I was expecting when I did my planning. Sometime on Thursday I gave up.
I decided to delay starting a new iteration until I could recover a bit. Over the course of four days I get nearly 200 emails that I actually need to pay attention to at some level or another. So, today has been a recovery day and at the end of the day I will plan my next iteration. Since I did not have a delivery meeting (since I cancelled the iteration), I can only do an informal review of the accomplishments:
- some progress on development work for my client
- some progress on invoicing my client
- some progress on automation of my course listings (Selenium is great!)
- no progress on providing a statement to my other client
The causes of this massive failure are obvious. It should be noted that by doing the ScrumMaster training, I did actually deliver value to Berteig Consulting... it just wasn't the value that I had planned!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 05:58 PM | |
January 16, 2007
The Wisdom of Teams - Generalizing Specialists
I've almost finished reading The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization
The [Connectors Team] made several decisions that solidified its common team approach and sense of mutual accountability. First, it set some rules. Everyone on the team had to identify two others who could serve as backups during vacation and sick days. To eradicate the attitude of "it's not my job" from the team, it was agreed that whenever anyone needed help, the person asked had to respond even if the activity was not in his or her area of expertise. And the team also agreed on a peer appraisal system that gave everyone the opportunity to evaluate everyone else and, through [their team leader], feed it back to the person being evaluated. Clear-cut rules of behavior like these are an important element of all successful teams.
Second, the team eliminated the two managerial positions that had retarded empowerment. This effectively modified the membership of the team because only one of the two managers whose jobs were eliminated chose to stay. The other believed he could not take a perceived demotion and left. By January 1991, however, the Connectors Team was a dramatically more effective group of people than it had been at its formation a year earlier.
Energy and enthusiasm reached higher levels as the team started pushing itself harder and in more innovative ways. One of the engineers, for example, decided to become completely qualified as a purchaser as well. Instead of being threatened, the purchasers on the team worked hard to teach her the basics of the job. The peer review approach worked so well that the team agreed on the additional - and, for many teams, difficult - step of directly providing each other feedback instead of relyinng on the team leader for this task.
There are several great points in the above story:
Backups: many agile methods do not explicity talk about this, but there is a need to make sure that the Truck Factor increases. A low truck factor can be a real problem and I strongly recommend that the Queue Master (Product Owner, Customer) in particular needs to have backup. As well, this hints at the idea that eventually the roles of Process Facilitator and Queue Master should eventually go away to be taken on by the team as a whole.
Skills: the example of the engineer learning to be a purchaser is a great example of a brave soul really taking to heart the idea of working for the good of the team by becoming a generalizing specialist. In my own coaching work, I have seen purely business-oriented Queue Masters become technical contributors to the team through a process of both deliberate and "accidental" learning. Every human being has an incredible capacity for learning. In a high-performance team, everyone takes that ability very seriously - to the point of it becoming a responsibility.
Rules: one of the simplest, yet most profound, ways that a group of people can start on the process to becoming a high-performance team is by working together to agree on some ground rules about team behavior. One team I worked with, among other rules, decided that no "stinky food" was allowed in the team room. The passage above notes the non-trivial rules. Both "trivial" and non-trivial rules are important to the team for two reasons:
1. Develop a set of expectations that individuals can hold each other to in order to avoid or deal with conflict.
2. Become aware of the team's power to set their own working conditions, independently of management or other "leadership".
Management: regrettably for most managers, in a high-performance team the value of formal, traditional management is much reduced. However, there is now an opportunity for two different types of work: the generalizing specialist work on the team, and the servant leader work of supporting the team. The servant leader is someone who is exceptionally good at problem solving, organizational change, and working through influence rather than authority.
This book is incredible. Every time I read a few pages I think "Oh! I've got to write about that on Agile Advice!" Unfortunately if I did that, I'd be in serious copyright violation. So all I can do is encourage you to read the book.
If you have already read the book, I would love to hear your impressions, particularly if there were things about it that you really didn't like. What didn't you like and why? What are the holes in it's argument?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 04:05 PM | |
January 15, 2007
End of Iteration 2 ("Capacity") and Start of Iteration 3 ("Automation")
This second iteration when much better than the first. I committed to an amount of work that was much closer to my real capacity, and I stayed more focused on that work. Here are the results of my demo, retrospective and planning for Iteration 3 which I am calling "Automation" for reasons which will be described below.
Demo
I committed to the following items from my Work Queue:
- 1 day intermediate team course
- phone consult details
- QA/tools coaching
- email proposal
- get template from them
- collect hours
- collect receipts
- image receipts
- currency convert receipts if needed
- type up hours
- type up receipts
- email/submit
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- ping Contact1 "V"
- ping Contact2 "N"
- ping Contact3 "M"
- ping Contact4 "S"
- ping Contact5 "V"
- air reservations
- prepare visa application
- submit visa application
- hotel reservations
- equipment
- invoice 1
- invoice 2
I also added these in the middle of the iteration (which is really a "no-no", but I did it anyway to my regret).
- change individual entry archive template
- remove technorati links from 6 articles
- rebuild site
- work with Alexei on structure
- incorporate Alexeis feedback on writing
- work with Alexei on layout and design
What did I actually get done? Here are the stats:
For Iteration 002 - "Capacity":
# Work Queue Items At Start: 5
# Work Queue Items Completed: 3
# Tasks at Start: 32
# Tasks Remaining: 17
What is scary is that my velocity is exactly the same in terms of number of tasks: I really need to start my iterations with only 15 tasks.
Anyway, what I need to do for my next iteration is schedule my "demo" with my other stakeholder (my wife Melanie). Demo'ing to myself in the wee hours of the morning is not really practical in terms of my overall goal for this project (running my business at a sustainable pace).
Retrospective
Here are the things that went well:
- Came much closer to getting everything done that was in my iteration. This was great - I continued to use Tiddly Wiki to track my Work Queue and Tasks.
- Felt less stress. Although I still worked very hard, I was not worried nearly as much about the things still on my Work Queue that weren't in this iteration. I also decided on certain boundaries to work: generally work 4 to 6 hours during the day and another few hours after lights out (usually after 11pm).
- The prioritization worked well - didn't feel impelled to do too much that was _not_ in the iteration. Althought I did take a couple more items in, it was more because of opportunity than anything else. My brother Alexei wanted to help me with my book (for example). Next time around, perhaps I should be more explicit about negotiating with myself about taking something out of the iteration if I bring something in.
Here are the things that need improvment:
- Get even better at judging capacity and committing to an appropriate amount of work. The numbers speak loudly! This next iteration I have to limit myself to 3 items from the Work Queue and about 15 tasks. I have to remind myself that I can always bring more work in if I complete my work early and I still have time.
- Care with long term scheduling - made a mistake in my scheduling with a Client - hopefully it will be okay! This is a bit of a nit, but I need to keep my daybook up-to-date even with long-term stuff.
- Spending time with my family - e.g. playing with kids, helping around house, assisting with homeschooling. This was better than I was doing in Dec., but I need to continue to improve here. I would really like to work with Justice and Haifa on learning Chinese. We've got tons of materials to do it, just need the discipline to get through it together.
Planning
Okay, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I've decided on four items from my Work Queue:
Client2 Invoice
Client2 Work
Automate Listing of Scheduled Courses on 3 Sites
Client3 Statement of Account
The key one is the automation since that will be an investment to save me time later on. In my task breakdown it looks like this (tasks with an "x" are already done from the previous iteration):
x- get template from them
x- collect hours
- determine expense policy
- invoice R0001-001:
-- collect receipts
-- image receipts
-- currency convert receipts if needed
x-- type up hours
- invoice R0001-002:
-- type up hours
- invoice R0001-003:
-- type up hours
- email/submit
- 4 hours
- 4 hours
- 4 hours
- 4 hours
- 4 hours
- 4 hours
- ScrumAlliance
- Google Base
- Berteig Consulting
- laptop
- Visa
- old Visa
So, that's 4 items from the Work Queue and 17 tasks (the ones with "--" in front of them are sub-tasks... not sure how to handle those, but for now I'm not counting them separately.
I'm really excited about this. It sucks to see that I get so little done in a single week, but on the other hand, knowing my capacity allows me to understand just how much work I have on my plate and how badly I need two things: automation and assistance! I'm going to start with automation, but I'm also looking for assistance. The trouble is that I can't affort to hire someone on a salary... (if you know anyone who would be interested in working on commission/revenue-sharing basis, I would love to talk!).
One final note: I did manage to include my wife Melanie in my planning for this iteration. She seemed pleased :-)
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 03:09 PM | |
January 08, 2007
Planning Iteration 0002 "Capacity"
I've completed my iteration planning for my second iteration. As a reminder, I'm doing this because I want to be working only 50 hours per week by July 2007. My sole improvement item from last iteration was to use get better at committing to an amount of work within my capacity. Here's what I have planned:
I have included my complete list of work to be done broken down into tasks. It is anonymized:
Client1 Proposal Writing
- 1 day intermediate team course
- phone consult details
- QA/tools coaching
- email proposal
Client2 Invoice
- get template from them
- collect hours
- collect receipts
- image receipts
- currency convert receipts if needed
- type up hours
- type up receipts
- email/submit
Client2 work
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
- 4 hour task
India Training
- ping Contact1 "V"
- ping Contact2 "N"
- ping Contact3 "M"
- ping Contact4 "S"
- ping Contact5 "V"
- air reservations
- prepare visa application
- submit visa application
- hotel reservations
Client3 Statement of Account
- equipment
- invoice 1
- invoice 2
As you can see, I have committed to only five items off the Work Queue for this iteration and they add up to thirty-two tasks. This is more than I indicated last night in my retrospective results. I'm nervous about this in two ways. One, I think that I am under-committing and that I'll get into huge trouble if I don't do more than this. Two, I think that I'm over-committing and that with my brother visiting, even doing this much smaller amount of work will be challenging. Still, I have tried to make both the items from the Work Queue and the tasks smaller than in my previous iteration. I guess I'll see in a week!
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:01 AM | |
First Interation Ending
My first iteration using Agile Work for my business development has come to a close. Here is what I did for a "demo" and retrospective.
Demo
This was simple. I looked at my selected Work Queue items and my tasks and check to see what I had accomplished (finished or partially finished). Here are the statistics (grim and discouraging as they are):
For Iteration 001 - "Beginnings":
# Work Queue Items At Start: 11
# Work Queue Items Completed: 2
# Tasks at Start: 43
# Tasks Remaining: 28
From these numbers, for my next iteration I should probably be hesitant about committing to any more than 2 items from the Work Queue and any more than 15 tasks.
Considering how many work hours I have in a week, 43 tasks is absolutely ridiculous... unless they are really small, which many of them weren't. For example, I had one task as "Integrate part one of Alexei's feedback into my eBook" which when I did it actually took about three hours. Its just one sample, but 3 x 43 is 129 hours and is just not possible for a single human being in 7 days.
Aside from the value-oriented items from the Work Queue, I also did the work to finish a more complete Work Queue. It now has 37 items including those which remain un-finished from this first iteration. It is poorly prioritized, but that will improve over time. As well, I suspect there are quite a few things missing that I forgetting. I should probably get my wife, Melanie, to look over it and make some suggestions. I also have some old "to do" lists for my business which might remind me of some things to add onto it near the bottom.
Retrospective
I did a little mini-retrospective to find the three things that went well this iteration, and the three things that need improvement. I also decided on a clear action item to take to try to improve my next iteration. (Another clear reason to use Card Meeting - worked great for my retrospective :-) .)
Three Things that Went Well:
- Referred to my iteration tasks frequently. I kept my TiddlyWiki up in my browser and checked it several times a day.
- Spent time with my family and friends despite huge workload. We had guests and family visiting and I got some good time in with them. I also spent a good amount of time with Melanie and my kids. I had to make a conscious effort to do this, but since this is the goal of my using Agile Work (to have a good life/work balance), I figured I might as well start making some progress on it right away!
- Had courage to do some development work which required changes to other developers' work. I ran into a problem with some of the work I am doing as a contract. I dug around and realized that any fix I made would be felt by other parts of the codebase as API's changed. I made the fix and then tracked down the dependencies and fixed everything up. Fun!
Three Things that Need Improvement:
- Pay more attention to my schedule / calendar so as to reduce problems with work/family boundaries. Still a loooooong way to go on this one!
- Spend more work time "on-task", rather than on things not on my list. I ended up doing a bunch of work stuff that wasn't in my iteration plan. Partly I did it because I got bored of what I had planned, and partly becuase I forgot to focus on my plans. It would probably help if I had a Process Facilitator breathing down my neck :-)
- Make realistic plans given my capacity for work. This is the biggie! It is going to be very hard for me to keep to a small commitment. But considering the my brother is visiting from Beijing with his wife this week and next, I really have to try to get this right.
It is that last point that I will use as the basis for my next improvement. For my next iteration planning meeting (to be held in the morning after a far-to-brief sleep), I will commit to a maximum of 3 items from the Work Queue. This may mean breaking the items down into smaller bits. I'll talk with the Queue Master (myself) tomorrow morning about it :-)
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 04:37 AM | |
January 03, 2007
My First Challenge
Wednesday is nearly done and I'm looking at my list of tasks and cringing! I've only done a few out of the forty for this week. What's going on?!
Well, for one thing, I'm over-committed, and I know it. This is why my goal is to eventually time-box my effort to 50 hours per week. As it is, I expect I'll have a few more short nights this week in order to get even a reasonable amount of my commitment done.
Also, I've been cherry-picking. I'm doing the easy/nice/comfortable tasks first. I'm avoiding the paperwork tasks. I'm avoiding the administrative tasks. These are the ones that I hate and I always procrastinate about. (Hmm... writing this is actually procrastination too... just a few more words and then I'll get back to work.)
Finally, I've got some obstacles which I'm not sure I will overcome this iteration. First of all, I'm spending less time on work than I anticipated. Secondly, I'm getting distracted by tasks that are not directly related to my work items, but which seem to be pre-conditions. For example, I need to do a bunch of administrative follow-up for recent courses I have delivered. Part of that is to send of images of the attendees license forms. I've got the images on the SD card in my digital camera. I've also got a lot of other images on there. So, instead of focusing purely on the task at hand, I am actually cleaning up the whole card. Which is getting rid of technical/administrative debt, but it is slowing me down. Hmm... "administrative debt"... that's gotta be a common theme for the procrastinator!
Anyone out there want to write an article for Agile Advice about administrative debt?
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 05:16 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 | |
My First Iteration Planning
I've done my iteration planning for my first iteration called "Beginnings". The length of my iterations is one week (including weekends). Here is the list of backlog items that I have committed to (some detail removed):
Catch up on Scrum course follow-up work
Advertize future courses
Finish eBook 2nd Draft
- email request for feedback return
- go through feedback
- finish references
- finish diagrams
Invoice
Finalize India Trip
Interview
Meet up with
Continue development work for
I have broken all of these into tasks, but only put here the ones for finishing my eBook since the rest get into lots of private detail.
I'm currently using TiddlyWiki to track my Work Queue, my tasks and my recurring/scheduled duties. I create a new wikiword for each iteration and copy items from the Work Queue into that section. I also have a menu that has links to my daily, weekly and monthly tasks.
I'm not doing any estimation on either Work Queue items or tasks. This may become a problem, but for now I'm going to try doing the work without the estimation overhead.
I also spoke with my wife, Melanie who is my business partner about all this. She agrees that using Agile Work is a good step to take and looks forward to all the benefits of my being more organized :-)
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 12:05 PM | |
December 07, 2006
Peformance Goals - The Wisdom of Teams
As I continue my enthralled read through "The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization
The Performance Goal
This concept and practice is an essential condition for a team to become a high performance team. The Performance Goal is a specific, measurable, challenging goal that is given to and/or adopted by the team. It is a statement or description of a goal that answers "why?" and "what?" questions, but specifically avoids answering "how?". It is not a description of activities, it is a statement of desired results. The team is left with the full authority to answer "how?" and implement it.
This concept is essential for setting the initial boundaries of self-organization. By defining "what" and "why", the team is left free to be creative about the solution. The Performance Goal is also essential to building team accountability (as opposed to individual or externalized accountability). Every action, plan, mistake and success are oriented around the Performance Goal.
From the book:
The hunger for performance is far more important to team success than team-building exercises, special incentives, or team leaders with ideal profiles. In fact, teams often form around such challenges without any help or support from management. Conversely, potential teams without such challenges usually fail to become teams.
I would also like to point out a great blog entry I found that shows some of the other side of dealing with teams and present some cautionary words about the potential pitfalls of working in teams.
In an Agile Work environment, the starting point for a performance goal is simply the delivery of valuable work at the end of their very first iteration. This is often a substantial challenge to a team and an organization. For some teams that have worked for a long time in a "waterfall" or phase-based project environment, it can be almost unthinkable that valuable results could be delivered in one tenth or one twentieth of the "normal" amount of time.
However, simply delivering value at the end of each iteration is probably not going to sustain the development of a high performance team for very long. Rather, the overall objective or goal of the project has to be important and compelling. Much work these days is _not_ important and compelling. In fact, many people become cynical about work because they are stuck doing a high proportion of work that is bureaucratic or due to chaotic circumstances.
As a reminder, the books "Good to Great
I frequently work with organizations where a team has been formed up, told to use agile methods, and then also told how to do their work. Really great examples of this are things like: "we want you to self-organize, but you have to build this huge system using J2EE." The the problem with this is simply that it may in fact be ten times less expensive to build the system with Ruby. However, someone has decided (possibly for defensible reasons) that J2EE is the technology platform that must be used. In this circumstance, someone external to the team has stepped over the boundary of "why" and "what" and also included some "how" in the team's goals. The team is not even allowed to consider the possibility that something might work just as well and be much less expensive. Not only that, but the stakeholders haven't even really stated "why" the system is being built and so the team can't evaluate technology choices. There is no standard around which to self-organize. I admit that I am using a simplistic example here, but the pattern is something that I have seen over and over again.
Posted by Mishkin Berteig at 11:44 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 p