Skip to content

Software Development Blogs: Programming, Software Testing, Agile Project Management

Methods & Tools

Subscribe to Methods & Tools
if you are not afraid to read more than one page to be a smarter software developer, software tester or project manager!

Managing Product Development - Johanna Rothman
Syndicate content
Expert in Managing Product Development
Updated: 3 hours 25 sec ago

Manage Your Project Portfolio is Featured in Colombia’s Largest Business Newspaper

Thu, 12/18/2014 - 16:11

Andy Hunt, the Pragmatic Bookshelf publisher, just sent me an email telling me that Manage Your Project Portfolio is featured in La RepĂşblica, Columbia’s “first and most important business newspaper.” That’s because getabstract liked it!  

la_repĂşblica_20141204Okay, my book is below the fold. It’s in smaller print.

And, I have to say, I’m still pretty excited.

If your organization can’t decide which projects come first, second, third, whatever, or which features come first, second, third, whatever, you should get Manage Your Project Portfolio.

Categories: Project Management

Team Competition is Not Friendly

Mon, 12/15/2014 - 17:06

I once worked in an organization where the senior managers thought they should motivate us, the team members. They decided to have a team competition, complete with prizes.

I was working on a difficult software problem with a colleague on another team. We both needed to jointly design our pieces of the product to make the entire product work.

After management announced the competition, he didn’t want to work with me. Why? There was prize money, worth hundreds of dollars to each person. He had a mortgage and three kids. That money made a big difference to him. I was still single. I would have stuck that money into either my savings or retirement fund, after buying something nice for myself.

Management motivated us, alright. But not to collaborate. They motivated us to stop working together. They motivated us to compete.

Our progress stopped.

My boss wanted to know what happened. I explained. I couldn’t fault my colleague. He wanted the money. It made a big difference for him. I would have appreciated the money, but not nearly as much as he would have. (Later, when I was paying for childcare, I understood how much of a difference that money made.)

I then had this conversation with my boss, ranting and raving the entire time:

“Look, do you want the best product or the best competition?”

“What?”

“You can’t have both. You can have a great product or you can have a great competition. Choose. Because once you put money on the table, where only one team gets the money, we won’t collaborate anymore.”

My boss got that “aha” look on his face. “Hold that thought,” he said.

The next day, management changed the competition. Now, it was about the teams who worked together to create the best product, not the one team who had the best idea. Still not so good, because all the teams on the program needed to collaborate. But better.

When I had my one-on-one with my boss, I explained that all the teams needed to collaborate. Were they really going to pay everyone a bonus?

My boss paled. They had not thought this through. “I’d better make sure we have the funds, right?”

People don’t work just for money. You need to pay people a reasonable salary. Remember what Dan Pink says in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. People work for autonomy, mastery, and purpose. If you exchange the social contract of working for autonomy, mastery, and purpose for money, you’d better pay enough money. You also better repeat that money the next time. And, the next time. And, the next time.

That’s the topic of this month’s management myth: Management Myth 35: Friendly Competition Is Constructive.

Software product development is a team activity, full of learning. As soon as you make it a competition, you lose on the teamwork. You lose the learning. Nobody wins. There is no such thing as “friendly” competition.

Instead, if you go for collaboration, you can win.

Read Management Myth 35: Friendly Competition Is Constructive.

Categories: Project Management

When Should You Move from Iterations to Flow?

Wed, 12/10/2014 - 14:45

I’m writing part of the program management book, talking about how you need to keep everything small to maintain momentum. Sometimes, to keep your work small, teams move from iterations to flow.

Here are times when you might consider moving from iteration to flow:

  • The Product Owner wants to change the order of features in the iteration for business reasons, and you are already working in one- or two-week iterations. Yes, you have that much change.
  • You feel as if you have a death march agile project. You lurch from one iteration to the next, always cramming too much into an iteration. You could use more teams working on your backlog.
  • You are working on too many projects in one iteration. No one is managing the project portfolio.

This came home to me when I was coaching a program manager working on a geographically distributed program in 2009. One of the feature teams was responsible for the database that “fed” all the other feature teams. They had their own features, but the access and what the database could do was centralized in one database team. That team tried to work in iterations. They had small, one- or two-day stories. They did a great job meeting their iteration commitments. And, they always felt as if they were behind.

Why? Because they had requests backed up. The rank of the requests into that team changed faster than the iteration duration.

When they changed to flow, they were able to respond to requests for the different reports, access, whatever the database needed to do much faster. They were no longer a bottleneck on the program. Of course, they used continuous integration for each feature. Every day, or every other day, they updated the access into the database, or what the database was capable of doing.

The entire program regained momentum.

kanban.iterationThis is a simplified board. I’m sure your board will look different.

When you work in flow, you have a board with a fixed set of Ready items (the team’s backlog), and the team always works on the top-ranked item first. Depending on the work in progress limits, the team might take more than one item off the Ready column at a time.

The Product Owner has the capability to change any of the items in the Ready column at any time. If the item is large, the team will spend more time working on that item. It is in the Product Owner’s and the team’s interest to learn how to make small stories. That way, work moves across the board fast.

If you use a board something like this, combined with an agile roadmap, the team still has the big picture of what the product looks like. Many of us like to know what the big picture is. And, we see from the board, what we are working on in the small. However, we don’t need to do iteration planning. We take the next item off the top of the Ready list.

There is no One Right Answer as to whether you should move from iteration to flow. It depends on your circumstances. Your Product Owner needs to write stories that are small enough that the team can complete them and move on to another story. Agile is about the ability to change, right? If the team is stuck on a too-large story, it’s just as bad as being stuck in an iteration, waiting for the iteration to end.

However, if you discover, especially if you are a feature team working in a program, that you need to change what you do, or the order of what you do more often than your iterations allow, consider moving to flow. You may decide that iterations are too confining for what you need.

Categories: Project Management

Who Removes Your Obstacles?

Tue, 12/02/2014 - 15:21

In self-organizing teams, teams remove their own obstacles. It’s a good idea. It can be difficult in practice.

In Scrum, the Scrum Master is supposed to facilitate removing the team’s obstacles that the team can’t remove. It’s a good idea. It can be difficult in practice.

And, what if you aren’t doing Scrum, or you’re transitioning to agile and you don’t yet have a self-organizing team? Maybe you have an agile project manager. Maybe you have a team facilitator. Not every team needs a titled manager-type, you know. (Even I don’t think that, and I come from project management.)

Maybe the team bumps up against an obstacle they can’t remove, even if they try. Why? Because the obstacles the team can’t remove tend to fall in these categories:

  • Cross-functional problems across several teams or across the organization
  • Problems up the hierarchy in the organization
  • Problems that occur both places, as in over there in another department and higher up in the hierarchy

Oh boy. Someone who either used to be technical or used to be a first-line manager is supposed to talk to a VP of Support or Sales or the CIO or the CTO or “the Founder of the Company” and ask for help removing an impediment. Unless the entire organization is already agile, can you see that this is a problem or a potential problem?

Chances are good that during an organization’s transition to agile, the team’s facilitator (regardless of the title) will need help from a more senior manager to remove obstacles. Not for the team. For the rest of the organization.

Now, I would love it if the person who is supposed to remove obstacles was that designated facilitator (Scrum Master, agile project manager, whomever). And, that designated facilitator had the personal power to do it all by him or herself. But, I’m a realist. In my clients, that doesn’t happen without management support.

Is it a problem if a manager removes obstacles?

I don’t think so, as long as the manager supports the team, and doesn’t prevent the team from solving its own problems.

Here are examples I would expect the team to solve on its own:

  • Not finishing stories inside an iteration because there is too much work in progress or each person take his or her own story. This is a problem the team can manage by reviewing the board, or by pairing or swarming. The team has many options for solving this problem.
  • Too much work in progress. Again, the team can often manage this problem. The first step is to see it.
  • Not getting to “done” on stories. The first steps are to make the stories smaller, to make sure you have acceptance criteria, to work with the product owner on making stories smaller, those kinds of things. Maybe the first step is to make sure you have integrated testers into your team. But that might require managers to help.
  • Having trouble deciding what team norms are and the resulting issues from that.

Here are obstacles mid-level managers or more senior managers might help with:

  • Creating cross-functional teams, not silo’d teams. I keep seeing “developer” teams and “tester” teams being told “Go Agile!” No, agile is a cross-functional team where you have all the roles you need on one team to accomplish the work. This misconception is often a management misconception.
  • Which project is #1 (managing the project portfolio). If the team has a ton of interruptions or a demand for multitasking because management can’t decide which project is #1, I would expect some manager to take this obstacle on and resolve it. The pressures for multitasking or interruptions often arise from outside the team.
  • How the organization rewards people. At some point, agile bumps up against the culture of individual rewards. Managers might be the ones who need to manage HR.
  • When the product owner goes missing, or the team has no product owner. The team is now missing a key piece to their success and what makes agile work. Very few teams can demand a product owner, especially if they are new to agile.

This is a form of management as servant leadership, where the manager serves the team.

Do you see how certain problems are inside-the-team problems and the team can solve them? Other problems are not inside-the-team problems, and are part of the organization’s system. The organization needs to decide, “How committed to agile are we?” and address these issues.

Categories: Project Management

Five Tips to Hiring a Generalizing Specialist

Mon, 11/24/2014 - 13:19

We talk a lot in agile about generalizing specialists. Scott Ambler has a terrific essay on what a generalizing specialist is:

  • Has one or more technical specialties…
  • Has at least a general knowledge of software development.
  • Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work.
  • Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas

(From Scott Ambler’s essay, http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/generalizingSpecialists.htm)

How do you hire one of these mythical people?

First, they are not mythical. They are real. Second, you do a job analysis, just as you would for any job. Third, you would look at how they have acquired skills throughout their careers.

What does this mean for the hiring manager and/or recruiter?

  1. If you search on keywords only, you will miss these people. They may not have all the keywords you want on a resume. That’s because they are generalizing specialists. You have to write a job description to entice these people to an opportunity.
  2. If you say things such as, “You will have worked at a place like <insert name of your favorite company here>” you may well miss great people. You are assuming a particular class of people. You have to change your assumptions about work history, school history, any kind of history. Again, the job description or ad has to be about an opportunity where people can learn and grow.
  3. You have to look at how they have learned in their resume.
  4. You have to look at their technical leadership roles. Yes, they will show you technical leadership in their list of accomplishments. They will have made things better in any number of dimensions.
  5. You need to look at the non-technical skills, such as facilitation, collaboration, coaching, initiative, taking small steps to make progress, all the things I mentioned in Hiring for an Agile Team: Making Tradeoffs.

Remember, you want generalizing specialists. True specialists introduce a cost of delay into your projects. They end up with a queue of work and they introduce a delay, or they multitask.

Categories: Project Management

Make Stories Small When You Have "Wicked" Problems

Fri, 11/21/2014 - 15:10

If you read my Three Alternatives to Making Smaller Stories, you noticed one thing. In each of these examples, the problem was in the teams’ ability to show progress and create interim steps. But, what about when you have a “wicked” problem, when you don’t know if you can create the answer?

If you are a project manager, you might be familiar with the idea of “wicked” problems from   from the book Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions: A Catalog of Modern Engineering Paradigms. If you are a designer/architect/developer, you might be familiar with the term from Rebecca Wirfs-Brock’s book, Object Design: Roles, Responsibilities, and Collaborations.

You see problems like this in new product development, in research, and in design engineering. You see it when you have to do exploratory design, where no one has ever done something like this before.

Your problem requires innovation. Maybe your problem requires discussion with your customer or your fellow designers. You need consensus on what is a proper design.

When I taught agile to a group of analog chip designers, they created landing zones, where they kept making tradeoffs to fit the timebox they had for the entire project, to make sure they made the best possible design in the time they had available.

If you have a wicked problem, you have plenty of risks. What do you do with a risky project?

  1. Staff the project with the best people you can find. In the past, I have used a particular kind of “generalizing specialist,” the kind where the testers wrote code. The kind of developers who were also architects. These are not people you pick off the street. These are people who are—excuse me—awesome at their jobs. They are not interchangeable with other people. They have significant domain expertise in how to solve the problem. That means they understand how to write code and test.
  2. Help those generalizing specialists learn how to ask questions at frequent points in the project. In my inch-pebble article, I said that with a research project, you use questions to discover what you need to know. The key is to make those questions small enough, so you can show progress every few days or at least once week. Everyone in the project needs to build trust. You build trust by delivering. The project team builds trust by delivering answers, even if they don’t deliver working code.
  3. You always plan to replan. The question is how often? I like replanning often. If you subscribed to my Reflections newsletter (before the Pragmatic Manager), back in 1999, I wrote an article about wicked projects and how to manage the risks.
  4. Help the managers stop micromanaging. The job of a project manager is to remove obstacles for the team. The job of a manager is to support the team. Either of those manager-types might help the team by helping them generate new questions to ask each week. Neither has the job of asking “when will you be done with this?” See Adam Yuret’s article The Self-Abuse of Sprint Commitment.

Now, in return, the team solving this wicked problem owes the organization an update every week, or, at the most, every two weeks about what they are doing. That update needs to be a demo. If it’s not a demo, they need to show something. If they can’t in an agile project, I would want to know why.

Sometimes, they can’t show a demo. Why? Because they encountered a Big Hairy Problem.

Here’s an example. I suffer from vertigo due to loss of (at least) one semi-circular canal in my inner ear. My otoneurologist is one of the top guys in the world. He’s working on an implantable gyroscope. When I started seeing him four years ago, he said the device would be available in “five more years.”

Every year he said that. Finally, I couldn’t take it anymore. Two years ago, I said, “I’m a project manager. If you really want to make progress, start asking questions each week, not each year. You won’t like the fact that it will make your project look like it’s taking longer, but you’ll make more progress.” He admitted last year that he took my advice. He thinks they are down to four years and they are making more rapid progress.

I understand if a team learns that they don’t receive the answers they expect during a given week. What I want to see from a given week is some form of a deliverable: a demo, answers to a question or set of questions, or the fact that we learned something and we have generated more questions. If I, as a project manager/program manager, don’t see one of those three outcomes, I wonder if the team is running open loop.

I’m fine with any one of those three outcomes. They provide me value. We can decide what to do with any of those three outcomes. The team still has my trust. I can provide information to management, because we are still either delivering or learning. Either of those outcomes provides value. (Do you see how a demo, answers or more questions provides those outcomes? Sometimes, you even get production-quality code.)

Why do questions work? The questions work like tests. They help you see where you need to go. Because you, my readers, work in software, you can use code and tests to explore much more rapidly than my otoneurologist can. He has to develop a prototype, test in the lab and then work with animals, which makes everything take longer.

Even if you have hardware or mechanical devices or firmware, I bet you simulate first. You can ask the questions you need answers to each week. Then, you answer those questions.

Here are some projects I’ve worked on in the past like this:

  • Coding the inner loop of an FFT in microcode. I knew how to write the inner loop. I didn’t know if the other instructions I was also writing would make the inner loop faster or slower. (This was in 1979 or so.)
  • Lighting a printed circuit board for a machine vision inspection application. We had no idea how long it would take to find the right lighting. We had no idea what algorithm we would need. The lighting and algorithm were interdependent. (This was in 1984.)
  • With clients, I’ve coached teams working on firmware for a variety of applications. We knew the footprint the teams had to achieve and the dates that the organizations wanted to release. The teams had no idea if they were trying to push past the laws of physics. I helped the team generate questions each week to direct their efforts and see if they were stuck or making progress.
  • I used the same approach when I coached an enterprise architect for a very large IT organization. He represented a multi-thousand IT organization who wanted to revamp their entire architecture. I certainly don’t know architecture. I know how to make projects succeed and that’s what he needed. He used the questions to drive the projects.

The questions are like your tests. You take a scientific approach, asking yourself, “What questions do I need to answer this week?” You have a big question. You break that question down into smaller questions, one or two that you can answer (you hope) this week. You explore like crazy, using the people who can help you explore.

Exploratory design is tricky. You can make it agile, also. Don’t assume that the rest of your project can wait for your big breakthrough.  Use questions like your tests. Make progress every day.

I thank Rebecca Wirfs-Brock for her review of this post. Any remaining mistakes are mine.

Categories: Project Management

Three Alternatives for Making Smaller Stories

Wed, 11/19/2014 - 19:02

When I was in Israel a couple of weeks ago teaching workshops, one of the big problems people had was large stories. Why was this a problem? If your stories are large, you can’t show progress, and more importantly, you can’t change.

For me, the point of agile is the transparency—hey, look at what we’ve done!—and the ability to change. You can change the items in the backlog for the next iteration if you are working in iterations. You can change the project portfolio. You can change the features. But, you can’t change anything if you continue to drag on and on and on for a give feature. You’re not transparent if you keep developing a feature. You become a black hole.

Managers start to ask, “What you guys doing? When will you be done? How much will this feature cost?” Do you see where you need to estimate more if the feature is large? Of course, the larger the feature, the more you need to estimate and the more difficult it is to estimate well.

Pawel Brodzinski said this quite well last year at the Agile conference, with his favorite estimation scale. Anything other than a size 1 was either too big or the team had no clue.

The reason Pawel and I and many other people like very small stories—size of 1—means that you deliver something every day or more often. You have transparency. You don’t invest a ton of work without getting feedback on the work.

The people I met a couple of weeks ago felt (and were) stuck. One guy was doing intricate SQL queries. He thought that there was no value until the entire query was done. Nope, that’s where he is incorrect. There is value in interim results. Why? How else would you debug the query? How else would you discover if you had the database set up correctly for product performance?

I suggested that every single atomic transaction was a valuable piece. That the way to build small stories was to separate this hairy SQL statement was at the atomic transaction. I bet there are other ways, but that was a good start. He got that aha look, so I am sure he will think of other ways.

Another guy was doing algorithm development. Now, I know one issue with algorithm development is you have to keep testing performance or reliability or something else when you do the development. Otherwise, you fall off the deep end. You have an algorithm tuned for one aspect of the system, but not another one. The way I’ve done this in the past is to support algorithm development with a variety of tests.

Testing Continuum from Manage It!This is the testing continuum from Manage It! Your Guide to Modern, Pragmatic Project Management. See the unit and component testing parts? If you do algorithm development, you need to test each piece of the algorithm—the inner loop, the next outer loop, repeat for each loop—with some sort of unit test, then component test, then as a feature. And, you can do system level testing for the algorithm itself.

Back when I tested machine vision systems, I was the system tester for an algorithm we wanted to go “faster.” I created the golden master tests and measured the performance. I gave my tests to the developers. Then, as they changed the inner loops, they created their own unit tests. (No, we were not smart enough to do test-driven development. You can be.) I helped create the component-level tests for the next-level-up tests. We could run each new potential algorithm against the golden master and see if the new algorithm was better or not.

I realize that you don’t have a product until everything works. This is like saying in math that you don’t have an answer until you have the finished the entire calculation. And, you are allowed—in fact, I encourage you—to show your interim work. How else can you know if you are making progress?

Another participant said that he was special. (Each and every one of you is special. Don’t you know that by now??) He was doing firmware development. I asked if he simulated the firmware before he downloaded to the device. “Of course!” he said. “So, simulate in smaller batches,” I suggested. He got that far-off look. You know that look, the one that says, “Why didn’t I think of that?”

He didn’t think of it because it requires changes to their simulator. He’s not an idiot. Their simulator is built for an entire system, not small batches. The simulator assumes waterfall, not agile. They have some technical debt there.

Here are the three ways, in case you weren’t clear:

  1. Use atomic transactions as a way to show value when you have a big honking transaction. Use tests for each atomic transaction to support your work and understand if you have the correct performance on each transaction.
  2. Break apart algorithm development, as in “show your work.” Support your algorithm development with tests, especially if you have loops.
  3. Simulate in small batches when you have hardware or firmware. Use tests to support your work.

You want to deliver value in your projects. Short stories allow you to do this. Long stories stop your momentum. The longer your project, and the more teams (if you work on a program), the more you need to keep your stories short. Try these alternatives.

Do you have other scenarios I haven’t discussed? Ask away in the comments.

This turned into a two-parter. Read Make Stories Small When You Have “Wicked” Problems.

Categories: Project Management

Have You Signed Up for the Conscious Software Development Telesummit?

Tue, 11/18/2014 - 19:14

Do you know about the Conscious Software Development Telesummit? Michael Smith is interviewing more than 20 experts about all aspects of software development, project management, and project portfolio management. He’s releasing the interviews in chunks, so you can  listen and not lose work time. Isn’t that smart of him?

If you haven’t signed up yet, do it now. You get access to all of the interviews, recordings, and transcripts for all the speakers. That’s the Conscious Software Development Telesummit. Because you should make conscious decisions about what to do for your software projects.

Categories: Project Management

Five Tips for Tactical Management

Tue, 10/28/2014 - 18:15

Sometimes, you just need to get on with the work. You need to give yourself some breathing room so you can think for a while. Here are some tips that will help you tackle the day-to-day management work:

  1. Schedule and conduct your one-on-ones. Being a manager means you make room for  the people stuff: the one-on-ones, the coaching and feedback or the meta-coaching or the meta-feedback that you offer in the one-on-ones. Those actions are tactical and if you don’t do them, they become strategic.
  2. As a manager, make sure you have team meetings. No, not serial status meetings. Never those. Problem solving meetings, please. The more managers you manage, the more critical this step is. If you miss these meetings, people notice. They wonder what’s wrong with you and they make up stories. While the stories might be interesting, you do not want people making stories up about what is wrong with you or your management, do you?
  3. Stop multitasking and delegate. Your people are way more capable than you think they are. Stop trying to do it all. Stop trying to do technical work if you are a manager. Take pride in your management work and do the management work.
  4. Stop estimating on behalf of your people. This is especially true for agile teams. If you don’t like the estimate, ask them why they think it will take that long, and then work with them on removing obstacles.
  5. If you have leftover time, it’s time to work on the strategic work. What is the most important work you and your team can do? What is your number one project? What work should you not be doing?  This is project portfolio management. You might find it difficult to make these decisions. But the more you make these decisions, the better it is for you and your group.

Okay, there are your five tips. Happy management.

Categories: Project Management

Is Your Culture Working the Way You Think it Is?

Tue, 10/21/2014 - 16:14

Long ago, I was a project manager and senior engineer for a company undergoing a Change Transformation. You know the kind, where the culture changes, along with the process. The senior managers had bought into the changes. The middle managers were muddling through, implementing the changes as best they could.

Us project managers and the technical staff, we were the ones doing the bulk of the changes. The changes weren’t as significant as an agile transformation, but they were big.

One day, the Big Bosses, the CEO and the VP Engineering spoke at an all-hands meeting. “You are empowered,” they said. No, they didn’t say it as a duet. They each said it separately. They had choreographed speeches, with great slide shows, eight by ten color glossies, and pictures. They had a vision. They just knew what the future would hold.

I managed to keep my big mouth shut.

The company was not doing well. We had too many managers for not enough engineers or contracts. If you could count, you could see that.

I was traveling back and forth to a client in the midwest. At one point, the company owed me four weeks of travel expenses. I quietly explained that no, I was not going to book any more airline travel or hotel nights until I was paid in full for my previous travel.

“I’m empowered. I can refuse to get on a plane.”

That did not go over well with anyone except my boss, who was in hysterics. He thought it was quite funny. My boss agreed I should be reimbursed before I racked up more charges.

Somehow, they did manage to reimburse me. I explained that from now on, I was not going to float the company more than a week’s worth of expenses. If they wanted me to travel, I expected to be reimbursed within a week of travel. I got my expenses in the following Monday. They could reimburse me four days later, on Friday.

“But that’s too fast for us,” explained one of the people in Accounting.

“Then I don’t have to travel every other week,” I explained. “You see, I’m empowered. I’ll travel after I get the money for the previous trip. I won’t make a new reservation until I receive all the money I spent for all my previous trips. It’s fine with me. You’ll just have to decide how important this project is. It’s okay.”

The VP came to me and tried to talk me out of it. I didn’t budge. (Imagine that!) I told him that I didn’t need to float the company money. I was empowered.

“Do you like that word?”

“Sure I do.”

“Do you feel empowered?”

“Not at all. I have no power at all, except over my actions. I have plenty of power over what I choose to do. I am exercising that power. I realized that during your dog and pony show.

“You’re not changing our culture. You’re making it more difficult for me to do my job. That’s fine. I’m explaining how I will work.”

The company didn’t get a contract it had expected. It had a layoff. Guess who got laid off? Yes, I did. It was a good thing. I got a better job for more money. And, I didn’t have to travel every other week.

Change can be great for an organization. But telling people the culture is one thing and then living up to that thing can be difficult. That’s why this month’s management myth is Myth 34: You’re Empowered Because I Say You Are.

I picked on empowerment. I could have chosen “open door.” Or “employees are our greatest asset.” (Just read that sentence. Asset???)

How you talk about culture says a lot about what the culture is. Remember, culture is how you treat people, what you reward, and what is okay to talk about.

Go read Myth 34: You’re Empowered Because I Say You Are.

Categories: Project Management

Podcast with Cesar Abeid Posted

Wed, 10/15/2014 - 15:42

Cesar Abeid interviewed me, Project Management for You with Johanna Rothman. We talked about my tools for project management, whether you are managing a project for yourself or managing projects for others.

We talked about how to use timeboxes in the large and small, project charters, influence, servant leadership, a whole ton of topics.

I hope you listen. Also, check out Cesar’s kickstarter campaign, Project Management for You.

Categories: Project Management

Small Internal Releases Lead to Happy Customers

Thu, 10/09/2014 - 14:42

If you saw Large Program? Release More Often, you might have noted that I said,

You want to release all the time inside your building. You need the feedback, to watch the product grow.

Some of my clients have said, “But my customers don’t want the software that often.” That might be true.  You may have product constraints, also. If you are working on a hardware/software product, you can’t integrate the software with the hardware either until the hardware is ready or that often.

I’m not talking about releasing the product to the customers. I’m not talking about integrating the software with the hardware. I’m talking about small, frequent, fully functional releases that help you know that your software is actually done.

You don’t need hardening sprints. Or, if you do, you know it early. You know you have that technical debt now, not later. You can fix things when the problem is small. You see, I don’t believe in hardening sprints.

Hardening sprints mean you are not getting to done on your features. They might be too big. Your developers are not finishing the code, so the testers can’t finish the tests. Your testers might not be automating enough. Let’s not forget architectural debt. It could be any number of things. Hardening sprints are a sign that “the software is not done.” Wouldn’t you like to know that every three or four weeks, not every ten or twelve? You could fix it when the problem is small and easier to fix.

Here’s an example. I have a number of clients who develop software for the education market.  One of them said to me, “We can’t release all the time.”

I said, “Sure, you can’t release the grading software in the middle of the semester. You don’t want to upset the teachers. I get that. What about the how-to-buy-books module? Can you update that module?”

“Of course. That’s independent. We’re not sure anyone uses that in the middle of the semester anyway.”

I was pretty sure I knew better. Teachers are always asking students to buy books. Students procrastinate. Why do you think they call it “Student syndrome”? But I decided to keep my mouth shut. Maybe I didn’t know better. The client decided to try just updating the buy-the-book module as they fixed things.

The client cleaned up the UI and fixed irritating defects. They released internally every two weeks for about six weeks. They finally had the courage to release mid-semester. A couple of schools sent emails, asking why they waited so long to install these fixes. “Please fix the rest of these problems, as soon as you can. Please don’t wait.”

The client had never released this often before. It scared them. It didn’t scare their customers. Their customers were quite happy. And, the customers didn’t have all the interim releases; they had the planned mini-releases that the Product Owner planned.

My client still doesn’t release every day. They still have an internal process where they review their fixes for a couple of weeks before the fixes go live. They like that. But, they have a schedule of internal releases that is much shorter than what they used to have. They also release more often to their customers. The customers feel as if they have a “tighter” relationship with my client. Everyone is happier.

My client no longer has big-bang external releases. They have many small internal releases. They have happier customers.

That is what I invite you to consider.

Release externally whenever you want. That is a business decision. Separate that business decision from your ability to release internally all the time.

Consider moving to a continuous delivery model internally, or as close as you can get to continuous delivery internally. Now, you can decide what you release externally. That is a business decision.

What do you need to do to your planning, your stories, your technical practices to do so?

Categories: Project Management

Large Program? Release More Often

Wed, 10/08/2014 - 14:47

I’m working on the release planning chapter for Agile and Lean Program Management: Collaborating Across the Organization. There are many ways to plan releases. But the key? Release often. How often? I suggest once a month.

Yes, have a real, honest-to-goodness release once a month.

I bet that for some of you, this is counter-intuitive. “We have lots of teams. Lots of people. Our iterations are three weeks long. How can we release once a month?”

Okay, release every three weeks. I’m easy.

Look, the more people and teams on your program, the more feedback you need. The more chances you have for getting stuck, being in the death spiral of slowing inertia. What you want is to gain momentum.

Large programs magnify this problem.

If you want to succeed with a large agile program, you need to see progress, wherever it is. Hopefully, it’s all over the program. But, even if it’s not, you need to see it and get feedback. Waiting for feedback is deadly.

Here’s what you do:

  1. Shorten all iterations to two weeks or less. You then have a choice to release every two or four weeks.
  2. If you have three-week iterations, plan to release every three weeks.
  3. Make all features sufficiently small so that they fit into an iteration. This means you learn how to make your stories very small. Yes, you learn how. You learn what a feature set (also known as a theme) is. You learn to break down epics. You learn how to have multiple teams collaborate on one ranked backlog. Your teams start to swarm on features, so the teams complete one feature in one iteration or in flow.
  4. The teams integrate all the time. No staged integration.

Remember this picture, the potential for release frequency?

Potential Release Frequency

Potential for Release Frequency

That’s the release frequency outside your building.

I’m talking about your internal releasing right now. You want to release all the time inside your building. You need the feedback, to watch the product grow.

In agile, we’re fond of saying, “If it hurts, do it more often.” That might not be so helpful. Here’s a potential translation:  “Your stuff is too big. Make it smaller.”

Make your release planning smaller. Make your stories smaller. Integrate smaller chunks at one time. Move one story across the board at one time. Make your batches smaller for everything.

When you make everything smaller (remember Short is Beautiful?), you can go bigger.

Categories: Project Management

Management Feedback: Are You Abrasive or Assertive?

Thu, 10/02/2014 - 14:37

Let me guess. If you are a successful woman, in the past, you’ve been told you’re too abrasive, too direct, maybe even too assertive. Too much. See The One Word Men Never See In Their Performance Reviews.

Here’s the problem. You might be.

I was.

But never in the “examples” my bosses provided. The “examples” they provided were the ones when I advocated for my staff. The ones where I made my managers uncomfortable. The examples, where, if I had different anatomy, they would have relaxed afterwards, and we’d gone out for a beer.

But we didn’t.

Because my bosses could never get over the fact that I was a woman, and “women didn’t act this way.” Now, this was more than 20 years ago. (I’ve been a consultant for 20 years.) But, based on the Fast Company article, it doesn’t seem like enough culture has changed.

Middle and senior managers, here’s the deal: At work, you want your managers to advocate for their people. You want this. This is a form of problem-solving. Your first-line and middle managers see a problem. If they don’t have the entire context, explain the context to them. Now, does that change anything?

If it does, you, senior or middle manager, have been derelict in your management responsibility. Your first-line manager might have been able to solve the problem with his/her staff without being abrasive if you had explained the context earlier. Maybe you need to have more one-on-ones. Maybe all your first-line managers could have solved this problem in your staff meeting, as a cross-functional team. Are you canceling one-on-ones or canceling problem-solving meetings? Don’t do that.

Do you have a first-line manager who doesn’t want to be a manager? Maybe you fell prey to the myth of promoting the best technical person into a management position. You are not alone. Find someone who wants to work with people, and ask that person to try  management.

We all need feedback. Managers need feedback, too. Because managers leverage the work of others, they need feedback even more than technical people.

If you think a manager on your management team is “too” abrasive or assertive,” ask yourself, is this person female? Then ask yourself, “Would I say the same thing if this person looked as if she could be a large sports figure, male attributes and all?”

You see, the fact that I have the physical attributes of a short, kind-of cute woman has not bothered me one bit. I feel seven feet tall. I often act like it. I am not afraid to take chances or calculated risks. I am not afraid to talk to anyone in the organization about anything. How else would I accomplish the work that needs to be done? (You may have noticed that I write tall, too.)

Abrasive and assertive are code words for fearless problem solvers. Don’t penalize the women—or the men—in your organization who are fearless problem solvers.

Categories: Project Management

Scale Agile With Small-World Networks Posted

Mon, 09/29/2014 - 15:59

I posted my most recent Pragmatic Manager newsletter, Scale Agile With Small-World Networks on my site.

This is a way you can scale agile out, not up. No hierarchies needed.

Small-world networks take advantage of the fact that people want to help other people in the organization. Unless you have created MBOs (Management By Objectives) that make people not want to help others, people want to see the entire product succeed. That means they want to help others. Small-world networks also take advantage of the best network in your organization—the rumor mill.

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please do subscribe. I let my readers know about specials that I run for my books and when new books come out first.

Categories: Project Management

One Experimental Possibility: Self-Organization from Component Teams to Feature Teams

Tue, 09/23/2014 - 12:24

If you are organized as platform team, middleware, and front-end teams, you have a  component team organization. That made sense at one point in your history. But if you are transitioning to agile or have transitioned, and if you want to use agile on a program, that might not make much sense now.

If you have a program,  you  have many people in your teams. Your platform team might not be 7 people, but several teams, maybe 50 people, if you are large enough for a program. Your middleware teams could be another 100 people, and your front-end teams could be another 100 people. You have lots of people and lots of teams.

I bet you do not have an even ratio of platform, middleware, and front-end teams. You have experts, here, there, and everywhere. And, if you are anything like my clients, you have trouble releasing features in an agile program.

What are the problems?

  • You have experts embedded in a wide variety of teams
  • The experts need to multitask to serve a variety of projects, so you incur a cost of delay to multitasking and queues
  • You are not releasing features. You have trouble when the components come together.

Even if the teams are agile, your program, the collection of projects is not agile.

What can you do?

You can ask the organization to try this as an experiment, for no longer than 2 weeks:

  • The only measure of success is running tested features. And, no one, especially no manager, gets to compare teams. This is an experiment that the organization is going to learn from. Some teams will have small and easy features. Some teams will not. This is not a competition. If you start comparing teams, the teams will game this measure and the organization will lose the learning. It’s not about the number of features. It’s about learning how to manage the stream of features through feature teams.
  • Ask three teams to volunteer: one platform, one middleware, and one front-end team. If more teams want to volunteer, fine. But you need three.
  • Those teams stop multitasking. Those teams agree on one ranked backlog among the three teams.  (I know, this might be the most difficult thing your organization has tried. I know you have experts. Ignore the fact you need experts everywhere. Agree on only one ranked backlog.)
  • Ask these three teams to self-organize as feature teams for now. No changing managers. No changing desks. They get to decide how to organize. If you are a manager, no decreeing who is a feature team with whom. Let the teams decide who is on what team. This works best in one large room. However, I have seen geographically distributed teams who were desperate to release a feature do this over distance.
  • Ask the Product Owner for these teams to make the stories as small as they can make them, preferably one or two team-days or less. This could be a huge challenge for the Product Owner. That’s okay. This is an experiment. I recommend a kanban board and limiting work in progress for this experiment.
  • Tell the teams that if they don’t have the expert they need for a story, that’s okay. They can pair, swarm, or mob together to get the story done. But, they are not allowed to interrupt another team.
  • The teams work on their backlog for this experiment (not any longer). They see what happens when everyone works in feature teams of their own making and no one multitasks, to get features to done. Remember, this is an experiment.
  • Retrospect at the end of this experiment so they can see what happened.
  • Decide what to do next. This is an experiment.

To sum: One self-organizing team, composed of platform, middleware, and front-end people. One backlog. One product owner. No longer than two weeks. Visualize the workflow. Limit work in progress. The only measure of success is running, tested features. No multitasking. Retrospect at the end. See what happens.

There are many things that can go wrong. But, there are many possibilities of learning here. This works best if the managers step back and don’t interfere. It works best with collocated teams. You can do this (and I have) with geographically distributed teams.

When I’ve facilitated this, the teams learn tons about how to work together and what they needed to do for their program. In several organizations, they wanted to do this again as an experiment.

Managers have to allow the teams to organize the way the product requires. Otherwise, you have Conway’s Law in spades.

When I have done this, I have had these results:

  • Most of the time, the teams were able to finish some of the features in their backlog without too much trouble. These features required some of the team to work together, either discussing the feature, or pairing.
  • They were able to finish most of the features in their backlog with a little trouble. These features required the entire team to work together.
  • Some of their features were too large to finish in the timebox.

These results don’t surprise me. I bet they don’t surprise you.

Every so often, teams have trouble finishing any features. They learned that they did not have sufficient expertise to do anything on their features in their backlog. One team spiked a feature for a day, swarming on it. They had more questions than when they started. They needed an expert who was in another team.

If you put the focus on releasing running, tested features, that is what people will do. But you have to focus on it.

Component teams aren’t bad, per se. But component teams don’t get you running, tested features. This is one possibility. Based on your experiment and reflection, you could try something else.

Categories: Project Management

Change is Learning: No Silver Bullets or Quick Fixes

Fri, 09/19/2014 - 14:33

Way back when I was a developer, my professors taught me structured design and design by contract. Those were supposed to be the silver bullets for programming.  You see, if you specified things enough, and structured things enough, everything would all work out.

I thought I was the only idiot that structure and specification didn’t work for. Why did I have to iterate and increment?

At my first job, we had design reviews and code reviews. I learned a lot. I worked on a government contract, and the government mandated those reviews. They were useful, and they were supposed to be a silver bullet. Because we implemented features (yes, back in the ’70s, we implemented features), the reviews were helpful in the small.

But, I worked on a program. There is just so much design by contract can do for a program. I was in Boston. I had questions for my counterpart in New Mexico. I was not allowed to talk to that person. (To this day, I don’t know who that person was. That person was part of another subcontractor.) I had to send my questions up through the project management layers to the program team and down the other side. My questions never did get answered. I left that company before I knew if my code worked with the entire system.

I transitioned into project management, program management and people management. I have seen my share of fads, bullets, and fixes for the software departments.

As a director in the early ’90’s I got sent to TQM school (Total Quality Management). My company thought it would change the way we managed, and revolutionize our organization. It would be our “silver bullet.” I’m pretty sure those were somebody’s words. They weren’t mine.

I got a certificate for my five days of intensive training (powerpoint and calculations). I might still have it somewhere.

I became excellent at calculating many costs: the cost of quality, the cost of not doing things right,  the cost of technical debt, even what we might consider the cost of delay. I dutifully explained these costs to my senior management. Was I able to persuade my company of the cost of not doing the right thing, even though I was a middle manager, a program manager, and had been TQM’d?

No. My management was too concerned that doing things “right” would prevent us from making money. I had data—yes, data—that proved them wrong. But their belief systems overcame my data.

Later, after I started my consulting business, many of my clients fell into the ISO 9000 and the CMM/CMMI quick fix/silver bullet traps. The ISO joke made the rounds: “You could specify a cement life jacket with ISO, as long as you define the right process for creating it.” Well, no. But the jokes still persisted. (Many people find value in ISO. Some do not.)

And, with the CMM/CMMI? Oh, my clients had binders full of documentation, but they weren’t releasing software. They hired me on the side, because their silver bullet of CMM/CMMI process wasn’t working. Somehow, my approaches of timeboxes and increments, and iterations, and thinking about their projects was. (Many people find  value in using CMM/CMMI. Some do not.)

Now we have agile. If you read my work, you know I lean towards agile and lean. At the same time, I say that agile is not for everyone. Agile is not a silver bullet.

We have no silver bullets in software.

We have difficult problems to solve. We must think about our approaches, each and every time. We must consider our context. That why I wrote Manage It! Your Guide to Modern, Pragmatic Project Management. Because every single project is unique. That’s why I’m writing Agile and Lean Program Management: Collaborating Across the Organization. That book is a principle-based approach to program management, to scaling agile past one or two teams. Not a one-size fits all approach to program management.

And, because we have no silver bullets in software, and because we have no quick fixes, my management myth this month is We Need a Quick Fix or a Silver Bullet.

It’s very tempting to think that transitioning to agile might be a quick fix or a silver bullet. Transitioning to agile or lean might help you. It won’t be quick.

Any transition is a change. Change takes time. Change is learning. Developing software is learning. You can help yourself learn faster with some approaches: make value obvious instead of tasks, get feedback often, visualize your work, etc. For many of you starting your agile journey, these are cultural changes.

The more you challenge the culture, the longer the change takes because people need to learn what to do and how to work. Cultural change is not a silver bullet. It is certainly not a quick fix.

Read Management Myth 33: We Need a Quick Fix or a Silver Bullet.

Categories: Project Management

Projects Where You Can’t Predict an End Date

Tue, 09/16/2014 - 12:50

Do you have projects where you can’t predict an end date? These tend to be a job search, a change project, and with a tip of the hat to Cesar Abeid, your life. I like to call these “emergent” projects.

You might prefer to call them “adaptable” projects, but to me, every project has to be adaptable. These projects are emergent. You need to plan, but not too much. You need to replan. You need to take advantage of serendipity.

My column this quarter for projectmanagement.com is Applying Agile to Emergent Projects. (Free registration required.)

Enjoy!

Categories: Project Management

Cost, Value & Investment: How Much Will This Project Cost? Part 2

Thu, 09/11/2014 - 22:12

This post is continued from Cost, Value & Investment: How Much Will This Project Cost, Part 1

We’ve established that you need to know how much this project will cost. I’m assuming you have more than a small project.

If you have to estimate a project, please read the series starting at Estimating the Unknown: Dates or Budget, Part 1. Or, you could get Essays on Estimation. I’m in the midst of fixing it so it reads like a real book. I have more tips on estimation there.

For a program, each team does this for its own ranked backlog:

  • Take every item on the backlog and roadmap, and use whatever relative sizing approach you use now to estimate. You want to use relative sizing, because you need to estimate everything on the backlog.
  • Tip: If each item on the backlog/roadmap is about team-day or smaller, this is easy. The farther out you go, the more uncertainty you have and the more difficult the estimation is. That’s why this is a tip.
  • Walk through the entire backlog, estimating as you proceed. Don’t worry about how large the features are. Keep a count of the large features. Decide as a team if this feature is larger than two or three team-days. If it is, keep a count of those features. The larger the features, the more uncertainty you have in your estimate.
  • Add up your estimate of relative points. Add up the number of large features. Now, you have a relative estimate, which based on your previous velocity means something to you. You also have a number of large features, which will decrease the confidence in that estimate.
  • Do you have 50 features, of which only five are large? Maybe you have 75% confidence in your estimate. On the other hand, maybe all your features are large. I might only have 5-10% confidence in the estimate. Why? Because the team hasn’t completed any work yet and you have no idea how long your work will take.
Technical Program with Communities of Practice

Technical Program with Communities of Practice

As a software program team, get together, and assess the total estimate. Why the program team? Because the program team is the cross-functional team whose job is to get the software product to done. It’s not just the software teams—it’s everyone involved in the technical program team.

Note: the teams have to trust Sally, Joe, Henry and Tom to represent them to the software program team. If the teams do not, no one has confidence in any estimate at all. The estimate is a total SWAG.

The delegates to the program team know what their estimates mean individually. Now, they “add” them together, whatever that means. Do you realize why we will call this prediction? Do Sally, Joe, Henry, and Tom have feature teams, service teams, or component teams? Do they have to add time for the experiments as they transition to agile? Do they need to gain the trust of their management? Or, are they already experienced agile feature teams?

The more experienced the teams are at agile, the better the estimate is. The more the teams are feature teams, the better the estimate is. If you are new to agile, or have feature teams, or have a mixed program (agile and non-agile teams), you know that estimate is way off.

Is it time for the software program manager to say, “We have an initial order-of-magnitude prediction. But we haven’t tested this estimate with any work, so we don’t know how accurate our estimates are. Right now our confidence is about 5-10% (or whatever it is) in our estimate. We’ve spent a day or so estimating, because we can spend time delivering, rather than estimating. We need to do a week or two of work, deliver a working skeletong, and then we can tell you more about our prediction. We can better our prediction as we proceed. Remember, back in the waterfall days, we spent a month estimating and we were wrong. This way, you’ll get to see product as we work.”

You want to use the word “prediction” as much as possible, because people understand the word prediction. They hear weather predictions all the time. They know about weather predictions. But when they hear estimates of work, they think you are correct, even if you use confidence numbers, they think you are accurate. Use the word prediction.

Beware of These Program Estimation Traps

There are plenty of potential traps when you estimate programs. Here are some common problems:

  • The backlog is full of themes. You haven’t even gotten to epics, never mind stories. I don’t see how you can make a prediction. That’s like me saying, “I can go from Boston to China on an airplane. Yes, I can. It will take time.” I need more data: which time of year? Mid-week, weekend? Otherwise, I can only provide a ballpark, not a real estimate.
  • Worse, the backlog is full of tasks, so you don’t know the value of a story. “Fix the radio button” does not tell me the value of a story. Maybe we can eliminate the button instead of fix it.
  • The people estimating are not the ones who will do the work, so the estimate is full of estimation bias. Just because work looks easy or looks hard does not mean it is.
  • The estimate becomes a target. This never works, but managers do it all the time. “Sure, my team can do that work by the end of Q1.”
  • The people on your program multitask, so the estimate is wrong. Have you read the Cost of Delay due to Multitasking?
  • Managers think they can predict team size from the estimate. This is the problem of splitting work in the mistaken belief that more people make it easier to do more work. More people make the communications burden heavier.

Estimating a program is more difficult, because bigness makes everything harder. A better way to manage the issues of a program is to decide if it’s worth funding in the project portfolio. Then, work in an agile way. Be ready to change the order of work in the backlog, for teams and among teams.

As a program manager, you have two roles when people ask for estimates. You want to ask your sponsors these questions:

  • How much do you want to invest before we stop? Are you ready to watch the program grow as we build it?
  • What is the value of this project or program?

You want to ask the teams and product owners these questions:

  • Please produce walking skeletons (of features in the product) and build on it
  • Please produce small features, so we can see the product evolve every day

The more the sponsors see the product take shape, the less interested they will be in an overall estimate. They may ask for more specific estimates (when can you do this specific feature), which is much easier to answer.

Delivering working software builds trust. Trust obviates many needs for estimates. If your managers or customers have never had trust with a project or program team before, they will start asking for estimates. Your job is to deliver working software every day, so they stop asking.

Categories: Project Management

Cost, Value & Investment: How Much Will This Project Cost? Part 1

Tue, 09/09/2014 - 13:48

I’ve said before that you cannot use capacity planning for the project portfolio. I also said that managers often want to know how much the project will cost. Why? Because businesses have to manage costs. No one can have runaway projects. That is fair.

If you use an agile or incremental approach to your projects, you have options. You don’t have to have runaway projects. Here are two better questions:

  • How much do you want to invest before we stop?
  • How much value is this project or program worth to you?

You need to think about cost, value, and investment, not just cost when you think about about the project portfolio. If you think about cost, you miss the potentially great projects and features.

However, no business exists without managing costs. In fact, the cost question might be critical to your business. If you proceed without thinking about cost, you might doom your business.

Why do you want to know about cost? Do you have a contract? Does the customer need to know? A cost-bound contract is a good reason.  (If you have other reasons for needing to know cost, let me know. I am serious when I say you need to evaluate the project portfolio on value, not on cost.)

You Have a Cost-Bound Contract

I’ve talked before about providing date ranges or confidence ranges with estimates. It all depends on why you need to know. If you are trying to stay within your predicted cost-bound contract, you need a ranked backlog. If you are part of a program, everyone needs to see the roadmap. Everyone needs to see the product backlog burnup charts. You’d better have feature teams so you can create features. If you don’t, you’d better have small features.

Why? You can manage the interdependencies among and between teams more easily with small features and with a detailed roadmap. The larger the program, the smaller you want the batch size to be. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of money very fast. (The teams will create components and get caught in integration hell. That wastes money.)

Your Customer Wants to Know How Much the Project Will Cost

Why does your customer want to know? Do you have payments based on interim deliverables? If the customer needs to know, you want to build trust by delivering value, so the customer trusts you over time.

If the customer wants to contain his or her costs, you want to work by feature, delivering value. You want to share the roadmap, delivering value. You want to know what value the estimate has for your customer. You can provide an estimate for your customer, as long as you know why your customer needs it.

Some of you think I’m being perverse. I’m not being helpful by saying what you could do to provide an estimate. Okay, in Part 2, I will provide a suggestion of how you could do an order-of-magnitude approach for estimating a program.

Categories: Project Management