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!
Software Development Blogs: Programming, Software Testing, Agile Project Management
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!
Andy Hunt, the Pragmatic Bookshelf publisher, just sent me an email telling me that Manage Your Project Portfolio is featured inÂ La RepĂşblica, Columbia’s “first and most important business newspaper.” That’s because getabstract liked it!Â Â
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.
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?”
“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:Â 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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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:
Here are obstacles mid-level managers or more senior managers might help with:
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.
We talk a lot in agile about generalizing specialists. Scott Ambler has a terrific essay on what a generalizing specialist is:
(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?
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.
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 fromÂ Â 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?
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:
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.Â 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 canÂ 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.
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:
Okay, there are your five tips. Happy management.
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: Youâ€™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.
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.
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.Â 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.Â 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?
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:
Remember this picture, the 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:Â “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.
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.
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 tryÂ 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.
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.
If you are organized as platform team, middleware, and front-end teams, you have aÂ 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,Â youÂ 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?
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:
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:
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.
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.Â 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,Â 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 findÂ value in using CMM/CMMI. Some do not.)
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.
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.)
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:
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 havenâ€™t tested this estimate with any work, so we donâ€™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, youâ€™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:
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:
You want to ask the teams and product owners these questions:
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.
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:
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.Â (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.