Skip to main content

Home/ Agilesparks/ Group items tagged of

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Yuval Yeret

Kanban development oversimplified: a simple explanation of how Kanban adds to the ever-... - 0 views

agileproductdesign.com/...kanban_over_simplified.html

lean kanban

shared by Yuval Yeret on 03 Jun 09 - Cached
  • It’s a lot easier to estimate a story that’s small — which can lead to more accurate estimates, and better predictability.
  • It’s easier to plan with smaller stories. With big stories — stories that might take weeks for a developer to implement — it becomes difficult to plan a development time-box — particularly when the iterations are only a couple of weeks. It seems that only a couple stories fit — and there’s often room for half a story — but how do you build half a story? Splitting them into smaller stories makes it easier to plan those time-boxes.
  • Shrinking stories forces earlier elaboration and decision-making. Where product owners could write their stories fairly generally and consider many of the details later, now breaking them down into smaller stories forces more thinking earlier in a planning lifecycle.
  • ...36 more annotations...
  • Managing little stories forces us to keep better track of how they fit together. Product owners are often asked to break down stories to a level where a single story becomes meaningless. To keep track of what’s meaningful to them and other stakeholders, they often need to keep track of bigger items such as the features of the product and how many stories contribute to building up that feature.
  • The result of these herniated time-box activities is a cycle that’s actually 3-4 times longer than our time-box. To get work done, we’ll use a time-box to elaborate stories, one to develop them, another to more thoroughly test them, and if there are bugs, possibly another to fix them.
  • During an ideal Agile time-box we’ll have frequent discussions between developers, testers, and those on a product owner team — like business analysts, user experience people, and business people. We’ll do this to understand what we need to build and describe what we’ll do to validate the story was really done. When time-boxes are short, there’s less time for this conversation. It’s common to move many of the conversations to detail the story and describe acceptance to the time-box before so we can be ready to really get moving with development when the time-box starts.
  • It’s difficult to fit thorough validation of the story into a short time-box as well. So, often testing slips into the time-box after. Which leaves the nasty problem of what to do with bugs� which often get piped into a subsequent time-box.
  • Anyone who’s attended an Agile planning meeting knows they can often last about an hour longer than you can stand it
  • As time-boxes shrink those on the product owner team and testers find themselves in a constant mode of getting ready for a next time-box and evaluating past time-boxes
  • work long hours, attend lots of meetings, and seem to have less time to be available to help developers with the current time-box. Since their focus is on a future or past time-box, questions about this time-box seem like interruptions. Collaboration decreases and tensions increase. Their work load is heavy, bumpy, not smooth or even.
  • Kanban cards are used to limit the amount of inventory the factory builds. It doesn’t do the Toyota factory any good to build doors faster then they can assemble cars. It just wastes money on excess doors, and parts of doors. Excess work in progress is considered to be waste in Lean manufacturing. (It’s probably waste in non-Lean manufacturing too.) In the above completely made up example, you’ll never have more than 15 finished doors hanging around. (Mudha is Japanese for waste. Learn it to impress your Lean friends.)
  • “Kan” means visual, and “ban” means card or board.
  • Kanban thinking in software development attempts to do a similar thing. We want to limit unnecessary work in progress to be no higher than it needs to be to match the throughput of the team.
  • In Kanban development: time-boxed development is out stories are larger and fewer estimation is optional or out completely velocity is replaced by cycle time
  • Exactly what’s left of Agile if we get rid of time-boxes, change the meaning of stories, and stop measuring velocity. And, exactly what do car doors and Kanban cards have to do with software development? Don’t get hung up on process. Remember, agile development isn’t a process.
  • You might have a column where business analysts spend time tracking down technical details that developers need to understand to write code.
  • These columns aren’t set. You should discuss with your team the phases that stories go through to be completed. Some organization may use columns for writing documentation, or preparing customer service people to support the feature in production.
  • The top is used for stories currently in progress in that phase. The bottom is the buffer. When work for that phase of the story is completed, it moves from “in progress” to the “buffer” where it’ll wait to be pulled into the next phase.
  • When we set limits for work in progress, we’ll set a total number for the process step that includes both “in process” and the “finished buffer” for that process step.
  • Stories must be minimal marketable features
  • To be marketable the feature needs to be large enough to be useful — probably larger than the teeny stories that take a couple days to build and seem to be best practice in Agile development today. A MMF may take weeks to build. But the important thing isn’t how long it takes to build, but that it be understandable and valuable to those who’ll receive it. To identify a MMF some folks ask the question “Would I announce it in my company’s product blog?” If it’s too tiny to mention, then it’s not a MMF.
  • To be lean, we’ll limit the number of stories we allow onto the board. A common formula is to add up all the members of the team in all roles and divide by two. All roles includes developers, analysts, user interfaced designers, testers, deployment people — anyone immediately responsible for getting features to market. For example, if team members total 20, we might limit the number of MMF-style stories on the board to 10.
  • Today developers have finished a story, and s they walk to the Kanban board to move it out of development, they notice their single buffer slot is full — and the “testing in progress” column is filled to its limit. What now? The developers talk to the testers. “We’re really struggling to keep up here. It’ll be till tomorrow morning before we can get some of these stories moved out.” “Hmm�” says a developer “Can we help test?” “Of course you can!” says the tester. “With your help we can get these cleared out by the end of the day.“ The tester grins “I just don’t want you validating a story you implemented.”
  • For the limits of the story process steps, the limit is often half the number of people that can perform the work for that phase of development. For instance if you have 6 developers, you might limit the development in progress column to 3. Now, this will force developers to work together on stories. I do find in practice that this may not work out for all teams — so I often see limits that equal the number of developers (or those that can perform the process step) or often 1.5 * the number of people in a role. Of course if you do this, it’ll raise the overall work in progress — and as you might expect, items will take longer to finish.
  • When a column in a Kanban board is full, we know that group is at capacity. We also know that if this keeps happening that that process step is likely where a bottleneck is.
  • If you’ve ever waited in line for the Pirates of the Caribbean in Disneyland you might remember signs along the way that say “Your wait time from here is 30 minutes” — something like that. Now you can post your own wait times on your Kanban board. At the bottom of your story queue post the average cycle time with wait time. It’ll say something like “Your wait time for a story here is approximately 18 days.” At the top of the queue post the average working cycle time. It might say “your wait time from here is 14 days.”
  • When you place focus on how quickly you can get functionality done, and have the ability to measure just that, then the estimates don’t much matter. In fact, many using a Kanban approach have simply stopped estimating at all. Yes story sizes vary, but being able to give a wait time plus or minus a few days is sufficient for many organizations’ concerns.
  • But, since there’s no development time-box in Kanban development, we’ll measure story-by-story how long they took to complete — the “cycle time” of the story.
  • Some do still estimate stories. Then use those estimates in conjunction with cycle time. Using a spreadsheet we can calculate the average cycle time for stories with a given estimate. If you do this, consider placing a handy chart next to your Kanban board showing estimate in one column, and wait times in adjacent columns. With this you’re answering the real question stakeholders are asking for when they get estimates: “when am I going to see this functionality in the software?”
  • If your stakeholders are like mine, they don’t want to know when they’re going to get this functionality, the want to know when they’re going to get all this functionality. I find that if I place stories into a spreadsheet with start and end dates, and calculate cycle time, if I select an arbitrary time period — say a two or three week time period — I can see how many stories where completed during this time period. For instance I might see the team finished 22 stories in 3 weeks — that’s about 7.3 stories per week. Given a backlog of 100 stories I can reasonably infer that it’ll take between 13 and 14 weeks (100/7.3). That’s yesterday’s weather for Kanban — at least the way I calculate it.
  • If I know that during three week time period there where 15 working days and that 5 developers worked the entire time, that’s 75 developer days. Knowing that lets me calculate the average number of developer days per story: 3.4 (75/22) — Which is darn close to pi — which makes me believe it has to be right. ;-) This number, 3.4, is what XP practitioners referred to as load factor.
  • Evaluation cycles, not development time-boxes
  • The only difference is the cycles aren’t used to plan and commit to stories any longer.
  • The daily standup or daily scrum meeting occurs as normal, but now it occurs in front of the Kanban board. Instead of the regular meeting ritual of checking in with each person to find out what they worked on yesterday and will work on today, the discussion revolves around the Kanban board and what will likely move on and off the board today, where “traffic” seems the heaviest, and what we could do to clear bottlenecks.
  • Reflect every few weeks
  • Lean practices help teams increase throughput. They don’t make developers type faster, rather they draw attention to bottlenecks that slow things down, help you see them and respond to them quicker. Using a Kanban board lets you easily visualize work in progress across different roles and lets you see when someone is taking on too much work simultaneously.
  • Demonstrate every few weeks
  • A task board as it’s commonly used in an agile approach can give you the visualization too. But, widening the task board to separate testing from development from acceptance or other process steps helps me better visualize where things are clogging up — helps me better diagnose problems. And, setting hard limits for process steps and respecting them really makes me deal with the problem in a way that dropping a pile of stories into a sprint or iteration didn’t. But, maybe it’s just me who’s lazy and avoids dealing with tough problems. I’m sure you’d never run into a situation where you and your team let lots of finished development work pile up waiting to be tested.
  • There’s no one as zealous as the newly converted There’s a lot of folks pretty excited about Kanban out there. I am too. Sometimes that zeal takes the form of telling people practicing common agile time-boxed development that they’re wrong. But, I guess I’m crusty enough to know that there’s lots of right ways to succeed and anyone who believes they’ve found the best ways is likely wrong. Don’t let those voicing opinions strongly for, or against, Kanban approaches stop you for digging in deeper and understanding the ideas behind it.
  • Yuval Yeret on 03 Jun 09
     
    one of the best articles about Kanban and its relation to Agile I've encountered so far - focusing on Feature development (not maintenance)
Yuval Yeret

Alistair.Cockburn.us | Agile contracts - 1 views

alistair.cockburn.us/Agile+contracts

Agile Contracts agile-contracts-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 23 Mar 14 - Cached
  • Venture-capital financing model This can be used with any of the above contract forms. In this model, the sponsor gives a round of financing for a certain amount of work, and the contracted company must produce results in order to get more funding. The sponsor can cut their losses at any time if they are not getting the results they need. They can presumably alter the terms of the contract after each work period. The result of a work period need not be working software; it could be a paper study, or a requirements document, or anything the sponsor selects. The venture-capital finance model works well with agile providers, since the agile provider is used to delivering useful, working software early and regularly. I find it an odd irony that the venture capital financiers running start-ups that I have encountered don’t take advantage of their own model to the extent agile teams do. The venture financiers let the evaluation markers occur too far apart in time. If they attached funding to monthly releases, that would oblige the start-up team to think through what it really can accomplish each month. The monthly progress would give the financiers a better sense of the start-up company’s real progress.
  • Venture-capital financing model This can be used with any of the above contract forms. In this model, the sponsor gives a round of financing for a certain amount of work, and the contracted company must produce results in order to get more funding. The sponsor can cut their losses at any time if they are not getting the results they need. They can presumably alter the terms of the contract after each work period. The result of a work period need not be working software; it could be a paper study, or a requirements document, or anything the sponsor selects. The venture-capital finance model works well with agile providers, since the agile provider is used to delivering useful, working software early and regularly. I find it an odd irony that the venture capital financiers running start-ups that I have encountered don’t take advantage of their own model to the extent agile teams do. The venture financiers let the evaluation markers occur too far apart in time. If they attached funding to monthly releases, that would oblige the start-up team to think through what it really can accomplish each month. The monthly progress would give the financiers a better sense of the start-up company’s real progress.
  • Bob Martin’s idea Bob Martin of Object Mentor posted an interesting variant to get around this problem: a base fee per story point, plus a lower-than-usual (close-to or below cost) fee per hour. This biases the contracted company’s to deliver early, but gives them some protection in case work proceeds slower than expected. Bob Martin described it this way:”[A]gree to pay a certain amount for each point completed, plus a certain amount for each hour worked. For example, let’s say you’ve got a project of 1000 points. Let’s also say that a team of four has established an estimated velocity of 50 points per week. This looks like about an 80 man-week job. At $100/hour this would be a $320,000 job. So lets reduce the hourly rate to $30/hour, and ask the customer for $224 per point. This sets up a very interesting dynamic. If the job really does take 80 man-weeks, then it will cost the same. If it takes 100 man-weeks then it will cost $344,000. If it takes 70 man-weeks it will cost $308,000. Notice that this is a small difference for a significant amount of time. Notice also that you, as developer feel strong motivation to be done early, since that increases your true hourly rate.” I have not seen that model in action myself, but several people have written in recommending it.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Bob Martin’s idea Bob Martin of Object Mentor posted an interesting variant to get around this problem: a base fee per story point, plus a lower-than-usual (close-to or below cost) fee per hour. This biases the contracted company’s to deliver early, but gives them some protection in case work proceeds slower than expected. Bob Martin described it this way:”[A]gree to pay a certain amount for each point completed, plus a certain amount for each hour worked. For example, let’s say you’ve got a project of 1000 points. Let’s also say that a team of four has established an estimated velocity of 50 points per week. This looks like about an 80 man-week job. At $100/hour this would be a $320,000 job. So lets reduce the hourly rate to $30/hour, and ask the customer for $224 per point. This sets up a very interesting dynamic. If the job really does take 80 man-weeks, then it will cost the same. If it takes 100 man-weeks then it will cost $344,000. If it takes 70 man-weeks it will cost $308,000. Notice that this is a small difference for a significant amount of time. Notice also that you, as developer feel strong motivation to be done early, since that increases your true hourly rate.” I have not seen that model in action myself, but several people have written in recommending it.
  • Norwegian PS 2000 Standard contract http://dataforeningen.no/?module=Articles;action=ArticleFolder.publicOpenFolder;ID=1044 “The main feature of the contract for software development is that it provides mechanisms for establishing a common understanding between customer and the developer and a flexible iterative model for development suited for an environment of uncertainties and risks.” ...” Stage by stage, iterative development model securing ability to benefit from increasing understanding of the requirements and challenges Close co-operation between supplier and customer Incentives and sanctions in combination with target pricing Procedures for conflict resolution with an expert as a mediator ” You need to order it (it costs several thousand Norwegian kronor):
Yuval Yeret

Is Design Dead? - 0 views

www.martinfowler.com/...designDead.html

eng-practices-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 10 Dec 14 - Cached
  • In its common usage, evolutionary design is a disaster. The design ends up being the aggregation of a bunch of ad-hoc tactical decisions, each of which makes the code harder to alter. In many ways you might argue this is no design, certainly it usually leads to a poor design. As Kent puts it, design is there to enable you to keep changing the software easily in the long term. As design deteriorates, so does your ability to make changes effectively. You have the state of software entropy, over time the design gets worse and worse. Not only does this make the software harder to change, it also makes bugs both easier to breed and harder to find and safely kill. This is the "code and fix" nightmare, where the bugs become exponentially more expensive to fix as the project goes on
  • the planned design approach has been around since the 70s, and lots of people have used it. It is better in many ways than code and fix evolutionary design. But it has some faults. The first fault is that it's impossible to think through all the issues that you need to deal with when you are programming. So it's inevitable that when programming you will find things that question the design. However if the designers are done, moved onto another project, what happens? The programmers start coding around the design and entropy sets in. Even if the designer isn't gone, it takes time to sort out the design issues, change the drawings, and then alter the code. There's usually a quicker fix and time pressure. Hence entropy (again).
  • One way to deal with changing requirements is to build flexibility into the design so that you can easily change it as the requirements change. However this requires insight into what kind of changes you expect. A design can be planned to deal with areas of volatility, but while that will help for foreseen requirements changes, it won't help (and can hurt) for unforeseen changes. So you have to understand the requirements well enough to separate the volatile areas, and my observation is that this is very hard. Now some of these requirements problems are due to not understanding requirements clearly enough. So a lot of people focus on requirements engineering processes to get better requirements in the hope that this will prevent the need to change the design later on. But even this direction is one that may not lead to a cure. Many unforeseen requirements changes occur due to changes in the business. Those can't be prevented, however careful your requirements engineering process.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • The fundamental assumption underlying XP is that it is possible to flatten the change curve enough to make evolutionary design work. This flattening is both enabled by XP and exploited by XP. This is part of the coupling of the XP practices: specifically you can't do those parts of XP that exploit the flattened curve without doing those things that enable the flattening. This is a common source of the controversy over XP. Many people criticize the exploitation without understanding the enabling. Often the criticisms stem from critics' own experience where they didn't do the enabling practices that allow the exploiting practices to work. As a result they got burned and when they see XP they remember the fire.
  • XP's advice is that you not build flexible components and frameworks for the first case that needs that functionality. Let these structures grow as they are needed. If I want a Money class today that handles addition but not multiplication then I build only addition into the Money class. Even if I'm sure I'll need multiplication in the next iteration, and understand how to do it easily, and think it'll be really quick to do, I'll still leave it till that next iteration.
  • You don't want to spend effort adding new capability that won't be needed until a future iteration. And even if the cost is zero, you still don't want to add it because it increases the cost of modification even if it costs nothing to put in. However you can only sensibly behave this way when you are using XP, or a similar technique that lowers the cost of change.
  • My advice to XPers using patterns would be Invest time in learning about patterns Concentrate on when to apply the pattern (not too early) Concentrate on how to implement the pattern in its simplest form first, then add complexity later. If you put a pattern in, and later realize that it isn't pulling its weight - don't be afraid to take it out again.
  • begin by assessing what the likely architecture is. If you see a large amount of data with multiple users, go ahead and use a database from day 1. If you see complex business logic, put in a domain model. However in deference to the gods of YAGNI, when in doubt err on the side of simplicity. Also be ready to simplify your architecture as soon as you see that part of the architecture isn't adding anything.
  • XP design looks for the following skills A constant desire to keep code as clear and simple as possible Refactoring skills so you can confidently make improvements whenever you see the need. A good knowledge of patterns: not just the solutions but also appreciating when to use them and how to evolve into them. Designing with an eye to future changes, knowing that decisions taken now will have to be changed in the future. Knowing how to communicate the design to the people who need to understand it, using code, diagrams and above all: conversation.
Yuval Yeret

How to make a LOT more money using agile - 0 views

www.agileforall.com/...e-a-lot-more-money-using-agile

agile roi agile-roi

shared by Yuval Yeret on 04 Jun 09 - Cached
  • How to make a LOT more money using agile
  • More frequent releases
  • expectations must be set for releases to be smaller but still have significant marketable value.  It also means managing scope for smaller releases so the value can actually be delivered to meet the expectations.  If we make the assumption these two pre-requisites can be handled, then we can also assume faster releases are possible.  Yes, I know, releasing software is expensive, requires other groups, etc.  For now, let’s assume all of those costs are negligible compared to the potential results and see where we end up.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • team of 8 people work on a project for a year with an anticipated ROI of 100% after 2 years.
  • $1,000,000 (approximately) in 12 months to build the product
  • get $2,000,000 in revenue within the 12 months following release.
  • ROI is calculated as $profit/$invested which in this case is ($2,000,000-$1,000,000)/$1,000,000 or 100%
  • cash expended, which in this case exactly matches the investment since we did all of the investment prior to receiving any return.
  • Let’s assume that scope can be managed so the product can be delivered in two phases, each taking 6 months.
  • each piece of the product is worth about half of the revenue value of the complete product
  • 6 months at an investment of $500,000 to build the first piece
  • 6 more months at an additional cost of $500,000 to complete the second half
  • after 6 months revenue starts to be brought in for the first release
  • the amount of revenue during the first 6 months of release of the first half of the product would be $500,000 ($2,000,000 for full product for 12 months = $500,000 for half product for 6 months).
  • matches the cost for building the second half of the product, so the cash expended is actually only $500,000 for building the product vs. $1,000,000 for building the product in one step.
  • After phase 2 of the product is completed it too starts to bring in revenue.  We now have the complete product, so we can get full value of it during each time period.  In other words, during the next 12 months it will generate $2,000,000 in revenue.  This brings total revenue to $2,500,000 which means our ROI is now 300% (higher profit divided by smaller investment - $1,500,000 profit / $500,000 invested).
  • Month Expense Revenue Cash (Profit) Total Revenue 6 $500,000 $0 -$500,000 $0 12 $500,000 $500,000 -$500,000 $500,000 24 $0 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,500,000
Yuval Yeret

Original Scrum-ban Article by Corey Ladas | Lean Software Engineering - 1 views

leansoftwareengineering.com/...scrum-ban

kanban SCrum agile ScrumBan

shared by Yuval Yeret on 19 May 09 - Cached
  • A problem with the basic index-card task board is that there is nothing to prevent you from accumulating a big pile of work in process. Time-boxing, by its nature, sets a bound on how much WIP that can be, but it can still allow much more than would be desirable.
  • then you need another mechanism to regulate the “money supply.” In our case, we simply write the quantity of kanban in circulation on the task board, and allocate new cards according to that limit.
  • You might have a simple principle like: prefer completing work to starting new work, or you might express that as a rule that says: try to work on only one item at a time, but if you are blocked, then you can work on a second item, but no more. In our example, that rule gives us an effective WIP limit of 6.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Just because anybody can have more than one item in process doesn’t mean that everybody should have more than one item in process. A problem with our multitasking rule is that it locally optimizes with no consideration of the whole. An implicit total WIP limit of 6 is still more WIP than we should probably tolerate for our three workers. A limit of 4 of 5 total items in process at one time still allows for some multitasking exceptions, but disallows the obviously dysfunctional behavior of everybody carrying two items
  • The ready queue contains items that are pending from the backlog, but have high priority
  • Here we’ve broken down in-process into two states: specify and execute. Specify is about defining whatever criteria are necessary to determine when the work item can be considered complete. Execute is about doing the work necessary to bring that work item into a state which satisfies those criteria. We have split our previous WIP limit of 5 across these two states. Specify is considered to take less time in this case, so it is given a limit of 2. Execute consumes the remaining limit of 3. We might change this ratio as time goes on and our performance changes.
  • Adding the specify-complete column communicates to the team that a work item which was previously in the specify state is now ready to be pulled by anyone who wants to move it to the execute state. Work that is still in the specify state is not eligible to be pulled yet. If the owner of a ticket in the specify state wants to hand it off, he can put it in the complete buffer. If he doesn’t want to hand it off, he can move it directly into the execute state as long as capacity is available.
  • e will also need some agreement about what results to expect at each handoff. We can do that by defining some simple work standards or standard procedures for each state. These do not have to be complicated or exhaustive. Here, they are simple bullets or checklists drawn directly on the task board.
  • The next event we might consider for scheduling planning activities is the concept of an order point. An order point is an inventory level that triggers a process to order new materials. As we pull items from the backlog into the process, the backlog will diminish until the number of items remaining drops below the order point. When this happens, a notice goes out to the responsible parties to organize the next planning meeting. If our current backlog is 10, our throughput is 1/day, and we set an order point at 5, then this planning will happen about once a week.
Yuval Yeret

James Shore: The Art of Agile Development: Incremental Design and Architecture - 1 views

www.jamesshore.com/...incremental_design.html

eng-practices-list james shore evolutionary design agilearchitecture

shared by Yuval Yeret on 10 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • when you first create a design element—whether it's a new method, a new class, or a new architecture—be completely specific. Create a simple design that solves only the problem you face at the moment, no matter how easy it may seem to solve more general problems
  • Waiting to create abstractions will enable you to create designs that are simple and powerful.
  • The second time you work with a design element, modify the design to make it more general—but only general enough to solve the two problems it needs to solve. Next, review the design and make improvements. Simplify and clarify the code. The third time you work with a design element, generalize it further—but again, just enough to solve the three problems at hand. A small tweak to the design is usually enough. It will be pretty general at this point. Again, review the design, simplify, and clarify. Continue this pattern. By the fourth or fifth time you work with a design element—be it a method, a class, or something bigger—you'll typically find that its abstraction is perfect for your needs. Best of all, because you allowed practical needs to drive your design, it will be simple yet powerful.
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • This is difficult! Experienced programmers think in abstractions. In fact, the ability to think in abstractions is often a sign of a good programmer. Coding for one specific scenario will seem strange, even unprofessional.
  • Continuous Design Incremental design initially creates every design element—method, class, namespace, or even architecture—to solve a specific problem. Additional customer requests guide the incremental evolution of the design. This requires continuous attention to the design, albeit at different time-scales. Methods evolve in minutes; architectures evolve over months. No matter what level of design you're looking at, the design tends to improve in bursts. Typically, you'll implement code into the existing design for several cycles, making minor changes as you go. Then something will give you an idea for a new design approach, requiring a series of refactorings to support it. [Evans] calls this a breakthrough (see Figure). Breakthroughs happen at all levels of the design, from methods to architectures.
  • Don't let design discussions turn into long, drawn-out disagreements. Follow the ten-minute rule: if you disagree on a design direction for ten minutes, try one and see how it works in practice. If you have a particularly strong disagreement, split up and try both as spike solutions. Nothing clarifies a design issue like working code.
  • Risk-Driven Architecture Architecture may seem too essential not to design up front. Some problems do seem too expensive to solve incrementally, but I've found that nearly everything is easy to change if you eliminate duplication and embrace simplicity. Common thought is that distributed processing, persistence, internationalization, security, and transaction structure are so complex that you must consider them from the start of your project. I disagree; I've dealt with all of them incrementally [Shore 2004a]. Two issues that remain difficult to change are choice of programming language and platform. I wouldn't want to make those decisions incrementally!
    • Yuval Yeret
      Yuval Yeret on 12 Jan 15
       
      Possible exercise - Try to come up with various things that are risky to YAGNI. And then order them according to level of risk. Use the examples here to seed the list
  • Limit your efforts to improving your existing design
  • To apply risk-driven architecture, consider what it is about your design that concerns you and eliminate duplication around those concepts
  • Your power lies in your ability to chooose which refactorings to work on. Although it would be inappropriate to implement features your customers haven't asked for, you can direct your refactoring efforts towards reducing risk. Anything that improves the current design is okay—so choose improvements that also reduce future risk.
  • design is so important in XP that we do it all the time
  • Don't try to use incremental design without a commitment to continuous daily improvement (in XP terms, merciless refactoring.) This requires self-discipline and a strong desire for high-quality code from at least one team member. Because nobody can do that all the time, pair programming, collective code ownership, energized work, and slack are important support mechanisms.
  • Test-driven development is also important for incremental design. Its explicit refactoring step, repeated every few minutes, gives pairs continual opportunities to stop and make design improvements. Pair programming helps in this area, too, by making sure that half of the team's programmers—as navigators—always have an opportunity to consider design improvements.
  • Alternatives If you are uncomfortable with XP's approach to incremental design, you can hedge your bets by combining it with up-front design. Start with an up-front design stage and then commit completely to XP-style incremental design. Although it will delay the start of your first iteration (and may require some up-front requirements work, too), this approach has the advantage of providing a safety net without incurring too much risk.
Yuval Yeret

Tailor your Message To Gain Support for your Agile Initiative | Enabling Agility - 0 views

www.enagility.com/r-your-message-to-gain-support

tailor agility agile adoption transformation

shared by Yuval Yeret on 21 May 09 - Cached
  • Connect Agile’s Benefits to your Company’s Priorities
  • aying that Agile is “better, faster, cheaper” may not be enough to cause a company to be willing to go through the often-painful process of cultural and process change.  You could implement Agile, but you could also try Six Sigma or Lean.  Saying that Agile is a general get-better remedy puts it in line with many other get-better methods.
  • f they don’t see a meaningful update from us, at least once a quarter, we’re going to get kicked out of the game.  We’ve all acknowledged that as we’ve gotten bigger, our processes have become more cumbersome and now is the time to do something about it.  Agile will give us the ability to regain that rapid pace of delivering innovations to market that we were know for in our early days.”
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • ur last two releases have looked like me-too updates, where we are just barely keeping up with our competitors
  • We’ve been losing market share
  • If you can refer to a specific business issue and show the linkage, you are much more likely to get a receptive audience.  Here’s an example.
  • The CFO, developer and QA manager have different roles in the organization and their needs are different.  If you want to enlist their support, be sure you know who you are talking to and what they value.
  • Use Focused Messages for Key Individuals or Groups
  • certain volume of people who are enrolled in the idea of Agile before you’ll see adoption start to accelerate,
  • People have specific needs in their role and they want to understand how Agile will affect and benefit them directly.  
  • Developers, on the other hand, probably wants to know if they will have interesting work, the opportunity to learn new things and the ability to make an impact on the company’s products.
  • a QA manager is probably interested in hearing how Agile helps enrich the QA profession.
  • The focus isn’t on Agile, its on business, as it should be.
  • The easiest way to find out what interests someone is to ask them.  When you meet, leave plenty of time for talk.  Motoring through a well-rehearsed Agile presentation usually doesn’t work.  A lot of times I’ll have slides with me, but they are a backdrop for the conversation.  I’ll refer to slides when it helps move the conversation along, but otherwise don’t use them.  You might want to forget slides altogether and just draw things on a whiteboard as necessary.  This technique is particularly useful with an individual or a small group.  
  • Take it One Step Further: Collect Data to Gain Insight
  • you’ll be most effective tailoring your message if you invest some time conducting data through a series of structured interviews. 
  • First, you’ll need a small set of questions prepared for the interviews.  Here are some examples. What is working with our current methodology? What’s not working with our current methodology? How do you think Agile would help our organization? What concerns do you have about Agile?
  • Interview a wide range of people: developers, testers, business analysts, managers, product managers, senior management, project managers and someone from finance. 
  • When you conduct the interviews, it is good to have one interviewer who has the primary responsibility for talking and the other person who has the primary job of taking notes.  You can switch off roles each interview so no one person gets stuck in either role.  Here’s how I typically start off.  
  • stories that people tell about the organization and make sure you write them down
  • I put all of the information we’d gathered into a mind-mapping program (Mindjet) and grouped like things together.
  • Make sure you keep interesting stories intact.  Specifics will help you make your cases
  • When there’s numerical data, people engage with a presentation in an entirely different way than they do when there are stories.  I find stories more effective, but do what works for you.
  • As an Agile evangelist, you job is to get Agile deployed effectively.  Along the way there are many people will be willing to go out of their way to help if you effectively speak to their interests and concerns.
Yuval Yeret

Permanent Link to Feature Flow - Increasing velocity using Kanban - 1 views

blog.xebia.com/...feature-flow-1

lean kanban

shared by Yuval Yeret on 03 Jun 09 - Cached
  • team that had some problems getting their process right
  • their velocity was decreasing and spirits were low. Luckily we managed to change our process by changing some basic Scrum practices and replacing some of them with Lean practices, inspired by the new Kanban articles and presentations. Productivity is now higher than ever and we can now focus on what really matters: product quality and customer satisfaction.
  • one major issue: getting things done. The major symptom was the frustration of management and the team with the project. The first 3-week time box (sprint) ending with about 30% (!) of all features still in progress, when, of course, they should all have been done and ready for shipment.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • existing solution to this problem was to lower the expected velocity each sprint, so the next sprint would be on-time. But at the end of next sprint, the same problem occurred, so the velocity was going down sprint after sprint.
  • pressure of the rest of the organisation for the team to keep up their tempo. This pressure from both sides was crushing morale.
  • The way this team reacted to pressure was to work harder. Most people would have 2 or 3 tasks in progress at the same time. When a developer would finish a task, the testers were too busy testing something else, so they could give the developer direct feedback. When the tester found an issue with a new feature, the developers were already working on something else, so the tester had to wait. Simply put, there was too much focus on working long and hard, not on cooperation and the stuff that actually matters: features.
  • most dysfunctional behaviour comes from the system people are in
  • biggest struggle of this team: pressure & predictability.
  • Most Scrum masters challenge the team to reach the same (or higher) velocity each sprint. This pressure should give a team focus to perform at its best. However, it can also go haywire if the team doesn't deliver. No focus, no pride, no happy customer
  • retrospectives were dismal and planning meetings were a huge burden. The teams' productivity dropped in the days after the sprint, finding new courage to start the next one. Because they had an ineffective work-process, the only outcome of each sprint was to lower the expected velocity, to make sure we would be predictable. Estimation and predictability are only a means to an end and since they were getting in the way of fixing the root cause (and were bringing down the team's spirit) I opted to cut out the planning sessions and sprint deadlines.
  • first change we made was to set a limit of 8 tasks on the 'in progress' column
  • We spent 3 weeks bringing the numbers of open tasks from 21 to 8, without picking up any new work. Of course the team struggled with this new limit. They were used to pick up new work whenever they were blocked somehow, this wasn't allowed any more
Yuval Yeret

Ideal Training for Enterprise-Scale Agility? « Scaling Software Agility - 0 views

scalingsoftwareagility.wordpress.com/...g-for-enterprise-scale-agility

shared by Yuval Yeret on 04 Jun 09 - Cached
  • training strategy for a significant enterprise that is contemplating an “all in” (immediate and across the entire company) enterprise scale transformation approach
  • for the enterprise, a combination of team-based and role-based training that would touch every practitioner is ideal
  • all team practitioners receive a minimum of two days of agile training, (agile team training for the each team in the enterprise)
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • an additional day or so of training for specialized roles of Product Owner, Project/Release Manager, and Agile/Scrum Master
  • All other executives and managers are invited to attend an overview course on scaling software agility
  • Agile for Teams –Essential, team-based training in a two day workshop
  • philosophy, principles, and benefits of agility, agile methods, iterative and release framework, roles, agile technical practices, and agile management practices (Scrum)
  • Agile Release and Project Management at Enterprise Scale – For Project Managers, Release Managers, Program and Portfolio Managers who have responsibility for helping deliver the product(s) to the marketplace. Topics include differences between traditional and agile product management, iteration framework, multi-level release planning and tracking, the agile release train, planning and executing the release planning event, and measuring enterprise progress.
  • Agile Product Owner in the Enterprise – For team-based product owners/candidates who will become responsible for backlog management, story writing, and iteration and release planning, and who will also be involved in the planning and coordination of larger scale software systems of systems built by teams of teams.
  • The Agile Master In The Enterprise – For potential agile team leads/future Scrum Masters who will be coaching agile teams and who will interact with other teams as well. Topics include: process facilitation, enterprise agility, mastering the iteration, team roles, release planning and tracking, agile leadership, empowerment and conflict management, and integration Scrums.
  • Agile Product Manager in the Enterprise – For enterprise product managers with product, product line, portfolio and business unit responsibilities. Topics include: what’s so different about agile, backlog and prioritization, relationship to product owners, PM’s role in release planning and management, visioning and the product roadmap.
  • Scaling Software Agility – Best Practices for Large Enterprises – For executives and key stakeholders in support, distribution, quality, internal IT, HR and all others whose roles will be impacted by the substantive changes that enterprise agile engenders. Part I – overview of agility highlighting lessons learned from the most common and effective agile methods Part II – seven team best practices of agility that natively scale to the enterprise level Part III – seven organizational capabilities that companies can master to achieve the full benefits of enterprise scale agility
  • The team member doesn’t need a CSM course, but he does need to know how to work in an agile environment.
  • what are the engineering practices need to support agile development? I’ve found that if developers only have their existing tools and practices, then they will continue to specify and develop waterfall-style within the sprints.
Yuval Yeret

Managing WIP isn't the same as Limiting WIP: Part 1 - 0 views

www.agilemanagement.net/...ManagingWIPisntthesameasL.html

kanban

shared by Yuval Yeret on 17 Jun 09 - Cached
  • To determine the truth of this we only need to look at the feature sets of the popular tools for managing eXtreme Programming and Scrum such as Rally, VersionOne, ScrumWorks, Mingle and very new tools like Borland Team Focus, to discover that not a single one of these tools allows you to set an explicit WIP limit. None of them provide a pull signal to start new work. Very few of them are even capable of reporting the quantity of work-in-progress.
  • s we learned more about the value of managing WIP, we introduced concepts to encourage and enable it, such as the use of Cumulative Flow Diagrams (a.k.a. Burn Up charts)
  • Agile teams encountering an impediment would generally mark a story as blocked and go on to another one
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • In a truly WIP limited process impediment removal is paramount.
  • So for those who would claim that Scrum and XP limit WIP and pull new work, such as Stephan Schmidt, I would point them to the feature sets of existing Agile tools. These tools do not impliment WIP limits, pull signalling nor are they particularly good at issue management and resolution. Recently, there are 4 new entrants to the Agile tools market. All of them producing WIP limiting Kanban tools including the same Mr. Schmidt. If earlier Agile methods had been truly WIP limited pull methods then tools from encumbent vendors would already reflect this. As a result there would be no market for new entrants such as CodeMonkeyism, AgileZen, LeanKit and RadTrack. More thoughts on managing WIP versus limiting WIP tomorrow... T
Yuval Yeret

Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior - Craig Larman - 0 views

www.craiglarman.com/...index.php

agile-change-management-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 08 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • Yuval Yeret on 08 Jul 14
     
    "Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior After decades of observation and organizational consulting, here are Larman's Laws of Organizational Behavior. These are observations rather than laws to follow ;) 1. Organizations are implicitly optimized to avoid changing the status quo middle- and first-level manager and "specialist" positions & power structures. 2. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be reduced to redefining or overloading the new terminology to mean basically the same as status quo. 3. As a corollary to (1), any change initiative will be derided as "purist", "theoretical", and "needing pragmatic customization for local concerns" -- which deflects from addressing weaknesses and manager/specialist status quo. 4. Culture follows structure. i.e., if you want to really change culture, you have to start with changing structure, because culture does not really change otherwise. and that's why deep systems of thought such as organizational learning are not very sticky or impactful by themselves, and why systems such as scrum (that have a strong focus on structural change at the start) tend to more quickly impact culture. i discovered that john seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization's culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples' behavior (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples' behavior changes." "
Yuval Yeret

Creating an Agile Culture to Drive Organizational Change - 1 views

www.borland.com/...creating-an-agile-culture.html

agile enterprise adoption culture

shared by Yuval Yeret on 15 May 09 - Cached
  • It is critical that everyone has the same understanding of, and commitment to, the desired outcome: a business that is reliable through predictable technology processes that deliver business agility. To do this, there needs to be a management commitment to develop a focused, on-going practice around the pursuit of organizational maturity. As part of this, gaps in skills and capabilities should be identified and positive action – training, coaching, process improvement and tools deployment – taken in order to close the gap
  • the work force needs to understand the business drivers for Agility. They need to be challenged to improve their quality, improve their cycle times, to improve the frequency of releases and the value they deliver to the customer. They need to know how these things fit within the bigger picture and why improvement is their responsibility.
  • To change a culture it's important to recognize that every knowledge worker makes decisions and takes actions that affect the performance of the business. The culture in the organization is the reflection of those decisions and actions.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • all the people understand and internalize the concepts and ideals behind the Agile movement
  • translated into concepts that can be widely applied to the many day-to-day decisions each of them will make
  • internalize and live three principles: making progress with imperfect information; existing in a high trust, high social capital culture; and shortening cycle times. These ideas need to be infused into the workforce at every opportunity.
  • it should spread virally. It can start with just one manager, who educates his immediate direct reports on the concepts and then takes the time to reflect and show how each decision is aligned the principles
  • work-in-progress as a liability rather than an asset.
  • . Every member of the team should be educated to understand it, and to be capable of demonstrating how their decisions and actions are concomitant with it. The Decision Filter is
  • The Agile Decision Filter
  • Delivering quickly can provide immediate value while delay can result in obviated functionality of little value or missing a more lucrative opportunity while completing existing work-in-progress
  • Are we making progress with imperfect information? Or are we trying to be perfect before we start? Does this decision add or maintain trust in our organization and with our partners? Or does it remove trust and breed fear? Are we treating work-in-progress as it if were a liability? Or are we treating it like an asset?
  • the team can start to modify their practices one decision at a time and drive towards a goal of business agility
  • The "transition" to Agile will happen slowly, and supporting the change will require training, coaching and tools – but change will be real and long-lasting.
  • By changing your culture using the simple principles captured in The Agile Decision Filter, teams will adopt Agile. Give it a little time and magic will happen. They will voluntarily change their behaviors and adopt Agile practices. They will behave in a fashion aligned with the principles and values behind The Agile Manifesto. They will not resist because they had a say in the changes, which are tailored specifically to their environment and their needs.
  • this approach may seem less prescriptive and straightforward than an "Agile Change Initiative" project plan. And yes, taking on a management-led Agile Transition Initiative looks faster and cheaper,
  • However, it is all wishful thinking, and the only way to get the payoff is to invest the time and show the courage to lead true Agile change. True Agile change requires you to change the culture. To change the culture, teach all your people how to use the Agile Decision Filter and hold them accountable for every decision they make.
Yuval Yeret

10 Questions to Ask Your Customer for Written or Video Testimonials - 0 views

www.sensiblemarketing.com/...-written-or-video-testimonials

testimonials customer questions

shared by Yuval Yeret on 14 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • How did you get involved with our company? What was the reason that you chose us? 
  • Tell me what your experience has been with our products/services? (Ask for the customer's experience and wisdom.)
  • Can you think of a word or phrase that best describes your relationship with us? Why that particular word or phrase?
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • How has working with us changed the way your company does business?
  • Why would you recommend us to someone else? (This is the key part of the testimonial.) If someone called you and said "Why should I do business with XYZ company", what would you tell them?
  • Yuval Yeret on 14 Mar 16
     
    "Questions to Ask Your Customer for a Written or Video Testimonial Give me a one-minute history of your career (or your success, or your business). (Get them relaxed and comfortable. Everyone loves talking about themselves.) How did you get involved with our company? What was the reason that you chose us?  Was price more important that delivery, service, and quality? (This question gets to the value of the products/services you provide.) Tell me what your experience has been with our products/services? (Ask for the customer's experience and wisdom.) Can you think of a word or phrase that best describes your relationship with us? Why that particular word or phrase? How has working with us changed the way your company does business? Have you had our competitors knock on your door? If so, what did you tell them? Why would you recommend us to someone else? (This is the key part of the testimonial.) If someone called you and said "Why should I do business with XYZ company", what would you tell them?"
Yuval Yeret

InfoQ: Ensuring Success for Self Organizing Teams - 0 views

www.infoq.com/...lf-organization-success-factor

agile management self_org

shared by Yuval Yeret on 08 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Helicopter Managers – who step in too soon to rescue thereby depriving the team to think and solve problems together.
  • Absentee Managers – who would not step in at all irrespective of whether the team has all the necessary skills to tackle the problem.
  • If the team has sufficient skills to solve the problem then give them space else ask questions to help them get unstuck. This would help in building the skills eventually.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • When time is not of the essence give the team time to work the issue. This would improve the team feeling and collaboration.
  • If the solution space is limited in scope and impact, or the decision is reversible, give the team space to solve the problem, even it there's a good chance they'll get it wrong the first time.
  • Tolerate mistakes and allow time for learning – management should not jump in at the first problem. They should allow the team to learn from their mistakes and take corrective action on their own.
  • Clearly define the boundaries – Without this the team is lost on how much they can manage themselves and when should they invoke management help. Without the definition of boundaries, teams err on side of caution and do not take any decision without seeking permission.
  • Keep the team challenged, yet not frustrated- The manager should be aware of the team’s skill level and limitations. He should be able to provide the team with enough challenges to keep them in a state of learning and growth.
  • emphasis on the balanced involvement of management with the team
  • It is important for the managers to be aware of the skill level of the team to step in or stay back at the right moment and act as a catalyst for the team to reach a state of self organization
Yuval Yeret

James Shore: Value Velocity: A Better Productivity Metric? - 0 views

jamesshore.com/...etter-Productivity-Metric.html

agile roi productivity

shared by Yuval Yeret on 24 Jun 09 - Cached
  • *Please note that I'm specifically talking about productivity. Velocity is a great tool for estimating and planning and I'm not trying to change that. It's just not a good measure of productivity.
  • rather than asking your business experts to measure business value after delivery (difficult!), have them estimate it beforehand. Every story (or feature--keep reading) gets an estimate before it's scheduled. At the end of each iteration, add up the value estimates for the stories you completed in that iteration. This is your "value velocity."
  • And rather than reflecting the hours programmers work, as cost velocity does, value velocity actually reflects productivity. Remember, productivity equals output/time. Value estimates are a much better indication of output than cost estimates are.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • It's like traditional velocity, except it's based on your customers' estimates of value rather than your programmers' estimates of cost.
  • stories don't always have value on their own.
  • Although value velocity isn't perfect, a team with consistent value estimates would be able to graph their value velocity over time and see how their productivity changes. This would allow them to experiment with new techniques ("Let's switch pairs every 90 minutes! Now once a week!") and see how they affect productivity. If balanced with actual measures of value and some sort of defect counting, this could be a powerful tool.
  • just estimate and score features rather than stories.
  • Another option would be to pro-rate each feature's estimate across all of the stories required to deliver it.
  • some types of stories don't provide value in the traditional way. What's the value of fixing a nasty crash bug?
  • Third, value velocity is just as vulnerable to gaming as cost velocity is... perhaps more so. I'm not sure how to prevent this.
Yuval Yeret

James Shore: The Art of Agile Development: Simple Design - 0 views

www.jamesshore.com/...simple_design.html

james shore art development

shared by Yuval Yeret on 13 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Simple Design AudienceProgrammers Our design is easy to modify and maintain
  • Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. —Antoine de Saint-Exupéry Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. —Albert Einstein
  • When writing code, agile developers often stop to ask themselves, "What is the simplest thing that could possibly work?" They seem to be obssessed with simplicity. Rather than anticipating changes and providing extensibility hooks and plug-in points, they create a simple design that anticipates as little as possible, as cleanly as possible. Unintuitively, this results in designs that are ready for any change, anticipated or not.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • I don't think XP and patterns are conflicting. It's how you use patterns. The XP guys have patterns in their toolbox, it's just that they refactor to the patterns once they need the flexibility
  • You Aren't Gonna Need It (YAGNI) This pithy XP saying sums up an important aspect of simple design: avoid speculative coding. Whenever you're tempted to add something to your design, ask yourself if it supports the stories and features you're currently delivering. If not, well... you aren't gonna need it. Your design could change. Your customers' minds could change.
  • We do this because excess code makes change difficult. Speculative design, added to make specific changes easy, often turns out to be wrong in some way, which actually makes changes more difficult. It's usually easier to add to a design than to fix a design that's wrong. The incorrect design has code that depends on it, sometimes locking bad decisions in place.
  • Once and Only Once
  • avoid duplication. "Once and only once" is the Extreme Programming phrase. The authors of The Pragmatic Programmer [Hunt & Thomas] use "don't repeat yourself," or the DRY principle.
  • Self-Documenting Code Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter much if you think the design is simple; if the rest of your team or future maintainers of your software find it too complicated, then it is.
  • What if we know we're going to need a feature? Shouldn't we put in a design hook for it? In XP, the plan can change every week. Unless you're implementing the feature that very week, don't put the hook in. The plan could change, leaving you stuck with unneeded code.
  • Results When you create simple designs, you avoid adding support for any features other than the ones you're working on in the current iteration. You finish work more quickly as a result. When you use simple design well, your design supports arbitrary changes easily. Although new features might require a lot of new code, changes to existing code are localized and straightforward.
  • Simple design requires continuous improvement through refactoring and incremental design and architecture. Without it, your design will fail to evolve with your requirements. Don't use simple design as an excuse for poor design. Simplicity requires careful thought. As the Einstein quote at the beginning of this section says, it's a lot easier to create complex designs than simple ones. Don't pretend "simple" means "fastest" or "easiest.
  • Until recently, the accepted best practice in design followed the advice Erich Gamma now disavows: "The key to maximizing reuse lies in anticipating new requirements and changes to existing requirements, and in designing your systems so they can evolve accordingly."
Yuval Yeret

The Product Owner in the Agile Enterprise - 0 views

www.agilejournal.com/...-owner-in-the-agile-enterprise

agile product_owner embedded-agile-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 07 May 09 - Cached
  • Responsibilities Vary by Software Business TypeSince the business mission, organization, operating methods, roles, titles and responsibilities differ dramatically across industry segments, it follows that the patterns of agile adoption vary across these segments as well
  • Information Systems/Information Technology (IS/IT) -teams of teams who develop software to operate the business; accounting, CRM, internal networks, sales force automation and the like. Customers are primarily internal to the enterprise.
  • Embedded Systems (embedded) - teams of teams who develop software that runs on computers embedded in other devices - cell phones, electronic braking systems, industrial controls and the like. Customers may be either internal or external to the enterprise.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Independent Software Vendors (ISV) -teams of teams who develop software for sale, including products like network management, supply chain management, mobile applications, etc. This segment now also includes the rapidly emerging Software as a Service (SaaS) vendors. Customers are external to the enterprise.
  • So far, former developers/tech leads with business sense and good project management skills seem to be the best fit.
  • ultimate user (mobile device user) is fairly far removed from the major technologies
  • Ryan went on to note that the title of "Program Manager" also performed a similar role in some larger scale contexts:
  • Embedded Systems Example - Symbian Software Limited
  • Clearly, the development of a mobile phone operating system is a highly technical endeavor
  • mention this because I suspect that the Technical Marketing Specialist role, where it exists in the ISV today, could make a good role model for the Agile Product Owner in today's larger ISV
  • the development process does not lend itself quite so easily to the traditional, customer/user facing, agile Product Manager/Product Owner roles. However, the Product Owner role must still be successfully addressed in this highly technical context.
  • All our POs come from engineering teams and are senior engineers with product or customer experience.
  • one PO to two team mapping typically, rarely 3 teams, sometimes 1
  • IS/IT Examples
  • role/title of the Business Systems Analyst
  • is often a reasonably good fit for the Product Owner role.
  • In the larger IT shop, I have also seen the role filled by Project Managers
  • In many cases, the self-managing and team-based planning lightens the workload for the project manager in the agile enterprise, and they often have the domain knowledge, inclination and insights necessary to fulfill the Product Owner role. Therefore, many have the time, skills and inclination to fill this role.
  • In our case, our product owners are in IT. They are the liaison to the business and in many cases speak for the business
  • Our Business Systems Analysts in IT are filling the role of Product Owner. Their previous responsibility of documenting detailed business requirements and rules now falls to the entire team in the form of user stories and acceptance tests
Yuval Yeret

LSSC12: The Improvement Journey - Yuval Yeret on Vimeo - 0 views

vimeo.com/43222643

kanban conference talk vimeo improvement journey yuvalyeret video Continuous Improvement improvement-list agile-change-management-list

shared by Yuval Yeret on 22 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Yuval Yeret on 22 Mar 14
     
    "This presentation was given at the Lean Software and Systems Conference 2012 (LSSC12). Lean/Agile is not just about delivering early and often, it is even more importantly about continuously adapting the way we work towards an improved capability of delivery. Yet how many of us have worked in a continuously improving organization? How many of us have seen one in real life? It's hard to keep management interested in Improvement for very long, making Continuous Improvement a holy grail of sorts. As Lean/Kanban practitioners we believe the only sustainable way to improve is via evolutionary emerging change. But if we the organization is not interested in pursuing it, we have a big problem. Through some challenging situations from real client work we will see a few patterns that fail and a few patterns that show more promise for energizing improvement. We will also look at improvement pace and how to apply kanban approaches to make the improvement more sustainable. We will also explore some local cultural aspects that might affect the drive (or lack of) towards improvement, and how to deal with them, with some interesting insights about the Israeli culture…"
Yuval Yeret

From the Agile Transformation Trenches: Culture Change with Pigs, not Chickens - 0 views

borland.typepad.com/...ge-with-pigs-not-chickens.html

Agile transition agilesparksblog

shared by Yuval Yeret on 07 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Identify the technical leaders within projects; those that are “self-driven to produce quality results on time … combine technical ability with enough people skills …are trusted and respected by both their managers and fellow developers, are determined to make the team succeed, and usually live the work.” (Chief programmers, Chapter 2:  A Practical Guide to FDD).
  • Sell them the vision: if you cannot sell these people on the benefits to them, their colleagues and the organization of the new way of working then something is wrong
  • Provide in-depth training and on-going coaching. It is better to have a single lead person trained in-depth who can coach his teammates through the basics than to have the whole team trained on the basics with no-one on the team to turn to when the basics are not enough.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Providing initial training is simply not enough. When the pressure is on, the temptation to return to previous ways of doing things is often too strong to resist. If technical leads are to work for you, they need on-going support and coaching, and a means by which they can support each other.  Good external coaches (expert chickens?) can help here.
  • Let the technical leads continue working on their projects. Some fail at the final hurdle by doing 1-3 above and then assigning or scheduling the technical leads to coach other projects, effectively turning them from pigs into chickens.
  • To summarize, if you can produce a change in the behavior of the lead pigs, the other pigs will, by definition, follow. However, pigs will not follow chickens for long because chickens are simply not pigs.
  • Yuval Yeret on 07 Jul 09
     
    Last month David Anderson wrote a two-part article on why agile transformation initiatives fail. David's suggestion to concentrate on cultural change reminded me of one of my favorite bits on process initiatives. From Peter Coad's book, Java Modeling in Color...
Yuval Yeret

Agile Product Manager in the Enterprise (5): Responsibility 3 - Maintain the ... - 0 views

scalingsoftwareagility.wordpress.com/...3-maintain-the-product-roadmap

agile product_owner product_management

shared by Yuval Yeret on 18 Jun 09 - Cached
  • The Roadmap consists of a series of planned release dates, each of which has a theme and a prioritized feature set.
  • While it is a simple thing mechanically to represent the Roadmap, figuring out the content for anything beyond the next release is another matter entirely. The topic of what else the team plans to ship and when can be a fascinating and contentious topic in agile
  • the easiest way to think about the Roadmap is that it is an output, rather than an input to the Release Planning process.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The dates and themes for the next release are fixed. The features are prioritized and variable.
  • The teams can commit only to the features in the next upcoming release. Releases beyond the next, represent only a best estimate.
  • The Roadmap, then, is a “plan of intent” and is subject to change as development facts, business context and customer needs change. With respect to the upcoming release, perhaps the most important guidance is this:
  • Even though the team has committed to the objectives and we have agreed that the feature set cannot be guaranteed, it is a reasonable expectation that the agile teams will: 1) meet the date 2) accomplish the theme 3) deliver most of the features, and certainly the highest priority ones, with the requisite quality.
  • Anything less would be unprofessional and belie the power, discipline and accountability of our agile enterprise model. Moreover, it will eventually threaten our own empowerment, as failure to deliver will inevitably cause the implementation of various controls to “help us”!
1 - 20 of 148 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page