Agilesparks

magine a project team of between fifteen and four hundred people. There are user representatives, analysts, programmers, database designers, and testers, arranged in a pipeline. The user analysts talk to the users, and then to the analysts, who write down user stories. The analysts write lots of notes on each user story, since it will be a full iteration or two before any programmer will pick up the user story. The notes are between one and ten pages long. Eventually, a programmer picks up a user story along with the supplemental details, code them up in an iteration, integrate them into the growing code base, and mark their velocity. In the same or a later iteration the database designers do the same. Eventually the integration test team comes along, runs tests on the whole thing, and feeds bug reports back into the programmers’ work queues. The users or project sponsors may see the outcome every few months if they are lucky.

Collocate the requirements gatherer, the database designer, the programmer, the tester. Lengthen the iteration period to one month. Give the requirements gatherer a week’s head start on the features coming up, but otherwise arrange that all of them are working on the same feature set in the same month.

Break the pipeline, lengthen the iterations, lose the machismo, deliver the project.

here is no mechanism in the standard agile language that warns about this loss of touch. The currently standard language consists of ‘’iterations, user stories, ‘’and’’ velocity’’. By a perverse relationship between them, it is possible to equally shrink iteration length and story size, with velocity scaling accordingly. Thus, a team can feel as though it is become more agile, when in reality it is simply becoming more cut off from its user base and the feedback it needs to succeed.

The repair is simple: connect every activity to a release or delivery to real users (delivering to even one real user makes a difference). Evaluate the team’s work based on how often they deliver to real users and how long it takes a new requirement to reach the users. Replace the fuss around iterations with fuss around deliveries.

As an afterthought, if your new iteration length is a month, you can still run one-week planning windows to make sure you don’t get off track during the month.

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”!

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

Map the Value Stream

Visualise the Work.

Limit Work in Progress.

A Kanban approach will explicitly limit work in progress. This is distinct from managing work in progress through the use if time-boxes

Establish a Cadence.

A Kanban team will almost certainly use Corollary Practices which may be considered Primary in another process. For example, a high performance Kanban team will inevitably use technical practices from XP, such as TDD and Continuous Integration.

Lesson 3:  Actual progress is infinitely more important than planned progress.

Lesson 4:  Calculate your velocity and use that to plan for the future.