The executives heard enough of the stories to have a clear picture of what had transpired. It was a story of consulting firm after consulting term coming in to lead changes across the organization.
Each firm produced it own graphs showing Mammoth's teams to be developing more and more "Agile maturity." It should have led to lower costs, better quality, faster development cycles, and enhanced predictability.
They say insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, Deborah mused, barely listening to Jim Smith's closing remarks. Why are we expecting anything different from more of the same? What are we missing? What can we do differently?
In the prep up to this talk, This twitter conversation perked my interest. While scrum practitioners ‘agree’ scrum is not the only way they are reluctant to actually give permission to change what may be consider the core when it comes to practice. It also seems being alluded to here that hey we’re used widely hence we must be better at managing complexity.
Agile Boston
Kanabn is not a process framework and it just amazes me that the largest tool vendor in the industry gets this wrong even in most of their material.
What is interesting is the year over year rise of Scrumban.
Then of course we see the amazing adoption of Scrum.
Scrum without a doubt has been commerciall very successful.
“Scrum is a very simple framework within which the ‘game’ of complex product development is played. Scrum exposes every inadequacy or dysfunction within an organization’s product and system development practices. The intention of Scrum is to make them transparent so the organization can fix them. Unfortunately, many organizations change Scrum to accommodate the inadequacies or dysfunctions instead of solving them.”
The grand standing critics of Scrum tend to pounce on this. Like one leader who broke away from LKU and questioned claims for example that that Agile Leaders don’t understand Lean. I think that’s 1. Harsh 2. Not true. He also questions if Scrum does in fact expose the dysfunctions of a team.
These are what tend to divide our already fragile Agille community.
There is other side of the critics that tend to treat Kanban because of perhaps this reduces the need for basic coaching skills and its not as lucrative for coaching organizations.
Now coming back to Ken’s startling admission. There is much truth to it. And Scrum can and there is a great deal of opportunity to improve it. We have seen on numerous ocassions Scrumban deliver the right result.
Productivity: Most teams had transitioned to Scrum, but productivity had plateaued. Projects were slow to complete, with only a few releases per quarter. It was an improvement over the past, but far less than she would have expected.
Predictability: There was no standard of how long stories or iterations of a given size should take to complete whether across teams or even within a single team. If everyone agreed on a firm deadline, they met it. Otherwise things just got done when they got done; predictions were almost useless.
Politics: Too many “turf wars.” Even for an organization the size of Mammoth. Deborah hadn’t figured out what was driving this, but there seemed to be as much time and energy devoted to politics as there was to development.
Productivity: Most teams had transitioned to Scrum, but productivity had plateaued. Projects were slow to complete, with only a few releases per quarter. It was an improvement over the past, but far less than she would have expected.
Predictability: There was no standard of how long stories or iterations of a given size should take to complete whether across teams or even within a single team. If everyone agreed on a firm deadline, they met it. Otherwise things just got done when they got done; predictions were almost useless.
Politics: Too many “turf wars.” Even for an organization the size of Mammoth. Deborah hadn’t figured out what was driving this, but there seemed to be as much time and energy devoted to politics as there was to development.
Profitability : [Missing -Attention Jack]
Permanence [Sustainability of improvements]
Prematurity - Declaring premature success or failure had become a habit
Plasticity - Organization needs to have some elastic attributes and some plastic attributes to retain improvements. When an organization becomes entirely plastic it looses the learning capabilities
Which path to follow is irrelevant unless you first articulate where you want to arrive.
A lens is something we choose to see the world through and enable us to focus on what’s most important to look at.
Optimizing the Whole; Continuously Amplify Learning; Emphasize Managing Flow; Decisions Made as Late as Possible; Limit the Amount of Work in Process
Empower the Team, with Support; Deliveries Made as Early as Possible; Simple, Adaptive Planning Processes
Visualizing work as a value stream or series of knowledge discoveries
Granular workflow management
Pull vs. push systems
Batch size and single piece flow
Queuing theory applications (e.g., Little’s Law)
Limiting WIP
Recognize bottlenecks through visualization of hidden work and better enable process efficiency
Identify and eliminate waste through new metrics
. Lean ways of working combine principles and practices that emphasize responsiveness, quality, regularity and consistency.
Optimizing the Whole; Continuously Amplify Learning; Emphasize Managing Flow; Decisions Made as Late as Possible; Limit the Amount of Work in Process
Empower the Team, with Support; Deliveries Made as Early as Possible; Simple, Adaptive Planning Processes
Visualizing work as a value stream or series of knowledge discoveries
Granular workflow management
Pull vs. push systems
Batch size and single piece flow
Queuing theory applications (e.g., Little’s Law)
Limiting WIP
Recognize bottlenecks through visualization of hidden work and better enable process efficiency
Identify and eliminate waste through new metrics
Frameworks have values, too. Values that help assure they function as we want them too.
Without the owning of these values and principles you will most likely end up with cargo cult implemetnation
Today’s agenda = manifestations 1 & 2
Different and more granular views into:
Hidden work
Nature of work
Actual demand and capacity to deliver
Sources of customer and team dissatisfaction
Different views enhance your ability to improve shared understandings.
Additional and alternative mechanisms for fulfilling essential Scrum functions beyond prescribed roles and processes (more on this later).
Highlight agenda and simplicity of core practices
An example of layering Kanban over Scrum – lots of interesting things happen outside a Sprint, and Kanban enables us to evaluate them more clearly.
To evaluate past outcomes in order to make better decisions about present actions
To compare against common benchmarks as an indicator of relative health
To help diagnose a problem or condition
To provide data upon which to base a forecast of future results
To influence the behavior of individuals
Multiple Views
Traditionally focused on calculating the amount of time required to deliver items as they pass through the entire production process.
More recent approaches place a greater emphasis on calculating the time required for the business to realize actual value.
Distribution Patterns
Reflects the pattern of variability in the delivery of work. Time is a measure that everyone understands, making it more meaningful than metrics that are unique to a framework (such as story points in Scrum).
Today’s agenda = manifestations 1 & 2
Different and more granular views into:
Hidden work
Nature of work
Actual demand and capacity to deliver
Sources of customer and team dissatisfaction
Different views enhance your ability to improve shared understandings.
Additional and alternative mechanisms for fulfilling essential Scrum functions beyond prescribed roles and processes (more on this later).
Product owner role causing consternation.
Things were taking too long
Product owner role collapsed to understanding product owner functions.
Defining what needs to be done- behavior changes
Prioritization mechanism
New Understandings
Loose correlation between story points and actual sprint lead time.
Suggestion of different work types that weren’t being explicitly recognized.
With guidance from their coach, team devised experiments to better understand nature of their work.
Deeper Understandings
Once enabled to measure flow efficiency within their Sprints, this development team developed hard data pointing to the root cause of delays in the delivery of their work – nearly 40% of the delivery time represented time spent waiting on others outside of their team. The team intuitively understood wait times were a factor, but not to this degree.
56% reduction in lead time
15% improvement in flow efficiency
Expanded visualizations of workflow and “dark matter” exposed significant factors influencing delivery time that were previously camouflaged.
For example, the bank’s PMO had mandated a two-week Sprint duration for all Scrum teams in the IT organization (its chosen way of achieving organizational “alignment”). The kind of work undertaken by the Data Team, however, could not realistically deliver finished “value” in 2-week cycles, so the team was breaking work into chunks that corresponded to different phases in the value stream, essentially replicating a waterfall process within a time-boxed cadence.
Mammoth Bank
Initial adaptations limited to visualizing work flowing through the value stream and setting explicit Definitions of Done.
Initial evolutions adopted to better visualize bottlenecks in workflow and prioritize where and how best to improve.
Next set of evolutions aimed at helping team attack common issues new Scrum teams face, including prioritization, meeting commitments, and managing external dependencies.
Using Little’s law to manage expectations and shape demand
The Key win – It brought about changes in behavior in the team, management , partners and customers
It’s an all or nothing approach. The theory is that if you fail to implement all then the implementation will fail. First implementing all is really really hard especially in larger enterprises. Sure there are insipid implementations but the implementers them recognize their failures. People have implemented all even with a certified scrum coach and and have failed.
Development team; QA Team; Design Team. Silos- No collaboration.
Mostly budget driven plan- time lines driven by Scope, Budget; Value realization late
Long range planning. Gnatt charts; Plans not realistic
Customers engaged at the beginning and end of project
Most of scope delivered in one large batch
Central point of control from Project Manager
Process relatively static. Silos.
Team focus aiding vision alignment
Importance of cadence, rhythm
Focus on shorter term planning compared to traditional methods
Call for customer participation; Value from customer’s stand point
Focus on smaller batches.
Collaboration enabler
Shared ownership, Cross functional work
Today’s agenda = manifestations 1 & 2
Different and more granular views into:
Hidden work
Nature of work
Actual demand and capacity to deliver
Sources of customer and team dissatisfaction
Different views enhance your ability to improve shared understandings.
Additional and alternative mechanisms for fulfilling essential Scrum functions beyond prescribed roles and processes (more on this later).
Dependencies unclear
Coordination central
Fire-fighting mode
Hidden work and unclear rules of engagement.
Invisible systems
Big release out back. Coordination costs high
“Scrum of Scrums”
Dependencies unclear
Coordination central
Fire-fighting mode
Hidden work and unclear rules of engagement.
Invisible systems
Big release out back. Coordination costs high
“Scrum of Scrums”
Dependencies visualized
Value chain
Focused on minimizing variability in work definitions
Smaller batches
Teams working towards a policy that anyone can stop the value chain
Cost of delay prioritization
Limited work in progress through dependencies