Saturday, March 12, 2016

Agile: Don’t Sell It, Demonstrate It




There are many things you can sell including some ideas but you can’t “sell” behavior and you should not try to sell Agile to people. Both of these are learned and become part of what you are; they become the standards of behavior by which you live. Because these are learned, try substituting “demonstrate” for “selling”. This is not to say you don’t persuade your C-Levels of the merits of Agile so you can experiment but selling alone isn’t going to be enough. If you approach your C-Levels about being Agile you might start at a disadvantage because, unless they're planning on becoming an Executive Scrum team, their main interest in Agile will most likely rest on results and outcomes, not theories. To put another way, if the business needs a hole, talking about the merits of using a shovel over a spoon won’t get the hole dug and won’t bring any value to the business. Instead, demonstrate a great and mighty hole can be dug quicker and more efficiently with a shovel, then do it again just to show it’s repeatable.

The Experiment

When I first started using Agile, the CEO & company were faced with a particularly challenging business opportunity requiring an innovative software solution in 3-months. The CEO asked if development could meet a hard commitment in 3-months but the answer was no. We followed a Waterfall paradigm at the time but we knew we couldn’t execute successfully in the short time available using our current methods and practices. Being in the right place (the business needed an alternative) and at the right time (we had just completed research into the various Agile methodologies), and of the proper Agile frame of mind (we were eager to experiment with Agile), I was able to implement a variant of Agile Scrum that allowed us to pivot 180 degrees and build a software solution within that 3-month window. Agile and Scrum made it possible for Development and Product Management to capitalize on our business opportunity quickly and efficiently. Did the CEO want us to do Agile? The simple answer was he really didn’t care what means or tools we used to be successful; what he wanted was for us to be successful. Adopting a flavor of Agile gave him and the business the result and success they wanted. And once he had seen a positive result, he asked why all the development teams weren’t using “that Agile thing”.

The Demonstration

The CEO was never “sold” the idea that Agile was anything special but instead we demonstrated that Agile could bring special results. The CEO, the board, and the shareholders want the company to be successful and profitable. If the way to achieve success is both repeatable and sustainable, all the better. If they had that success using Waterfall or Agile or any of the dozen or so other software methodologies, everyone would be happy. The R&D Manager and Head of Product Management suggested to the CEO that the only real possibility of success lies with using an Agile Scrum framework and practices. This was essentially the only executive coaching needed. The high visibility resulting from using Agile Scrum and Agile’s built in ability for the team to absorb changing requirements, gave the company a fighting chance to take advantage of the opportunity which, in the end, was met, exceeding most expectations.

To move the business at its highest levels often requires a demonstrable success. A business may still choose not to change after a demonstration (or two) but what are your chances for change if all you have are theories and anecdotal data from other companies?

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Product Backlog Flows

There are plenty of discussions in the agile community about how agile teams work and develop over time. Often neglected or poorly understood is how that work makes its way from the customer to the team. Below is a blueprint for creating an effective and efficient flow of work. I’ve included details but also left it flexible enough to be customized for your company’s specific circumstances.

- See more at: http://pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/product-backlog-flows#sthash.7ZvUkYFt.dpuf

Self-Organizing Development Team

Definitions

·        Self-organizing teams are composed of individuals who manage their own work, pick up work based on need, and participate in team decision making.

·        Self-organizing teams must have a common focus, mutual trust, and respect.

By being self-organizing and self-managing, the team brings decision making to the level of the problem. This increases the speed and accuracy of problem solving.

Self-organizing and the Scrum Framework

The Scrum Guide gives the Scrum Master the role of coaching the Development Team in self-organization but doesn't provide insight or guide as how this is accomplished. So …

Tips For Management, Agile Coach, and Scrum Master to organize a team toward self-organization

·       Management (yes, management) must establish any parameters that the scrum team is required to work within. For example, usually only managers can hire and fire people. Otherwise, management should ensure they don’t get in the team’s way. Managers need to support the scrum teams rather than be a distraction.

·       Give a scrum team room enough to fail in order to allow them to succeed. Managers must not ‘step in’ every time they perceive the team is on the wrong track. The team may very well be on the wrong track but there are several inspect & adapt opportunities for the scrum team to correct itself. This is the big reason sprints are short, no more than 30 days, and most often 1 or 2-weeks long. I've seen a development team start a sprint, go down the wrong architectural path, discover it, do a re-design, re-do work they had already done, and still meet the sprint goal. True story. However, the chief architect had chewed his nails down to the knuckle while not saying anything. How proud was the development team after this? Extremely – they were trusted to get the job done and done right.

·       From the start, guide the team to do scrum (scrum guide). Shape the mindset and expectations from the start as this will be harder to influence and change later. Doing scrum by-the-book will not make you good at doing scrum but it will be easier for the team to later learn and adopt the nuances and spirit of scrum. 

·       Help the team become confident in their use of scrum early on. Use examples of how each inspect & adapt meeting can help improve the team’s work and their environment.

·       Remove any misconceptions the team has of scrum. Most teams will perceive that scrum is easy to do but it is actually hard to do scrum right day after day. Anticipate the development team’s reaction to this truth.

·       Use positive reinforcement and build a sense of achievement in the team by helping guide the team to successfully completing their sprints. Do not allow a team to over-commit in their sprint planning meeting based on hope alone. Guide the team to select a sprint goal that is achievable and don’t let ‘hope we’ll get it done’ be the team’s strategy. Hope is not a strategy.

·       Encourage ongoing adherence to scrum and agile practices. Watch for danger signs the team is reverting to older, non-agile ways of thinking and doing. For example, do they want to skip the daily scrum or sprint retrospective. Do they think only one person can do work in a specific area. Are they not forthcoming at meetings.

·       Get the customers and users involved in the process. Customers and users need to be engaged during requirement gathering but most importantly, must be engaged with the scrum team during the sprint review. If the customers or users are consistent no-shows at the sprint review or not showing interest at the sprint results, the development team will more likely lose their sense of purpose and possibly blame agile for their lowered self-worth.

·       Inspect & Adapt over blame. When someone on the team messes up, don’t say “Jane screwed up” or anything like this. I would try and restate it along the lines, “how was it the team allowed this thing to happen and what can the team do to prevent this from happening again?” Encourage the team to re-examine their team processes to see if something needs to change to avoid repetition.  Every effort should be made to make the team, as an entity, the focal point during inspect & adapt meetings and discussions rather than specific individuals. This will help reinforce that the everyone on the team is equally responsible and accountable for the results and outcomes of the team. This is along the “all for one and one for all” philosophy. While it’s important to know someone forgot to get their code, document, etc. reviewed, it’s more important to understand how the team allowed this to happen and to see if there’s something the team can do in the future to prevent it from happening again.

·       Identify team members who hamper or slow down the team’s productivity because of their personal characteristics and practices. Individual personality of team members can be considered more important than skill sets when selecting people for a development team. Work with the team and management to remove people who have difficulties adjusting to agile. This is a hard decision but one that needs to happen quickly; these are not ‘bad’ people but are people who can’t adjust to agile and scrum ways of thinking. Many believe the most productive scrum teams are open, honest, willing to change, and can see the team being greater than the sum of the individual team members. If a person doesn’t have or can’t quickly acquire these characteristics, then they may be an obstacle to self-organization and pose a threat to productivity necessitating their removal.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Why Just Saying "Good Job" Might Be a Bad Idea

Have you been to a Sprint Review where someone sings out, "good job"?

When this happens we might feel happy or encouraged to continue doing whatever it is we did in the review but what does this comment really mean? The idea that someone calls over their shoulder "Good Job" as they leave a meeting, can leave the team in a slight quandary, what exactly was good?

Scrum Teams need to be able to improve in areas where improvement is warranted. Having constructive criticism is healthy for the team and can help them focus on improving whether that be taking a valuable behaviour or practice and making it better or re-thinking actions and activities that don't add much value. The key is getting valuable feedback. For the Scrum Team, it's important to get as specific as possible about what someone thought was good (or in need of improvement) but more importantly, is why they thought to mention it in the first place.

Understanding why is arguably more important than the what in two aspects: 1) it can bring the Scrum Team insight to what the stakeholder values and 2) it can inspire the Scrum Team to design and build better solutions to meet stakeholder expectations of valuable software. For example, if a stakeholder says they liked the demo segment of the sprint review because it showed an easy way to make a credit card payment, the Scrum Team might conclude that the stakeholder values simplicity in the user experience. The Scrum Team might also conclude that in the future, they'll put a little more attention in the UX design to exploit simplicity.

Scrum Teams need feedback to self-improve and need to find the best way to get the gather this information. The easiest way is for the Scrum Team to listen for all stakeholder comments during any of the team's Inspect & Adapt events (daily standup, sprint planning, sprint review). The team may need to follow up with the stakeholders to understand the what and why of their statements. Through the practice of 'Active Listening' and developing a deeper understanding of stakeholders intent, the Scrum Team can improve and provide greater value to the team's customers and stakeholders.

Friday, March 20, 2015

The Scrum Master: Career Path or Career Oblivion


What is the career path for a Scrum Master?

That question was raised recently when I was asking people in the Development department if they thought they'd like to be a Scrum Master and whether they would apply for a Scrum Master role. Of course the question and answer related to their specific company but I've heard the same question asked at Agile meetups and Agile conferences. The short answer [to me] is: there's a clear career path for Scrum Masters. The key to this career path is growth.  Let me explain.

Those of you that work in Development are sometimes isolated from the business. This is not an insurmountable problem but let's be honest, work on products occurs in Development and the business of the company occurs in the sales/marketing offices of the various regions. You could think of Development having the intellectual property of the product, the brain, whereas the regional sales/marketing teams (Americas, Asia, Europe, Australia, Africa) form the heart. Neither can survive without the other and both are necessary for growth and vitality. The best scenario is that the brain (Development) and the heart (sales/marketing teams with their customer insights) work together in a seamless, symbiotic relationship. Establishing and maintaining a great communications link, having everyone working from the same page, and working toward a shared product vision are essential ingredients for growth. From a Scrum prospective, the Scrum Masters are the people whose role it is to find a way to make this happen.

In the Scrum Guide, Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland imagine a world where the Scrum Masters, get the organization to understand and work with the Scrum Teams by:

  • Leading and coaching the organization in its Scrum adoption,
  • Planning Scrum implementations within the organization,
  • Helping employees and stakeholders understand and enact Scrum and empirical product development, and
  • Causing change that increases the productivity of the Scrum Team.
A Scrum Master will hasten the adoption of Scrum Values (from the Scrum Alliance
  • Focus - Because we focus on only a few things at a time, we work well together and produce excellent work. We deliver valuable items sooner. 
  • Courage - Because we work as a team, we feel supported and have more resources at our disposal. This gives us the courage to undertake greater challenges. 
  • Openness - As we work together, we express how we're doing, what's in our way, and our concerns so they can be addressed.
  • Commitment - Because we have great control over our own destiny, we are more committed to success.
  • Respect - As we work together, sharing successes and failures, we come to respect each other and to help each other become worthy of respect.

But how does this lead to a career path?

By improving lines of communications, by getting those in direct contact with customers communicating the pain customers feel, by getting the product development teams to have empathy with the customer, by understanding the impact of technical solutions on the customers, by keeping all aspects of the business informed of customer problems and potential solutions, by being transparent, by continually striving to improve, by creating a culture where learning trumps blame, by creating a culture where the question is not, "what have you done?" but instead, "how can I help you?", by doing all these and more, the Scrum Master will create the opportunity for the company to experience unprecedented growth. And when you have growth, you create more jobs and a larger product base and with that comes the need for more sales people, more marketers, more product managers, more products, more projects, and more Scrum Teams. I should say that Scrum Masters are almost never ever directly responsible for a company's growth. However, through the actions of the Scrum Master and many of the communication improvements and process streamlining, the inevitable result will most likely be growth.

Scrum Masters typically move into roles like product owner, product manager, head product owner, head of product management, program manager, project director, program director, agile coaching, development manager, technology manager, and others. Most of these roles may not exist today but with growth and expansion, some of these roles will come into being.

Whether your company or business has a global footprint or is a young Start-up, Agile and Scrum can be tools for growth and the Scrum Master role is positioned so that the results of good Scrum Mastery is company growth. Once there's growth, there almost always follows more and greater opportunities. Who is better positioned to move up and forward than the Scrum Master?

Your thoughts?

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Organizational Adoption of Agile

From Craig Larman - Larman's laws of organizational behaviour:
 
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 overloading the new terminology to mean basically the same as status quo
3.       As a corollary to (1), any significant change initiative will be derided as "purist" and "needing 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. John Seddon also observed this: "Attempting to change an organization's culture is a folly, it always fails. Peoples' behaviour (the culture) is a product of the system; when you change the system peoples' behaviour changes."
 
I think that those who believe Agile and Scrum are the way forward will be at odds with most businesses that have a deep institutionalized Command & Control structures that rests responsibility, but usually not accountability, within groups/committees while diverting responsibility away from individuals. In Scrum we rest most responsibility on the Product Owner and hold this person accountable for the business value delivered at the end of each and every sprint. It is often this simplicity Scrum provides that is in direct conflict with the ‘status quo’. So how to begin changes to the existing structures?
 
First and foremost, you must have an Executive Sponsor. Without Executive Sponsorship your attempt to directly adopt Agile will almost certainly fail. This is more than just having managers that agree to allow you to use Agile; this is a person who has the rank and status in the business structure who can influence the often many groups/committees who collectively and traditionally have controlled projects.  Agile is a movement that requires top-down leadership to say ‘this is going to happen, here is why it is good and we should all start rowing in that direction.’ The Executive Sponsor, along with possibly one or more Agile Coach specifically trained and experienced in agile adoption at the executive level, will be handing out the oars.
 
What if you have no Executive Sponsor or the Executive Sponsor’s influence is severely limited? Under these circumstances, full Agile adoption is very unlikely to happen. However, there is a strategy that could overcome the tremendous obstacles that are in the way but it does depend on you finding some in Mid to Upper level Management more interested in results rather than institutionalized processes. The ultimate result is usually a hybrid adoption of Agile where all or some of the institutional controls remain in place but an Agile sanctuary is carved out with fewer of these institutional controls than a traditional waterfall project. This hybrid Agile project is not truly Agile but neither is it true waterfall. The strategy follows a bottom up Agile Adoption approach that will take time, maybe a lot of time, to slowly chip away at the traditional structure and replace it with an Agile structure and Agile mindset.
 
The strategy is twofold:
1.       Target getting support from managers in the organization that are more likely to support Agile; and
2.       Target going around the organizational structure of “over seers”
 
The strategy includes targeting those executives in middle to upper management that are more likely to support an Agile process and have some influence on those in the organization who are stanch supporters of the institutional controls. The idea here is not to change these people completely over to the Agile mindset but rather get these targeted managers enthusiastic enough about Agile so they can see the possibilities and potential of Agile. Targeting managers who don’t have influence over supporters of the processes or targeting managers who are the stanch supporters of the processes is usually a tactical mistake. Targeting a manager who doesn’t directly influence those in control of the processes might be an easy convert but other than a quick burst of satisfaction, the real battles will still lie ahead. The manager who is a supporter of institutionalized processes is very difficult to convert; they probably believe in their familiar processes and controls much like you believe in Scrum, albeit for different reasons. A word of caution, because you’ve gotten some support for your Agile project, you must remember that “success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.” For those in middle to upper management who supported you earlier, to ensure their continued support of Agile and endorse its use, hybrid Agile projects must succeed and succeed “loudly”. If your project fails or succeeds but with only a whimper, some, most, or all middle to upper manages may forget that they ever supported Agile.
 
The second part of your Agile adoption strategy will be to identify all those organizational groups and individuals who traditionally sign-off on projects and find a way to exempt the Scrum project from these. These groups are those who sit on gate committees, steering committees, technology committees, or any one of a dozen other committees that approve, sign-off or use other mechanisms of “over-seeing” a project. These groups are often a source of power and prestige for its members and are traditionally very difficult, if not impossible, to get around without an appropriately positioned Executive Sponsor. The best way to get around these groups is to make your project a separate business unit that answers to the CEO/board. This follows along how IBM built its PC division in order to get out from under the bureaucratic thumb of IBM’s corporate structure.  Another tactic is to chip away at the required process these groups require projects to follow. This can lead to some relief for the project but will probably not succeed at allowing full Agile adoption for quite some time.
 
Is doing a Hybrid Agile Scrum adoption good? The short answer is yes. By simply following the activities defined for Scrum, (Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, and Sprint Retrospective), Jeff Sutherland has said that this will increase productivity by 20%-30%. However, the greater benefits of Agile are really attained through following of and embracing the deeper meanings of the Agile Manifesto, the Scrum Guide, and Scrum Primer. To become “hyper-product” would require everyone involved in the project (managers and scrum teams) to believe in and live Agile and Scrum. Unless the Mid to Upper level Managers of the business are only interested in results and don’t really care how you achieve them, your best approach to adopting Agile is incrementally, one step at a time.
 
Craig Larman is co-author of:
  • Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Large, Multisite & Offshore Product Development with Large-Scale Scrum
  • Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Thinking and Organizational Tools for Large-Scale Scrum
  • Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide

Monday, June 3, 2013

Sprint Review Facilitation & Customization

The Scrum Sprint Review is a key Inspect & Adapt meeting where the Scrum Team discusses with Users, Customers, and Business stakeholders what was "Done" in the just completed Sprint. The Sprint Review meeting is short but must cover the agenda items listed below. The attendance by the Scrum Team is required. Attendance by stakeholders is optional but should be strongly encouraged for those key stakeholders most affected by the Sprint results. This article gives some advice on how to conduct the Sprint Review when stakeholders are unable to physically be present.
 
During the Sprint Review, the Scrum Team and stakeholders collaborate about what was done in the Sprint and the Product Backlog is amended if needed. Based on that and any changes to the Product Backlog during the Sprint, attendees collaborate on the next things that could be done. The Product Owner provides the stakeholders the likely completion date for the release based on the Development Team's velocity and work remaining in the Product Backlog. This is an informal meeting, and the presentation of the Sprint results is intended to elicit feedback and foster collaboration.
 
One hour Sprint Review Agenda includes the following elements:
  • The Product Owner identifies what has been “Done” and what has not been “Done” (suggest 5 minutes)   
  • The Development Team discusses what went well during the Sprint, what problems it ran into, and how those problems were solved  (suggest 10 minutes)
  • The Development Team demonstrates the work that it has “Done” and answers questions about the Increment  (suggest 15 minutes)
  • The Product Owner discusses the Product Backlog as it stands. He or she projects likely completion dates based on progress to date  (suggest 10 minutes)
  • The entire group collaborates on what to do next, so that the Sprint Review provides valuable input to subsequent Sprint Planning Meetings  (suggest 20 minutes)
 
The feedback from the stakeholders, directed toward the Product Owner and Scrum team, is the most important thing to get out of the Sprint Review. The result of the Sprint Review is a revised Product Backlog that defines the probable Product Backlog items for the next Sprint. The Product Backlog may also be adjusted overall to meet new opportunities.
 

Customization for Stakeholders who cannot be physically present at the meeting

A Scrum Team strives to ensure the key stakeholders, as identified by the Product Owner, are in attendance at each Sprint Review. The key stakeholders identified may differ from Sprint to Sprint based upon the work selected in each Sprint, but it is important to the success of the project that those identified feel compelled to attend the Sprint Review when asked. When a stakeholder cannot be physically present at the Sprint Review meeting, the Scrum Team loses out on viewing subtle hints on the reception of their Sprint results and future Sprint plans. Stakeholder body language and tone are indispensable clues to the observant Scrum Team which can be lost when stakeholders are not with the team during the Sprint Review. Unfortunately the realities of the business means that stakeholders are distributed across several locations and cannot always be physically present at the Sprint Review. Below are the options in order of preference.
 

Telepresence:

 
Telepresence is the preferred method for stakeholder involvement in the Sprint Review when not able to physically attend. Scrum Master would schedule the telepresence rooms locally and at all remote locations if possible. The Sprint Review meeting should be conducted as if all people were in the same room.
 
Advantages:
      • Stakeholder sees what those present in the meeting room see
      • Stakeholder is not a disembodied voice but a real person
      • Scrum Team and other meeting attendees can see and gage stakeholder's reactions to product demo and artifacts
      • Scrum Team and other meeting attendees can see and gage stakeholder's reaction to comments, statements, and suggestions
      • Facilitator of the Sprint Review can better steer the Sprint Review back to the Sprint Review agenda when necessary
    Disadvantages:
      • Difficult to overhear side conversations from remote stakeholders

Webex / LiveMeeting / Net Meeting / or other online collaboration tool:

 
Online collaboration tool is the preferred method for stakeholder involvement in the Sprint Review when not able to physically attend and access to a telepresence room isn't available.
 
Product Owner should specifically ask remote stakeholders for their input on the way forward for improving the product.

Advantages:
      • Stakeholder most often see what those present in the meeting room see
      • Stakeholders can follow and participate in discussions on the just completed work shown in the demonstration

    Disadvantages:
      • All stakeholders will need the same online collaboration tool installed and available
      • Higher likelihood that remote stakeholders will talk over people in the meeting room
      • Higher likelihood that people in the meeting room will talk over the remote stakeholders
      • Easier to mis-read voice inflection and tone without seeing the body language
      • Difficult to overhear side conversations

Speakerphone:

 
Using only a speakerphone (no video link or web sharing) is the last option available for stakeholders who don't have access to collaboration tools and no access to telepresence equipment.
 
To give the stakeholder a voice in the Sprint Review, the Scrum Master or Product Owner, as appropriate, would ask those who are remote to provide their input before the Sprint Review meeting so the Scrum Team and stakeholders at the meeting can review their input together. This way the remote teams know that their input counts and will heard by all people in the room.
 
Product Owner should specifically ask remote stakeholders for their input on the way forward for improving the product.
 
Advantages:
      • Remote stakeholders have a proxy voice in the Sprint Review

    Disadvantages:
      • Speakerphone stakeholders will not see what's being presented
      • Speakerphone stakeholders will find it difficult/impossible to follow discussions during the product demo and presentation of any related artifacts
      • Speakerphone stakeholders may find it difficult to collaborate with those in the meeting room without seeing the Sprint results
      • Higher likelihood that remote stakeholders will talk over people in the meeting room
      • Higher likelihood that people in the meeting room will talk over the remote stakeholders
      • Easier to mis-read voice inflection and tone without seeing the body language
      • Difficult to overhear side conversations