I am ambivalent about the Scrum community’s focus on process and tools.

Yes, it is this effort that has driven adoption and created an economy for us practitioners. But adoption is yesterday’s challenge. We’re kind of winning that one.

We need to place less emphasis on getting new organizations to try Scrum to more on getting existing teams practice Scrum better.

How many of us many, many Scrum adopters strive towards the potential of the practice?

• Where reliable software delivers monetary return to sponsors because it is truly valuable to end users.
• Where individual contributors are allowed to bring their most creative effort to the workplace to the benefit of both employers and end users.
• Where workers are allowed to live rewarding lives outside the workplace to the betterment of their families and communities.

Not just exceptional productivity – ambitious enough as that is — but exceptional productivity to a genuinely productive end.

Life is full of compromise but if that is not the aspiration — to fill our careers with as much of these achievements as possible — then why bother?

Why spend money on training and tools to deliver more waste on short, iterative cycles?

Why extract more lines of code that no one will test or use but only spend money to maintain?

Why use the Scrum process to perpetuate the alienation of the knowledge worker from their work?

Mastery means taking responsibility for ourselves and our peers. Grasping our practice is the sum of our intentions and actions in the service of something.

So here’s my plea to shift the conversation back to it’s roots.

“Agile” is about the material and human good we create when we respect our co-workers tell truth to our employers, strive to improve, and care for the people affected by the software we help build.

We use a tool or process to the degree it furthers that end and no farther.

Posted: April 19th, 2009 under development, scrum.
Comments: 1

Here are agile software development mistakes that kick my ass whenever I let them:

• Know the assumptions in plans. Recognize when they change.
• Don’t abuse time boxing. It is a toe hold for over-committing. When the time box ends, the work ends.
• Doing Scrum means DOING SCRUM. Sloppy backlog. No Scrum. No Product Owner. No Scrum.
• No iteration boundaries and no commitment doesn’t make me “lean”.

Posted: March 22nd, 2009 under development, scrum.
Comments: none

Trying to gather what I can from Bob Woodward’s column in the NYTimes, 10 Take Aways From the Bush Years. Basic management advice extracted the hard way from the record of our first MBA president. Among the lessons:

• insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even — or especially — when there are vehement disagreements
• foster a culture of skepticism and doubt
• insist on strategic thinking
• embrace transparency

Posted: January 19th, 2009 under scrum.
Comments: none

This week, I’m presenting a paper at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. My goal is to engage academic ethicists in a conversation about agile software development.

Given the year in employment I’ve had in the last year and what’s going on at my current employer this week, it is a gift that I was able to attend and I’m grateful for it.

Posted: January 4th, 2009 under development, scrum.
Comments: 1

At Agile 2008, I attended Jeff Patton’s talk on embracing uncertainty and Alan Cooper’s keynote on interaction design.

I am convinced it is the role of product owner or customer that needs the most work in our evolving agile practices.

Sponsors express their desires as feature requests. But, as Alan Cooper argues, there is no linear progression from what people need, what they perceive they need, and how they express that in language.

At the same time, supporting departments, customers and management want a commitment to a scope and schedule. And in response, the team wants methodical decomposition to estimatable stories.

And so product owners dive into story writing, decomposing software into smaller bits in order to grasp the whole from the details. But the resulting release backlog looks only slightly more nimble software requirements specification and only slightly better at describing what customer’s really want.

What if regardless of our initial input from customers, product owners took Jeff Patton’s advice and focused our initial backlogs on specific, desired and attainable end user goals — not on interactions but why they are valuable to users? What if themes were something other than a less granular stories?

Could we retain this focus through release planning by sizing these themes not by committing to a single path and simple decomposition but by a more complex matrix of possible implementations, classifying how effectively those implementations might meet the end user goal?

Posted: August 10th, 2008 under development, scrum.
Comments: none

A product owner describes work. The team estimates it. The product owner sets a delivery target. The team commits to it.

Estimates

People are good at estimating their own ideal effort on well-defined work within their realm of experience.

People are poor at translating ideal effort into calendar days, estimating how long others will take to perform work, and estimating work that is either poorly understood.

Estimation is time consuming with diminishing returns so the effort should be managed to cost, i.e. time-boxed. That is why Agile practices invest more energy and place more value in estimating immediate work than on more speculative work farther out.

All estimates contain uncertainty. Industry research says an upfront estimate can be 25% to 400% of actual performance. The range of uncertainty is deeply dependent on context: how much work is involved, development lifecycle, experience with the particular work, shared experience within the development team and maturity of the management organization.

It is poor practice to “pad an estimate”. Padding doesn’t match the scatter that surrounds upfront estimation. For large scopes of work a developer should express an estimate as a range of uncertainty (i.e. “four to eight months skewing to between six and eight”).

Middle managers should not pad or trim a developer estimate. That is undermining the developer’s authority and making them un-accountable. The estimate is the estimate.

That doesn’t mean that the business doesn’t make planning decisions based on estimates. It means those decisions are separate from, though informed by, the estimate.

Targets

When a product owner or sponsor takes a developer estimate of 4-8 months and sets a release date six months out, they are moving beyond the estimate to set a business target. This is a judgment of what expense and time to market promise sufficient value to justify the work.

The product owner is using the developer’s estimate to inform themselves of the risk they are taking with their investment. An aggressive target within an estimate with high uncertainty is a larger risk than a conservative target on a more certain estimate.

Commitment

Setting an achievable target and owning that decision, communicating the rationale for your decision and having that rationale inform your priorities earns trust and rallies a team to deliver.

It’s the targets, stupid

Don’t set arbitrary targets. Don’t burden yourself with unnecessary risk, demotivate your developers and thoughtlessly constrain the value built into your software.

Do set meaningful targets. Take calculated risks, manage costs, partner with your developers and know what and when you need to deliver to your customers.

It’s not an estimate. The developer cannot assume your risk.

It’s not a commitment. You’ve got to earn that.

At the end of the day, the product owner is responsible for understanding the business climate, understanding the customer, describing and prioritizing the work, and managing the company’s investment to a successful outcome.

Posted: July 10th, 2008 under development, scrum.
Comments: none

Not to get super preachy on you all, but sometimes I think we’re full bore on the wrong mission.” — ‘Agile Shop’ by Dave Laribee

As people, we embrace change we can ourselves effect. Our conversations about value turn to story writing. Our conversations about competitiveness turn to scale.

But we risk engaging the surface of things and not the things themselves. Means to what end?

As brother bee preaches, I stand before you penitent of the sin of local optimization.

In my last job, I led a development team. We were an agile team in a non-agile company. We were engaged in the effort of years, championing organizational change bottom up.

In spite of everything we’d built — an excellent agile team, a direct relationship with our CEO, visible release backlogs and delivery — the business remained opaque. It was unable to rally to us and unwilling to provide the transparency and focus we needed to effectively rally to it.

As a result, our timeline didn’t match the life-cycle of the business. When it was acquired, our efforts were shelved and we all moved on.

An agile team in a non-agile organization is not agile enough.

Posted: July 6th, 2008 under development, scrum.
Comments: 1

Fail fast is a technique for improving the quality of software:

“failing immediately and visibly” sounds like it would make your software more fragile, but it actually makes it more robust. Bugs are easier to find and fix, so fewer go into production. – Jim Shore

Scrum aspires to a fail fast approach to building software.

It describes practices that surface problems:

• a backlog prioritized by the product owner and estimated by the team (accountability)
• short iterations
• frequent retrospection
• a role dedicated to removing impediments

It champions values that motivate individuals to address problems:

• delivering business value
• collaborating with customers
• empowering teams
• building quality in
• continuous improvement
• courage and honesty (a refusal to hide risk)

Possessing these values and practices, an organization is less likely to overlook or tolerate dysfunction when it materially affects the setting and achieving of project goals.

1. risks are identified before they become problems
2. simple problems are detected and resolved quickly
3. thorny problems are mitigated
4. catastrophic problems are aired to all concerned parties (informed consent)

Cases #1-3 increase a project’s chance of creating value.

Case #4 compels an organization to cancel a doomed project.

All four cases represent a better outcome for the business. Assuming that business offers value to the world, that’s better for our end users, our reputation, and our society.

Immediate and visible failure. Much preferable to hidden, prolonged and inevitable failure.

Posted: May 15th, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: none

Just posted a reply on the Scrum Developers Yahoo Group. Keeping up with that list would be more effort than becoming a certified scrum master.

What I am interested in is to find out how graphical and interaction designers can be eased into Scrum development.

In my previous team, our UX director, Bob Calvano, mixed in with the team: proposing UI elements in mockups but also pairing with developers to collaborate on implementations. The team and UX director shared decisions but the UX director retained authority over them.

The team and product owner learned to defer to him on thorny questions of emotion, aesthetic and interaction particularly where the product owner had no clear sense of how the decision impacted tangible customer value.

The team had to learn how to deliver constructive feedback on UX. They had to learn how to express personal opinion in that context.

The UX director needed incredible patience taking in well and poorly delivered feedback. He had to understand his own process well enough to use day to day input to enable his own creativity rather than shut it down.

We evolved this relationship in a small team in an environment of high trust and we took months getting there. He came from a more traditional agency approach but he did have a personality suited to collaboration.

He eventually left our team to become an Interaction Design Director at one of the top agencies. He did so because the high profile of the work and pay were irresistible, so this experience didn’t hurt his career progression or his ability to work other ways. Though I know for a fact he misses that team and is returning to a smaller environment where he can recapture that collaborative experience.

thoughts from people who have read Jeff Patton’s book and what they think about how his ideas fit with Scrum.

Haven’t read the book yet. Talked to Jeff about his ideas at Agile 2007 (He was my adviser on my presentation on product ownership) and at the Fall Scrum Gathering.

High praise for his thinking on user experience as a precursor in product development (why) not simply as part of execution (what).

We tend to focus on story writing as the first tangible step agile plays in product conception. There are whole worlds of collaboration in terms of understanding who the software is for and how it solves problems for human beings that should come first.

Jeff Sutherland says the vast majority of teams run Scrums without real backlogs. How many of those few product owners that have backlogs derive systems and features from a user-centered perspective?

Hoping Jeff Patton will give us practices to tackle that problem.

Posted: April 26th, 2008 under development, scrum.
Comments: none

To help some peers advocate for agile adoption, I prepared an experience report to demonstrate how my old team benefited from XP and Scrum practices. This is an extension and refinement of an earlier post on the benefits of XP.

Team Cohesion

Before and during our agile adoption, I informally administered the Gallup Q12 employee engagement survey. It is composed of twelve simple questions. Agreement correlates to retention, customer loyalty, safety records, productivity, and profitability.

From the beginning to the mid-point of our adoption, staff went from a response rate of 70% agreement 30% disagreement to 80% agreement, 15% neutral and 4% disagreement.

The most improvement was in daily opportunities “to do my best” and daily feedback on performance and expectations.

I’m convinced if I had administered the Q12 late in our adoption, we would have had even better results. The key un-addressed concerns were about having a best friend at work and feeling connected to the mission of the company. By 2007 our team grew to include people brought in by personal recommendation of other members of the team and our portfolio included consumer facing work directly for our CEO.

Rather than re-take the Q12, we undertook a 360° performance review. That we did this on our own initiative shows just how much trust we had built with each other.

Test Coverage/Code Quality

XP practices enforced methodical unit test coverage, mutually arrived at coding conventions, and real-time code inspection by multiple members of the team. The team went from no unit test practice to comprehensive coverage over the business logic and controller layers. (Unit tests against data access and gui were less comprehensive. I don’t intend to get in the middle of that debate here.)

A user story, test-driven approach to development has been shown to reduce defects in final testing by 40%.

XP and Scrum force conversations between the development team and product owner that incentivize all to build quality into the software rather than allowing technical debt to accumulate and relying on downstream QA process to fix the application.

In 2006-2007 there were no business impacting failures of our internally authored software. We were able to function as a project team with no dedicated developer maintenance staff. Change requests were minimal enough that we were able to prioritize them into our project sprints as overhead.

Reduced Risk

While any team has experts, “Agile” practices reduced our reliance on “specialists”. The entire team was capable of working on and maintaining any aspect of the code base. We passed the “bus test”; despite our small size, no project was at risk if any given member of the team became unavailable.

Leadership

Our team raised our skills and began contributing to our field. We write, present and teach at conferences on topics of scrum, XP and platform as well as contributing to open source projects and developer knowledge bases.

Recruiting and Retention

After establishing “Agile” practices we recruited skilled candidates from higher paying positions who desired to work in our culture and with our practices. We received inquiries from as far away as South America and Europe. Despite the reputation of our team and market demand we retained staff.

An additional benefit is that pairing provided an efficient on-boarding process for new hires. Developers joining the team provided immediate contribution. A metrics-based way to demonstrate this is to show that sprint commitments weren’t affected new hires first weeks. I observed that but mainly base this on comments from the team lead and existing members of the team.

Workplace Diversity

A 2006 paper by McDowell, Werner, Bullock and Fernald found that pair programming practice, “may help increase female representation in the field.”

Agile values and practices support a collaborative, empowering and sustainable work place. Such environments support diversity and take advantage of the breadth of experience each worker represents.

Client Satisfaction

We asked for quotes from our clients, vendors and even competitors which we included in our budget presentations (I’ve pretty aggressively scrubbed them):

“Working with the agile Software Development team has been rewarding on many levels…it’s a team that celebrates creativity, organization, listening, feedback, openness, honesty…and is proof positive that a great process results in great product. I look forward to our very regular meetings (I even readjust my travel schedule as much as possible to not miss anything) and am never disappointed. They are an engaging and engaged group of individuals.” – CEO

“[____ saved] half a head in [another team] and a full head in my team.” – VP

“The _______ written by our development team are the guiding-light to our decisions. [third party solution] has a vast wealth of information but no good reporting and our in-house [solution] enables us to divine meaning from the mountain of data.” – VP Traffic Operations

“We also use [third party solution] for all of our broadcast networks but I have heard about your software technology for ____. We currently do that through manual operators but I’d like to understand how you do that more sometime and how it works…” – Senior Executive, Competitor

“Given the complexities of ____ that includes the combined limitations of automation, graphic and traffic systems I believe [the team] has created a solution that has proven to be much more capable than most systems than I’ve worked with.” – Vendor

Frequent Delivery, Adaptability

Throughout 2006-2007 our team of 3-8 developers balanced two simultaneous lines of work on diverse projects built in Microsoft Windows Forms, ASP.NET to SQL Data Analysis Services Data Warehouses, Vista compatible Windows Presentation Foundation and XAML, open source .NET MVC frameworks and Ruby on Rails including a rich windows application built on beta Microsoft Technology.

The team completed eight IT and three consumer projects while doubling head count from 5 to 10 (+2 contractors). We initiated our consumer product initiative and achieved our first release of a rich windows application with a six month allocation of effectively 1.5 – 2.5 developers.

Invention/Innovation

Agile practices evolved from Lean management and associated knowledge creation theory. In this, it shares ancestry with Six Sigma.

Agile is based on empirical not plan-driven process control. It is closer to lean product development than lean industrial manufacturing.

Lean product development models sustained innovation as a process of knowledge creation and conversion within an organization that acquires and shares learning in an cycles within and across teams and up and down from leadership.

Agile fosters true joint work which is the only form of workplace collegiality that advances organizational change and innovation.

Our consumer product was recognized for its design and implementation by Microsoft’s platform and developer evangelist team as well as by the WPF team. It achieved high ratings in usability testing with end users (avg rating 8 of 10) and showed potential to deliver on its revenue targets.

Posted: February 11th, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: none