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 scrum, software development.
Comments: none

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 scrum, software development.
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 scrum, software development.
Comments: none

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 scrum, software development.
Comments: none

My development team began adopting Extreme Programming (XP) in January 2004.

Before this, we were hit and miss. Success relied on individuals. We had few shared practices. Our goal in going “Agile” was to consistently perform across projects.

“Agile” declares a set of common values and supportive practices. It fosters collaboration with customers and shared ownership within project teams.

In time, the team became proficient in core XP practices:

Planning

• User stories
• Iterative development
• Tracked velocity
• Daily stand-up meetings
• Regular retrospectives with continuous improvement

Designing

• Simple system metaphor
• Use of development spikes
• Refactoring

Coding

• Onsite customer
• Pair programming with switching
• Test driven development (TDD)
• Continuous integration
• Collective ownership
• Sustainable pace

Testing

• Extensive unit test coverage
• Bugs are resolved within the iteration
• Acceptance testing by the on-site customer

Within a year the team’s performance was more consistent and visible. We were measuring our velocity and predictably delivering on our 30 day iteration goals.

We discovered our project management practices had become a bottleneck. We were clearly hitting idle periods within and around projects because of a failure to efficiently describe and prioritize work.

We introduced Scrum as a management framework on top of XP. It provided practices for organizing and prioritizing work. It helped us define roles and responsibilities.

We clarified our expectations of internal clients and achieved more efficient interactions overall. We created mechanism for reporting progress and costs to senior management.

In Q1 06, the team’s practices were evaluated by an Agile Coach, Jason Lewis. Among his findings:

Oxygen Media’s Agile software development process overall rates above average and is better then the benchmark team. The benchmark did have considerably more Agile experience, but less time together as a team.

In the evaluation of practices, the team was overall: 1) well above average to outstanding in the adaptive learning practices, 2) Above average in Sprint practices and 3) Average in planning practices. High points for the team’s individual practices were the retrospective and use of the wall for iteration tracking. The one low point was the maturity of acceptance testing.

When comparing roles to the benchmark team, the benchmark team had a much better customer role but the team was stronger in the developer and facilitator roles. When comparing the team’s adoption of the practice’s versus the benchmark the team was generally more effective. Iteration tracking was one key area the benchmark team was better, however, the team was much stronger in the all the adaptive learning practices.

After the audit, we pre-staged our iteration planning, reduced our iterations to 2 weeks and formally planned releases.

We added discipline to our acceptance testing. We described acceptance tests in a narrative script authored by and exercised by our product owner (proxies).

We never automated acceptance tests for rich windows applications or systems tied to large, volatile back end data stores. But by Q3 2007, the team was using automated acceptance tests on it’s web applications.

The most drastic improvement however was in the customer role. Scrum defines the responsibilities of the product owner. In our case, that role was divided into two individuals.

The product owner, is an empowered single authority for prioritizing business value at the feature level. They are usually are executive level and work in the business unit “funding” the work. They also have working knowledge of the system to be built. Product owners participate in planning and review, and are available for ad hoc questions within iterations.

The product owner proxy is a member of the development staff who acts as onsite proxy for the product owner. This person assists in authoring user stories and maintaining a product backlog, meets regularly with the product owner, and acts in their place to broker decisions within the development team during iterations.

By Q2 2007, the team had product owner proxies for both our IT and our consumer facing work. Product owners included the VP of Broadcast Operations, VP of Ad Sales Traffic, our CTO, and our CEO.

Throughout 2006-2007 our team performed exceptionally well, balancing two simultaneous lines of work and maintenance in both .NET and Ruby on Rails with four to six developers. Our projects delivered on client satisfaction, originality and early monetary goals.

Team members raised their skills and began contributing to our field. They were writing, presenting and speaking at conferences on topics of scrum, XP and platform as well as contributing to open source projects and developer knowledge bases. We were drawing positive attention from our peer community and within our company.

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

Ript Promo – Click to play.

At the end of 2007 our company was acquired by a much larger television company. Software we wrote for internal use is considered valuable enough by the acquirer that they are hoping to transition into their much larger operations.

Posted: February 4th, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: 1

Jeff Sutherland said he was finding more developers who will only work in agile software development teams.

He also said that to his estimation about 10% of shops that claim to be practicing Scrum pass the Nokia test and have self-organized teams, product backlogs prioritized by a product owner and estimated by developers.

And that doesn’t even speak to refactoring, test driven development, pairing, continuous integration, built in quality, acceptance testing, etc.

And that doesn’t speak to knowledge creation and sharing practices across the entire organization, clarity of vision, understanding competitors, collaborating with customers, continuous improvement, and embrace of change.

I’ve come to understand that agile values place demands on development, management and business practices.

Two questions arise from this:

• Would you only work in an [agile] shop?
• What do you mean by [agile]?

for [agile] feel free to substitute: Lean, XP, Scrum, XP/Scrum, Crystal, Adaptive, etc. etc.

Posted: January 19th, 2008 under Uncategorized.
Comments: 1

Ilio and my paper is available on the IEEE library site as part of the proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).

Great Scrums Need Great Product Owners: Unbounded Collaboration and Collective Product Ownership

Abstract

Scrum describes a separation of roles; the product owner is accountable for achieving business objectives and the team for technical execution. A pragmatic and collegial relationship between a product owner and team can satisfy the definition of collaboration and honor roles while barely tapping or actually working against the potential of a project and its participants. This paper surveys literature to describe different forms of collaboration, to establish that deep, unbounded collaboration is at the heart of agile values, and that partnerships of high trust and shared risk lead to value and innovation. Finally, this paper incorporates a real- world example of a product owner who, while remaining accountable to the outcome, shared ownership over vision, priorities and execution with her Scrum/XP development team.

Posted: January 16th, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: none

I just presented Ilio Krumins-Beens’ [and my paper] on unbounded collaboration between the product owner and development team at the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (I’ll link off to the paper when the transaction is published on the IEEE site.)

HICSS is an interesting mix of academics and practitioners. On the list of presenters in the agile mini-track were Jeff Sutherland, Stephen Cohen from Microsoft, and Gabrielle Benefield from Yahoo as well as researchers Ann Fruhling from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, Kevin Kwiat from the Air Force Research Laboratory, and David F. Rico.

HICSS is an instance where the academy has invited us developers into their living room to discuss what we do, the way we actually do it.

There’s a huge disconnect between what I practice as a software developer and what many institutions of higher learning teach.

Theoretical exercises in waterfall practices are not helpful precursors to TDD, pairing, continuous integration, refactoring, interdisciplinary collaboration, self-organizing teams, etc. etc.

Arguably, they are not even helpful precursors to waterfall as it’s actually practiced. If you think XP requires experienced developers what the heck do you get when you make someone with little experience architect a market trading system in UML!

We need the academy to understand us. They not only train our workforce, their research informs policies, standards and business management practices that shape government and industry expectations.

We need business schools that train prospective CXO’s to build lean businesses that will in turn build out agile/lean IT and product development organizations.

Another big barrier to agile adoption is lack of empirical support for the benefits of specific Lean, Scrum and XP practices. We need original research that correlates to the obvious things: quality, risk mitigation, market performance, productivity and cost reduction.

I’d also really love to see original research on how agile, highly collaborative practices correlate to ethical behavior on the part of individuals and organizations, gender and ethnic diversity, and sustained innovation.

Posted: January 10th, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: none

This is the third pattern of collaboration that entrenches status quo.

“Contrived collegiality” and “balkanization” suggest a certain amount of bad faith. Bounded collaboration is a subtler dysfunction.

A pragmatic and collegial relationship between a product owner and team can honor roles and feel like collaboration while barely tapping or actually working against the potential of a project and its participants.

We may simply define our contribution too narrowly.

A development team may communicate to a product owner only during formal inspection points. They limit co-work to the immediate needs of the project and not range to larger questions and concerns. Under the pretext of “single, wringable neck” they shield themselves from the struggle to shape a business outcome and stand at a distance from the product owner.

“Bounded collaboration rarely reaches deep down to the grounds, the principles or the ethics of practice. It can get stuck with the more comfortable business of advice giving, trick trading and material sharing of a more immediate, specific and technical nature. Such collaboration does not extend beyond particular units of work or subjects of study to the wider purpose and value of what is taught and how. It is collaboration, which focuses on the immediate, the short-term and the practical to the exclusion of longer term planning concern.” — A. Hargreaves and M. Fullan

Seeming collaboration limits business opportunity and works against sustained invention and true innovation. “Contrived collegiality” and “balkanization” are forced upon us but what boundaries do we ourselves create? To what degree do we champion agile practices while surrendering the values that inspire them.

Jeff Sutherland cites the exceptional Borland Quattro Pro development team as a significant inspiration for what became Scrum practice. He also points out that Quattro Pro didn’t win in the marketplace.

Superior technical execution and transparency to a single, empowered product owner is not, unfortunately, enough. We developers need to move beyond how and when to engage a broader set of questions over what, for whom and why.

We need to work jointly with our product owners to understand the opportunity, the end users and the value our software brings to them.

Posted: January 2nd, 2008 under scrum.
Comments: none