On our site you can find a series of expert opinions, advice on Agile insights, book reviews, and software usage tips, as well as training certifications and recommendations. Bookmark us now and join our Newsletter for regular (but not overly annoying) updates.
Feel free to join us at our other social sites:
Participants using agile methodology can gain personal health benefits and increase safety by applying some of the principles and practices of agile to their own well-being. Here are some possible ways:
Creating a personal backlog: A personal backlog is a list of tasks or goals that one wants to accomplish in their personal life. These can include lists such as exercising, meditating, reading, learning, etc. A personal backlog can help one prioritize and plan their activities, and track their progress and achievements.
Evaluate Progress in sprints: A sprint is a short and focused period of time, usually two to four weeks, where one could work on a subset of tasks or goals from their personal backlog. A sprint can help one break down their work into manageable chunks, and deliver value frequently and consistently.
Limit work in progress: Work in progress (WIP) is the amount of tasks or goals that one is currently working on at any given time. Limiting WIP can help one avoid multitasking, reduce stress and distractions, and increase focus and quality.
Seek feedback and collaboration: Feedback and collaboration are essential for agile practitioners, as they would help in improving one’s performance and deliver better solutions. Similarly, seeking feedback and collaboration from others, such as family, friends, mentors, coaches, etc., can help one improve their personal health and safety, as they can get support, advice, encouragement, and accountability for their actions.
Reflect and adapt: Reflection and adaptation are key aspects of agile, as they enable people to learn from their experiences and make changes accordingly. Likewise, reflecting and adapting on one’s personal health and safety can help one identify what is working and what is not, and make adjustments to improve their well-being. A good way to validate one’s performance is to mark down metrics at the end of a sprints as milestones.
Improvement of physical fitness: One can use agile methods to set and achieve fitness goals, such as running a marathon, losing weight, or gaining muscle. One can create a fitness backlog with specific and measurable tasks, such as running a certain distance, doing a certain number of repetitions, or eating a certain number of calories. In the same way, measurement of these activities through digital fitness trackers, or digital body composition scales can further facilitate tracking via apps. One can also reflect and adapt on their fitness plan, and make changes based on those results.
Improve mental health: One can use agile methods to cope with stress, anxiety, depression, or other mental health issues by creating a mental health backlog with tasks that look to improve their mood, such as practicing gratitude, meditation, mindfulness, or positive affirmations. One can also work in sprints, where there’s focus on completing a subset of tasks within a fixed time frame, and track progress and well-being using tools such as journals, mood trackers, or apps. Other types of feedback can come from therapists, counselors, or friends, who can provide professional help, advice, and tips.
Improve personal growth: One can use agile methods to pursue their passions, hobbies, or interests, and learn new skills or knowledge by creating a personal growth backlog of tasks that can help them grow as a person, such as reading a book, taking a course or degree, learning a new language, or playing an instrument. The use of sprints can provide focus on completing a subset of tasks within a fixed timeframe, and track weekly progress and learning from tools such as quizzes, test results, etc.. Additional feedback and collaboration from others, such as mentors, teachers, or experts, who can provide feedback, guidance, and inspiration while providing proper ideas on how to reflect and adapt a personal growth plan, and make changes based on outcomes and feedback.
Like any step toward improvement and gaining any form of benefit, starts with a plan, and putting the types of ideas mentioned above into action. The best approach is to just start jotting ideas down or keep them in a physical or digital notepad, and once there’s at least five to ten ideas on what to improve, it’s time to put them into action and be consistent in applying oneself to the goal.
Is an initiative failing? We knew it! Was a mistake made? By who? If a mistake happens, we typically look for someone to blame. In turn, many of us will avoid risks or will play it safe to avoid being pointed out. Progress suffers from fear of taking action. Making this even worse, the finger-pointing kills curiosity and with it the chance to learn. What can we do to prevent this?
Mistakes happen. And if today we preach risk-taking, speed and experimentation, we have to expect even more mistakes. Giving people more responsibility while enabling autonomy, means giving more opportunities to fail.
A person who never made a mistake never tried something new.
The number of failures is an indicator of risk-taking along with initiatives to explore new and better ways of doing things.
Some companies aim for a defined number of mistakes/failures to encourage employees to try more “new” things and to think in even wider and various directions. A nice example is the Google Graveyard, which lists projects “Killed by Google”. A sign of Google’s exploratory ambition.
Looking at the average organization, the risk (in cost, credibility and reputation in the market, etc) is often too high to encourage a high number of attempts with very low probability of success. However a “failure friendly culture” is also about simply being bolder in ideas and execution, about the courage to experiment. It’s about being able to react more quickly to changes in customer needs, technology or the market by taking risks and relying on trial and error. Their focus is on promoting an adaptive organization, a learning organization. Thus, it is above all about appreciating mistakes as opportunities to learn.
Learning from a mistake or failure begins with reflection. Many objective but also subjective (non-judgmental) impressions must be obtained and analyzed from different perspectives. Where was the cause? Can a pattern be identified (in the case of several such events)? How can we eliminate or neutralize the cause in the future? What can we learn about ourselves and our work that will help us do better in the future?
If we are too busy trying to find someone to blame, we don’t really ask ourselves the above questions in the first place. And the one who could have given important input to the questions – is too busy defending themselves. Or worse yet, that person might be influenced by the company culture and is getting ready to point fingers at someone else. In many companies, a culture of blaming is the result of a tradition of punishing mistakes. People lose their jobs or reputation (or both), and experience minor negative consequences.
In order to prevent a culture of blame, there also needs to be an atmosphere of openness, psychological safety, to be able to reflect and learn. Finally, practice is needed here. Helpful techniques can also rekindle curiosity and exploratory ambition in the workforce.
A number of techniques can also be found in the case of, but not limited to agile methodology. Let’s look at this one, the “5 Why’s” – Five sequential why questions (aka Root Cause Analysis), illustrated by the much-told example of the Lincoln Museum.
“The National Park Service was faced with a problem that the exterior of the monument was deteriorating rapidly. To address the wear and tear, the stone would require periodic costly replacement or restoration. Via the 5 why questions posed by Park Service leaders to the maintenance crew, the problem was more easily resolved.
1- Why is the material deteriorating so quickly?
Answer: Because of the high-powered sprayers used to clean the monument every two weeks.
2- Why are high-powered washes required every two weeks?
Answer: Because of the amount of bird droppings on the stone.
3- Why is there so much bird droppings?
Answer: Because many birds come to feed on the spiders.
4- Why are there so many spiders?
Answer: They are attracted by the many insects that are all around there at night.
5- Why are there so many insects?
Answer: They are attracted by the powerful spotlights used to illuminate the monument at night for tourists.
Instead of turning the lights on two hours before sunset, they were turned on 30 minutes after sunset and turned off thirty minutes before sunrise in the morning. The number of insects was reduced by 90 percent – problem solved.”
This example points out that the focus should be less on jumping to conclusions and giving out guilty verdicts, and more on better understanding (and then influencing) the circumstances that lead to the mistake.
Curiosity – how did the failure occur? Why did an idea fail? Analyzing the circumstances together to find the weak points. Accept failure in the past as a cognitive challenge to become smarter and better. Over time, the lack of placing blame and shame on people will support a learning orientation in the organization – a common eagerness to draw the most helpful insights from the event and to derive from this the best measures for the future.
Read more about dealing with failure and creating organizational agility on a behavioral level in the book “The Agile Culture Code – a guide to organizational agility ” (Puckett, 2020).
Contributing Author
Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
There are many organizations need or would like to achieve greater agility. However, in order to achieve it, leadership style and corresponding principles need to be revisited. Therefore if we want agility, we need to demonstrate agile leadership as a result. But how exactly? A global study delivers a behavior-based competency model. The good news is that competencies can be learned.
The Global Center for Digital Business Transformation wanted to find out, what exactly does agile leadership look like. The IMD Business School in Switzerland teamed up with metaBeratung, a specialized consulting firm in Germany, to conduct a global study (Neubauer, Tarling & Wade, 2017). Leaders from all over the world participated while having one thing in common: they operate in a highly disruptive market, which is where organizational agility is considered to be needed the most.
The theoretical foundation relies on IMD’s concept of Digital Business Agility (Bradley et al., 2015) that defines three behaviors that help companies in highly disruptive markets to survive. This study confirmed the relevance of these three behaviors.
Overall 19 expert interviews with digital leaders and data from a global survey with 1042 leaders where analyzed. Beside the three behaviors, four core agile leadership competencies were identified.
1. HYPER-AWARENESS
This would entail constantly monitoring and evaluating changes in market conditions, developments in technology, and customer needs. It would also include observing trends, identifying and watching dominant factors. Consequently this means that there would be a need to set up supporting processes and investing the necessary resources.
2. INFORMED DECISION-MAKING
This would entail making decisions based on facts and real-time data. Ensuring information is available, analyzed and considered in strategic and day-to-day operative decision making on every level.
3. FAST EXECUTION
This requires prioritizing speed over perfection. Prioritizing faster delivery value over planning and documenting, while ensuring fast decision making and preventing the organization from overburdening bureaucracy.
These three behavioral aspects will equip the leader to steer diligently in volatile markets. However, to lead people and create agility in the workplace, four related competencies are necessary to define the core of agile leadership (HAVE model; Wade et al., 2017; elaborated by Puckett & Neubauer, 2018/ 2020).
Four Competencies of Agile Leadership – The “HAVE” Model
1. ADAPTABILITY
This requires that leader not shy away from changing directions and revising decisions taken when circumstances change, or when new information becomes available. Further, this requires making sure processes, products, and/or services remain flexible enough to include feedback and adaptability to changing circumstances.
2. HUMILITY
This competency values feedback and input from others while being aware one’s own limitations. At the same time this requires the need to keep learning and treating others with equal footing while ensuring inclusion.
3. VISIONARY
This would require leaders to think big, find their vision and wear it on their sleeves while setting the direction and inspiring others.
4. ENGAGEMENT
This competency requires the need to stay connected, to grow and strengthen networks inside and outside the organization. At the same time this would require keeping in regular contact with customers and stakeholders while staying connected to the pulse of the market, such as relevant expertise and knowledge.
Agile leadership can be learned and demonstrating the three behaviors is a matter of effort and focus. Smart leaders will get their teams on board and together will find ways to create and sustain hyper-awareness, to ensure informed decision making and enable fast execution.
Competencies by definition can be learned. Step-by-step leaders can achieve mastery in playing the leadership role and spectrum. Leading agility does not necessarily mean every good idea or measurement has to come from or be managed by the leader. In face it’s quite the opposite. Good agile leaders understand their limitations and they might be highly visionary and very engaged but have difficulties adapting fast enough. Or they might be very humble and adaptable but not highly visionary. Yes, good leaders invest in their own development and grow in each of the four competencies. However, it must be understood that no one can be a star in all four dimensions. Agile leadership means to enable and inspire your people to step up and help build these competencies in your organization overall.
In order to excel in this most important leadership task, agile leaders must invest in their company’s culture to prepare the right conditions for people to grow – and through them attain agility (for more see “The agile Culture Code” Puckett, 2020 b).
Sources:
Bradley, Loucks, Macaulay, Noronha & Wade (2015). The Digital Vortex. https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/industry-solutions/digital-vortex-report.pdf
Puckett (2020). THE AGILE CULTURE CODE – A guide to organizational agility. BusinessVillage.
Puckett & Neubauer (2020). Agile Leadership – Leadership competencies for the agile transformation. BusinessVillage.
Wade, Tarling & Neubauer (2017). Redefining Leadership for a Digital Age. Copyright: IMD, metaBeratung, Global Center for Digital Business Transformation. https://www.imd.org/dbt/reports/redefining-leadership/
Contributing Author
Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
The more experiences companies create through agile transformation the importance of organizational culture becomes clearer. It is the number one challenge. It’s true, it could be the very reason why we can’t change, and subsequently why agile won’t work. However, working on our culture will also open the path forward. A closer look at agile organizations reveal that it is culture that builds the common ground and acceptance for agility.
Organizational development has always taught us that change is achieved sustainably when it starts with the people. Agile transformations are no different. On the contrary – the Manifesto for Agile Software Development already brings this focus to the surface. And the more we learn, the clearer it becomes, that organizational agility is a question of how people think and act; a question of organizational culture. Thus, it is not surprising, that agile organizations have little in common in terms of structure and governance (see e.g. Kimes, 2009; Aronowitz, De Smet & McGinty, 2015). Having the right culture helps us achieve organizational agility.
Organizational agility is not Scrum at scale. It is not about individual agile methods at all. It also has little to do with table-soccer and couch-corners, nor with dogs-allowed-in-the-office.
Organizational agility is actually about one thing alone: adaptability. The market is changing. Technology offers new possibilities to produce the old things more efficiently, faster, more customer-specific and to develop the new things, demands on the organization or other circumstances that are changing. The organization reacts by adapting. Its strategy, products, processes and structures adapt. If we look at concepts of business agility (according to the Agile Alliance), or the concept of digital business agility (Global Center for digital Business Transformation; Loucks, Macaulay, Noronha & Wade, 2016), we need to add one more aspect to the definition of organizational agility: the ability to identify internal and external changes early on and to derive new opportunities to create new or greater value for customers.
Ultimately, it is about how people work, how individuals, teams and the organization as a whole behave. Do we plan on foresight and focus in on developments step-by-step to explore and learn along the way? Do we monitor what is going on outside? Are we willing to change direction to keep up with the trends? Can we react and execute quickly?
How we work, how we behave, that is corporate culture. If an organization wants to become more agile, then it is either the biggest impediment or the most powerful lever.
“The importance of investing in culture and change on the road to agility cannot be overemphasized.” (Brosseau, 2019). Even if it is only about individual agile projects, an organizational culture that does not support agility is one of the most common reasons for failure, as the Project Management Institute (PMI) observes.
This is often because culture is understood – or not understood at all – as a spongy, soft, feel-good concept. It’s also because, although we have a vague idea of what an agile culture looks like, somehow hip and start-up-like, it is firstly (and often) so far removed from our own reality and secondly, this image does not offer us any concrete starting points.
Often people in the organization react to the topic of culture with a resigned shrug of the shoulders as an expression of “That’s the way it is with us, it can’t be changed”.
Organizational culture is more often seen as an excuse than an opportunity. Culture is seen as a rigid mass, as a historically-grown, and fossilized skeleton. A culture came into being at some point – in its basic features – and has continuously developed, polished, deepened and specified. An inert mass, but a living one. Culture has to do with people, with the system, with circumstances and structures, but it is more than the sum of its parts. Culture is alive and what is alive develops, and therefore can change.
Culture is a result of collective learning.
Today, facing a global pandemic that throws us into crisis, we learn very quickly to adapt to new ways. We also learn a lot about ourselves and about the way we work together. We learn a lot about our culture, we learn where its strengths lie and what is holding us back or slowing us down in becoming the best possible company to deal with today’s challenges. We learn new things. Learning is developing.
Let’s reflect on and build on those learnings and allow them to allow us to shape our culture.
For a company’s culture to support agility, three elements are needed which are illustrated in the “Agile Culture Code”, the TEC model (Puckett, 2020) Three Company Culture Elements Increased Agility Can’t Go Without: Transparency, Empowerment and (conditionless) Collaboration.
We humans do not have to change. Actually, we usually behave “TEC-compliant” when we want to solve a problem or achieve a goal privately:
We need to know what is going on and measure our impact. We need to be empowered not only to do things right but to do the right thing. We need to be able to connect and team up with others to focus on contributions rather than roles.
So, no, we don’t need to change. But change has to happen in the organization. To create an environment that inspires us and allows us to bring all our talents to the table and be at our best.
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Sources:
Aronowitz, S., De Smet, A. & McGinty, D. (2015). Getting organizational redesign right. McKinsey Quarterly. June 2015.
Brosseau, D., Ebrahim, S., Handscomb, C. & Thaker, S. (2019). Accessed February 2019. The journey to an agile organization. McKinsey & company. May 2019.
Jurisic, N., Lurie, M. Risch, P. & Salo, O. (2020). Doing vs being: Practical lessons on building an agile culture. McKinsey.com. August 4, 2020.
Kimes, M. What admired firms don’t have in common. Fortune. Released: March 2009. archive.fortune.com
Loucks, J., Macaulay, J., Noronha, A & Wade, M. (2016). Digital Vortex. How Today‘s Market Leaders Can Beat Disruptive Competitors at Their Own Game. DBT Center Press, Plano/Texas.
Manifesto for Agile Software Development. agilemanifesto.org
Puckett, S. (2020). The agile culture code – A guide to organizational agility. BusinessVillage.
Contributing Author
Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).
It has been over a decade now that surveys reveal – again and again – the one biggest challenge when transforming to agile: an organization’s culture. No surprise, since organizational agility arises not from doing agile alone but from being agile. So, let’s look at how agility can be anchored in the company culture, so it becomes a lever, not a challenge in achieving agility.
If an organization is agile, it can be seen in how aware they are about trends and developments on the market, how quickly and flexibly they can adapt to the changes they sense around them, and how spot on they come up with their solutions. Structure and process can help to set the organization up for agility, agile methodologies and tool support.
However, the heart of agility lies simply in the way people in the organization think and act. What they pay attention to, how they prioritize, how they get stuff done, how well they plan by sight and keep their eyes on the customer. Agility happens through people. By being agile, they form an agile culture in the organization. Intuitive, right? A lot about agility is intuitive. This is why it works so well.
For such a culture to grow and sustain, three elements, summarized in the TEC culture code (Puckett, 2020) are needed.
Imagine a project you would like to realize. Any project, business or personal. Often, the very first thought after we come up with an idea is “Can I do this?”
To answer this question, we think:
-> This is our way to create the TRANSPARENCY we need to see this through and to self-correct and steer ourselves along the way towards success.
Behind the initial question if we can do this, lies another basic condition. Some very basic thoughts:
-> This is our way of ensuring that we have full EMPOWERMENT.
Lastly, we make sure we are not on our own. We activate our network or build a network with people that we can use as a sounding board, bounce ideas off, learn from and ask for support if needed.
-> We ensure that we have the COLLABORATION we need.
This is it. This is the common denominator of agile culture –> TEC: Transparency, Empowerment and Collaboration. Manifested as pillars of a company’s culture, they come each with three unique aspects, each that require attention.
Direct line of sight to the customer, access to information about developments in technology and market, knowing what the competition is doing, etc. goes in line with transparent key performance indicators of the company. This allows us to think strategically.
To make sure we align forces and act as one organization, we all need to understand the organization’s purpose, its intentions and plans. This way we can channel ideas and align our efforts with the current corporate priorities.
Feedback is key to be able to optimize solutions on evolving customer needs. A direct line of sight, where possible, allows us to see firsthand how our work is perceived. Knowing where and how the different tasks we are working on play a role, we can self-steer to have maximum impact on value creation.
Work is more fun if we are in control and can decide or at least influence when, where and how we work. We are also more creative if we have the freedom to try things differently or experiment with something new. Freedom also allows teams to quickly adjust and adapt to changing circumstances, fostering adaptability and speed throughout the organization.
Empowerment means not only deciding how to do things right but doing the right thing. Given the transparency that provides a clear line of sight to the customer or access to data in combination with knowledge of the strategy, every team can act as an autonomous unit that works to generate maximum value. Ideas are implemented fast, adaption happens where it is needed most, at the contact point to the outside (e.g. customers).
Where we used to hear “not my job” before, people are now committed to achieving a goal, not to filling a job role. Entrepreneurship is fostered when people take initiative and have end-to-end responsibility.
One advantage an organization has, is that it can achieve mastery, generate new knowledge and ideas by connecting the many minds within, fostering exchange and sharing.
Modern organizations focus on value creation. This requires us to think about our skills and how to add value with them. It requires commitment to doing your best (when and where needed), not on doing a certain job in a certain team in a certain role. It also requires investment in building flexible networks that form temporary and open teams to achieve different goals.
To advance together as an organization, we must learn together. The starting point is taking time and extending trust, to openly talk about mistakes and to learn from them, together. Collaboration also means to support each other’s success and development, and to challenge each other to leave our comfort zone. Growth happens if we take risks and challenge the status quo.
Achieving the three TEC elements is what organizations strive for. However, we are the organization. We are the culture. Look at your own space to maneuver, at your area of responsibility. What can each of us do to increase transparency, to empower others and to improve collaboration to the next most intense, and most flexible level?
Source: Puckett, S. (2020). THE AGILE CULTURE CODE – A guide to organizational agility. BusinessVillage.
Image courtesy of IndypendenZ at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Contributing Author
Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).
There’s definitely a lot of buzz these days on the most popular types of Agile-At-Scale frameworks that would enable a company to scale for larger teams and varying company sizes. Everyone wants to go with the most popular one and assume that it’s the most effective one. We are providing an unbiased view of the pros and cons of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). Just note that a more popular framework doesn’t mean it’s better, or at least in the context of adoption and use, it might not be the best one for your particular company culture, size, situation, growth, budget, etc..
Scaling for agile implies that Scaling = Increase, Expansion or Variation in Size. That being said, it needs to be considered, what will be the amount and speed of growth as well? Not to mention, the budget and time required to sustain the adoption of the particular framework of choice. Below we explain SAFe and how it may or may not be best for your organization. We also take into consideration what may be the reasons for it’s popularity and growth.
The Scaled Agile Framework has evolved by far as one of the more popular of the frameworks. Created by an Agile pioneer Dean Leffingwell, this framework requires your teams to get certification through mandatory courses from a Certified Trainer (SPC and/or SPCT depending on the certification). Add to that the small “e” at the end of SAFe seems like a desperate attempt at an acronym just for the sake of making it a buzzword in and of itself. Does it come from the “e” in Framework? In any case, without the “e”, SAF wouldn’t sound all that nice from a marketing perspective, so most of us have just gone along with it, no questions asked.
Nonetheless, SAFe provides a well outlined Roadmap with a large variety of courses to get a better understanding of the multiple levels of scale. The types of courses will depend on the size and maturity of your agile teams within the enterprise (Essential, Large Solution, Portfolio, and Full).
With the entire spectrum (or as much as it possibly could be covered) of a scaled framework in an agile context, it needs to be outlined that in addition to the cost of courses, they also require annual subscription renewal fees, and much like the structure of software updates, will have major (x.1, x.4, etc.) and minor updates (3.x, 5.x, etc.) that a certified associate would need to maintain. That is as much an advantage as it could be a disadvantage. We outline those below.
Due to it’s vast coverage and all-round spectrum toward agility, it would certainly require more than a few Agile experts to implement this framework. It would also require all members to adopt it, let’s face it, there’s no “one foot in the door” approach, it’s all or nothing for this framework, as are most. But right out the door, you would need to expect at least the minimal budget for training for all members of the enterprise in order for a successful implementation, not to mention the cost of maintaining annual subscription fees.
The benefits certainly outweigh the costs of SAFe implementation, however, the costs should be considered ahead of time so that the benefits aren’t misunderstood for purely optimistic outcomes. You need to take the “good” with the “not so good” in these instances, and it needs to be determined as to what the immediate pitfalls are if the first attempts at gaining ROI or roll-out to full implementation are not as successful as expected.
What Is an Agile Mindset?In the agile community, many newcomers have not yet adopted the Agile Mindset, and most don’t actually know it exists. They’ll see Agile as something they’d like to use as a tool, process, or methodology. But that is like comparing someone who wants to play a video game without getting into the story-line about what the actual game is about. Surely that will not prevent someone from playing the game, but their advantage compared to the rest of the players, will be heavily hampered. In order to be fully immersed in the experience, one must consider that there are others involved in the game as well. Some may also be better (or worse) than others in some aspects of the game.
To keep a team performing optimally, all members should adopt a similar mindset to level the playing field and keep everyone engaged to handle high complexity. In today’s world, it’s important to consider that we have an increased level of complexity. We all are part of complex environments, whether we think certain situations are simple or not, and the more we are aware of that, we can better circumvent these issues when they come up in the future.
Agile methodologies are best suited to handle today’s level of high complexity. But for this we need to consider what “complexity” is? In our day-to-day, everything can be perceived as complex, even just the drive to our workplace, or having to debug a line of code. One thing we need to put in perspective is that every large structure or concept is typically built over smaller structures or concepts. With that in mind, we also need to consider that we’re being subjected to and we may quite possibly be bombarded by many smaller elements of one entire complex process on a constant basis. Sometimes it may appear that we’ve tackled the daily simple task, but in reality, it’s part of a month’s worth of seemingly non-related tasks.
An Agile Mindset is not a silver bullet to being fully immersed in Agile principles. It is a formal setting for your mind that will open doors, rather than close them once you are involved with an Agile team. The level of complexity that we all face in our teams could lead us to thinking that some things are not possible, and depending on the mindset of that team, that could potentially bring everything to a halt if they are not prepared to resolve it collectively. If you think of a mindset as a switch, such that if any one person in a 5 to 6 person team is not switched “ON” to the Agile Mindset, they may stick out like a sore thumb. They might not completely jive with the rest of the team’s discussions. Although they may still perform well overall, their synergy to help resolve issues and deal with the system of a complex situation will be less likely.
Once we see a situation in which all members of a team are switched on to an Agile Mindset, where they are working in a complex Agile environment, it can be more easy to see that problems get resolved quickly and more easily. An organizational structure could benefit from a more flatter one since all members rely less on a hierarchical structure, specifically one that relies on top-down delegation. When all members are sharing synergies and giving all their optimal levels of involvement, decisions are made more easily and become more self-managed, wherein everyone knows their respective part, external blame and distractions become less prevalent and overall processes become more streamlined.
Genuine openness and engagement from each team member is necessary for the individual parts to work as a whole. This is crucial and works like any moving parts in an engine. The moment a gear, cylinder or plug in an engine doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, the rest of the engine will need to compensate, other gears will grind, and the engine as a whole will risk overheating. In this same way, an Agile team must be aware and conscious that there are vulnerabilities throughout their performance. Some vulnerabilities may be individual, and others as a group. This is why an Agile team, although it should be shielded from external factors that could distract from the current focus, should also be well informed with the necessities that could possibly enable the team to perform effectively. A perfect example of this scenario would be to have an Agile Coach on-board, but it is also possible to get relevant reports and analytics from members of the team itself. In general, a diverse team, diverse backgrounds in culture or language, either technical or business or both, are all areas that could promote discovery of hidden problem-solving or creative avenues and provide the best overall direction for an organization.
[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Think of the trait that you would most likely want to have for personal success?
Many people would guess intelligence as a definite and safe answer to that question. But in fact, many have ignored the trait that they absolutely need to develop to be able to relate best to people in society. Think of how many problems people seem to report on a daily basis, even those that seem to be successful or wealthy. What is necessary to take into consideration is their success in relationships as the main factor in their overall success. Some people never ever seem to have any problems, while others always seem to have problems lurking in all corners and areas of their life.
There is no magic solution to resolving issues in life, but the ability to delay gratification and having a high level of self-control, appears to be a major trait that could solve most social issues, and it could very well be an important one for all people to develop for all aspects of their social life either personal and/or work-life.
One must keep in mind that better self-control is to actually reduce impulse reactions and outcomes. However, one might think that someone with intelligence may have better chances to have increased self-control, this is a misconception and is not as much a predictor for various indicators of success.
Bing Nursery School did a simple study based on Marshmallows with children of 4 to 5 years old. They were presented with marshmallows and were told that if they held on to 1 marshmallow for 15 minutes, they could get a second one (doubling their first). So if they ate the first one, they wouldn’t get a second one. All the while, the kids were also being filmed since they were told that they would be left alone to decide and during those 15 minutes. Some children couldn’t hold back, but others did, and convinced themselves whichever way possible that they should not eat that first marshmallow. An example of that study can be seen here: Marshmallow Experiment
The initial results of that study were not the only relevant ones, but in fact, what came later on in the lives of those children. It was shown that the children who held off eating that first marshmallow therefore having the ability to delay their gratification at that time, later in life went on to become a lot more successful, wealthier, as well as more physically and mentally healthier than their counterparts who couldn’t hold back. Further to that, these same children who delayed gratification, also had better quality relationships, specifically less breakups, fights, and divorces.
Further studies on these children as adults, have shown that the adults’ brains not only functioned differently but were also structured differently. Specifically, the section of the brain concerned are the frontal lobes, and those with better self-control (less impulsive) had smaller lobes. This was a result of less impulse activity since the size of a brain’s frontal lobes are known to be correlated to the level of impulse.
How do we apply this to our own lives and to our agile practice? There are ways to develop your self-control and delayed gratification. Just like any physical exercise, the key is to do it gradually and consistently over time.
The most common practice to develop this is by first creating a list of goals that you may have. These goals may be related to personal life or workplace. Be aware that this delayed gratification activity may somewhat be energy draining at first if you are not used to having a high level of self-control, but it will indeed make you better at it. The idea is to pick something that you would frequently do in the day, and once identified, make sure to do it less and less in the day. This does not necessarily have to be a bad habit, but would certainly be a good start.
Examples would include:
Observe your list at the beginning and then at the end of the day, and do this day-by-day for at least a week to see whether or not your results improved or not. For those who practice agility this can easily be setup as weekly sprints. The key to understanding this, is to observe your level of motivation or level of energy from delaying your gratification. You may even notice that your goal results were achieved a lot faster and higher quality than you would have if you didn’t delay gratification. One must realize that self-control also has a threshold in capacity, therefore, the more you can practice delayed gratification and self-control for one thing, it can promote better self-control management efficiencies for others. So if you do not practice self-control, do not be surprised that you find yourself slipping out of control most of the time because you have no time to focus on any particular one.
Image courtesy of ddpavumba at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
In the context of Lean principles the Minimum Viable Product is known in practice as the MVP. For most, the use of that term is used liberally and sometimes even dangerously when used to represent a finished product. The problem arises when there are expectations well beyond actual possibilities at the time of signing, planning or initial sprint. Of course with reason, nobody knows what to expect until the product is completed.
We are using the concept HPE as an acronym to represent High Product Expectation. In this context, High Product Expectation is what the client expects as the finished product right from the start, with the additional possibility of more features. As you could guess, the MVP should never be equal to the HPE. By this we mean that you should never expect the completed product as an MVP to have a full set of features and attributes.
The above sounds like common sense, but many projects from time and time again, are built with ridiculous expectations at the signing of a contract or initial product specifications, they become sealed with the expectation that a minimum viable product (MVP) will be built, even with the utmost transparency. This is not a problem in and of itself, but this step is seldom dived into or taken seriously during the different stages of a project from beginning to end. We tend to skip through the process, whether through ignorance or negligence, and as a result take for granted that should we actually “do things properly” so all will turn out well. This could also be from a lack of negotiation, rush to get started, because after all, everyone acts like there could be a ticking time-bomb that could go off at any time. Certainly, time of is of the essence, and nobody wants to lose out on the opportunity cost. But the loses incurred down the road would be best prevented at the very beginning.
In the end we could all be optimistic, and rely on good faith, but most projects start with best intentions, and how they end is a different story. Actually, the only real moment the customer starts to ask ‘serious’ questions about what was expected to be built, ends up being at the end of the project, or at signoff. Not to confuse, “definition of done” with actual “completed product,” but these terms may eventually be intertwined as well, and could be used at times of disagreement, leading to a never-ending cycle of argument, discouragement, disbelief, loss of trust, loss of morale, and just plain waste of time. The client may have had another understanding of what the MVP was. It is very likely they thought it just meant the “first version” of the product. That is where things can go seriously wrong.
Certainly if agile principles and methodology are being practiced properly, there shouldn’t be any surprises when the end of a project comes. We all know too well, that expectations or better yet “defining expectations” has no bounds. When it comes to meeting expectations, there’s a lot of politics, assumptions, and a lot of finger pointing as to who expected what and for what dollar amount, especially when there are hidden agendas.
So when we talk about MVP, we need to ask the client important questions like:
“What are you willing to accept?”
“What are you really looking for?”
“What are the features you’d be willing to let go of if there we run out of time or budget?”
“Who’s expert opinion is being questioned?”
“How much time do we have to learn about what the market wants?”
Preferably these are questions that you should ask at the very beginning, but definitely consider re-asking those questions and bring out those assumptions throughout the project, from sprint to sprint. The Product Owner or Business Analyst should be keeping tabs on these questions, but relevant questions should always be asked over and over again, with emphasis to determine those expectations. Keeping track of those answers is also key to making sure those expectations are met. You may eventually notice that the answers change as each sprint, stage, or phase is completed. With those changes you can eventually challenge why there have been changes and assumptions, in the hopes of getting those answers and dig deeper to find out who’s behind them, perhaps gaining some extra transparency. Don’t be afraid to ask who’s expectations (or assumptions) created those changes to the original ones. You may be surprised to find out it’s not the same stakeholders who are behind the original ones; more people may have gotten involved, or maybe switched in or out of the project.
With these basics covered, you should be able to gain higher levels of understanding on what the client was expecting. But to further this understanding, you should be able to gauge whether or not the client was setting them too high to begin with. Put differently, if the client had high expectations (HPE) at the beginning of the project (i.e. little or no knowledge of what they were going to get from the MVP) it would be unlikely for the client to lower their expectations by the end of the project. If expectations were described as a type of force, this explanation would represent a metaphoric ‘inertia’ that tends to increase in a project over time, once in motion it does not diminish.
[Image courtesy of jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
When you think back at all the times you’ve enjoyed what you done. You were likely and most certainly had that overwhelming feeling of accomplishment, like there was purpose to what you were doing. It may have started when you were a young boy or girl, at home, on the beach, in nature, or at the park. If you were to imagine or recall what it was that you were doing, it would have probably been in the form of a game, involved friends, or the use of a repeat sequence of movements or patterns that stimulated your creativity and ideas. Something along the lines of building a sandcastle, piecing a puzzle together, or some other form of genius process in the making.
We can relate the practice of agile and the agile mindset to almost a similar way. If you don’t get that feeling in what you are currently doing, then something is likely missing. Yes, we’re aware, Agile practices are done at work not in our personal lives. If we read between the lines on what Agile principles will advocate, we learn to see that there’s a certain pattern to stimulate the creative process. Is it possible to make a certain “work” process enjoyable? Many of us might think of our work as mundane and repetitive, but Agile doesn’t have to be! The context in which we think of our work is always a factor in which we can enjoy and be happy about what we do.
The following are just some key thoughts on how you change your perspective and kick your daily work life routine into something you enjoy and bring out the kid in you:
Remember the example we gave above? We’re saying, you don’t have to be doing something just because someone tells you to do it, do it because YOU WANT TO DO IT. Better yet, the Agile practice is filled many ceremonies (Sprint Planning, Daily Scrums, Sprint Demos, Retrospectives, etc.), and those are opportunities to turn it into a game, a game that is continuously improving. One of the things we see in sports, is that the actual game, the event of one team vs. the other, never just ends there. The end result of each game played (much like an iteration) is part of the process, and the team (and individual athletes) is looking to play future games a little better over time, and so on.
Do you like the industry? Do you like product you are developing? Do you like the people you are working with? If you’re having a hard time answering these questions, you need to stop and take a look around you and take a mental check on what you are doing there to begin with. Half the stress you may be subjecting yourself to is the actual environment you are putting yourself into, not necessarily the actual work itself. Agile principles refer to “people”-like values. If you are not a social person, you might not be liking what you are doing, and it’s important to consider that. Much of what is happening today is remote-work, which includes most teams working at home alone and without any form of social interaction. Probably the most of what remote workers get are Skype and Slack messages and phone calls. If you are looking to be Agile the first thing you should be looking to do is be more social and have more face-to-face interaction. If you are working remotely, it might be difficult, but using that laptop camera during meetings may definitely enable more social aspects and sense of community with the rest of your team.
Much of what we can get out of building purpose and happiness in our work lives can be stimulated and maintained by putting in rewards and trophies. Much like any game or achievement, you feel a lot better when you get to the end while acknowledging what the team completed and achieved the end goal. Perhaps this can be used at the end of each Sprint? or each product release? why not? All that time and hard work, should be rewarded with any form of accomplishment. Many companies are learning that this is one of the best ways to build that sense of purpose into their cultures. That is not to say that these types of rewards are necessary, as we mention above, you need to have your own intrinsic reasons for purpose and happiness in the workplace, much like you do for your own personal goals.
Anyone telling you what YOUR purpose is at work is futile, and will only lead to more dissatisfaction. The cycle will create more and more levels of disappointment and perhaps even more levels of conflict. One of the easiest ways we can advocate happiness in the workplace is to take the process and turn it into a game, but make it a game that everyone can play creatively, and take seriously. Sure there’s always a few laughs that are encouraged along the way, but make sure you have something in place that can be sustainable and enjoyable for all. If you are already practicing agile methodologies, your easy bet is to make those into games. One of the more common ones we’ve seen already is Planning Poker during Sprint Planning, but as most things in life, we can change practically anything that involves teams into something with increasing levels of fun.
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
If you enjoy reading our articles, we ask only for what you are able and willing to support. Our efforts require time and research. Our goal is to update on a full-time and daily basis. Ideally we would like to achieve 1000+ articles, of which we’ve currently reached 10%.
Currently we are dedicated to updating our site on topics of the highest interest and quality for active Agilists as yourself. Your donations ensure that we update, create, optimize and maintain our site on a regular basis with expansion of features into other projects that will include other media for your enjoyment such as videos, podcasts, and Agile related activities.
We look to YOU as a practicing Agilist to help us extend awareness of what has and continues to make Agile fun and exciting!
Through the articles and pages of our site, we are creating a growing work of interest, to enrich the knowledge of current Agilists (and potential future Agilists) about the Agile practice.
We hope you, our readers, will continue to support our site as we continue to update and improve our site on a regular basis. Please click the image below to send us some goodwill!
One cannot avoid unseen forces in effect when agile in place. That said, when practicing Agile you must be aware of the “Laws” at work. We’re not necessarily talking about the ones that bring about the police, judge and jury if you break them. When looking at Parkinson’s Law, we’re talking about a law that you can’t avoid whether you like it or not.
Parkinson’s Law is all around us, and it’s part of our everyday lives, but since we find it to be a natural progression of what is constant in our day-to-day, we think nothing of it. So it’s time to wake up! What about Parkinson’s Law? Well it states that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” That is to say, we usually think of estimating work (in whatever form you decide), to the extent that we know about the available resources. If you were asked to go fill a cup of coffee for someone, or yourself for that matter, would you be likely to fill it to the top, or just halfway. Sure we can think of the times we would fill it halfway, but more often than not, we fill it to the top. So we’re not saying Parkinson’s Law is an absolute or that it happens 100% of the time, but it does certainly happen often.
Usually when we estimate during planning sessions, we may be lead to fill up the time we have to do something, with the time we have available. So let’s think of this on 2 levels. In sprint planning we naturally fill in the Sprint with the story points based on our average velocities from previous sprints. Now that’s where Parkinson’s Law works well. And that’s actually why we use story points, to remove the concept of time, and falling into traps, not just Parkinson’s Law. But say for instance, someone asked you to estimate a Story (or Use Case) in real time, and imagine that you were somewhat influenced previously (or at that very session), where someone said in low-key that you had about 3 days to do it. It may very well take 2 days to complete the work, but are you being rational at that point? Or are you going to really take some time to figure out how long it may actually take? Any task, no matter how simple or compact, deserves a fresh set of thoughts and ideas to assess it’s level of complexity. Reason being, you wouldn’t want to over (or under) estimate a task if it truly wasn’t the time it could’ve actually taken.
Assume you estimated every task you had with what your colleagues told you is the “standard.” You could very well just go with the “standard” times, or better yet you may give yourself the excuse that you didn’t have the time to run through the actual requirement, or the task seems so simple, it shouldn’t take longer than the “standard.” Think about what this means with regard to the overall value of a project. The concept behind which sprint planning, depends on your flexing the metaphorical estimation muscles. The more you practice, the better you will become at being increasingly accurate. With unrealistic estimates, you may actually inflate budgets, and the perception of waste will be greatly increased, and the level of competitiveness drops. Many teams can fall victim with this Parkinson’s Law at work, when many tasks that shouldn’t take very long, end up being logged with double or triple the time it really took. You may be able to get away with it sometimes, but what if your client isn’t that naive?
[Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
One of the first things many team members on Agile projects lose sight of is the importance of tracking their time spent on their tasks identified in their Backlog Item. Whether it’s a User Story, Sub-Task, Enhancement, etc., logging hours spent is of absolute importance to make sure further Sprint burn-downs, velocity, and estimates will continue to reflect increasing accuracy. The tendency of some teams is to use their Backlog Items (in either of the forms mentioned above), as a scope tracker. However, time-tracking on a daily basis is of absolute importance.
Once a backlog item has been completed, only then do team members log their hours, and it most likely ends up being the hours set in the original estimates. Not only is it best practice to log hours spent on your backlog items on a daily basis, but also to re-assess what the remaining hours are. Just because an item was estimated to take 16 hours, and you performed 8 hours so far, it does not mean 8 hours remain. Sure it would seem logical that it would come down to a simple mathematical equation, but it’s truly not what is meant by “Time Remaining!” So what should be put in Time Remaining? It’s really about what should be required to complete the task at the moment of logging your time mid-course. What that means in our previous example; if you logged 8 hours for a task that was originally estimated at 16 hours, you may come to realize, there’s only 4 hours left. It’s as if you are re-estimating or re-assessing what is left to do. A number that does not match what was originally estimated, is perfectly fine either from a downward estimate or an upward one (assuming it’s done correctly of course!). This is by far the best way to know if original estimates were done accurately, and gives team members a gauge on whether those estimates continue to be assessed correctly in later sprints. Better yet, if needed, the variance of estimation accuracy can be calculated as well.
The problem arises when developers mark down remaining estimates as a straight-line mathematical equation, since it would imply that all original estimates were done properly, and makes it impossible to weed out the estimation imperfections during Sprint Planning from Sprint to Sprint. The other issue that may happen is that there could be a skew in estimations since some developers will take their time to complete a task (if they see that they’ve completed it early), and then hurry their task, or worse, bust the estimates if the task was underestimated. From there, it may escalate to having only underestimated tasks as being incorrectly estimated. What that gives is a mix of underestimated, and on-time estimates. As you can see, when the hours are totaled up for that sprint, the skewed results give an impression that generally all tasks were underestimated, and the lack of transparency will make the team draw separate conclusions. This also affects your burn-down charts and interpretation of velocity, all the while the cycle of trust within the team is broken.
Seeing the above situation in a different light, if you were on a trip where the original travel time was supposed to be 10 hours, only to find out the ride is shorter than expected, you would probably want to know, right? The same would apply if it would be longer than expected. To make the point clearer, your expectations, and that of others depend on the transparency of what remains to be done on any development effort. This aids efforts for future estimations and weeds out any further potential to be disappointed.
The next time you may be faced with a seemingly obvious question “How much time is remaining?” it may need to be seen as “How much time is needed to complete the task?” It’s not just a simple math calculation. Remember that estimates are called “estimates” because there is a chance that they will not be “accurate.” Having those numbers accurately represent “time remaining” allows for the estimation process to get better and better, as the team looks back in retrospect and compares their estimations for future Sprint Planning sessions.
[Image courtesy of lekkyjustdoit at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
There are certainly many misconceptions that occur with having to implement agility within the organization. The issue becomes even more compounded when non-agile practitioners speculate about what Agile is or for that matter what their idea of what it should be. In our example, this kind of speculation can present a sort of revolving door phenomenon whereby those who are familiar with Scrum, use it to refer to Agile interchangeably. Admittedly, Scrum is a large part of Agile when referring to it holistically, but Agile is not Scrum. However, we can derive some values from Scrum and say that they are synonymous with Agile values. What tends to happen is that many people believe that if they are doing Scrum, then automatically they are Agile. There’s a very fine line to that supposition, but it’s not always entirely true.
For the most part, implementing a part of the whole doesn’t necessarily mean you are all of the whole. As an example we can use the idea of electricity. If some parts of a car (i.e. radio, window system, pumps, battery) are electric, would you say that your car is an “electric” car? Not likely. Even when we do refer to electric cars that are motorized by electric power cells alone, the car isn’t entirely electric per se. This comparison although not an exact representation of the differences in Agile or Scrum, hopefully can give you the level of complexity in the assumption of either one for another.
For further clarity, there are other mechanisms of Agile in perspective, there is also a mindset and value-driven aspects that should be accompanied with it, not just a process. There’s also other methodologies and processes that can be included or can be complimentary to Scrum (i.e. XP, Kanban, TDD, ATDD) that make a more solid Agile implementation possible. That is not to say that it’s an “all-or-nothing” situation. Further to this we have what is considered to be the Agile guidelines, also known as the Agile Manifesto consisting of 4 values and 12 principles. When speculation and discussion occurs about what Agile really is, very seldom does the conversation include what is mentioned in the manifesto. However, more often, the concept of implementing a Scrum process does. This is where the clarification about those assumptions or beliefs, is very important to distinguish before it’s too late, whereby the decision takes place and is built on a preconceived false notion of Agile.
Getting the above points out in the open early is not only to assure successful Agile expectation and implementation, but also to bring a more positive light to what can sometimes bring “failures-as-fact.” By that we mean that there are many who have attempted implementing Agile in the workplace, and used a “not-so-complete” method or process into effect. That is to say, they thought they were putting an Agile methodology (or in certain cases what they thought was Agile) in place, then saw it fail, and then concluded “Agile doesn’t work” despite the other flaws. There are certainly instances where Agile really doesn’t work, or perhaps it isn’t the best solution for your organization, politics and bureaucracy aside. Agile isn’t the cure-all solution to all your organizational woes but can definitely be more fun! Even when it’s not a good match for the organization, not implementing Agile is perfectly fine, it’s not a must, and further to that, it’s not a religion (although it sometimes is perceived as such).
It’s not hard to believe, we have a tendency to waste a lot of time communicating whether it be through face-to-face, talking, texting, emailing, or chatting online. The problem with that is that everyone’s bad habits can get the best of you whether you like it or not. Have you ever gotten that email where you can’t decipher whether it was a request? some sort of prank? or yet something absolutely serious?
We all know the situation could be better, as many do in today’s day-to-day lifestyles, people claim they no longer have time for the simpler things in life, just relaxing or taking the time to do something truly for themselves. Below we’ve identified some of the bad habits that you may want to avoid, and for your own sake, be able to identify from other before you get pulled unnecessarily into someone else’s trap:
The intent of someone who puts “Quick Question” in the subject heading of an email is certainly obvious: they have a need to resolve a question quickly. The problem is that the intent is a setup for one’s own need to get immediate gratification at the receiver’s expense. The question you have to ask yourself is how “quick” does a question need to be answered, and is it worth stopping what you are currently doing only to be distracted by someone else’s supposed “quick” needs. You may need to consider that there are times when someone’s need for a quick answer is valid i.e. a life-or-death emergency situation, but if you are seeing this type of email regularly coming from the same person, it indicates that they are certainly not taking their own time to get a little more organized. Then ask yourself this: Would you distract yourself from someone’s “quick” question, if they can’t get themselves organized? We are tempted to say “yes” if it was a situation where it was our customer, after all they are paying for it. Or are they? In the grand scheme of things you are doing both yourself and the customer a disservice. First, they will never learn how to organize themselves with prioritized efficiency, and second it will always be to your (and your company’s) demise as you keep your phone or emails rolling in for around-the-clock response times that weren’t necessarily part of the contract.
We all know, receiving a call from someone in need is something urgent, should be taken seriously. However, you should be cautious about the intent of those who call others about a complex question that needs to be answered on the spot. The quick answer to that is “Can I call you back with the answer?” If they don’t want to give you the time to research and respond, then you know you may be facing issues about your response later on. The other way to prevent any misunderstandings is to ask that they send you a followup email outlining all issues in the question that needs to be addressed. Note, we are referring to a “complex” question. Failure to get this outlined in writing could present some issues down the road, as you run the risk of having to address “unmentioned” questions that they “thought” they asked you during the call.
Unfortunately, we all get this a little too often. In the age of Google, we still tend to get even those seemingly difficult (and more often simple) questions that can be easily answered by just looking it up online. As you may have guessed so far, we are referring mainly to the question “Can I answer this on my own?” Forcing someone (whether directly or indirectly) to answer a question that can so easily be answered is not only going to frustrate them, it could potentially cause you to not be taken seriously by peers. It could potentially create the “boy who cried wolf” scenario.
Sometimes it’s necessary, but beware of the really long email. Unless you are sending out a newsletter or occasional email with reference to updates within your department, a really long email is what can cause many to just ignore right there and then, and for the next time around. We often forget that an email was meant to send a message, not a book… On this topic we are mainly concerned about quality not quantity. Many write their emails while restating the same issue many different ways throughout the body of the message. This only frustrates the reader while forcing them to read to get to the bottom of it, then only to notice they wasted more time reading it than it was worth. If you can’t get your message across in fewer words, then others may not see the point in reading your email. A good way to avoid this is re-read your message before sending it. If you find that you get bored or confused by your own email, consider that many others will certainly feel the same.
The texting phenomena is at full stream. We all seem to do it, sometimes while driving, walking, or talking (if you do then STOP!!!). Let’s admit it, we all feel like it’s ok to text no matter what other activity is going on around us. The problem is that we don’t realize that we are creating a norm that we feel is ok, while many others (the silent majority), feel is inappropriate to do. Among these, is sending multiple consecutive messages to your peers while they may not be able to respond immediately, or better yet, they may not even see them by the end of the day. The last thing you want is having someone catching up with a backlog of messages, as the sender is rambling about something that couldn’t wait for input from the receiver in the first place. If that tends to be the case, a phone call may be a reasonably better alternative.
While the topics in the list above may seem obvious, there are many who don’t realize the auto-pilot mode that technology has all put us in. That is not to say that technology is bad. But what it does say is that we need to take it a lot more seriously, and more importantly we need to consider how we are affecting others in the process. If you are not taking your own habits (and time) seriously, you can’t expect others to do the same.
[Image courtesy of marcolm at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
While the practice of agile requires a “Caves and Common” setup of teams, there is a reason for it. Mainly it’s to make sure communication is ongoing and regular. This requires a specific setup of office equipment and overall layout within the workplace. The “Caves” aspect refers to a place where some team members have the occasional place or space to work alone for a short or brief period of time, while “Common” is the area where most team members spend their time with the rest of their team for the majority of time in their day.
Agile practitioners would agree Osmotic communication takes place in most part within the “Common” space as everyone is communicating without barriers whereby conversations and discussions occur freely. The principle behind osmotic transmission and absorption of team members’ conversations implies that we acquire knowledge even if we are not an active participant in any particular conversation. Much like a song playing in the background, even if you don’t know the name of the song, if heard regularly over time, you may just be able to know the melody or lyrics without even trying to memorize them. How this actually is made possible is explained through the way our minds work on a subconscious level. It can be compared to a radio that is always on while the antenna is picking up frequencies at all times.
Much of what we do throughout the day, our daily routines, product purchases, learning habits, and inner thoughts are a result of our subconscious taking over very important aspects of our lives. Although it’s not easily explained, osmotic communication works on a highly metaphysical level. It provides a collective result, a lot of what teamwork provides only when they are in the same location, and not otherwise. This is mainly why the success of an agile team should not be given credit to any one particular member, but rather the collective effort of the entire team.
The key idea behind making osmotic communication effective however, is that the communication should be within hearing distance of any or all team members on a regular basis. Without that, the knowledge sharing and subliminal absorption aspect gets chopped up. Using the radio frequency example, it’s similar to getting only some channels but not all, or a channel with a lot of static. This is how the subconscious mind works, it’s always on and absorbing without effort. It’s important when considering the physical team’s layout, especially in today’s work environment as many teams are known to be located remotely from each other, or with specific members working alone but connected online.
It’s no secret, a team that works together in the same physical space will communicate more efficiently either because of their added ability to listen in to each other’s conversations as well as read their body language. Compare this to a team whose majority of members are located remotely, there’s a big loss on the quality of communication. It becomes increasingly difficult to know if someone is actually being sarcastic or serious without having to see their facial expressions or body language. This is why conflict created among remote members for any particular team could escalate very quickly. They couldn’t possibly be (or become) an agile team with that factor to overcome.
[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Despite what you’ve heard on the news about the federal debt, many federal, state, and local government agency budgets have been flat or declining for several years. Add in inflation and other cost increases, and these agencies are constantly being asked to do more with less. For the IT departments, this surely means they’ve made the transition to lean, mean, Agile teams, right? Well, no. But there are some good reasons for that.
Government organizations usually have budgets that are determined by politicians and other actors outside the agency itself. Unlike companies that can expand budgets through increased revenue and profitability, government agencies need to justify budget requests by showing they have a responsible track record deploying their budget to meet their mission.
Tax payers don’t want the government making reckless decisions with their money. As a result, government organizations routinely make decisions that can be justified as responsible, risk-averse, or “safe” – even if those decisions are not the most efficient or cost-effective. I’ve heard it said that nobody has ever fired a government employee for using Microsoft Project on an IT initiative. In an environment like that, a half-century old methodology like Waterfall – or a century old tool like Gantt charts – would be seen as preferable to newer methodologies that are not well understood to business or political stakeholders.
Government IT solutions and systems are often the result of new laws or regulations, and have a defined time period in which they must be implemented after the new law is passed. Just like the adage, “requirements may be vague, but the software will be specific,” laws may be vague, but the regulations must be specific, and the software that implements them must be even more specific. Elements like complex business logic and multiple system interfaces cause managers and business stakeholders to ask for lots of documentation to prove that the system was built correctly.
When a new law mandates implementation by a specific date it creates an anchoring effect, that the system needs to be “done” by that date. Briefing senior government officials or even legislators on sprint velocity and burn rates is a much bigger challenge than providing dates and percentages. Even if, in the end, delivering the most valuable 80% of a solution on time should be preferable to delivering 100% of a system after a 1-2 year delay.
Another reason no one in government ever got in trouble for managing an IT project with Microsoft Project is because it is already on the list of pre-approved software for use that nearly every agency maintains, in one form or another. Hardware and infrastructure requirements are a common consideration, as are licensing costs. But security concerns are an increasingly big reason why software on pre-approved lists keeps getting used instead of newer or better products being adopted.
Getting software tools approved for use at a federal agency means completing a thick stack of paperwork. It also requires a champion to spearhead the process, work with Help Desks on administration and conducting training. This means longer-term commitments to tools than in the private sector, and that larger companies with established products get used more often.
Until recently, most end users of government IT systems were employees of that agency, so there was little conflict in seeing the end-user as an internal customer. As the internet has proliferated, more businesses and individuals are interacting directly with government IT systems: submitting applications and appeals, self-registering or updating information, or just searching for general information on a government website or portal. These external end users, or government customers, present a unique tension when designing systems for them.
While “the customer is always right” is a great motto for many private businesses, government agencies need to walk a fine line with that approach. They run the risk being too accommodating or “too cozy” with the people and businesses they regulate, and can erode trust that the government agency can regulate or monitor effectively.
Tight budgets, pre-defined timelines, and the need for some agencies to keep end users at arm’s length make it easy to de-emphasize agile principles like personas, end user demos, and usability sessions.
David Pradko is a project manager and certified business analyst, who has worked with over a dozen government agencies to design and implement IT solutions. He as also appeared at the IIBADC’s Business Analysis Development Day and on Federal Tech Talk radio to discuss Agile in the federal government.
You can follow David on Twitter at @DPradko
[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
The Agile Times review committee is now open to article submissions by guest experts.
Please note that there will be limitations to what can be posted, and it may be reviewed and edited before being published on our site.
If you feel like you have some valuable insight and tips based on Agile related activities, this is your chance to share with our viewers. For more details, and to confirm interest in submitting your article, please go to our Submit page.
[Image courtesy of photostock at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
As agile practitioners we are always looking out for the best interest of all stakeholders. We understand that the team is self-managing, self-organizing, self-(fill-in-the-blank…). Apart from being aware of the values and principles that make up the agile manifesto, we are also concerned that as human beings we have an unlimited propensity toward certain truths and abilities, but our ability to engage in antipatterns is somewhat limitless. Enter the antagonizing concept Groupthink. Notice it’s not spelled in 2 separate words or no hyphen to merit their joining. At first we may think there’s nothing to be concerned about this term, but with further investigation we realize that it’s not something you’d want for your agile team.
Groupthink is defined as the consensus or directions that a group of people take when faced with a decision. It stems from anything on the fear spectrum such as intimidation, or even just plain indifference. When stemmed from intimidation, the minority members may feel like they would need to agree with the majority so they could “fit in” or avoid being reprimanded. The proponent of such actions don’t appear to be so much about “ego building” but rather about “saving face.”
Therein lies the dangers of antipatterns what we have on a day-to-day. The old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” rings in. How this happens to some extent is not necessarily with that one decision made on a particular day or particular week, but actually many decisions over many weeks, months, or even years. According to the Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Groupthink brings about the following inherent symptoms:
Does removing a wrong statement from research make it right? This is the type of question we need to ask ourselves when we are on the path of continuous improvement. If we remove what is wrong in any environment, we could forget that it was identified later on. It is sort of like removing pages history from our past. We may likely repeat this behavior. Verbalizing would definitely be a start, either through a work-session, or by documenting it at some point. When something is verbalized by either an individual alone, or by a group of people, there is a process of recognition that builds concensus and buy-in. This is a very important of component of practicing with an agile mindset along with the concept of transparency. We need to be cognizant that we all know what we are agreeing to, or better yet we are not tricking ourselves to fit the ideals of our own personal agendas, principles or motives. We are looking at the bigger picture and are aware that we all collectively are deciding, committing, and taking the responsibility of those decisions.
One of the most important elements in agile processes, commonly held in the Retrospectives, is that it helps promote the feedback loop and putting all cards on the table about the direction the team is taking. That is not to say that feedback does not occur in a daily standup, sprint demo, or sprint planning as well. The empirical processes of transparency should prevent Groupthink only to the extent that the team is willing to admit they are heading in the right direction, i.e. the team members could still all willingly pave the road to detriment if they so choose. But only difference would be that at least everyone knows they all agreed to it. When we have Groupthink, there is some obscurity about the true direction the team may be taking, in most cases transparency is intentionally hidden so that the issues and concerns will not likely come to light.
For More Articles, Be Sure to Visit our Homepage
[Image courtesy of photostock at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
While most of us in our day-to-day would typically adapt to change whenever possible, it is very likely that we mindlessly have too much to manage. This is why automation is key to agile implementation. With a mindset to find ways for automation we promote a rhythm to the workflow, the process, the communication, etc…
When we look at the agile ceremonies overall there’s a flow that we can say exists, for example: (a) scrum or standup calls should take place at the same time every day, (b) sprint planning, sprint reviews, and retrospectives all take place on days that everyone has already preset, or (c) sprints should usually keep the same duration of weeks from sprint to sprint. We may ask ourselves, are these times and dates just a random practice (or requirement) of agile? The answer is no, not necessarily. There’s a reason behind all of this.
While you may look to adapt to change throughout all the times of the workday, it is best to make the repetition as consistent as possible. This is similar in concept to what Einstein or Steve Jobs wearing consistently same clothing every day. This is just an example to make the point, but somewhat of an interesting revelation for those who are looking to simplify their day. For some we may think this “clothing” example is a little extreme, or irrelevant. Fair enough, this would be extreme in most cases. But when we are looking at our work environment, this principle makes a lot of sense for those who want to just concentrate and make decisions on what matters most. Putting in place what doesn’t matter so much, leaves time to make decisions that do matter. This in itself makes a lot of sense.
With reference to automation in the workplace, we’re not referring so much to setting up your schedule or planning in advance, although this is definitely a good habit, and better than not having any at all. We are referring specifically to having meetings, code reviews, or testing done in a way so that the agile team doesn’t have to constantly think about when it needs to happen. As an example, think of this question: What do you foresee being a problem if scrum meetings change times every day? It’s obvious, the team members will most likely be late as they try to figure out what time the meeting is at, or they missed it, and therefore all that time is just wasted when it could have been used more wisely and effectively. Some may even think, that “this inconvenience is minor,” but if you add that time up over a few sprints, you may be shocked to find out the cumulative amount isn’t as minor as you may have thought. Others may think, “this is just the normal workday or workweek,” and that it’s expected. However consider the advantages of setting this automated “rhythm” so that all that is less important is already out-of-the-way, and all the more important ideas and decisions can take place without distraction or resistance.
Admittedly, finding ways to improve a process and simplifying it in a way that is conducive to automation can be tedious, but once it’s in place, it does save a lot of time in the long run. More important than time, is the quality of the decisions and thought process that will come out of it. Think of it like a slow blockage that is eventually unclogging and allowing for a release of free-flowing ideas and productivity. Look to your sprint retrospectives to point out where areas of automation can be of benefit. You may already have some in place, but that should not stop an agile team from finding others. Incrementally and over time you can automate processes infinitely, but certainly it’s best to prioritize them where the benefit is worth the effort.
For More Articles, Be Sure to Visit our Homepage
[Image courtesy of Idea go at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
It’s becoming more and more obvious, Agile adoption is growing at an incredible rate, and it has been estimated at roughly 10% annually. Not many who have jumped into adopting Agile have asked the question “Why Choose Agile?” To answer that question we also need to look at already existing methodologies that exist, namely Waterfall. Is it to say that waterfall is bad? or inefficient? The answer is, not necessarily. Waterfall has it’s purposes, and when applied properly it provides all the benefits that are expected from a project that is using it…the key words here “applied properly.” The problem with Agile adoption is that it’s considered to be relatively new, and more often than not, applied incorrectly. So here are the key differences that can help understand and promote the transition from Waterfall to Agile.
In Waterfall you have phase gates that are defined similar to milestones, and they occur at every stage of the process. For each of those stages there is a request to approve each gate before it is started, furthermore the scope is defined at the beginning and can’t be changed without major impacts. Sure, you can issue a change request, but that likely changes the entire balance of the budget, resources, and timeline. In Agile on the other hand, there is empirical process control where you are redefining the scope based on priority of the preset period of a sprint (2 – 4 weeks). In this way Agile allows the highest value, business needs, and ROI that are realigned regularly. Whereas in Waterfall, you cannot and there is little possibility to change the scope mid-course. Agile therefore allows a team or business to respond to the immediate business needs of their client, thus providing higher value consistently.
The main components to any project are Scope, Time (Budget), and Cost. With Waterfall the Scope is typically fixed, whereby Time and Cost are flexible. Problem though is that even with a Time and Cost change there really isn’t any easy way to determine a cutoff point, and stop teams in the middle of the project while waiting for a client to make a decision. This means that in order for a project to be successful in Waterfall, ideally all 3 constraints would typically need to stay fixed with the addition of change requests. Agile on the other hand provides a way to easily fix Time and Cost while making Scope flexible. Waterfall-minded people will right away spark the question “Will all the scope be completed though?” The answer of course is “not necessarily and that’s ok.” The reason for this is that it doesn’t matter, because in Agile you are already delivering the highest value from your Time and Cost that could ever be delivered from a Waterfall project. Hard to believe at first, but for those who have completed at lease one Agile project, they know this can be attained since the highest priority/value scope is being delivered.
Most Waterfall-minded companies will measure their margins from project to project with the intent that each project will need to be profitable. But what happens when a project slips through the cracks and goes into the negative? Going Agile will allow for higher customer retention, after all when you provide higher value through implementing current trends in innovation, accurate and faster delivery dates, customers are more likely to stay with you for the long run. The positive side-effect to this is higher motivation within your teams. This is an added benefit to both supplier and customer since learning curves (performance states) stay intact and will very likely improve when the same team members work together for longer periods of time.
Waterfall depends on the entire project to be completed before it can be delivered. This certainly gives the impression to both the development team and the client that the project is going on without end. This of course applies to projects that last longer than a few months. But with Agile, you already built in the expectation that delivery is possible at the end of each Sprint, even though in some cases you may choose not to. The main issue that has never been resolved but almost always happens in Waterfall, is the moment there’s a change request, the client asks for more scope and although they would be willing to pay more for it, they want the delivery date to stay the same. Why not just deliver in increments the way that Agile already requires you to?
There are many more reasons why you may want to choose Agile over Waterfall, but most need to be shown rather than be told what those benefits are. The key point to consider is that Agile adoption should be concrete, and should come with a fully committed paradigm shift in management and teams that are looking to implement all the necessary mindsets and tools that are needed. The most likely and best approach to adopting Agile however, is to jump into it completely and use Agile in itself to inspect and adapt. Taking on a half waterfall and half agile approach will certainly lead to adoption failure.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
When creating and grooming a backlog in an agile project, it may come as no surprise that there is a constant need to manage it throughout the product’s lifetime. Common expectations from those who come from the waterfall mindset, is that you would just set up a backlog and the rest should take care of itself. But as you will eventually find out, you must identify backlog item dependencies.
The reality is that the moment you create the first backlog item, metaphorically it becomes a living organism. Many may think that the most challenging part of the backlog item, would be to fully define and estimate it. It certainly is one the earliest challenges in the backlog definition phase. However, it is important to consider, that with each additional backlog item that is created, there is an increasing need to consider inter-dependencies between all items. Not a daunting task if your list is limited to 10 or 20 items, but what about a typical project where there are over 50, 100, or more items.
Without putting the carriage before the horse, it is important to consider those backlog item dependencies initially with a backlog roadmap. Then it is also necessary to make it an absolutely regular activity to take on when backlog grooming. Below we identify the many reasons why backlog item dependencies need to be identified and linked to their co-dependent items.
One of the main reasons why projects fail, is that there is no planning or overview of a roadmap before starting. Certainly, an agile project will prevent most of that with the regular sprint iterations and planning that happens before each is ready to start. However, what we are referring to here is more about consideration of what needs to be built, the moving parts, before all pieces of software or product can be put together. As an example, you can work on the roof of a house long before the house is actually built, but you eventually need to know that you need to build the foundation and structure before you will get to the roof installation. Further to that, you would need to identify the structural specifications (dependencies) to know that the roof will fit when the time comes to finalizing the house.
When your project is in mid flight, the last thing you want to get stuck with is realizing you just randomly selected some backlog items that don’t make sense to be in the current sprint. In the worst of cases, you would likely just leave it out as part of the grooming process. But on the other end, you would want to avoid idle time mid-sprint realizing that there were a lot of items that could’ve, should’ve, or shouldn’t have been there to begin with.
As you identify dependencies early on in the project, the priority of all backlog items naturally present themselves. Like a seemless puzzle being put together from top to bottom, relating backlog items to see if there are or aren’t dependencies is tedious at first, but it becomes easier to balance as the software or product is being built.
On a day-to-day process, through scrums and standups, a well groomed backlog allows for all team members to avoid getting stuck on blockers. Some blockers are inevitable based on the circumstances of the development process. But there can easily be blockers present on some aspect that could have easily been prevented, i.e. environment availability for a developer who would like to commit their code. Some blockers can have workarounds, but inevitably, the longer it is blocked, the more likely there will be time waste later on.
When the teams gets to see the benefits of dependency identification, they will go on to assure there is regular backlog grooming almost intuitively. Each member’s best interests will gear toward pro-activity so that there is the least amount of conflict. Further to this, the team will be better prepared to resolve conflict should there be at any point. This is mainly a result of “lessened” levels of conflict.
As a direct result of lessened conflict, there will be heightened synergy among teams. They will have a higher tendency to gel together and get along. Effectively, this will prevent turnover and burnout with members of the team. Low turnover means that the team stays intact over long periods of time, and they benefit from not only being at the performing stage of team synergy, but also from the experience of working together for long periods of time. This benefit is irreplaceable and highly valuable.
Keeping an up-to-date backlog certainly has it’s benefits, but as we can see, keeping specifications up to date is not necessarily all about updating scope or tasks, but also continuously identifying how they are all tied together.
[Image courtesy of tigger11th at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Many in today’s corporate working environment are encouraged to show signs of confidence, strength, and leadership. The problem arises when it’s said and not shown. Some people tend to make up their own definition of leadership, or take on roles from fictitious movies. Much like leadership, there are many types: tyrannical, autocratic, cross-cultural, or servant, etc.. As we can see there’s a lot someone can interpret as proper forms of character traits. Some might say that because someone likes to tell someone else what to do, that they have a strong sense of leadership. This is false, and is not necessarily the case as history will tell.
So when it comes to drawing conclusions about someone’s leadership style, the important factors to consider are the results they provide. Do they promote failure or success? Is that very person creating a lot of adversity? Sure sometimes adversity is healthy in working environments that require change or innovation. It builds up ideas and brainstorming on how to resolve problems. But otherwise, you may be staring down an inevitable rabbit-hole of high employee turnover in the workplace. For those who try to take the easy way out, the bullies, the power-mongers, they will likely search to find easy targets to blame or throw under the bus when things don’t go their way. With today’s widely diverse and geographically distributed workforces, this could also play out to be a recipe for disaster. Stating the obvious, there’s a big difference in cultures from one country to another across the world. Even-more-so, there are huge cultural gaps with neighboring countries that share the same border.
In previous articles we’ve advocated about the agile mindset, something that can be a bit of a culture shock for those who are new to agile especially. When a working environment with constant power struggles or command-and-control tactics, receive new members that are of the agile mindset, the newcomers may be perceived as passive, non-assertive, and weak. This may be the foremost biggest challenge to bringing a company culture to becoming agile, especially when agilists are outnumbered. With these perceptions there are inevitable easy outlets by those who don’t want things to change, and lead to dismissing agile implementation altogether.
This brings us to the “kindness as a sign of weakness” perception. Socially it is everywhere, the aggressors are always seen as the strong-minded, or heroic only to be hidden from the truth, when they are in fact bullies. So what does this mean for the humble, the kind, the polite, or more importantly the “professional?” When faced with such adversity, are they actually the ones with little or no confidence? When someone is kind to their fellow bully co-workers, this is not a weakness but a sign of perseverance, and by far it is the ultimate sign of confidence. Only a confident person can put up with the bully archetype, not be intimidated, and continue doing what they enjoy doing without the disruption of their weaker counterparts.
In much of today’s society, what keeps our minds at ease is to know that there is much more of the kind and humble, than there are those who are bullies. What is important for those in agile circles, is to make a sincere choice, if the workplace is filled with those who like to harp on those who are perceiving others who are kind and humble as easy and “weak” targets, make the choice to decide moving over to another workplace or company that appreciates you. Your strength will be appreciated in like-minded circles.
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
When attempting to make great accomplishments, we tend to look at issues in the workplace, or in everyday life as opportunities to be resolved. This may distract from solutions that are very obvious and perhaps more urgent or easy to resolve. You may have heard of the expression “low hanging fruit.” Typically you would hear this when tackling a new opportunity, or when there’s a clear advantage to achieving a milestone or accomplishment.
Keeping your sights on what the top priorities are, will likely keep things lean and mean. But outside the obvious, we are also referring to what is not obvious. Circular discussions in meetings, persistent and unattainable targets that never get met, can definitely be a drain on time, resources and motivation. Some companies tend to place importance on resolving issues that can’t be resolved as the next step to a break-through. This could be fine if there’s nothing else to do, but as we may all realize, time and resources are usually restricted. In a few words, why concentrate on what you can’t do, when you can concentrate on what you can do? So much time gets wasted on the “can’t do” mentality, when it’s just a matter of approach that needs a switch or refinement. Yes, this may seem a little philosophical at the moment, but being agile does really place importance on what is being done and how to adapt new ideas and processes to what was previously done.
When a team gets stuck in anti-patterns like analysis paralysis, a stagnant state that is usually caused by concentrating on what can’t be done at the moment, is a direct result to over-analyzing beyond the knowledge, developments, or tools available today. So if your team collectively doesn’t have the knowledge or tools, the low hanging fruit may just be to concentrate on obtaining the very knowledge or tools that will get you to the next step.
A common cause of what may create a stagnant environment is the thought that all members of a team have all the knowledge needed to resolve an issue. But again, this is more of a pretentious approach whereby everyone avoids the realization that some learning is required. The problem is, nobody tends to want to step up and be the one to say that they don’t know. This kind of attitude is usually shunned upon and seen as weakness in many companies. But what does it really mean to be “weak?” Is it admitting that you need to do some learning and getting right to learning? Or admitting that you know it all and that you can waste everyone’s time pretending that it can be done?
Ultimately, what we can observe in the situation above, is that company culture can affect the decisions and approaches that employees will take. It’s not about always taking the safe route, but allowing for mistakes to be made, and also not to perceive those who admit to needing more to learn as being the weak ones in the room. In fact, this is probably the reverse, those that need the most learning and admit to it, will actually be your strongest employees. These are your true pioneers, as they have the approach needed to admit failure in times when it’s necessary to take a bold new step to a break-through process, or discovery. The company culture will guide that behavior, so it is best to re-evaluate and adjust accordingly.
[Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
There’s an interesting thing that happens when anyone joins a company, or a new project. The thought of an Agile Team Personality Type, its effects on team dynamics, and getting to a state of performance, gives another indication on how fast everyone will reach that state. Depending on the workplace culture, it is easily assumed that everyone joining or about to work on a project is going to be competent, knowledgeable and a contributing member of the team. This is sort of like a “honeymoon phase.” What we soon discover that this initial impression will eventually change, sometimes for the better, and possibly for the worse.
Human nature will indicate, most of us have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to a stranger at the very beginning of a relationship. After all if it was any other way, relationships would never exist. What we tend not to do, is think of our personalities with regard to others we are interacting with. Further to this, we don’t normally think of the other individual personalities with regard to their compatibilities to ourselves and to each other. The good news is that this one consideration can accelerate synergy and performance on many levels.
There are many theoretical personality types, some ranging from 4 (four temperaments) to 16 personality types (Myers-Briggs). Some debate on which are better, more accurate, or more thorough. Most individuals think that others are like themselves at the beginning of a relationship, after all, who do we know better than ourselves? They don’t think about personality types, for example, most will think “this person is more or less like me” until the relationship develops. Later on they think about the relationship as “this person is more or less like me, but (adding exceptions).” Eventually it ends up being “this person is not like me” or “this person is a lot like me.” This would be the natural progression. But it’s the long way. Thinking about personality types of others (and yourself) up front and early on in a group relationship will empower you to know what is the best or worst expectation to come out of a team member, either individually or as a whole.
The irony in some projects is that we tend to get caught up in the risks that could prevent the project from being completed as per the budget, timeline, or scope, but it’s taboo to think of the risk of the varying personalities that are interacting in the project. Some are compatible, and others not. But what we should stop and think about is, what actually makes a project unbearable? Is it a team working together to overcome problems? Or a team complaining about who is responsible for those problems? Knowing why this is a tendency through personality types, can allow you to take a step back, be a leader, see things outside the box, and then make the necessary preventions and adjustments.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
As we’ve revealed in a previous article How To Recognize Team Synergy in Agile Teams, a team builds up its stages of forming, storming, norming and performing over time. It is in every team-member’s best interests to keep the synergy in agile teams at a “performing” level in order to carry out the tasks and deliverables set out by the project stakeholders. But as one of Niven’s laws states “It is easier to destroy than to create.” With that we’ve identified some common Micro-Aggressions that can easily destroy the team dynamic that took so much time to build up.
Micro-Aggression as described by psychologytoday.com, are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.
Below are some examples of common micro-aggressions that you may find the workplace, and should take action to diffuse if they become increasingly used by team members. As you may notice there are many possible situations where dialog can take the form of joking, or sarcasm in a way that the target may even smile, laugh or shrug. However, given that these statements reinforce stereotype myths they can actually be considered as micro-aggressions to some degree:
This could be in reference to one’s physical skin color, dietary or cultural preferences, or sexual preferences. Similar expressions can also present themselves when someone tells another “I didn’t know that [someone of a certain ethnicity] would like a certain food or activity [from another ethnicity].”
There may be instances when someone is given a promotion, or new assignment that someone else may have wanted. Similar situations can present themselves when someone of a certain gender takes on a position that the opposite gender would typically be “expected” to have. An example of what can be said in this type of situation is “who would have thought you’d make it to the Senior Director position after just being a Manager.”
This situation will typically present itself when someone in a senior-level or superior position tells someone who reports to them, that they were lucky to have that “secret” information, as someone at their “level” wouldn’t typically be a privileged recipient.
There are numerous times throughout the day where team members may tell their colleagues short and seemingly positive remarks like “Good Luck!,” “That should be fun!,” or “Yay!.” As you may notice, those expressions can be said in a truly genuine positive light, but they can also be said in a totally opposite regard.
This question is clearly ambiguous and takes the inquiry too far to be comfortable, and it presents an entire list of potential issues that can make the target feel inferior. The “what” is probably meant to probe the target’s ethnic background, but it can certainly be taken to ask about someone’s sexual preference, gender, or in some circles their social status. The point here is that the target can be taken to be inferior to the one asking the question.
When questions of a micro-aggressive nature are asked, it’s important to realize that the person asking the question may not realize they were being an aggressor to begin with. We all have a part to play in diffusing these types of micro-aggressions, starting with ourselves. This is to say that we all may fall into the trap of asking or partaking in a micro-aggressive statement and may not have realized, intentionally or not, that we may have made someone a target in the process. Reading up or talking about the topic in the workplace may be a good first start to identifying the appropriate types of dialog to have around teams with diverse backgrounds.
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Throughout the life of project there are many potential pitfalls to implementing and practicing agile. As the agile principles and values are put into practice it’s important to take steps that keep the path of agile best practices for which you are looking to benefit from. The use of Agile Modeling is an excellent way to integrate agile principles and values that can complement almost any other agile methodology (i.e. Scrum, XP, etc.).
Agile Modeling components don’t all need to be implemented to make your project agile, however the more you can put in place with thought and importance in each project situation, can provide solid benefits over time. Most importantly, they provide a good framework to building an agile mindset, and integrate seamlessly in an ongoing agile project. The following is a short list of some components:
As with any agile project, the best way to guarantee success is to make sure your stakeholders are involved at all times. The Product Owner usually is the voice of the stakeholders, and we would all hope that it is always that one person that could speak for many. The importance of “Active” is the key to success. There can be times where stakeholders come out from hiding and suddenly become a decisive voice (make or break) in the success of a project. Late stakeholders that become active at the end of a project open big risks as it is the most costly point at which to make changes to accommodate their expectations.
Notice here that we mentioned “and/or,” as an approach to documenting your deliverables. It likely will depend on the type of solution and dependencies of functionalities between features as deliverables. That is to say, it’s always best to document continuously so that you don’t have to wait until the last-minute to remember which features were implemented in your solution. As expected in an agile iterative nature, you are looking to deliver a potentially shippable solution at the end of each sprint. This would require regular documentation revisions if the features were to change and evolve drastically over the course of numerous sprints.
Admittedly it sounds contradictory, but this is where it would be best to document late, since it would be less wasteful if you were to document your deliverable once all features were integrated as much as possible. Particular attention needs to be placed on the nature of the product and development. As in the case of software development, releases occur frequently, some major and some minor. Some consideration as to what will be major and minor can allow for less waste when it comes to documenting.
As the initial part of any iteration, we expect take some time for planning. Usually that time will vary from a half day to an entire day depending on the duration of your iteration/sprint. Iteration Modeling outlines the features and design of what is expected to be delivered by the end of the sprint. Some features may end up being developed in sub-parts over a number of sprints, as well as entire parts. The importance here, is to outline how modular some features may be to the rest of them. With that in place, it becomes much easier to prioritize a sprint backlog, which brings us to the next point.
There are many factors that go into prioritizing requirements, but the one starting point to attaining this is to actually have a backlog (or list of work items) in the first place. In most cases this Sprint Backlog will come from a much larger list called the Product Backlog. As many practitioners soon find out, prioritizing is a key activity that requires identification of numerous factors such as: ROI, risks, stakeholder needs, functional dependencies, available resources, etc.
If there is one thing that can cause duplication is a highly bureaucratic and disorganized framework from which an organization is set up. Although seemingly simple, having one single source of information is a major challenge for an organization. Many will point to 1 wiki page as a source of information, whereas other departments try to set their own identities and create their own versions of information that gives them a sense of purpose. From an agile project approach, it is extremely important that all parties learn to use one source of information so that it is updated in 1 location to reduce redundancy and waste.
Many companies today, still strive to revise documents of the same content, but in different locations every time there’s update. Beyond just the internal operations, the complexity of multiple sources increases when working on a project where the client looks to use their own sources of project information in conjunction with that of the vendor’s information. In this scenario, duplication is not efficient and is highly wasteful throughout all organizations, as everyone struggles to find out which is the latest version of the code, documentation, template, etc.
From an Agile Modeling perspective there are many more components that make up the framework of agile best practices. The important factor to consider is that it will not be an overnight implementation, nor will it be an overnight success. It takes a considerable amount of time and resources to make an agile system work, but unfortunately, not many want to invest, and expect instant gratification. As history will show, even the concept of instant plug-and-play came with a series of bugs and fixes.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Many practitioners and project managers look toward creating an agile hybrid approach by doing a mish-mash of waterfall with agile methodologies. However, what we are going to look at are the different agile methodologies and the ones that are actually compatible with each other. It must be said, that for any team about to proceed with tailoring different agile components, it is something that should be done with expert practitioners who understand the pros and cons of adding more than one methodology into practice. It is advisable that a solid team of expert agile coaches and scrum masters are present on such a team so that the evolution and benefits can be implemented effectively and safely for the entire team.
Most members of an agile team know agile by way of the Scrum framework, but what most have yet to see is that although it presents a solid framework for complex projects, it could use the help of other methodologies. What we can take from Scrum however, is the concept of building backlogs with work items that get listed in priority. The second automatic component is the importance of a Product Owner who actually owns that list and ensures that they represent what the stakeholders will expect. This is done through prioritization of the backlog for the rest of the team so that a potentially deliverable product is completed and accepted by the stakeholders by the end of each sprint.
From this methodology we can gather the best practices for the development team including Refactoring, Test Driven Development (TDD), continuous integration (CI) and collective ownership. What we tend to see in these practices are the concept of work process that is conducive to the flow and efficiency of the work being done.
This methodology is usually considered an effective addition to most of the other agile methodologies. It has mainly two components: Modeling and Documentation. The Modeling component encourages best practices such as Just Barely Good Enough (JBGE), Architecture Envisioning, Lookahead modeling, Active Stakeholder participation, and Model Storming among others. The Documentation aspect covers the necessity of documenting continuously (not to be understood as documenting excessively), document late, executable specifications, and single-source information.
Over the years the Unified Process has taken on many forms, mainly the Rational Unified Process (RUP) from which it derived directly and sometimes is mentioned interchangeably. However, other examples include OpenUP, and Agile Unified Process (AUP). What needs to be considered is that UP is not just a process but an actual framework. What makes it useful is that it’s highly customizable with characteristics covering an iterative and incremental development process, architecture centricity and risk focus. From this framework we get 4 phases that are used for creating a project, namely in the following order: Inception, Elaboration, Construction, and Transition. Much of what is used in the Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) framework has adopted this but DAD has also added to this.
From the realm of Lean practices, we get Kanban. This method framework builds on the concept of Just-In-Time (JIT) at its base, but it has many tools that derive from it, one of them being the Kanban Board. The Lean aspect comes with the concept of limiting work in progress to prevent waste. Along with that comes the concept of visualization of progress. With the use of Kanban, the level of product quality becomes optimal since all areas of waste (Transport, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Over production, Over processing, Defects, Skills) are removed. Along with that, the high level of visibility of progress that the development team is something that is of utmost importance. As most who have practiced Agile will see, the aspect of visibility is a very important characteristic to creating and maintaining team synergy.
There are certainly other methodologies that can be put in the mix, but it must be considered that tailoring an agile hybrid approach is an art, not a science. That is to say, if key components are added from one project to the next, it will likely not create the same results for every project. There are many other factors that come into play, and would not simply be a matter of methodologies used, but also the variation of players involved, that is certain to change the project landscape at any moment’s notice.
[Image courtesy of ratch0013 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
According to many experts on the subconscious mind, there’s a very close correlation to our actions from what we think. That is to say, generally there’s a link to what we do because of the way we think, and vice versa. The interesting part is that the subconscious is like a database that is either controlling or being controlled. It controls us on a regular basis and is based on what has happened to us in the past, and can be controlled when we consciously choose to do so. Much like the example of beliefs, if we don’t know why we believe something, but continue to express those beliefs, we are being controlled by our subconscious. Somewhere and at some time, we were led to believe something and have locked it in so that our actions continue to reflect it. Knowing this, we can look to see how the agile mindset enlightens the subconscious mind.
If at some point we ask ourselves why our beliefs are there, we may actually be able to change them if we ask the right questions, and refer back to the time when the belief may have been etched into our subconscious. We can however, de-magnetize our thoughts by performing actions that were purposefully and consciously done to overcome subconscious blocks.
Ever wonder why some companies have a culture of having constant meetings, with numerous (and possibly unnecessary) attendees? They may not actually realize that they are wasting each other’s time, and possibly inviting coworkers that could have been best left uninvited so that they could use their time more productively. This leaves many in the workplace crippled from doing their tasks when needed and may need to double efforts to catch up on the more important stuff. To a great extent it comes with learning to self-respect and then in turn that exhibits respect toward others. The best way to respect oneself is to know oneself. You owe it to yourself and others around you to understand the duality of our conscious vs. subconscious influences and the power they can give or take away.
When we practice agile on a daily basis, and follow the agile values and principles, we may have to take that first step in understanding why we are actually agreeing to do things and think along the lines of what agile represents. Is it because one person had an idea to do things according to agile values, or was it a collective decision? Regardless of the answer, this is the “first step” type of question you need to start asking. Some decide on what they heard, some from their experience, and others go by what is based on faith. If you really want to get your Agile teams set in the right direction, it is important as an agile coach, or as someone championing agile within the organization to ask those questions and get feedback. The result should be from a collective consensus to agree that there is a genuine desire to adopt agile methodologies.
The law of your mind is the law of belief, so all events will follow from that as you work as an individual and as a group in an organization. So as someone practicing agile, you have to make a conscious decision and commit that you will cooperate and apply what is available, and keep it simple and lean. As we know that beyond the agile tools, events, ceremonies, is actual thought process that makes someone do things in a way that promotes the agile values and principles. Have you taken the first step in actually reading the Agile Manifesto? Have you read a comprehensive book on agile to understand some of what the great minds and gurus on the topic have to say?
We have a lot to owe to our subconscious mind in allowing us to follow habits whether good or bad. Something as simple as why we brush our teeth, was at some point a conscious decision to properly practicing good hygiene. At this point you probably brush your teeth guided by your subconscious. Putting this into the concept of agile practices with set time-box durations (sprint planning, sprint demos, standup meetings, etc.) we are programming the subconscious as if to say, “this is something that I’m going to commit to doing regularly and repetitively. For those who have been on their umptieth sprint or agile project, they have already realized the almost seemingly thoughtless process when starting and ending their sprints. It can also be said that there’s an almost intuitive insight as to what the consequences will be if things fall outside of time-boxed events or get left out entirely. With that we can see at that point how the action-based practices have tuned the subconscious mind and helps keep in place what the agile values and principles were meant to represent.
[Image courtesy of ratch0013 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
You can never lose if you are determined to learn. Having the will to learn empowers you to know what to do, even if it is eventually to find out what not to do. Agile learning experiences allow you to do just that. To put this simply, you typically have 2 paths to learn, you are either told what to do, or you find out for yourself through your own experience on what to do, i.e. trial and error. With the analogy of getting burned on the hot stove, you can be told it is hot and will burn you if you touch it, but you will never really know what that means if you’ve never been burned before. Being told relies heavily on someone else for your growth, but what happens when that other person is not there?
Give yourself the ultimate test, ask yourself if what you’ve accomplished at any stage in your life was because you were told (or expected) to do it, or you did it because you yourself were trying to determine what to do. One path removed power, the other empowered you. We tend to get distracted by true sources of power, namely money. We strive to gain monetarily, but what if someone was given that source of power, but didn’t know what to do with it? It would go to waste wouldn’t it? Placed in the hands of someone who can’t think for themselves, it could even be used to do harm. This is where the term “self-made” comes into play. There are certainly much higher value to be considered a self-made person since it solidifies and confirms that you have gained through personal choices and experiences. This also means that a self-made person gains the added toughness of dealing with failure without being able to blame others for it. This builds character and if overcome, creates innate abilities to succeed and make further attempts to make things right.
The structure of the agile team is one that should rely on the concept of being “self-made.” Why? Because learning is at its peak when you have a sense of self-consciousness. You are aware, you know that what you know is not enough. We tend to look at knowledge as finite, i.e. you took the course or made the grade so now you know everything there is to know about the subject. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. This is in part what many in the workplace dislike about those who claim they know everything. A team runs much more smoothly when the stage is set that they are all in in it to learn together and if they persist unconditionally, without pointing fingers and with compassion, there is a very high likelihood that they will succeed.
When a group of people are proud of their greatest moments, they will likely stick together for the long run. Some may see learning experiences as a stepping stone to other new ways to learn, and others see it as a one step to being complacent. However if there is one factor that is certain from successful people is that despite all the experience they have, they refuse to stop experiencing and learning. This creates efforts that other like-minded individuals can be drawn into, and the learning cycle continues. The roles of the Agile team are there for a purpose, servant leadership being a huge part of it. We all think that the Scrum Master is the only one practicing that type of leadership, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Remember that the Scrum Master is not just a role, but also a role model, so it should not be left to one person to display specific and/or positive behaviors. Admittedly, it takes good synergy and team development before you get to a point of comfort and working efficiency within teams, but it is attainable and the benefits can be realized.
In order to get started with your learning path, ask one simple question “why?”. There’s a reason why children at an early age ask that question incessantly, as humans we are wired at an early age to want to learn, but then socialized into a system where we tend to stop. Go through your list of personal “why’s” and you may notice for yourself that there is something you may not have realized is stopping you from learning.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
When it comes to team and company performance, many old-school thinkers and business-people look to how they can cut costs. Not their fault, but to some this is the only way they can leverage their stagnant knowledge, instead of taking on an agile approach and promote increased learning. This is likely where some are labeled as “the banker” or “the accountant.” There is recent evidence that shows if we perform on both sides of the finance and marketing fence, there is a higher level of progress and efficiency overall on spending, innovation, and revenue.
There are two strategic views that play within this spectrum; either cutting costs or creating value. Cutting costs creates the concept that there is a finite source of value or income that must be compensated for. Creating value on the other hand, breaks the barrier of thinking there is a cap on source of wealth and ideas. Certainly anything to be created requires that costs be incurred, but that is not to say we must limit investment if all the signs say GO!
This brings us to the traditional vs agile project standard. When you look at a traditional project, the premise is set at the beginning of the project that it will have a finite timeline and budget. In an agile project you typically don’t have these restraints because the primary concern is about product and how to build value into it. All else if done properly will generate an infinite level of return. Why? Because a product being developed in an agile environment has the implicit expectation that with time there will be more to learn about the market, product composition, and technology that will allow for improvement. Reduced cost is a byproduct of the value cycle, since there’s usually a way to produce something with higher durability making it less prone to defects and complaints. This in turn satisfies the market and creates more demand and increased prices. Volume will also increase, and as we know that also drives down the maintenance or per unit costs.
The value cycle never ends, hence why typically we look at an agile project as infinite as well. Actually the term “project” can be seen as a sort of oxymoron statement when putting words “agile” and “project” together. But that is for you and your peers to debate. When we look at the constituents of the value cycle right from the beginning where we determine requirements all the way to market release, maintenance and feedback, we can see very clearly that the market isn’t picky about how a product with unique features will look like at first sight. If someone claimed that a time-machine would take up the space of a city block, many would not be concerned. They would still look to use the product and would probably line up along a few city blocks to be the first to use it. This example may be a little far-fetched, but it is used to drive the previous point into context.
As you can see value cycles and agile are very closely tied. They are based on an iterative process. If you believe you understand a concept upon the first try, there is a very high likelihood you missed a few points. If you take the first attempt, you may be successful, or you may not. However you took the first step, and there should be no reason to stop there. There can always be better, there is never any reason to stop improving.
[Image courtesy of Idea go at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
If you are looking to recruit someone new in your company whether it’s for a new Agile implementation, or to replace someone who left, it’s important to get specific Agile interview questions asked up front during the recruitment and selection process.
Below we’ve outlined some basic yet relevant questions that you can ask a potential candidate, and gauge whether or not they are going to be a good fit for your department, team, or organization. That is not to say that your candidate should answer all of them correctly to be considered the perfect member to add to your team, but they should be within some level of understanding on why these questions are being asked.
For this question, you should be looking for closely related Agile principles and values. It’s important to see how close your candidate can get to mentioning and explaining those values of:
A. Check whether your candidate is referring to how they like to interact in groups, looking to share ideas and solutions while promoting team building and servant leadership. If they tend to emphasize the processes and tools, this might not be such a bad thing but you should try to steer them into more group dynamic and group transparency based topics. If they don’t respond or get sidetracked to following orders and making sure everyone in their surrounding work environment must conform to process, this might be a less suitable candidate. However this is not the only basis on which to make your decision.
B. Many who try to impress in an interview, tend to throw ideas out of which documentation they would create and use throughout an agile project. It’s important to see if your candidate sees the value of delivering a working product. If they are the type of person that is trying to make sure everything works around the product except for the actual delivery of the product as necessary, it’s important to see if they are making this distinction.
C. If your candidate is more concerned about how many contracts they can get out of the customer, they might not understand the importance of the other aspect of Agile values which is to try to gain as much customer collaboration as possible. You wouldn’t want interactions with the client to be about how to draft a new contract every step of the way. Remember it’s the soft stuff (people skills) that’s the hard stuff, so your candidate should be able to demonstrate how they are able to engage the customer into problem solving discussions and come to mutually beneficial agreements.
D. If your candidate seems to be more concerned about project plans and gantt charts, they may be stuck in a waterfall mindset. These plans in an Agile setting are a distraction to actually executing the process of developing actual product. For this you should be trying to see if your candidate is looking solely to write-up a plan and make sure everyone follows it (command-and-control) vs. being able to point out the inherent importance of having a team self-manage and create a product based on prioritized features that a market is ruling as important for ROI.
With this question, you should be able to get the candidate to point out if they’ve actually implemented Agile methodologies whether they are Scrum, XP, Lean, etc.. Key words that you can look for are those found from the beginning to end of the cycles. Words like Sprint Planning, Kanban Board, Burndown Charts, Retrospectives, etc.. You should be able to check and see whether they have an understanding of the ceremonies and events that occur through iterative cycles. More importantly, they should be able to point out why those processes exist and how they fit together to make a fully Agile environment possible.
The character and personality of your candidate fundamentally must be a good match to the agile mindset if they are to practice Agile. Common sense, right? however you might come across some who think they know what it means to be Agile but portray a completely different mindset. You may want to have a look at our other related articles that shed some light on what qualities an Agile Mindset has (or does not):
The answer to this one is simple: at ALL times! If your candidate starts to mention which aspects of agile should or shouldn’t be implemented, as if to compare switching it on or off like a light switch, this person may not actually understand the importance of synergies built over time through agile principles. This question is best answered in a holistic overall “outside the box” sense. Agility is not to be pulled apart and peeled only for certain parts and principles. This leads us to our next question.
This is a very important question as the candidate should be able to read between the lines. In practice it’s well-known that you should not be tailoring Agile right from the start unless you have many years of Agile experience. Many of the reasons why Agile fails, is because it is tailored to fit another mold, i.e. trying to fit Agile into Waterfall, and this is where false beliefs about the effectiveness of agile come in to play. Your candidate should be able to respond with a “yes, but…” type of answer. From there they should be able to point out that tailoring is not ideal, and that it would take place perhaps after multiple iterations and sprints, where the agile team notices certain events or processes that aren’t working well for them. This would usually be coming from the Sprint Retrospectives and observed in each successive retrospective to see whether they’re continuously improving or not. This makes the tailoring process more safe and tuned to the team’s needs.
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Many personal and work-life goals run on the basis that there will be one expected result from our habits and behaviors. This assumes everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing and that the track they are on is executed without error. The problem arises when we try to force expected results without actually knowing how to get there. Have you ever tried to get to a destination faster without ever changing your route? This relates strongly to our day-to-day activity. We can assume we do the same thing every time but get different results, and if not we get upset or blame others for it.
There’s a reason why Albert Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Now put that perspective into your work’s daily, weekly, monthly and yearly routine. What you may realize is by definition, we all experience some level of insanity and we are making everyone in our lives share in those expectations while not changing a thing about ourselves. What does adopting Agile offer that could break that cycle of insanity?
First we must acknowledge that the first step in breaking away from insanity is to change at least one thing in your routine. That could be anything from when you get up in the morning to when you go to sleep. Perhaps it could be waking up to music, or reading a page out of an inspiring book rather than reading your work emails.
Second we need to make sure we consciously commit to the changes we’ve identified for a specific period of time. We need to be sure that nothing or nobody gets in our way to that change and be sure that it’s ingrained in new behavior. Sometimes it may feel like a heavy sacrifice, but just remember that the mind is bound to give up before the body or behavior does.
Once you’ve reached the end of the specific period of time. Sit and write down what were some positive results you’ve noticed over that period. Then do the same to notice the negative ones. Finally think of ways that you would like to have changed in a positive direction. Be reasonable with your expectations, as this should not be a wish list that you would expect results that would take years to achieve. However, it wouldn’t hurt to have a few long-term goals that you hope to achieve in the accumulation of time of progressive periods with positive results. But just be sure you go back to Step 1 and repeat the cycle, and don’t forget to reward yourself for your positive results.
The result of these steps is already a concrete step to eliminating personal insanity. What to do about insanity coming from your peers in the form of complaints and excuses as to why their job, life, or results is a different story. Perhaps let them read this article. If you take on the steps above, you may come to realize is you’ve made Agile a part of your personal accomplishments not just something being used at the office on a project.
To those who are new to Agile, you may ask, what do the steps above have anything to do with it? It’s important to consider that adopting agile is mainly a mindset change. Why not start with yourself. Above we’ve incorporated the agile ceremonies in a subtle way, but you can be assured there are elements of Sprint Planning (Step 1), Daily Scrum (Step 2), Sprint Review (Step 3) and Sprint Retrospectives (Step 3).
Once you’ve taken these steps and noticed changes, keep in mind that as long as your goals change, so should your behaviors and habits. Goals are progressive and probably don’t always stay the same. If they are, you should probably consider being specific. i.e. if your goal is to gain more knowledge, make sure you specify which domain of knowledge, so that you don’t sit back and become complacent.
[Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
There are many ways to do work, and to be honest, not many people are taught how to create good or optimal workplace habits. That being the case, workplace dynamics can range from being a cesspool of toxic behavior and habits, to one that has an environment of the utmost respect for one another. The environment created in most workplaces is a cumulative result of individual behaviors happening at a given time, much like society, but only much more concentrated since we’re left to interact daily from morning until afternoon with our work colleagues.
The following factors, as part of the scrum process model, are found to reduce stress, anxiety and in turn increase workplace motivation and productivity:
It has been shown that when work has no confinements and there is “no light at the end of the tunnel,” the level motivation steadily declines over time. Further to this, the likelihood of burnout and employee turnaround starts to become more and more apparent. The Sprint as a 2 to 4 week timebox that is meant to happen iteratively, gives a mini-project sense to accomplishing each round that expectedly gives a delivery of product. Intermediate deadlines in this case, tend to occur frequently and regularly give a sense of accomplishment and cyclical motivation.
When Sprint Planning takes place, there’s a chance for everyone on the team to set their sights on how much work can be estimated for the upcoming sprint timebox. As part of the Sprint Planning activity, a Sprint Goal is set by the Product Owner that enables all involved, the focus and vision as to what they will all being working toward by the end of the Sprint. Consequently if there is proper buy-in at the start with all sights on the sprint goal, it will give that sense of purpose that everyone can focus on and relate to for achievement.
As most workplaces allow their employees to become complacent, and resulting in lack of performance feedback, the Sprint Retrospective allows for that time where everyone as a group can look at what were the great and no-so-great behaviors of the previous sprint. This sets the course for getting better on an iterative basis as this is done in each sprint. What some people don’t realize is the advantage of thinking of what to “stop doing” and what to “start doing” is already a two-fold way of taking on good habits. This is a bi-directional thought process, since most people typically think of improvement in one direction such as “just do things better” and leave out “what bad habits should I leave out of my routine.”
Everyone knows that an ongoing support network is a great positive factor. The daily scrum/standup allows for everyone to confirm what they were working on the previous day, and what they will accomplish for the remainder of the current day. The key part of team support for that day is when impediments and blockers are reported. This is a chance for everyone to chip in and see if there’s a way to resolve the blocker. This isn’t just the job for the Scrum Master, but also for the rest of the team. So the blocker announcement starts at the scrum meeting, but gets resolved outside of the meeting with the relevant members of the team, most likely those that are knowledgeable in the area of the impediment. Everyone else continues on their existing tasks to make sure productivity is not impeded.
The structure from which we have a sprint allows everyone to see results on a regular basis. Whether it’s on a daily basis (Scrum/Standup) or by sprint duration (Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective). We are able to see and experience results on a very constant basis. Along with tools such as the sprint/kanban board that are high-touch/high-visibility in nature, allows for everyone to see progress and status as it happens.
It must be said, getting everyone aligned to proper workplace habits can come naturally to those who adopt the scrum process model. It’s not necessarily about having a process, but actually having a positive attitude and confidence that it will work. Creating that momentum in your day-to-day, will likely come with resistance at all stages of development, but those who are on board, will quickly become visible to the organization and will certainly become the agile champions and leaders.
[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Conventional business wisdom will tell us that we should tell our shareholders what they want to hear so that the price of company stock will rise. This displaces the value that corporations will aim for toward the shareholder and not necessarily toward the customer. This is where Agile methodologies conflict as the goals of a conventional vs. agile mindset are not the same.
Below we will outline how conventional corporate mindset thinking conflicts with that of an agile mindset:
As a company you would likely be trying to appeal to both the shareholders and customers, however it’s usually shareholders that will come first and customers second. Based on agile principles and agile mindsets, the priority undeniably reverts to customers first! Everything in the agile value mindset reflects a goal toward delighting the customer and the accepted agile methodologies and processes show much evidence to conclude this is always the case.
The thought that there could be teams that are self-organized and self-managed leaves a sense of control loss by management at any level. Management may argue that if the teams are self-managing, then what is the use for management in the first place. Unfortunately this is a false perception, since management would likely still be needed for areas of business operations that are not covered by the day-to-day of agile processes.
Most conventional businesses will follow the militaristic approach as the known command-and-control approach to business structure and organization. Companies with a highly vertical (hierarchical) structure being at one extreme and the more flat (horizontal) type of organization at the other end. Those with a heavy emphasis on a vertical structure tend to harbor many of the anti-patterns of an agile approach. Be it either from lack of trust or lack of willingness to let go of authoritative power, many companies that have a top-heavy structure will not be easily capable of converting or adopting agile.
As many have noticed the periodic reporting of large businesses, especially those whose stocks are on the market exchange, the revenues that were forecasted must hold up in the later quarters or else face the consequences of lost share prices and market share overall. This places emphasis on how soon work can be done and made billable rather than concentrating on the actual scope and process of work to be done. The best interest of the customer is left behind as resources are stuffed into the work processes, rather than allowing agile methodologies to take their course.
Most who have reached a respectable level within their company whether it be in management or non-management (technical) levels, may tend to sit on their laurels all too often. Although we seem to hope that society is a meritocracy, let’s face it, some people just get to the higher positions based on years of experience rather than actual willingness to continue learning and changing. To this point, there are some who live up to their titles, but others who don’t and wouldn’t care to collaborate with their fellow colleagues either because they have underdeveloped people skills, lack of extensive knowledge, or because it’s seen as too much work to learn and share.
If there is anything we can’t promise is what will happen in the future. It is highly unlikely that an executive management team will wait to see if there will be continued commitment and support from their existing customers. Since much of what builds up customer satisfaction retention accumulates over time, most companies do not factor that in and will take the shortest path to generating revenue. Building quick untested solutions for the sake of having something billable does not look after the best interest of the client. This extends further to the disappointment of employees who are being told what to do, without buy-in. Some companies would rather sacrifice growth of their existing team synergies to result in high turnovers from unmotivated employees, rather than keep them on-board. This is why at the first sign of lost profits, most companies will take the immediate route of terminating their employees. The reason? It’s the quickest and easiest way to lower costs. However in the long-term it proves detrimental, and usually leads to further “voluntary” fallout where employees lose sense of purpose from the previous setback of layoffs. This affects customer relationships as the level of expertise and direct customer engagement from employees diminish.
Most companies do not share at many levels for fear that the truth may reveal too much for many to be comfortable with. High levels of transparency bring about a sense of fear that the information provided can be way too sensitive or used against the company. Although transparency may reveal positive and negative aspects of a company and its operations, most companies tend to err on the side of non-transparency to avoid the risk at all costs. This approach of course lowers the level of trust and therefore the level of engagement from customers as they find out from latent communications throughout the project life-cycle.
[Image courtesy of cooldesign at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Since we can’t use what isn’t finished, there should be no reason to consider it as “done” until it really is complete. In other project methodologies, specifically waterfall, we measure progress as an overall percentage and consider that percentage as a measure of completion. Working software is the only measure from which we are considering progress since what does not work, has no way of receiving ROI. It’s like giving someone credit for climbing a mountain at 90%, but they never reached the peak. Further to this principle, it also confirms that if something doesn’t work, why would you consider it complete in any way, when there is no real guarantee that it will ever work.
This principle calls out to respecting the human aspect of agile team work. To maintain and motivate an agile working team we need to consider balancing the cost of development to the cost of human quality of life. It therefore promotes a work-life balance as being the main consideration to sustainability of the long-term “constant pace.” We’ve all heard of burnouts and the detrimental effects they cause to sustainability. When considering sustainability, it’s not just about what can be profitable over time, but also considering people-conscious limits. Some companies don’t set limits or are afraid of telling their customers that they have limits on how long developers will do the work. They see it as a competitive advantage to have developers work long hours during the week or over the weekend. While it may seem advantageous in the short-run, it is not sustainable in the long run, as it will cause the team to burnout, get sick, or leave.
While it may be tempting to develop code, or product just once and give it a thumbs-up, it may not necessarily mean that it is optimal. This principle covers the need to always look into best practices before, during, and after the code or product has been developed. Even when reaching completion, there’s room to improve and update as necessary, and the iterative process or attempt to gain workflow automation in agile, allows for this to happen if and when needed. In software we can refactor the code so that it runs smoothly, however it doesn’t imply that the original code should have been done to the standard of “just enough” to get by. While developing an element of code or product, you need to design it with intent of how it will provide value for the end-user, since poor quality in the end will cause higher costs and time wasted throughout the product life cycle.
When developing products, we tend to get bogged down by how many features the end product will have. Knowing which features will be needed as a minimum viable product can be tougher than it seems. However this principle also looks at “amount of work not done.” It promotes the concept of working smarter not harder, since working harder doesn’t mean there will be any efficiency built into the agile solution. Being able to prioritize features is the key element to maximizing simplicity, as most customers fall for the illusion that a product with many features is a product with built-in value. However, what gets lost in that perception is that there is no value if 70% of the features won’t even be used by the end-user once it’s released. Being able to prioritize is certainly a hard-to-acquire skill and activity, but it is one of the essential pieces to building simplicity.
This principle leads straight to the agile team roles, and their ability to be “self-organizing.” This drives the idea that the best can come out of a team that is highly motivated, and has a high level of buy-in. When the architectures, requirements and designs come from the team closest to the product, you will likely get a better result than if they were imposed on the team from an external or top-down approach. It therefore leads to more a pull type approach from the team rather than a push type approach from upper management. The dynamics and results from a self-organizing team allows for the team to take ownership and pride in the product they will produce.
Continuous improvement is something that resonates throughout an agile project. This agile project management principle calls out to the necessity of improving constantly and frequently with the mention of “regular intervals.” This of course implies that there is an iterative aspect to the tuning of becoming more effective, however it is not limited to just one period of time. The use of agile retrospective events is certainly the highlight of reflecting over ways to improve what happened in the previous sprint, but this principle also doesn’t limit it to just that. We could almost say that this principle should be carried on a daily basis, and with the agile team looking to find ways to “tune” themselves regularly. When looking at it from a waterfall vs agile perspective, we must consider that most waterfall projects only do this once in the project management life cycle and likely at the very end, when it’s already too late to do anything about it. Regular intervals for tuning and adjusting behavior makes it more pertinent and effective since it will be addressed throughout multiple sprints and it will allow a chance for the improved adjustment to be implemented.
[Source for Agile Manifesto Principles: Manifesto for Agile Software Development]
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Many new projects seem to fail at the beginning, especially in hindsight, when looking back after months of development and product delivery progress. There have been many cases where agile projects did not even go over the Agile Manifesto which as most would should have been the first step. Beyond the 4 value statements from the manifesto, are the 12 principles that help guide the agile practitioner in keeping up with the 4 value statements. As we will see, all 12 were very cleverly worded and cover all angles that the agile mind would live by.
As part 1 of a 2-part series we will give further insight as to what those 12 principles are and why they are important for up-keeping in the context of agile project management principles:
When we look at this first principle we see that customer satisfaction is the first thing that comes up, but that is not to say we need to do everything the customer wants outside of reason. This is why the second part of the principle mentions early and continuous delivery of valuable software/product. In all instances the customer relationship starts where ultimately there is a product to be delivered. If you note, the “early” part is also deliberate since it is essential to building the quick ROI for the client. The “continuous” part represents the iterative part about agile methods that allows for features to be built in with the value requested by the customer.
The requirements of an agile project are reflected by the Backlog (Product and Sprint). The backlog is the crux of the agile project methodology and workflow process, and is the basis of the work that needs to be done by the agile team. This principle of welcoming changing requirements in the format of a backlog allows for prioritization and re-prioritization at any moment within the sprint for the Sprint Backlog, and the Product Backlog throughout the agile project. Typically, the high level of transparency through daily scrums, and kanban boards, etc., allows for the agile working team to change requirements to reflect the ROI, resulting “customer’s competitive advantage” as needed and without the resistance that a project would have in a traditional waterfall setting.
The only way to gain return on a product is by confirming the results. Therefore the need to deliver “frequently” is tied to getting the most out of continuous delivery. This is part of the reason for preference to the shorter timescale, since that would provide more delivery cycles (iterations or sprints) and all resulting feedback loops from the customer and business. The other reason for preference to the shorter timescale is that it mitigates risks by allowing for developing time-sensitive competitive advantages (quicker time to market) of the software or product. When using lean tools the work-in-progress (WIP) becomes evident and quicker cycles prevent any wastes (so-called “muda”), and locks in the value of the delivered product.
When referring to working together daily this primarily refers to all agile team roles in the same room, face-to-face communications, and not so much on texting and emailing. Gaps in the daily interactions leaves room for unconfirmed value, and possible waste once business people and developers fall out-of-the-loop. The other key phrase is “throughout the project.” Some business roles, and developers may tend to fade in and out of the project if they are assigned to more than one project, and are spread thin throughout the course of the project. This leaves gaps in expectations and confirmation of progress when it is needed most.
When a project gets started and is ongoing, we need to make sure we don’t get in the way of agile team members that are experts in their domain. This is where we build in the element of “trust” and leave them to do what they do best. Giving them the environment and support relies on the scrum master role where there is a need to protect the agile team from outside distractions, and help remove blockages when they appear.
The key here is that people are to engage in “people-friendly” situations that promote easy communication with the least amount of “out-of-context” risk as possible. Body language makes up about 55% of communication, and therefore represents the most powerful component when compared to 7% verbal and 38% tone of voice. Since email messages can take on a tone the reader chooses to interpret them by, a message may be interpreted as malicious where in fact it could have been completely benign. The other advantage of the face-to-face communication is that everyone benefits from osmotic communication whereby knowledge and information is gained from background discussions from fellow agile team members. This presents an overall advantage since it effortlessly keeps everyone on the same page.
For the second part of this section << click here >>
[Source for Agile Manifesto Principles: Manifesto for Agile Software Development]
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Some level of confusion may occur with the use of certain terminologies, likely when a relatively new-to-agile member joins an agile working team. Let’s face it, we are living in a society that requires us to know expressions, abbreviations, or acronyms on what everyone is talking about as common knowledge. It’s certainly always best to ask the question up front, but for those worried about terms that typically come up in the context of agile projects, we’ve outlined some below.
Those joining an agile project will naturally learn quickly about every day agile terms that are not usually used in any other project context such as: scrum, sprint, retrospective, standup, etc., but what about the mention of some less familiar terms? Some might come up only a few times within a sprint or throughout the entire agile project.
Here’s a few examples of terms, that could raise some eyebrows upon first hearing them. You can rest assured most have a positive context despite their seemingly negative sounding words:
The instance from which we use the term Burn-Down is with the Burn-Down Chart. This term has very little to do with burning anything down, at least not from the context of lighting something up with a flame or fire. The Burn-Down Chart, as an agile tool, gives a graphical representation of how much work is left to do in the sprint. The main component that is being represented is the amount of scope or story points completed, while giving a visual cue of agile team velocity.
Many of us started to hear the term Peer Pressure in our high school days. This brought about times of being pressured to fit in with the crowd by doing acts of stupidity, substance use, or criminal activity. Performing any of the acts would reassure acceptance for that member, but if not they would face possible rejection, bullying or humiliation. Peer pressure in agile working environments comes about more from the high level of transparency and visibility, than actual pressure from the agile team. The occurrence of peer pressure comes about when the individual reports their own performance and realizes that they may be stalling or slowing the rest of the team down. This could be a result of over committing, or just simply under-performing within the group. This typically would require the individual review with the agile business coach or scrum master role to see where or why they may not be a fit for the current team.
Similar to Burn-Down, this term is also used when referring to an agile information radiator called the Burn-Up Chart. This chart can viewed side-by-side with the Burn-Down chart, but today most software applications can show them both superimposed for better understanding of progress. While the Burn-Down Chart will show how much scope or points being completed. the Burn-Up Chart shows how many hours are being used to complete the tasks. Both charts together will confirm whether or not estimates that we set in the sprint planning are on track or not.
For those who have taken on the Scrum Master role, they may learn eventually that their preferred form of leadership is that of “servant-leadership.” This in no way means being a servant in the traditional sense, but rather one of the most effective ways to lead by example. So the idea that a servant as a slave is very far from the intent. Servant-Leadership in principle is meant to serve others so that others can grow and become self-organized, rather than the opposite “command-and-control” approach to leadership that creates drone-like behavior from others.
Much of agile training and learning can come about from playing agile games. Typically when you think of playing games, it is thought that people are just horsing around, not being productive or wasting time. In the context of agile teams, it is very much encouraged to play games to get familiar with agile workflows, planning, iterative development, and team building activities. There are numerous and still new and innovative ways that agile practitioners play games to learn while adopting an agile mindset and principles.
When we think of the term disruptive on a day-to-day context, we tend to think of disturbance or distraction. In an agile context and mainly technological circles, disruptive commonly refers to innovation. To be part of an agile team that has created a disruptive technology or invention means that there has been a major advancement, so much so, that it actually brings the previous function, or use of the previously existing technology to obsoletion.
While working on an agile project, you may come across some farm animal terminology, specifically Pigs and/or Chickens. These terms are perhaps used less and less recently, but they came about from an anecdote that demonstrates the level of commitment of certain members of the team. The story refers to a chicken asking a pig to start a restaurant together called “Ham and Eggs.” The Pig answers “no thanks” since the Pig would need to be committed (since Pig has to be killed to make Ham), whereas the chicken would only be involved. This basically gives an idea of the different levels that certain stakeholders and agile team roles have in a project and how they should participate in sprint events such as the daily standup.
For what is now being used as a part of agile metrics, you might think this has something to do with piracy. The term pirate metrics comes from the mnemonic term AARRR (the pirate rant) to remember the 5 key metrics to measure increasing revenue: Acquisition, Activation, Retention, Referral, and Revenue.
This concept about failing fast may confuse early agile practitioners since most people are told early and for most of their lives that failure is the opposite of success. Certainly this term can raise a sense of fear of failure and cause some resistance at first. The concept of Fail-Fast is a principal agile concept coming from inspecting and adapting. It is an approach to encourage early detection of failure, to be able to learn or fix quickly before sunk costs are incurred. In principle you would want to know if a project or product feature would fail at the beginning instead of reaching the end to find out it is a failure.
We’re not referring to empires and conquests with this term, although we can certainly get carried away and think that the project may take on that type of personality. Empiricism is mainly a scientific approach that requires a process to be observed and tested so that it can be considered universally effective.
There are certainly more of these types of terms that are used in Agile, but note that the best way to start learning, to keep learning, and to contribute to the discussions that come up in an agile project is by communicating with same type of vocabulary. There are already many factors that increase the risk of breakdown in the communication process, so we may as well get on the same page and know up front what common terms everyone may use use in the project.
[Image courtesy of photostock at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
If you’ve heard of situations where the “student becomes the master” and “the student becomes the teacher,” you might be asking yourself exactly what does that mean. Most think there is a distinct difference between the role of a teacher or master to that of a student. If there is one thing to consider is that they certainly cannot exist without each other. The main distinction behind how a student becomes the master is usually by the amount of practice the student had, and how he or she may then stand when compared to their own master when it comes to wisdom. This is also what happens in agile coaching and mentoring toward the agile team relationship.
Many consider the role of a business coach to be a mentor, and vice versa. A coach’s role is diverse and really depends on the background of the individual. Some might have specialized industry knowledge and experience in which they are taking part, but others might have process and/or procedural experience from a more diverse or general industry background. There’s no better or worse when it comes to those differences, however where there is a more distinct ability in question as to how much that individual analyzes, learns and gives back to those they interact with. That being said, an agile coach can be a mentor, and an agile mentor can be a coach. The difference there is how much time, dedication, and direction that takes place between the mentor and mentee, or coach and coachee. The mentor role might be better suited when the role is specific, i.e. a mentor for a developer is usually best suited when the mentee is also a developer. In agile circles, those lines are somewhat blurred and most of the agile coach role is taken on by the Scrum Master role. The agile business coach however, can be a separate role and is just as important as any other role.
Remember when you were a student in class back in school, college or university? You were always thinking about how the teacher, separated by many years of knowledge, would always be the prime source of information, direction, authority, etc., on the class subject. We had the distinct notion that the teacher had taken on the role of the “all-knowing” in the classroom. But what we need to realize is that the teacher was also in an environment where they too were learning, and looking for answers themselves. Certainly many teachers had many styles, some better than others. Do you remember what made the great ones great? and the not-so-great ones not so great? What you may have realized is the level of involvement but also the level of in-depth conversation with the students. You may notice that the teacher although being a source of information and specialization expertise, was immersed in getting to know why their students thought the way they thought. They were learning too! This is very much the same way an agile coach and mentor would be with the agile working team and its members. The coach, just like the teacher, is also being a student to some extent. Why? Because they are in a state of constant learning, despite their high level of knowledge.
While in the student vs. teacher scenario, we can see that the student is the one always looking to prove their knowledge to their peers and teacher in a classroom. Many students might be motivated to attain a certain grade and use their knowledge to show everyone just how much they know. Wisdom comes when there’s a higher sense self-motivation, self-control and knowing when to use the knowledge, not just to get the grade, but also when to use the knowledge in and outside of the classroom. This also goes hand-in-hand with knowing that despite having increased levels of knowledge, nobody can ever know enough. This is the true turning point on wisdom. Much like power, it’s not about using power at all times, but when to use it that brings a better sense of refinement to any situation.
For those who become ambitious in their line of work, whether in agile team roles or not, there has to be purpose and thought to the “why” in their role. When ambition is driven by getting to the top of the ladder for popularity or for a sense of superiority, there is true lack of wisdom. The difference happens, as an agile mindset will show, when one’s purpose is to share with others. Much like a coach or mentor, they should not aim to become one just for the title, as someone in a highly regarded role that gains a lot of attention from all stakeholders in an agile organization.
[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
After a couple of weeks, your team has undergone a couple of sprints. As an agile coach, scrum master, or team member you start to wonder if there are any signs that the agile team roles are performing up to par, or better yet, if there are tell-tale signs that your team is likely to under-perform in the long run.
The point behind tracking and managing velocity is to expect that eventually the velocity will stabilize at some point. This will go hand-in-hand with being able to make decisions on how many remaining sprints can be used to eventually complete the prioritized items in the product backlog, or how many points will be used for planning the subsequent sprints. If the team members are being pulled in and out of external assignments or multitasking on multiple projects, it would be expected that velocity is not going to stabilize any time soon. This type of issue can be rectified if the scrum master role or agile business coach point out to team members that they should remain exclusive to the one project being measured.
In many circumstances, we tend to go off topic on meetings where the members involved lose sight of the purpose or agenda of the call. If everyone is stuck on trying to resolve an issue on the scrum or standup, there needs to be a clear signal to all, “make a note of the issue,” and the respective members close to the issue can work together to help resolve it after the meeting. As a self-organizing team, all members should eventually realize that the scrum/standup meeting is not about problem solving, nor is it entirely about status. Some agile practitioners do not realize that the meeting ultimately is about commitment to the team. The update comes when saying what was done yesterday, but what will be done today, given there are no blockers, is the commitment. Beyond that, there should not be any reason why a scrum/standup would take so long.
This issue comes with improper planning, lack of agile training, or missing skills assessments. It becomes a very awkward situation when large gaps in skill sets occur in the project. This may also be a result of disengaged stakeholders that may have misrepresented their requirements early on. The main idea behind having a self-organizing team is to be sure they can cover each other’s skill gaps in a general sense, but if there are huge gaps, i.e. there’s nobody with agile business analyst capabilities, and project requires one, there certainly needs to be a discussion around why that position isn’t filled right from the start. Other issues start when agile team members are partially assigned to another project at some point mid-flight in the project. As an example, if a Product Owner is not fully engaged, the backlog ordering and prioritization will suffer. This may put a strain on the entire team to fill in for. Since the Product Owner is the one who knows the business values of the features to be ordered in priority, it’s not necessarily an easy gap to fill. Someone needs to step in and take over that role on a full-time basis so that the backlog is groomed effectively and with the expectations of the stakeholders.
There may be instances when some members are no longer motivated, perhaps because of personality incompatibilities, or superiority complexes. Obtaining an agile mindset is not easily achieved by everyone, but there are some that fall back into command-and-control mode, or don’t feel the need to attend agile courses. In doing so, this may bring about the sense that some team members are trying to “one-up” the other by keeping information hidden from others until the last possible minute, and catching everyone by surprise. Nobody would want to find out toward the end of the sprint that a particular feature can not be implemented, if that information was actually known at the beginning.
As you come to the end of a sprint, the team’s opportunity to provide continuous improvement feedback is driven in most part by the retrospective session. This allows everyone to identify what they did that went well, and didn’t go so well. Further to this, there are categories of instances that should be identified as what to “continue doing,” “stop doing,” and “start doing.” As you might guess, the hardest part to do out of those three instances is the “stop doing.” We can see even in our present lives, that habits are hard to break, and in most cases we like to keep the good ones, but really try hard to get rid of the bad ones. Over time it may be normal to see that certain bad habits within the agile team continue through multiple sprints, however if you’ve reached past your third or fourth sprint with the same habits continuing forward, there may need to be some further process analysis to zoom into why these ineffective workflow processes or habits have not been extinguished. A simple and fast way to get to the root of most issues, is through activities such as asking the “5 Whys” or drawing (and populating) a Fishbone Diagram.
The agile working team is one that learns and innovates over time. If everyone is there only to keep up with the status quo, the team will inevitably under-perform, too many negative issues will be left unresolved while leaving no time to address value-added tasks. The team should be engaged right from the start, with ample opportunity for buy-in from each member. If there are doubts being raised early in the game, that might be normal, but keeping those doubts on the radar, and perhaps even asking the product owner to add them to a risk-adjusted backlog (no matter how ridiculous they may seem) can provide some great benefits over time.
[Image courtesy of iosphere at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
