Agile Beyond the IT Department

auspicious blockchain and agile

If You enjoy Auspicious Agile you can support us on Patreon –https://www.patreon.com/AuspiciousAgile

Also support the Auspicious Agile blog by shopping on Amazon using the links below!

https://www.amazon.com/?tag=auspiagile-20

LifeProof waterproof iPhone 7 phone case (Affiliate)

 The Phoenix Project (Affiliate)

 The DevOps Handbook (Affiliate)

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, agile enterprise, agile methodology, Business Agility, lean, Scrum

The Agile Project Manager?

——-
A useful resource on Agile Project Management by Jim Highsmith

(Affiliate)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, agile enterprise, agile methodology, Agile Project Manager, Agile Scaling, Budget, contracts, Legal, Scrum, Servant Leadership

Pointers on Enterprise Agile Transformation

Hi All,

This week I want to discuss some pointers to being successful with Enterprise Agile from my experience:

Program and Portfolio Planning

First when it comes to Agile Program and Portfolio planning it can be very valuable to align program milestones with team level iterations and releases.  This can be particularly valuable when a company or organisation is working with a vendor that uses Agile iterations and needs to align this to their internal program and project milestones.  By aligning with Agile iterations and releases communication between the management team and the development team(s) or vendors can be made much clearer.

For example if a vendor will release a mobile user interface in its next iteration, the program and portfolio management teams can align their milestones for delivering mobile access to the upcoming vendor iteration or release.  This also allows an organisation to still have their Agile development teams and vendors responsible to certain delivery goals and milestones.  This approach also maximises visibility by allowing management teams to track how iterations required for their upcoming milestones are progressing, and increases predictability as a result.

Budgetary Tracking and Estimates

That said, the second pointer I would like to discuss is how to budget and estimate for an enterprise Agile program.  Traditional budgeting provides a set amount of money for the delivery of set features in a set timeframe.  However, with an Agile program and Agile teams there needs to be flexibility in the creation of product backlogs of user stories, and backlogs of features.  If the Agile teams are required to fix all of their features at the start of the project for budgetary purposes, the organisation loses one of the key benefits of Agile which is the ability to respond to the market quickly and flexibly.

In order to respond to the market and retain flexibility a good approach is to budget based on a certain set of features of a certain size (when I mention size I am referring to the Agile practice of T-Shirt sizing to facilitate relative estimating), but not to fix the exact features in advance.  For example a company may budget for 5 large features over the next 6 months.  From experience (understanding team velocities and hours spent working on large features) they may know it takes roughly $100k to deliver one large feature.  So to deliver 5 large features in the next 6 months they may budget $500k.  Or if planning out for the year they may budget $1m for 10 large features over the next 12 months.  By planning this way if the company needs to swap a key large security feature for a large mobile feature 3 months into the project their budgeting still remains accurate, while their teams and Product Owners have the flexibility to respond to the market.

Organisational Change

The third pointer is in how to lead an Enterprise Agile program.  I have often heard the advice that when an organisation moves to Enterprise Agile, that they should just make all of their Project Managers into ScrumMasters and magically they will have Agile teams.  The problem with this is that traditional project management and leading Agile Programs requires an entirely different approach to leadership. While Agile programs require a servant leadership approach (serve through leadership, and lead through serving the teams) traditional project management is generally more command and control.

When a command and control project manager is made into a ScrumMaster, or Agile Program Manager the results are generally not healthy.  Instead of empowering teams the ScrumMaster or Agile Program Manager assigns all of the teams’ work and demands that it be finished on an assigned schedule.  This takes away any empowerment the team may have enjoyed as a result of becoming an Agile team in an Agile Enterprise (as well as taking away flexibility and agility).  A key pointer here is to assess each traditional project manager, and leader in the organisation.  Some may adapt well to a servant leadership approach.   Others, may not and may need to find different roles, or may simply be more comfortable in a non-Agile organisation.  Identifying this early on and shifting people to roles where they will be successful is a key organisational change factor to enable successful Enterprise Agile.

I hope some of these pointers and points have been useful.  These are only a few that come to the top of my mind in thinking about avoiding pitfalls in transitioning to an Enterprise Agile organisation.  Hopefully food for thought, and useful advice for avoiding common Enterprise Agile adoption pitfalls.

Until next time, Stay Agile!

John.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, agile enterprise, agile methodology, Agile Project Manager, Agile Scaling, Budget, Release Plan, Roadmap Plan, Servant Leadership, T-Shirt Sizing

Is it Really that Hard to Scale Agile?

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, agile methodology, Agile Scaling, Business Agility, Distributed Teams, Scrum

The Company That Went Agile With a Big Bang!

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, agile enterprise, agile methodology, Agile Project Manager, Business Agility, Uncategorized

Adapting Agile Methods for Asia

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, Agile Teams, Asia, Servant Leadership, Uncategorized

The Best Agile Manager I Ever Worked For

auspicious blockchain and agile

As we continue to explore Agile leadership, today I want to talk about the best Agile Manager that I ever worked for. It was several years ago, and I was working as part of a group that did custom software development projects for customers. I started work on a new project that I had helped to kick-off several months before. The project was for a US Government customer and the team manager was Jack (not his real name).

The team was made up of a business analyst, six or seven developers, and a development lead. The team had recently started to use Agile methods, and was definitely in the midst of transitioning. Jack was responsible for delivering the project for the US Government customer. I joined the team in a senior developer and architect role. The team needed to develop a service integration capability quickly in order to fulfil the US Government requirements for the project.

What I liked about Jack’s leadership style was that he empowered his team, he set vision for the team and looked to the members of the team to figure out how to get the job done. Jack certainly fit the mould of a servant leader consistent with Agile principles. This was a stark contrast, considering I had recently worked on a team with what I would consider to be the worst Agile Manager I had ever worked for (see archived blog post for that story), we will call him Bob.

To compare and contrast the other Manager that I had worked for previously was authoritarian. No opinion was tolerated but his own. His style of leadership was to create fear in the team. Jack by contrast set vision and inspired the team to achieve its goals. He did not use fear as a management tool, but rather he would seek to encourage the team, and to constantly find ways to remove roadblocks and impediments.

Jack was also trusted by the team. When Jack asked a question or inquired into something, there was little question in your mind that he had good intentions and was looking to benefit you and the team. By contrast when Bob (the fear based authoritarian manager) asked you a question, your heart would start to beat faster because you knew he was likely not asking for any good reason. Rather he was generally seeking a way to accuse or belittle the team members, and most of his questions followed that pattern.

There was a prevailing good morale on Jack’s team. Even when we were up against a deadline or a challenge the team still worked together well and was positive. Whenever we faced a challenge, the team was always engaged, focused and would “Fight On!” (the slogan selected by one of the team’s developers). By contrast on Bob’s team everyone was just waiting for an opportunity to get off his team, and hoped they didn’t make any mistakes that would get them in trouble.

Now notice that I did not focus here on how Jack did stand-ups, or how the team did retrospectives. The team was learning, and did a decent job of putting these Agile rituals in place. What made Jack a great Agile leader was not that he was able to follow Agile rituals. What made Jack a great Agile leader was that he followed Agile principles in his leadership and the way that he treated his team. This included respect for the team, openness, focus, simplicity, and trust.

Looking at the picture of Jack and contrasting with Bob who I described several blog posts ago, who would you rather work with as your manager? When you think about who you would prefer, also think of the reasons why, is it based on following Agile practices, or is it based on the underlying Agile principles? Food for thought…

Until next time, stay Agile,
John.


If You enjoy Auspicious Agile you can support us on Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/AuspiciousAgile

Also support the Auspicious Agile blog by shopping on Amazon using the links below!

https://www.amazon.com/?tag=auspiagile-20

Fidget Spinner Stress Reducer (Amazon)

 The Complete Leadership 101 Collection – John Maxwell (Amazon)

 The DevOps Handbook (Affiliate)

– Auspicious Agile first blog on culture change of DevOps – https://atomic-temporary-69565198.wpcomstaging.com/2016/02/20/the-culture-change-of-devops-and-your-career/

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, Agile Manager, agile methodology, Agile Teams, Opinion, Scrum, Servant Leadership, Uncategorized

Is making money the most important thing for an Agile team?

In the last few weeks in meetings in Malaysia and Singapore the topic of whether making money should be top priority for an Agile Team has come up. For purposes of this discussion we will assume that the Agile team is a part of a larger business or organisation, and is not a stand-alone group. So the larger question would be is making money the most important thing for the business or organisation that the Agile team is a part of.

From an Agile perspective we always focus on delivering value for the business or organisation (http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html). So let’s define value. In most cases if the business is a for-profit company or organisation value takes the form of producing better bottom line results. This could be reducing costs, increasing revenue, increasing customer satisfaction, or improving employee morale in the company. These may also apply to a non-profit organisation that seeks to break even, but not necessarily make a profit. There are of course other areas where a team could deliver value, such as increasing market share, or improving company image.

So in order for an Agile team to deliver value to the business and organisation one of these areas should be improved by the team’s work. Now the question is which of these or other ways of delivering value to the organisation is most important. Let’s start with reducing costs, and proceed through the others. If the team develops a productivity improvement that reduces costs for the company, then the organisation should be more profitable, and this will show as better bottom line results (i.e. company keeps more of the revenue it generates). So reducing costs is directly related to making money.

Next we have increasing revenue. This also is directly making more money for the company. So work by the Agile team that increases revenue is also focused on the organisation making more money. Increasing customer satisfaction means that likely more customers will use the organisations product or service. Satisfied customers are happy spending their money on the company’s products and services. So customer satisfaction, while initially measured potentially by a survey or some other measure, in the end also results in the company making more money.

Now let’s look at improving employee morale. It can be said that if employee morale improves that happy employees will create better products and take pride and ownership in the work that they produce. Now better products, and happy employees likely will lead to the company making more money, but it can be argued that improved employee morale does not always lead to the company making more money. Happy employees also tend to be more likely to stay with the company, and attract others to the company. This saves money for the company in its recruiting and related costs of finding and retaining talented people. However, let’s say for now that employee morale is not always measurable in bottom line results.

Increased market share, likely will result directly in the company making more money from more people buying its products or services. An Agile team contributes to increased market share by creating great features and services that are valuable in the market place. So again increased market share (in a well run company) should lead to the company making more money. Lastly I mentioned improving company image. This could take the form of better brand position in the market, or better brand recognition. When more people know your company (hopefully for the right reasons) the company is again likely to make more money, through more people choosing to do business with the organisation.

Now, this is certainly not an exhaustive list of value producing activities in a company or organisation, but does touch on some of the most important for a for-profit company. In addition there are non-profits, but most of these still apply, as a non-profit generally needs to break even to continue operating (this may take the form of attracting more money donations, which again would be value producing for the non-profit – take Wikipedia.org as an example).

So of our entire list just about every value producing activity for the Agile team ends up with the company or organisation making money. Arguably we could say employee morale is not directly measurable in dollars and cents, but ties to money outcomes in many ways as well. So if an Agile team is seeking to produce value for the organisation that it belongs to, it seems very likely that the value produced will have a financial or money measure. This would point to making money for the organisation being the most important activity for an Agile team.

I would add to this one final point. Even if an Agile team does not choose to focus on producing money for its organisation, the organisation will only be able to continue to operate as long as there are finances (money) to support the business as a going concern. So if an Agile team does not support the monetary success of its organisation, the team may not be able to continue as a team if the organisation it belongs to is not profitable or at least able to break-even (in the case of a non-profit).

Until next time, Stay Agile!
John.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, agile manifesto, agile methodology, Budget, business value, Scrum

Are there really no managers in Scrum?

Teaching classes over the past few weeks the question of what role managers have in Scrum has come up several times.  In answering these questions I mentioned that Scrum describes three primary roles – ScrumMaster, Product Owner, and Team.  However, Scrum is silent on the role of the manager.  I think this last point – the silence of Scrum on other roles – has led to much confusion, and maybe a few mis-steps by companies.

 

I can recall one company that was a client of a prior company where I started an Agile practice.  This US based company in the financial services sector laid-off (fired) all of their project managers in one fell swoop when they made the transition to Agile.  Now, I did not work directly with this company, and definitely would not recommend taking this approach to Agile Transformation.  I didn’t keep track of what the outcome was of this mass lay off of project managers, but I can’t imagine that it was good for morale in the company.

 

Scrum does not prescribe firing all of your project (or other managers) in order to transition to Scrum / Agile.  The origins of Scrum and Agile at the Team level in organisations has potentially led some people to think that there is no role for managers.  But to the contrary someone still has to deal with contracts, budgets, legal requirements, multi-team coordination, establishing communities of practice, and the like.  The likelihood is that a manager will be needed in some capacity to handle this in all but the smallest of projects / companies.  The other option would be for the team to stop their work on producing value during the sprint and instead to deal with all of these management tasks.  The second option is not conducive to a productive team that even comes close to burning down stories and tasks in “ideal time” or even close.

 

Another aspect to consider is that just getting rid of all of the managers in an organisation sows seeds of doubt in everyones mind (even if unspoken) about the value of people to the organisation.  Agile and Scrum do not support treating people as replaceable “resources” or cogs in the machine.  Indeed, Agile and Scrum support treating people as valuable individuals that contribute to the success of the organisation because they are empowered.  What does it say to people in the organisation when the leadership just fires everyone in the name of Agile Transformation.

 

I would propose that a better approach is to work with each person.  People who were business analysts or project managers or other roles not described in Scrum should be given the opportunity to identify career options in their organisation.  Maybe they can be ScrumMasters, or Product Owners.  Maybe they can be Agile Managers, taking care of the things that the team does not have time (and potentially skills) to handle.  The point for an Agile Manager is to be a servant leader empowering the team, and not getting in the way of the team doing work.  Business Analysts may be able to support Product owners in elaborating on User Stories, Assumption, and Acceptance Criteria.

 

I believe that the most respectful, and true to Agile / Scrum approach is to work with each team member and to help them to see where they fit in the organisation as the transition to Agile takes place.  This is best for teams, managers, and people, and Scrum / Agile always looks to empower and provide the best environment for people.

 

Until next time, keep being Agile!

John.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, Agile Adoption, agile enterprise, Agile Manager, Agile Teams, Scrum

Small but not Lean or Agile

Several years ago I was working with a start-up company (we will call them Acme) in the technology space.  Start-up companies are known for being very Agile in their approach to the market, but that wasn’t exactly the case with this start-up… The company was piloting a new on-line media technology that had significant potential to do very well in the market.  Similar technologies had just started to enter the market, but none with the same feature set as Acme.  Acme’s founder (we will call him Fred) had worked very hard for a number of years to develop the technology and he had written most of the code himself.  Acme obtained preliminary intellectual property protection in the US.

Acme’s founder Fred had a vision for his product entering the market.  He wanted to get a deal in place with a top tier Silicon Valley company or top Hollywood entertainment company.  Fred had several meetings that he hoped would lead to that one big deal that would make the company.  Unfortunately, none of these meetings ever materialised into the Holy Grail of a deal with a top company.

In the mean time many smaller opportunities to test Acme’s product in the market came and went.  Now these opportunities wouldn’t necessarily be make-or-break, but they would provide real world feedback, and potentially early revenue streams.  Ultimately Fred ran out of money before he could get Acme’s product into the market.  The pursuit of a big deal that never materialised ultimately was the company’s undoing.

Could there have been a different outcome using Agile and Lean Startup (http://theleanstartup.com/) principles?  I think so.  To start Fred could have attempted to test a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in the market with a limited set of users to test Acme’s concept.  This may have showed the potential of the product, or showed Fred where he needed to pivot and move in another direction.  This is a part of the core Build-Measure-Learn method that is core to the Lean Start-up approach.

Fred could have also started to realise revenue much more quickly than forever waiting for the one big deal that would make the company.  This was particularly important as Fred’s company was bootstrapped and therefore had very limited funding.  Fred didn’t have the cash to keep waiting for the elusive big deal while not deriving any revenue from the company.  When Fred realised (I am not sure this realisation came until he ran out of money) that the big companies he was pursuing weren’t going to invest, he could have pivoted to seek smaller revenue streams from multiple early adopting customers.  Fred also had other opportunities like embedding Amazon products in his media technology, which would have potentially led to a stream of referral revenue from Amazon.

Fred spent a very long time working very hard on his product.  Adopting some Lean Start-up techniques could have potentially allowed his product and company to be successful.  Using a Build-Measure-Learn approach could have helped Fred to realise much needed revenue early, and to learn what worked in the market.  Having the flexibility to pivot when he saw the go big approach wasn’t working could have made his company a success (in my opinion).  Also, finding an MVP that could earn revenue in the market could have provided much needed early cash flow.  All-in-all there were allot of potential benefits Fred could have realised using a Lean Start-up approach, instead of the “go big or go home” approach that he employed.

Until next time, Stay Agile!

John.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Agile, agile methodology, Business Agility, lean, lean startup
Categories