I think they did a lot of things right in the late 1990′s and very early 2000′s.

“Benefits of Scrum vs. waterfall in 5 words”

Never had to put so concise.

So here’s my try:

Transparency

Flexibility

Reality

Value

Wellbeing

Not a statement, but five words nonetheless.

But those weren’t the first five words that came to my mind. The first was:

“Scrum projects kick waterfall’s ass”

Not the most politically correct, though .

But the whole topic is a bit unfair. It’s like asking the benefits of shoes vs. gloves for your feet. This isn’t really a question should we use waterfall or Agile for a software project, because both processes are valid in appropriate process context. Plan-driven approaches are highly valid for predictable environment whereas Agile is for complex environments. Also, there are situations where significant pre-planning is just necessary, because of excessively long feedback cycle or massive rework costs.

Mike Cohn, in his recent book “Succeeding with Agile”, poses this issue as a balance between “anticipation” and “adaptation”. In every situation, we do at least a little bit of anticipation and a little bit of adaptation. How much of each we do beyond that depends entirely on what we are doing. If we are ordering an expensive server with a couple of month’s delivery time, it probably makes sense to do your homework in advance. The only trouble with traditional thinking is that it does not sufficiently recognize the need for adaptation because of the expectation that projects are fundamentally predictable (and claiming that we just don’t know enough of it yet).

What would have been your five words?

PDCA (plan–do–check–act) is an iterative four-step problem-solving process typically used in business process improvement. It is also known as the Deming circle, Shewhart cycle, Deming cycle, Deming wheel, control circle or cycle, or plan–do–study–act (PDSA).

PLAN – Establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with the expected output. By making the expected output the focus, it differs from other techniques in that the completeness and accuracy of the specification is also part of the improvement.

DO – Implement the new processes. Often on a small scale if possible.

CHECK – Measure the new processes and compare the results against the expected results to ascertain any differences.

ACT – Analyze the differences to determine their cause. Each will be part of either one or more of the P-D-C-A steps. Determine where to apply changes that will include improvement. When a pass through these four steps does not result in the need to improve, refine the scope to which PDCA is applied until there is a plan that involves improvement.

Does the above sound familiar? It should, because it’s describing Scrum’s control process, albeit with different labels. Essentially, Scrum is a “product improvement” cycle, with some additional stuff thrown in. In each Sprint, we establish the objectives and processes to deliver an improved version of a product, do it, check the results against expectations to learn about the direction and way of working, and seek to understand in which way the product or the development process should be taken towards next.

In fact, I just described two simultaneous cycles, one for product and one for process. And those are not the only ones, since we have daily cycles, release cycles, and many others depending on the actual processes we use.

However, the PDCA cycle provides us some insight into how we would benefit from Scrum more. An integral part of the PDCA cycle is measuring the output (or generally, evaluating it against some criteria) and comparing that to an established expectation. Setting such an expectation is not what I’ve observed in a grand majority of Scrum teams I’ve worked with (partly because I haven’t mentioned it, but partly because no-one else has, either).
For the knowledgeable reader, setting an expectation would be a no-brainer. And frankly, I’ve “known” it for ages. But the importance has escaped me, even if I’ve used the same principle in many other contexts. Acceptance criteria are one example. Commitment at the beginning of a Sprint is another. They are not always used in the same way, but the foundation is the same.

So why is setting an expectation so important (or at least useful)? The question reminds me of a marketing questionnaire exercise I did back in university. We took an issue, planned questions and ran the questionnaire, only to realize upon analysis that we really didn’t know how we could actually use the results. We had posed the questions in such ways that we could not draw any meaningful conclusions, because the questionnaire was lacking key questions or we had phrased the question wrong.

It is easy to fall into the similar trap in our retrospectives. We consider our options and agree some improvement actions. In the next retrospective, we return to the topic and evaluate if the change has had some impact. Except that we don’t really know. We get wishy-washy feelings one way or another. We had failed to establish an expectation and a way to measure results. Such unclarity is a bit demoralizing and it clouds the actual result. It is much more difficult to get people committed to improvement activities when there is no clear feedback about their effectiveness.

I will do my best to incorporate this insight into all retrospectives I run from now on. I will also try to pose these two questions into any other conversation regarding some improvements or changes:

• What benefit or outcome do we expect out of this improvement/change?
• How do we measure it?
• Who is responsible for measuring it?

Ok, three questions.

The Story-Driven Scrum

This approach seeks to identify and prioritize user stories (or any requirements) small enough to fit in the iterations. In these Sprints, the team commits to delivering the selected set of stories. These stories can be estimated and the amount of results can be measured for longer term planning. This approach works best when enough design work can be done in advance to eliminate most significant elements of uncertainty prior to committing to work in a Sprint. I could call this type the Mike Cohn Scrum as this approach is excellently defined in his Agile Estimation and Planning book.

The Goal-Driven Scrum

This approach sets a goal, or a problem or a challenge, for the team to solve during the sprint. The commitment is to solving the problem, not so much on the characteristics of this solution. The goals are harder to measure and therefore it is more difficult to gain information on the team performance for future planning, but the whole approach is geared toward research and problem solving, both of which are by nature impossible to estimate accurately. I could call this type Ken Schwaber Scrum, or maybe Takeuchi-Nonaka Scrum, as this approach was quite prevalent in the original Scrum texts and especially in the Takeuchi & Nonaka article The New New Product Development Game where Scrum was first described.

There is a lot of experience of story-driven Scrum in the world out there. Majority of Scrum implementations are of this type. However, I’ve recently come to perceive this approach as potentially the weaker type of Scrum. I guess I have to explain.

The power of Scrum is in transformation and innovation. The more cross-functional the Scrum team, the greater is its power for said innovation. The more leeway the team has in solving the problem, the greater is its potential for finding breakthrough solutions. The very extreme is the team described in The New New Product Development Game article that was given three months of time, full support, and the goal of developing a new product for the market. The team itself had all the expertise needed to understand the problem, explore solutions and deliver the goal.

The difficulty with goal-driven Scrums is that they require much more transformation from the organization than story-driven ones. Goal-driven Scrums force the involvement of most or all functions in an organization. Much more rapidly, the organization must face redesign of the way it works. I bet it will fail rapidly if the Agile values are not embraced at all levels and functions of the company.

The story-driven approach is much more-forgiving to the organization. In it, the development teams can be pretty much like development teams have been in the past, primarily consisting of software developers of various roles. They can also be fed quite similar problems (just transformed into stories). While doing that well will result in significant improvements in several ways, it still more easily allows sticking to old paradigms. All of this is obviously dysfunction, but that is not so apparent to many organizations.

When looking at most contemporary Scrum teams, they are typically quite homogenous in terms of skill sets and background (e.g. software developers). While there can still be significant differences between team members, we rarely see people with marketing, sales or domain expertise (except in the very good Scrum teams). The “Agile transformation” has been nicely constrained to the development group. As a result, these teams must receive pretty well-defined work. The capability to innovate entirely new solutions is very constrained.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear pattern how a goal-driven Scrum would operate. Many Scrum and Agile trainers don’t teach about its existence. I know I haven’t. I should, at least to open up minds to its existence, but I’m really short on time as it already is with the CSM course. There are so many topics already that adding that might prove impossible. Yet I think I should, somehow.

I believe the goal-driven Scrum would be instrumental in transforming organizations beyond product development.

I’ve been training people in Agile methods and Scrum for quite a few years now. I’ve seen change happen, I’ve seen people regaining enjoyment at their work, I’ve seen people crank out almost error free code faster than ever before, I’ve seen people conquer problems that seem quite impossible. But none of that is enough.

It is not enough because none of that is creating a sustainable change in their environment. The organizations where these things happen still keep promoting a different environment, an environment where old formalities of management reign, where command-and-control and task-oriented mindset reduces people to doing their work instead of solving problems in collaboration with others. These organizations rule the business scene of today.

Or actually, they don’t. But because they are so many and the different companies are so few, no-one really sees that they don’t. Being different and better is a business advantage so great that many companies want to keep it that way. But there is hope that a change is coming.

And that’s what I really want to do.

No Agile transformation will stick without change in the corporate management style. Every low-level success will eventually be stiffled out or will fade as the people involved will leave in a hope of finding a better place to work, a place where they would be appreciated. This is one reason why e.g. so many top-notch IT professionals join Reaktor, because there they are.

I really want to help companies, and particularly their management boards, to tap into the real thing – the innovation and dedication of their people in creating value. In doing so, I’m willing to not use the work “Agile” because so many C-level people incorrectly assume “Agile” is just for development work. I don’t want to create unsolicited hopes for people unless I can also help the management start transforming the whole organization to support those people’s work.

There is actually no secret to this all. I mean, there is no secret because the roots of this change are displayed all over the internet and published in many books. It all is merely ignored by the majority of business management.

What I really want to do is change that. I want to be part of the movement that is trying to wake up the business management layer from its Sleeping Beauty dream (because the ideas are a hundred years old and based on managing unskilled labor). Does that make me a prince? Maybe not .

I don’t yet know how I will achieve what I really want to do. I know the key things in how the organizations should change, and I know how to effect the change in lower levels of the organization. What I don’t yet know is how to catch the ear of the C-level people so that they would listen. Am I not charging enough money? Or am I lacking the charisma of Jari Sarasvuo? Or was he merely charging enough money?

Sillyness aside, if there are senior executives who are not satisfied with the results they are getting from their leadership and are seeking ways in which they can make the world better for their employees and their customers (and of course, their investors), drop me a note and let’s explore a better future together. I’m sure I have a lot to learn from them as well.

But I won’t belabor the Agile/Traditional divide. What I want to look at is lack of good project leadership as a risk for Agile projects. Given that I agree on the risk, let’s look at corresponding five steps to improve Agile project leadership (note – leadership, not management).

1. All Scrum team members (I’m using the term in the broad sense as that includes the product owner, ScrumMaster and all the development team members) must receive training in the fundamentals. While some of that training can be given in typical training environment (CSM/CSPO classes, etc.), some is most effectively given in a coaching format within the project itself. Too many projects and organization omit the last item, but it actually happens to be the most cost efficient form of training/coaching.
2. The organization and people working in it must agree on some standard framework for project leadership and management. One size doesn’t fit everyone, so the framework must allow appropriate project level modifications. There should be sufficient internal mentoring to ensure appropriate following of the agreed framework and to ensure all project members have sufficient skills to use it effectively. Also there should be a mechanism by which the project organization routinely reflects on the framework and adapts it to changing business environment and needs.
3. All project members should have access to the tools needed to manage the work and use the framework effectively. Note that I didn’t say “software tools”. Many most effective project management tools aren’t software based. But when the organization decides to use a tool, it must support the agreed process (and not the other way around – the organization adapts to the tool).
4. Projects should strive to deliver fully working functionality in every iteration. The ruthless visibility this provides into real progress is the basis for estimation and tracking.
5. The organization must support the projects in their leadership. The teams must be given appropriate time and resources to do their work right and must not be requested to do shortcuts or disregard good practices. Product owners must have support for their long-term planning and vision setting. ScrumMasters need to be supported in their activities for improving project leadership and removing obstacles from getting work done. This is MUCH more involved than most organizations think. It really means understanding what Agile is, what it takes to do it right, and what is needed from the management itself.

Just like the five actions the Systemation CEO believed will improve project management, I believe that the above five actions will improve Agile project leadership. However, action 5 needs significant clarification in Agile context.

Let me know if you want me to expand on that. Also let me know if you agree / disagree with my comments.

While the presentation should be appearing also on the TIEKE site, I’ll post it to my presentations page (also linked to this post). It’s in Finnish and in a very much simple format. Should I expand in text? Okay, will do quickly…

Agile isn’t a silver bullet. It doesn’t solve most of the problems typical organizations have. It will expose them. It’s up to the organizations to fix their bad habits or poor operation. Scrum is pretty quiet on “how” (purposefully, because it isn’t a methodology), so we must turn our attention to other sources. Lean Software Development gives a pretty good overview on the kind of product development Agile environments should foster. An upcoming book by Stephen Denning, labeled Radical Management, takes a more comprehensive look at how businesses can become radically better. Dan Pink made a great case in his TED talk about how rewards are actually damaging our businesses and our innovation. Etc. There’s lots to learn for us.

One reason Agile transitions go awry is that many managers perceive it as “yet another methodology” and fail to grasp at the ideological change behind Agility. THEY have to change, too. THEY have to understand that the whole organization must rethink how it works and what it values (not all in one swoop, but eventually). THEY need to get the whole organization excited and energized, and steer the whole organization to a new direction. Nothing will change, if nothing is changed.

On a more general note, I reminded that responsibility cannot be outsourced. The organization is ultimately responsible for its own business, because if shit hits the fan, no-one will bail them out (unless they are banks or the Greek government). Contracts may be used to also hurt the other party grievously, but doing so will not remove the fact that the project is failed and the time spent on it is already gone (along with a possible window of opportunity or significant business value). Traditional approach is trusting a lot on agreements, whereas Agile approach rests the responsibility and opportunity to steer the project to the customer, as it should be. The organization can, in concrete terms, keep responsibility in their own hands. Of course, that doesn’t magically remove problems and mistakes from projects, but the organization remains in the best possible position to act on them.

As a second general note, I claimed that a project without a solid vision and a good understanding of constraints fails even before it has started. How do you steer a project to its destination if you don’t know what it is? Or how much you can spend time or money on it? You don’t, of course, so it’s imperative to understand them. Don’t start development until you do.

A lot of the focus in Agile processes is on having the right people on board and by having them communicate openly. And that doesn’t mean well designed reporting (although that may be part of it). It means talking to each other, within the project and to people outside the project. Face-to-face, if you can. Avoid information bottlenecks (like the traditional project manager) and promote many-to-many discussions and information radiators. Get users involved as much as you can. And so on.

Lastly I emphasized that Agile isn’t a cost savings scheme but a value increasing scheme. As a consequence of generating value more effectively most Agile projects also save costs, but if cost savings are the main focus, organizations very easily save in the wrong places (i.e. in the beginning and from communication) and therefore ruin (or at least damage) their success chances. Based on personal experiences, I’d say that Agile projects cost more in the early phases of the project than the traditional approach. But so would the traditional project if it tried to make sure people know each other and talk about important things together. Many problems traditional projects have are because they don’t.

I’m not sure that was quickly, but let’s hope you got this far. If you did, please leave comments on what you think of my points and opinions. Do you think I’m going the right way?

CSPO courses are funny in a sense. In a perfect world, they would not be needed. In a perfect world, every ScrumMaster would have the knowledge, experience and skill to train the PO’s in their projects or organizations. Given the many people I’ve had in my PO courses, I can testify that we are not living in a perfect world (… obviously there are many other reasons for that assessment, too… ). Therefore I’m hoping I will be able to help individuals and organizations in their adoption of Scrum and Agility, and give many ScrumMasters some help in getting their projects working .

For more information on the course, check out this link:

http://www.scrumalliance.org/courses/20094656-certified-scrum-product-owner

To sign up, just send me email to petri.heiramo@gmail.com.

The Turku Agile Day 2010 was worth the visit, even if I was there only for the second day when the presentations were held. Hopefully someone with first hand experience will write about the workshops.

It was great to see another successful Turku Agile Day. Speakers were great, schedule was well managed, there was a lot to learn, and the conference dinner was very good (especially the atmosphere in the selected restaurant).

Like with most events for me, it started a little “slow”. I came to the venue, registered in and immediately found some familiar people. As usual, the first chats of the day are a bit light and no-one really seems to have readiness for more analytic discussion. I’ve felt the same in almost all events I’ve been in (half a dozen or so Agile ones), but like usual, around noon things started to change. People get “warmed up”, first presentations give something to talk about, and all that starts leading towards more and more interesting discussions. I have to say that the dinner really topped up this event really nicely. The discussions were very entertaining there, and very educational. I wish I could have such discussions with other trainers and Agilists on a more regular basis.

The presentations will be coming to conference website at some point, so I won’t repeat the details. Suffice it to say that there was a lot of variance between the presentations and all the ones I saw were very professional and entertaining. It’s great to see such high level of quality and substance even “in a relatively local event” (although it is certainly the second biggest Agile event in Finland ). I really applaud the organizers, not only for attracting such good speakers, but also making the event highly available for local students who thus get access to world-class Agile presentations and info at a very affordable price and accessibility. If they take half of the advice to heart, and take it to work life with them, Turku will soon rival Helsinki as the Agile capital of Finland. I really wish the organizers find the strength to keep organizing these events.

I had a presentation in the event, too, later in the afternoon. I had chosen a topic that I think is quite important and which I don’t necessarily see enough in action. Too few SM’s (at least in my subjective evaluation) have the awareness and ability to train the customer and “sell” Agility effectively to their customers. Obviously, that’s not the only area in which we all certainly need improvement, but in order to get a shot at doing an Agile project, you need to get one first. I’ve uploaded the presentation here, but to summarize a few things, Scrum assumes that the ScrumMaster is capable of, and takes the responsibility for, training the customer in the use of Agility and helping that person be an effective PO. Scrum doesn’t assume that PO’s know their role in advance. They are expected to know the domain and market, and be able to use that information to continuously prioritize the work to be done for maximal business value. So in 99% of the cases they rely on SM’s for guidance.

On one sense, it’s a high bar. On another sense, unless meeting that bar, how can we assume that the projects will succeed, if the SM can’t coach the PO? Honestly, looking at some SM’s I’m not all too surprised that there are failed Scrum / Agile projects. Of course, learning these things takes time. Hopefully my notes will help SM’s in finding the right understanding, words and training capability to work as effective SM’s. I also hope that these people will find more support from other sources.

I will soon update this post with some sample presentation / training sets that can be used early on in the customer contact to create sufficient understanding for Agility in the customer organization and enable possible Agile sale. Until then, signing off,

Petri

In Agilecraft, he is now independent of corporate priorities and can focus his attention to the issues closest to his heart (workwise) – the Agile methods and promoting their use in companies and other organizations. It should be pretty accepted in our industry that Agile methods can provide boost to customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and business performance, but it is not easy to get to those benefits. Or rather, some things are easy, but they will reveal issues in our corporate culture that will limit the benefits, and that can kill the initiative outright. Removing those impediments can be very difficult – and can only be done by the companies themselves. However, outside coaching can help in seeing those obstacles and in finding the ideas and ways for improvement.

Agilecraft can provide public and private training courses such as:

• Certified ScrumMaster (CSM)
• Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO)
• Scrum Team Training
• Agile Thinking and Scrum Introduction

Petri was the first Finn to get the Scrum Alliance’s Certified Scrum Trainer certificate in late 2008. The CSM and CSPO courses that he runs can certify the participants with the Scrum Alliance certificates.

If you are interested in the help Petri could provide, contact him via email or call +35840-7092526. More information about Agilecraft, Agility and stuff will come here (hopefully) soon. Also blog posts on important topics will start appearing here.