February 4, 2012

BigVisible Blog

If You Want To Stop Becoming More Agile, Start Focusing on Standards

Change is difficult.  Improving is difficult.   Many managers see improvement and change as temporary things that cause confusion and misdirection until a steady state is achieved and the improvement is completed. They approach change with a model of “unfreeze – change – refreeze”.  Only when things are frozen again – a standard established, a checklist and diagram provided – will workers know what to do, and will it be safe to “roll out” changes to others.

This way of thinking and approach to change may drastically limit the success of your journey to becoming an agile organization.

[Read more...]

Clockware and Swarmware

Swarm of ants on a clockAt times both the Agile and traditional Waterfall camps get hung up in an unproductive game where they start digging through the details of a problem domain, find a specific circumstance and say, “ah ha! A purely [Agile / Waterfall] approach can’t deal with this situation, therefore that approach is wrong”

Indeed, this binary obsession – that you must pick one specific approach and apply it to all dimensions of a project – is entirely unproductive. In fact, it is usually not the reality in an Agile or traditional project, but rather a limit of our own thought process. The challenge being that if we find merit in one approach, the mind can take an absolutist value. Agile is useful for dealing with product visions, therefore we should apply Agile principles to every aspect of our project.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The Crack-Up” (1936)

Fitzgerald accurately describes the challenge facing us when organizing and executing projects; we must hold two opposing ideas within our head and continue to function. These two opposing ideas well well described by Kevin Kelly when he coined the terms clockware and swarmware as the two different approaches to managing work. They have since been embraced by many complexity theorists and I present them here as my own attempt to hold two opposing ideas and continue to function and show how one builds upon the other, and to argue that a project requires one or the other will inevitably lead to failure. [Read more...]

What’s in a Sprint Goal?

Based on the results from last month’s poll, it seems many people are finding themselves in a situation where some of their work is not fitting within their sprint. Indeed, nobody reported that they were consistently delivering all work, and nearly a third were reporting that half or more of the committed work was bleeding over into the proximate sprint. This ultimately begs the question: should a team always be meeting its sprint commitment? Is missing a goal a good thing or a bad thing? [Read more...]

Teams over Projects

Thanks to Derek Huether for bringing up the excellent topic of bringing projects to teams instead of spinning up a new team for every possible need within an organization. Having looked at numerous organizations trying to balance the demands of running too many projects, this is very good advice. However, I think there’s more to this than simply bringing projects to teams. It does not yet answer the root cause of why we try to run too many projects, nor does it answer the key question when that executive responds, “well, Agile’s great, but I would need 5 times my current staff to run all my projects as Agile projects” [Read more...]

Why a ScrumMaster is like a Quarterback

The other night as I was taking my evening break from the Agile World, I was confronted by 2 aliens who were very upset with our regard for sports in general, the Human Race overall, and for some reason me in particular.  In fact they were so irritated they didn’t try to put a probe in me.  I was crushed.
[Read more...]

On Abusing Resources

I’ve noticed an anti-pattern that emerges most perniciously with organizations initially transitioning to Agile and I fear that if we don’t acknowledge it, many poor team members’ lives will be worsened. What am I talking about? Well, I’m specifically talking about an aggressive form of project management where the PM assigns out tasks with tight deadlines and then proceeds to micromanage you until you deliver them. Now this goes against everything we know about good projects, people should be fully assigned to a specific project and we should set a pace based on either a pull system or at the very least bottom up commitments. Bear with me here though and let’s imagine a situation that’s probably not too far from reality. [Read more...]

Institutionalizing Scrum

The other day I had an interesting thought. I’ m not sure what precipitated it exactly, but there were several things that led me to this idea I’ve been mulling in my head. Perhaps it was Alistair Coburn’s keynote at Agile 2009 where he said that Agile as a distinct entity was gone; if it was once an iceberg, it has since melted and is now just part of the ocean. It could have been Jeff Sutherland’s presentation where he points out that 84% of IT organizations are self-reporting to use Scrum. Or perhaps it was simply working with a current client when they were asking for my help to come up with very clear guidelines about the number of acceptance criteria that should be allowed for a single story. Anyway, it struck me: as Scrum grows in popularity, are we institutionalizing it? [Read more...]