If You Have More Than One Sprint You Need To Scale!

JMP

I use Microsoft Office, many of my clients use large ERP packages and last week I bought a highly functional math package to do data analysis. I would describe all of these as products that are refreshed over time by major and minor releases. As an outsider, the delineation of product and release is both easily recognizable and easily describable. However once you peel back the covers and dive into the inner workings of the typical corporate IT organization (broad definition that includes development, maintenance, support, security and more), how work is grouped and described can often be much more akin to a descent through Dante’s nine circles of hell.   Recently I sat in a conference room in front of a white board and challenged a group to identify how work was grouped and how the groupings related to each other. During the discussion we choose not to discuss the portfolio level within the organization and focus on the deliver functionality. The results followed a path that looked like a simple basic hierarchy running from programs, projects to sprints . . . except for the waterfall teams that don’t do sprints. This hierarchy  was crosscut by products and releases increasing the possible complexity of any particular scenario. As work is grouped together from sprints to program into larger and larger blocks additional layers of control are need to manage risk.

In Agile the smallest grouping of work is the sprint. In a perfect world, a team would accept work into a sprint where each story was independent and intrinsically motivating. Each piece of work would be its own big picture, however that scenario is at best rare. Most people are interested in knowing that they are helping build the Golden Gate Bridge, not just the left lane of a typical bridge on-ramp. We are more motivated when we believe we are doing something big. It is rare that a unit of work being delivered by a single sprint from a single team will require any scaling.

In most organizations, a project represents a grouping of work that most easily recognized. While the concept of a project is under-pressure in some circles (we will explore concepts such #NoProjects later) I haven’t sat next to anyone on plane that doesn’t describe their work as projects whether they are in marketing, sales, accounting, consulting or software. Projects and project accounting is firmly enforced in most organization’s finance and accounting departments. As noted in Projects in Agile, almost every organization has their own definition of a project. Interestingly, I was eating dinner with a group of developers and scrum masters recently when the conversation turned to the definition of project. A sizable group decided that any discrete task could be described as project. A task had a strart and an end and was goal oriented. From a grouping perspective, projects are typically an accumulation of sprints or releases in Agile. In more classic scenarios, a project can be described as one or more release into production. Any project that is more than a single team and a single team will require scaling to afford greater foresight and planning so that the pieces fit together in a coherent whole.

The definition of a release is widely variable. Releases can be subset of a project with functionality pushed to production, test  or into some other environment. Alternately a release could be a group of whole discrete projects that are moved into an environment together. The only common thread in the use of the term release is that it represents movement. Releases, other than in very uncomplicated environments, will always require coordination between development teams and operations, business and potentially customers. The larger and more complex the release, the more planning and coordination will be required.

Programs are groups of related and often inter-related projects or releases that are organized together to achieve a common goal. By definition programs are larger than projects and can be implemented through one or a large number of releases. Because they are larger and therefore more complex, programs typically require additional techniques to ensure foresight, planning and coordination so that all stakeholders understand what is happening and their role in achieving success.

A final grouping of work is around the concept of product. Building from the Software Engineering Institute’s definition of a software product line, a simple definition of a product could a set of related functions that are managed as a whole to satisfy a specific market need. Typically a product is developed through a project or program and is maintained through releases, projects and programs. Products should have a roadmap that provides internal and external customers guidance on the features that the organization intends to develop and deliver over time. Roadmaps are typically more granular in the near term and more speculative as the time horizon recedes.

As work is grouped from smallest to largest; from sprint to program or product added effort is required to organize and coordinate work. Increased levels of planning and coordination require additional tools and techniques in addition to the basics typically found in Scrum or Extreme Programing (XP). In the Agile vernacular, the need to for additional techniques to deal with size, coordination and planning is called scaling.

 

Internal Applications Are Products Too!

Without a roadmap and a value focus it is easier to perceive that the current “project” might the last one in a while, therefore you need to ask for the moon.

It is often more difficult to take a product focus for applications that will be used internally than for an application that will be used by or sold to an external customer. Part of the issue seems to the distance an application from the ultimate end of the value chain and therefore revenue. The further away from revenue, the harder it is to view the user of the software as a customer. Therefore providing support for tools that enable or support non-customer facing work is often viewed as less critical than customer facing applications or tools. The difficulty in considering internal software as a product is less an artifact of any real difference between internal and external facing applications than perspective. Differences in perspective are typically built on minor differences in organization and market attributes. These differences include:

Ability to switch – Internal “customers” often are hostages to the services provided by internal IT organizations, at least in the short run. While that sounds strong, internal customers often do not have the option to shift providers if they don’t like the service or quality they receive. In the long run, switching can and often does occur either through outsourcing, formation of shadow IT groups in the business or changes in IT leadership. Less flexibility in the short run can often lead to a lack of discipline when it comes to defining product roadmaps or defining the true value any specific feature or function might deliver. Without a roadmap, a form of fatalism can set in, in which users always ask for more than they need at the moment but usually accept what they are offered (after a lot of noisy conversation).

Internal politics – The value of work that is sold or used by external customers is usually easier to measure. Functionality either solves a need and generates revenue or increases customer satisfaction. Developing a value for work to be consumed internally is rarely that cut and dry. Priorities are often defined by considerations that don’t reflect the true quantitative value of the work. Priorities often reflect the requestor’s (or requestor’s group) positional power. In my first job, the head of accounting requests always floated to the top of the list even though we were a garment manufacturer with a sales focus. Prioritization by factors that don’t relate to value makes it difficult to develop roadmaps or plan release for applications that don’t have the same level of political clout. Remember when you hear the saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” it often means that the organization has a project rather than a product focus.

Talking with Customers –  Another of the differences between internal applications and external products that impacts whether an application is viewed as a product is who needs to have input into direction. Products require discussion not only with internal stakeholders, but also with external customers. Internal applications supported by individual projects only require discussion with internal stakeholders. The lack of a perceived impact outside of the company’s boundaries makes it difficult to generate the motivation to get involvement across the IT/business boundary. For example, it is often harder to identify and get product owner involvement to support planning and work to be used internally. Agile techniques are often a tool to remove the barriers between IT and internal business groups. However it is easier to generate the involvement needed facilitate developing plans, road maps and communication when revenue is involved, which tends to yield a project perspective (short term) rather than a product perspective.

Perceived differences between work done for internal and external use tend to drive internal customers into a more transactional mode. Without a roadmap and a value focus it is easier to perceive that the current “project” might the last one in a while, therefore you need to ask for the moon.

 

Product and Project Perspectives: You Can’t Live Without Both

You need both the big and the small picture to deliver value.

The concepts of project and product provide two alternatives that might lead readers to believe that one perspective is more important than another. You need both sets of behaviors generated by the project and product perspective. How these behaviors are incorporated into roles on teams is not as straightforward as designating a role representing project concerns and a role representing product concerns and never the twain shall meet. Both roles do not have to be separate people. Agile spreads the project-centric behaviors across the entire team. Even the product owner typically absorbs some of the project-centric activities. However, other than at a philosophical level, the team is not typically charged with performing the product-centric activities. Agile techniques spread project behaviors across the team while product driven behaviours are more concentrated.

Project-centric behaviors are focused on the delivery of the tactical plan, while the product owner has more of a focus on the vision of the long-term future, i.e. the product roadmap. Even though the product owner has a distinct interest in the tactical (what is to be accomplished in a sprint or release), the team has a more focused interest in day-to-day activities. The team must plan, monitor and adjust the day-to-day activities needed to meet their commitments during the sprint (commitments in Agile are by definition tactical). The product owner can contribute, however they typically do not have the technical acumen to deliver functional software. However, without a product view, the day-to-day project considerations will typically trump long-term considerations. In a mature Agile environment, the product view interacts with the project view to generate an equilibrium between long- and short-term perspectives.

Project and product focuses require a different measurement. The project focus on delivery/short-term goals generates a need to understand, pursue and measure delivery efficiency. Efficiency is a measure of transformation; how much of a set of raw materials is needed to create an output. Efficiently producing any output is only valuable, IF what is being produced is what is needed and can be actually delivered. Interestingly most software is a step toward a different product that is bought or used. Because the software being developed or enhanced is a step along a path, the value assigned often does not represent the ultimate impact to the organization (See our Re-Read Saturday series on The Goal for more on this topic). The product owner, as the steward of the product perspective, owns the definition and measurement of value. He or she needs to take the big picture view of what the market needs AND what the market will pay for. What the market will pay for is just as important for an internal product as an external. In order to understand the value a product delivers, the product owner must ask whether the result of a sprint or release positively impacts ROI, profit and cash follow. Efficiency is a mechanism to determine whether a team is making the most out of their “raw material,” but it does not provide feedback on whether what is being produced is the right thing, or whether the functionality delivered yields value to the organization.

In general the product owner will be the champion for the product perspective, however every team member needs to have an understanding of the how the future should unfold and the value they are being asked to deliver. The team will need to temper the product vision based on the constraints that the day-to-day environment provides. Both the project and product perspectives are needed to maximize value. Putting either perspective ahead of the other for any length of time will create an imbalance that will reduce team effectiveness.

 

Product versus Project: Exposing Behavior Differences

Organizations with a product perspective generally have an understanding that a project or release will follow the current project reducing the need to get as large a bite at the apple as possible (having tried this a child, I can tell you choking risk is increased).

The concepts of product and project are common perspectives in software development organizations. A simple definition for each is that product is the thing that is delivered – software, an app or an interface. A project reflects that activities needed to develop the product or a feature of the product. Products often have roadmaps that define the path they will follow as they evolve. I was recently shown a road map for an appraisal tool a colleague markets that showed a number of new features planned for later this year and areas that would be addressed in the next few years. The map became less precise the further the time horizon was pushed out. Projects, releases and sprints typically are significantly more granular and with specific plans for work that is currently being developed. Different perspectives generate several different behaviors.

1. Roadmap versus plan: The time-boxed nature of a project or a sprint (both have a stated beginning and end) tends to generate a focus planning and executing specific activities and tasks. For example, in Scrum sprint planning, accept and commit to the user stories they will deliver. There is often a many-to-one relationship between stories and features that would be recognized at by end-users or customers. Product planning tends to focus on the features and architectures that meet the needs of the user community. Projects foster short-term rather than long-term focus. Short-term focus can lead to architectural trade-offs or technical shortcuts to meet specific dates that will have negative implications in the future. The product owner is often the bridge between the project and product perspectives, acting as an arbiter. The product owner helps the team make decisions could have long-term implications and provides the whole team with an understanding of the roadmap. Teams without (or with limited) access to a product owner and product roadmap can only focus on the time horizon they know.
2. Needs versus Constraints: Projects are often described as the interaction between the triple constraints of time, budget and scope. Sprints are no different; cadence – time, fixed team size – budget, and committed stories – scope. There is always a natural tension between the business/product owner and the development team. In organizations with a project perspective, product owners and other business stakeholders typically have a rational economic rational to pressure teams to commit to more than can reasonably accomplished in any specific project. Who knows when the next project will be funded? This behavior is often illustrated when the business indicates that ALL requirements they have identified are critical, or when concepts like a minimum viable product are met with hostility. Other examples of this behavior can be seen in organizations that adopt pseudo-Agile.  In pseudo-Agile backlogs are created and an overall due date generated for all the stories  before a team even understands their capacity to deliver. Shortcuts, technical debt and lower customer satisfaction are often the results of this type of perspective. Organizations with a product perspective generally have an understanding that a project or release will follow the current project reducing the need to get as large a bite at the apple as possible (having tried this a child, I can tell you choking risk is increased).
3. Measuring Efficiency/Cost versus Revenue: Organizations with a product perspective tend to take a wider view of what needs to be measured. Books such as The Goal (by Goldratt and Cox) make a passionate argument for the measurement of overall revenue. The thought is that any process change or any system enhancement needs to be focused on optimizing the big picture rather than over optimizing steps that don’t translate to the goals of the organization. Focusing of delivering projects more efficiently, which is the classic IT measurement, does not make sense if what is being done does not translate to delivering value. Measuring the impact of a product roadmap (e.g. revenue, sales, ROI) leads organizations to a product view of work which lays stories and features out as portfolio of work.

These dichotomies represent how differences in project and product perspectives generate different behaviors. Both perspectives are important based on the role a person is playing in an organization. For example, a sprint team must have a project perspective so they can commit to work with a time box. That same team needs to have a product view when they are making day-to-day trade-offs that all teams take or technical debt may overtake their ability to deliver. Product owners are often the bridge between the project and product perspectives, however the best teams understand and leverage both.

 

Product versus Project: Related but Different

 

Learning to pour sidra (cider) – product or project?

A product is something that is constructed for sale or for trade for value. In the software world that product is often software code or a service to interface users to software. Typically a project or set of projects is required to build and maintain an IT product. If we simplify and combine the two concepts we could define a product as what is delivered and a project as the vehicle to deliver the product. The idea of a product and a project are related, but different concepts. There are several differences in common attributes:

Agile pushes organizations to take more of a product than a project perspective, however arguably parts of both can be found as the product evolves. A sprint (or even a release) will include a subset of the features that are included on a product backlog.  The sprint or release is a representation of the project perspective.  As time progresses, the product backlog evolves as customer or user needs change (the product perspective). In the long run the product perspective drives the direction of the organization.  For example, a friend that owns a small firm that delivers software services maintains a single product backlog. In classic fashion the items near the top of the backlog have a higher priority and are more granular. The backlog includes some ideas, new services and features that won’t be addressed for one or more years. The owner acts as the product owner and at a high level sets the priorities with input from her staff once a quarter, based on progress, budget and market forces. The Scrum master and team are focused on delivering value during every sprint, while the product owner in this case is focused of building greater business capabilities.

IT in general, and software development specifically, have historically viewed work as a series projects, sometimes interlocked into larger programs. A project has a beginning and an end and delivers some agreed upon scope. When a project is complete a team moves on to the next job. A simple and rational behavior for a product owner who might not know when the next project impacting his product might occur would be to ask for the moon and to pitch a fit when it isn’t delivered. Because the product owner and the team are taking a project perspective it is impossible to count on work continuing forcing an all or nothing attitude. That attitude put the pressure on a team to accept more requirements than they can deliver leading an increased possibility of  disappointment, lower quality and failure. Having either a product or project perspective will drive how everyone involved in delivering functionality interact and behave.

 

3 P’s of Agile Centers of Excellence

An Agile center of excellence (ACoE) provides support and energy to an Agile transformation within an organization. It supports through leadership, evangelization, best practices, research, support and/or training for agile and lean ideas. ACoE’s support can be categorized in three inter-related areas. These areas, the three “P’s,” are people, process and project.

People are the heart and soul of any development process. As we have noted, Agile has an enormous focus on people (remember the Agile value of valuing people over process). The ACoE provides support to people though bringing new ideas into the organization, by providing coaching, developing coaches and acting as change agents.

Agile is a set of processes, or sets of steps taken to achieve a specific end. A recipe is a process, as is a daily stand-up meeting or checking code in and out of configuration management tool. The ACoE supports Agile processes by capturing process, identifying and fostering the use of relevant metrics (collection and reporting are typically PMO functions – to be discussed in the near future), facilitating communities of practices and providing tools.

Projects are the currency of most IT organizations. At its simplest a project is an enterprise with a start and end that is organized to deliver a result. ACoEs support the performance of Agile teams at a project-level as coaches. Coaches are folks who deliver help to teams, stakeholders and other leaders within an organization so they learn how to be Agile. At the project-level, coaches help teams use and tweak processes to meet the team’s needs, provide training and support for tools and processes and help the team learn how to ask the hard questions about how the team is using Agile.

The primary goal of the ACoE is to provide practitioners with the tools, techniques and capabilities they need to be Agile. By helping teams perform, the ACoE also helps sell and maintain the Agile transformation. Both of these goals begin as an organization starts a transformation to Agile and continue to be important as teams evolve and continuously improve. The ACoE delivers value by addressing the three Ps. For example, through the role of coaching and by facilitating communities of practice, the ACoE helps to promote an environment where there is consistency of practice and where innovation can happen. While the combination of innovation and consistency might sound contradictory, coaches often act as an Agile Johnny Appleseed. ACoE coaches see how teams work, the changes that have made to the processes and why those changes were made. The ACoE can then help to spread ideas that prove to be valuable through coaching, referrals or discussion in communities of practice.