Impacts of traditional project funding models on agile delivery
From the Easy in theory, difficult in practice Blog
by Kiron Bondale
My musings on project management, project portfolio management and change management.
I'm a firm believer that a pragmatic approach to organizational change that addresses process & technology, but primarily, people will maximize chances for success.
This blog contains articles which I've previously written and published as well as new content.
Recent Posts
Leading Through Crisis Means Leading Through Context
"It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for." - retirement lessons from the Doctor
Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!
Just because they are non-critical, doesn't mean they are not risky!
How will YOU avoid these AI-related cognitive biases?
Categories
Agile,
Artificial Intelligence,
Career Development,
Change Management,
Communications Management,
Decision Making,
Governance,
Hiring,
Kanban,
Lessons Learned,
Personal Development,
PMO,
Portfolio Management,
Project Management,
Resource Management,
Risk Management,
Risk Management,
Schedule Management,
Scheduling,
Tools
Date
In one of my previous articles I'd written about the need for change across multiple areas of an organization when undertaking an agile transformation. A key enterprise partner is the Finance department and the organization's model for project funding will have significant influence over successful agile delivery.
Traditional project funding models are anchored to periodic (annual, semi-annual or quarterly) portfolio re-planning exercises which ingest updated forecasts for active investments and funding requests for new ones. The funding approach for an investment might be one time lump sum, split into two pieces (e.g. seed and remaining), or progressive through the use of funding tranches.
The challenge with all of these funding approaches is that they are based on an estimated cost of a project rather than the funding we wish to allocate to a product, capability or service.
So what challenges arise from a project-centric funding model?
It can result in higher risk, premature financial commitments.
Even in those cases where a funding tranche approach is used, the expectation is that the estimate for the current funding request will be at a high level of confidence. Now nothing prevents project teams from requesting a minimal amount of funding (e.g. one sprint's worth), but in most cases, project funding approval processes are not lean enough to encourage such behavior. Given this, teams choose to make a funding commitment tied to a major milestone such as a release which might span multiple sprints worth of work. The danger in this is that unless we have a long lived team with predictable velocity working on a well understood product, the level of confidence in the work to be done and how complex that work is will drop the further out we go resulting in a team being at risk of a cost overrun.
Now you might say that agile delivery approaches can work when we fix cost and time and let scope or requirements be the variable. This is true, but how do we know how much to budget up-front to be confident in meeting business needs?
It can also encourage sloppy product management.
When product owners receive funding for a single project and don't have any guarantees that they will receive funding for follow-on work, it is tempting to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the project backlog and to procrastinate on making tough prioritization decisions. With product-centric funding, the product owner can effectively prioritize the product backlog with confidence that there is available funding for incremental evolution of the product's capabilities.
Moving from a project-based to a product-based funding model is a challenging people, process & technology change, but will be a powerful accelerator for your agile transformation.
Posted on: June 16, 2018 07:00 AM |
Permalink
Comments (14)
Please login or join to subscribe to this item
Drew Craig
Sr. Agile & Product Coach| Vanguard
Philadelphia, Pa, United States
Yeah, this is a big topic. With transformations many times at the vertical, program, or portfolio level (not across the entirety of the organization). And with that, their model is not a part of the transformation. Finance sits on the perimeter of the transformation, while still on the edge of the rest. I suppose the pinnacle transformation is to start with finance to be more adaptive on budget allocation types.
I would hope that most Agile projects have a product-based funding model, but alas. Thanks Kiron.
Anish Abraham
Privacy Program Manager| University of Washington
Auburn, Wa, United States
Very informative, Kiron and thanks for sharing.
Rami Kaibni
Community Champion
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten Associates
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Good Points Kiron. No pain no gain.
Thanks Andrew - good thought as where money goes, attention flows!
Thanks Sante, Anish, Rami & Eduin!
Kiron, good points thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing Kiron!! Good points
Arvind Kumar
Delivery Manager| IT Organization
Chicago, Il, United States
Hi Kiron,
Thanks for sharing;
My thoughts -It can be stage gate funding which may have many sprints. Estimate for the stage and fund the project i.e fund for 6 months period based on stage objective and then evaluate its viability. Get funding for another period of time only to the extent that it make sense (here power/interest grid can play good role).
Stages don't have to based on time period instead they should be based on goals which are aligned with business benefits.
Thanks Riyadh & Cibin!
Arvind - progressive funding is a move in the right direction, but the difficulty is that teams are caught between locking in long durations of funding to avoid the approval bureaucracy vs. having real confidence in their estimates for a given duration.
Kiron
Arvind Kumar
Delivery Manager| IT Organization
Chicago, Il, United States
Agree with your point of bureaucracy!
Shelly Midha
Delivery Head IT| Guardian India Operations Pvt Ltd.
New Delhi, Delhi, India
I see a challenge in the delivery approach where requirements are variable with fixed cost and time duration in addition to sloppy product management. Changing requirements may not lead to meeting the business objective in the fixed time frame. Change management also can be amalgamated in the process so that business objective can be met in the defined time frame. This has been a lesson learnt in one of my projects in the similar situation as there was a lot of team burnout in order to meet the business objective with continuously changing requirements. The solution was to have a change management process in place and closely work with product owner/business to manage the changing scope or growing list of feedback that was received after every sprint delivery.
Stephen Nyerwanire
Project Manager| LOKIKA ENTERPRISES LTD
Kampala, Central Uganda, Uganda
An eye opener to manage projects in a volatile environment
Please Login/Register to leave a comment.
|
Music is the medium. Passion is the message.
- Herbie Hancock
|