Kanban Creates Buzz Among Agile Crowd
Categories:
Agile
Categories: Agile
| Like its predecessors, the Agile 2010 conference will go down as a key event in agile project management. This year, I and 1,400 other attendees learned about everything from innovation to Kanban. The conference was held in Orlando, Florida, USA from 9-13 August. Several sessions were particularly notable. Kenny Rubin, Laurie Williams and Mike Cohn shared the Comparative Agility assessment. Using data from 1,600 teams, users can see how their team's agility compares with others. Ron Jeffries and Chet Hendrickson, famous as original extreme programmer proponents, made a case for a less dogmatic approach to methodologies and suggested using the hybrid best suited to your needs and circumstance. For me, the most striking part of the conference was the large interest in Kanban, a project management methodology from Japan that emphasizes cycle time instead of utilization of resources. There were seven presentations on it -- all standing room only and overflowing into the halls. In Kanban, work is purposefully limited so teams are forced to finish items to high quality before moving on. This can yield the same or more output, but reduces the risk that too many half-done items in progress won't get done. Work is tracked on a board with a few simple columns, such as waiting, working and testing done. Each item, or "ticket," is moved from column to column to reflect its state. Have you ever used Kanban methodology? |
Go In With a Game Plan
| You and your team must have a project objective in mind at all times. Everything should revolve around it: all the team's activities, status reports, meetings, impromptu discussions, research and engagements of other outside resources. Having a clear and focused game plan can help. It's not a forced management plan that dictates the rules, but an agreement between all the members on how the team will work together. The plan is like glue that keeps the team together, focused on the key objectives of the project and makes the environment workable and pleasant. The game plan is therefore an agreement between the team members on how they will maintain such alignment through: Communication: The team agrees on the basics: method, frequency, media and levels of urgency. How will they update one another with the latest status? What upcoming milestones, changes or issues may affect the progress of the project? Are there any interpersonal issues team members may encounter? Goal setting: The team defines the goals of the plan, whether it is being customer-centric or meeting deadlines. Having these goals at the forefront keeps the team focused throughout the project as a commitment to the team. The customer gets the added value due to the enhanced quality of the project delivery, and by extension, this leads to the overall success of the project completion. Team play: This is the actual method of alignment, making sure the team has agreed on the parameters of the game and understands how it will relate to their day-to-day activities. We're often put on a team based on our experience and technical expertise, rather than soft skills. We are simply expected to be professional and do what we can to work well together. Having a game plan is simply a tool for all team members to reach an agreement on overall goals, without making assumptions or trying to force an outcome. It adds the missing layer that strengthens the team and adds assurance of alignment among all the team members. When working in teams, what approach or method have you used as a contributing factor to reaching agreements and working well together? |
Project Management in Nontraditional Environments
| Some people see advertising as primarily a creative business -- antithetical to the rigor and disciplines of project management. But the complexities of today's marketing mix are changing that perception. Agencies and clients who spent the past century perfecting project management functions around print, broadcast and direct mail are being forced to readjust systems to the complexities and rapid-fire change of digital marketing. Two worlds are colliding. Digital teams view process as an essential science. The project manager is the team lead that everyone depends on for risk management, communication, client management, profitability and ultimate success. But traditional advertising teams tend to see process in a different light. They look to their account and creative directors as the team leads. The project manager, while important, often takes on a more administrative role, ensuring resources are in place, schedules are communicated to vendors and paperwork is complete. When I took on my first role as a manager of a project management office (PMO) for a large ad agency two years ago, the difference between these two worlds became vividly clear to me in a conversation with one of our creative directors: Me: We need to translate the client brief into a statement of work so we have a specific record of what we'll be delivering. Creative Director: We don't know what we'll be delivering yet. Me: Then we should meet with the client to understand business requirements and document them for sign-off. Creative Director: I know what the client wants, but I'm going to tell them what they need. Me: Then how do I budget resources, document our success metrics and track the progress of the project? Creative Director: That's your problem. We'll let you know when we get there. It was an eye-opener, to be sure. But eventually I was able to adjust my view of what the team was trying to achieve. I set a baseline process to create a flexible methodology that would allow us to pull in elements that were appropriate, and not commit time to requirements that didn't lend a lot of value. Some of these changes included a flexible, scalable methodology that allowed teams to pull in elements relevant to their process. This allowed them to: Have you ever been in a situation like this? What have you done to maintain rigor in your environment when the project at hand did not readily lend itself to the traditional project management processes? |
The Power of Ownership
Categories:
Teams
Categories: Teams
| Ownership of even a part of a project is a powerful thing. Ownership is tangible and allows for acknowledgment, achievement and recognition. Once a part of a project is owned, it can also be reported on and tracked, making it visible to other project stakeholders and team members. No matter what goes on in the organization, a task that is owned is a task that will have more chances of completion, with pride and focus on outstanding performance. As such, the task tends to be delivered on time, within scope and budget. Micromanagement does not have to exist when ownership is present and the team agrees to the game plan. Instead, there is clear and visible status reporting with team members eager to present their progress -- good or bad. This transparency allows the team to focus on the right solution and approach, with a clearer view of the roadblocks and their resolution. Defenses tend to come down as we focus on delivery: doing what we are expected to do and doing what we know we can and should do to deliver quality results. When ownership is truly present, team members exchange workable ideas in a productive discourse. We're open to see our own blind spots, areas that we naturally overlook or don't think to question. And when the realization of the specific blind spot is a reality, it creates a clearing for something new. |
There's an App for That
Categories:
Innovation
Categories: Innovation
| For most of human history, skills have been passed from master to apprentice on an "as needed" basis. As the apprentice encountered a problem, the master would demonstrate the solution and the apprentice learned. Early academic institutions operated along similar lines. It's only in the last century that learning has moved to a "book-and-exam" model. But many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of this method of learning for skills that involve contextual variability. Instead, they advocate developing communities of practice, mentoring and other options to replicate the master and apprentice approach. The problem with these approaches is timing: Can the master be available when needed by the apprentice? Most of the time, it seems the answer is no! Project management involves a very high level of contextual variability, particularly in the area of interpersonal relationships, motivation and leadership -- the so-called soft skills. Learning these skills in the "school of hard knocks" is not fun and has significant costs for the inexperienced project manager and organizations that rely on them. Advances in modern technology may offer a solution. Intelligent agents can already deliver context-sensitive information based on what an application has learned about you. Looking forward a year or two, it's not difficult to envisage applications on your iPad or smartphone that can understand the knowledge you're likely to need for each task or meeting. It could make the one or two relevant items in the organization's knowledge management system available to you as needed -- plus, of course, the relevant project information. If the context is not clear, advanced links could even find a "knowledge master" who's immediately available for additional advice. The smart systems then learn from your interaction and update the corporate knowledge banks. Add the ability for you and your colleagues to then input lessons learned and you have the basis for a true learning organization. Many of the elements are already in place. The question is, are we, as a profession ready to make effective use of the potential? |
