Creating Trust in Agile
Categories:
Agile
Categories: Agile
| Trust--backed by skilled developers--is the core element of any Agile methodology. Within the project team, the trust is relatively short term and the model is trust, but validate. The sub-teams are trusted to build a module in a short sprint of some form and the results are validated. Where a paradigm shift in trust is needed is between the organization's senior management and the Agile project leadership. Traditional project management grew in an environment where the triple constraints of time, cost and output could be clearly defined early in the project life cycle, and certainly well before major funds were committed. For example, builders would tender on a reasonably complete set of design documents and offer a firm price and time. The concept of predictability flowed into Waterfall; senior management expected a defined design, backed by cost and time estimates before committing to the project. This approach does not work very often but sits comfortably with the "command and control" management paradigm most organizations adopt. An Agile approach to problem solving is quite different. The Agile team wants to be trusted to work with the product's end-users to craft a solution over a period of time. They are saying to senior management: "Trust us to come up with the best outcome. We'll know what it looks like at the end." With the right level of two-way trust, senior management can use Agile to maximize value. Essentially they can guide their teams using one of two approaches: We want the biggest bang for our buck. You have X budget and X months to do the most you can. We trust you to spend our resources wisely to achieve the greatest value. We need this regulatory requirement embedded in our systems by X. We trust you to deliver the required change in the most cost- and time-efficient way. In both scenarios the Agile team is trusted to craft the optimum solution working with the end-users. The challenge is developing this level of trust. Unfortunately, even where change is desperately needed, it rarely occurs. In Leading Change, J.P. Kotter suggests over two-thirds of change efforts fail. Clearly, building the trust needed to allow the benefits of Agile to be realized will require some serious project management discipline. To be continued ... |
Working With Risk
Categories:
Risk Management
Categories: Risk Management
| Risk exists at all times. The less planning we do for it, the higher the chance of failure or uncertainty of results. I am a strong believer in integration. Therefore, risk management must be an integral part of any organization's project management methodology. Risks are generally identified, assessed and quantified. Risk is then monitored until it is no longer a risk or to ensure that any events identified as a risk do not actually go unanswered. That's where risk response comes into the picture. Response to risks comes in the form of: - Acceptance - Rejection - Mitigation Organizations must ensure they: - Identify key risk-management processes to map them out to the organization's processes for project delivery - Identify risk factors (i.e., elements that cause probability of risk occurrence to increase) - Standardize risk identification, assessment and quantification, and documentation across the organization Think of it this way: Risk equals money. It's the amount of money we are going to spend (or not spend) on either activity A or B. If we identify a risk of executing activity A for a price of X, but have a moderate to high level of confidence in success of this activity, we may choose to forgo doing anything else or delay the activity to remove or reduce the risks. If risks end up being realized and we end up facing the results of it, the cost of it would be linked to loss of revenue and added support to resolve the issue that was created by unresolved (but accepted) risk. And if it is less expensive for an organization to actually accept the risk and deal with its impacts rather than continuously applying resources to making things perfect, then the justification of taking risk from financial standpoint can be very convincing. How do you work with risk? |
Easy EAC Calculation
| Experts on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy have come to a couple of conclusions: 1) the Warren Commission got it right and 2) many people have a hard time accepting that such a monumental, history-changing act wasn't the result of a massive, expensive, difficult-to-execute conspiracy. So, when I started writing about how earned value management systems (EVMS) can accurately predict the future with some simple calculations, I received some responses that expressed varying levels of incredulity. It simply goes against intuition that an information element as important as at-completion project costs could quickly and easily fall out of an EVMS. But since I've already firmly ensconced myself at the end of this limb, let me take it a step further: The estimate at completion (EAC)--the brass ring of management information systems--can be calculated without a baseline, a work breakdown structure or a formal change-control process--none of what we've been told are essential parts of an acceptable EVMS. None. Nada. Zilch. Now, I'm well-aware that the previous sentence is the metaphorical equivalent of pulling the pin on a grenade and rolling onto the floor of a conference room full of EVMS experts, but I can explain. The traditional formula for calculating an EAC (EAC = BAC/CPI) can be algebraically reduced to dividing cumulative actual costs by cumulative percent complete. That's right, we're talking two date elements, easily collected. And the resulting information is far, far more accurate than anything that the general ledger can produce. It's also much more accurate (and faster and easier) than re-estimating the remaining work and adding that to cumulative actual costs. In fact, it's so much more accurate, faster and easier than any competing information stream, that I'm frankly flummoxed that the calculated EAC isn't the centerpiece of EVMS use everywhere. I can't wait to see the responses to this one. |
Are You Really Ready for a PMO?
Categories:
PMO
Categories: PMO
| Organizations that have a project management office (PMO) show they are moving toward a centralized management of project resources and strategic alignment to business goals. But I find a certain level of readiness has to exist in an organization for it to create the platform for a worthwhile and cost-effective PMO--the type of PMO that contributes to the business not by simply being an extension that offers extra resources, but that works and evolves with the business. There are key issues in organizations that usually hinder this: • Senior teams do not understand the PMO or its purpose • Senior management teams do not understand what project management is all about and how it can help them lower the costs of implementing projects • The PMO is viewed as something you install without careful and business-aligned planning In my mind, PMO implementation must be viewed and managed as a project. A company should know why it's seeking to implement a PMO in their organization, what business issues it's trying to fix and what inefficiencies it's trying to improve. A company has to consider: 1. Organizational Readiness Organizational processes will require changes to ensure the process flows into and out of the PMO are integrated into the organization. 2. Cultural Readiness The organization has to assess its readiness based on current resource pools, whether the resources can be migrated to PMO teams, and how other members of community will be able to align with PMO requirements based on their knowledge, experience, skills and mindset. 3. Strategic Alignment The goal is not just to have another department, but to have a team of people agile enough to act quickly and in a focused manner. And planning of the PMO has to include reasons that align with direct impacts on strategic goals of the organization. |
Agile: The Great Debate
Categories:
Agile
Categories: Agile
| Over the last week or so, there seems to have been a flurry of activity in the blogosphere discussing Agile and waterfall software development, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and project management. This is an important debate. A letter in the Feedback section of the March PM Network said Agile is not a project management methodology--I agree. Waterfall and various forms of Agile are definitely software development methodologies, not project management methodologies. However, we can learn a lot with an open dialogue in both directions. One common misconception among IT professionals is the assumption that the PMBOK® Guide approach to project management and the waterfall software development methodology are synonymous. Nothing could be more wrong. Certainly you can manage a waterfall development using the PMBOK® Guide processes but nothing in the PMBOK® Guide mandates developing a fully detailed project plan before starting work on development. All the PMBOK® Guide requires is the current phase is planned before starting work. This is absolutely compatible with the Agile approach to iterative development. Another misconception is that any new software development is automatically a project. Projects are temporary endeavors--this means temporary teams. If your IT shop is set up with stable teams working on a prioritized list of jobs using scrum or something similar, it is far more likely to be operational work rather than project work. With these misconceptions cleared, there seem to be three key areas for discussion. (Your comments will be welcome leading into some future blogs.) What are the differences in the way project management processes are applied in an Agile project compared to a waterfall project? Some thoughts: • The need for a much lighter "touch" managing an Agile project • The need for a higher level of trust in managing Agile teams • The need for robust change management and configuration management to track the evolution of the Agile project • The critical importance of developing the correct strategy and architecture at the beginning of the Agile project Can traditional project management learn from Agile? Some of the trends in Agile seem to have wider application in any project involving knowledge work, including: • The need to trust knowledge workers more than manual workers • Success measured by customer satisfaction rather than quantitative outputs • The need to keep the client involved What triggers the choice between operational maintenance and development versus projects and waterfall versus Agile. More later. |
