This is a bit of a different post for me.
My partner and I have crafted a set of Guiding Principles for an Adaptive Organization which I invite you to comment on in this thread.
The final version will be posted for download at www.AdaptiveOrg.com under a Creative Commons license.
All contributions whose comments are used in some way (meaning either directly or caused us to think about something differently) will be recognized in the final release.
So what would you change, drop or add?
Here are the principles (we thought ten was a nice round number):
These principles support one another equally in achieving mastery as an adaptive organization
Fair warning....this is a self-indulgent piece that probably only matters to me. If you find it interesting. Yeah! If not. Yeah!
It's hard to believe that 40 years ago, on January 3, 1978 was my first day of work.
In December 1977 I had completed my degree in Computer Science at the ripe old age of 19 (we only went to Grade 11 in high school at the time). I had done my entire degree on punched cards, except for one course in APL.
One of my university professor's claim to fame was that he was the first to have created a graphical rendering of an egg...so naturally he taught graph theory. As he was one of the cool dudes, he occasionally hung out with us wanna-be-cool students on weekends doing what we all did in the 1970's - I hear it will be legal in Canada next summer. :) Fun times.
I chose the Forest Gump theme as, looking back, I feel a bit like the Forest Gump of the IT and computer industries - I have watched an entire industry unfold before my eyes and got to participate in what has been probably the most tectonic shift in the history of technology and work.
To put it in perspective, when I graduated in the fall of 1977:
As we approach 2018 we're talking about quantum computing, AI, deep learning, Apps, self-driving cars, digital services, and cyrpto-currencies. Quite a shift indeed.
So here's what I saw and experienced over the past 40 years (what follows is rather long because...40 years is a really LONG time):
As William Gibson said "the future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed yet".
For those who may think all of this agile stuff is new because it's your first exposure - it isn't. If you think it's only about software or product development. It isn't that either. For those who think it refers to the period AAM (after the Manifesto for Agile Software Development) - it doesn't. It was made possible by some very leading-edge thinkers over 30 years ago...people like Ed Yourdon, Peter Coad, Rebecca-Wirfs Brock, Barry Boehm and others before them like Winston Royce and W. Edwards Deming. We all build on what came before. We should remember that.
Over the past 40 years, I got to be like Forest Gump, and be present at the different stages of this still evolving thinking, and make it part of me and what I do. It`s been a blast. It still makes we want to keep being a part of it.
What do I see looking ahead? The same thing I concluded in Agile Value Delivery: Beyond the Numbers in 2015 - that in the not too distant future, we will stop talking about agile as "a thing".
The reason? Because as humans we are naturally adaptable. Once we simply recognize the inherent nature of our adaptability, we can stop trying to put unnecessary structure and process around ourselves. Once we learn to do that, we become agile by default.
Here's to the next 40!
In my recent post What? You don't know why you are doing your project? I indicated that I would do a follow-up post on examples of where I have used the Outcomes approach successfully. As you recall, the post was subtitled "Outcomes Focused Agility - Story Mapping our Strategic Intent".
In this post, I'll provide two examples of where I have applied it successfully as well as provide an example of where I am currently using it with good success so far.
Procure and Implement a Learning Management System (LMS)
My role: had overall portfolio responsibility for guiding both the technical and business teams.
Several years ago I was hired by the Learning and Development group of a local government agency to help them procure and implement an LMS. They used to have all of their employees in one building. The situation was that employees were now in different cities, in different countries, and on different continents.
Most PMs would view this as an IT project and would proceed to begin developing the procurement documents, and then following the procurement, getting it installed and configured for use. And if they did that within the expected 18 month timeline and $2.5M budget we had, they would have considered the project a success. However, by the measures of value that really needed to be satisfied, they would have failed.
When you take an outcomes-focused approach, you start by asking why are they feeling they need to do this particular project? Ask why (along with what and how) enough times and you uncover all manner of actual need, many of which are left hidden using most project approaches. Over a period of the first 2-3 months of the engagement I helped them discover/recognize the following :
There were many other things we uncovered by asking why, but the above gives you a good idea of the real problems we had to tackle, which far exceeded just procuring and implementing an LMS. Using outcomes-focused agility, we were able to define the real work we had to do to make the implementation of the LMS a success for them:
We used a Services Canvas I designed based off of the Business Model Canvas to help them figure what services they offered to the rest of the organization and how they would be measured.
Once we had the initial versions of the outcomes map and the Service canvas, wee would place the latest iterations of each on our wall and leave stickies and pens on a table beneath them. Most every day stakeholders and team members would walk by and spend a few minutes looking at the canvas and map and use the stickies to leave questions, comments, and ideas. This enabled serendipity across the team and stakeholders - while one person was adding stickies someone else would invariably walk by and they would then have a conversation about the map and canvas and the content of the stickies.
Every few days we would collect everything and update the map and canvas and then hold additional brainstorming sessions with everyone. Both the serendipitous and brainstorming events enabled us to create a shared understanding of the why, what, how, who, when and where of our portfolio and it's various programs and initiatives with all of the required players as all of them contributed at different times and to different degrees to their creation. No one felt left out.
We used Scrum on each of the initiatives including the procurement process, for doing business process design and development, and for systems integration. We also introduced the idea of using an agile approach to learning content development for the new content that would need be created for the new LMS to deliver. Without suitable content there was no need for an LMS!
Having taken an outcomes-focused approach we also created the basis for value-based decisions across the entire portfolio for each of the products that would be created to satisfy each outcome. While Scrum assumes that someone else has already decided which products should be developed, outcomes-focused agility helps us determine which products have to be developed ( in this case learning content, business processes, an RFP, systems integration, etc.). It also helped us to establish the basis for value prioritization within each initiative and product so product owners knew the higher-level strategic goals that were to be satisfied.
Remember products themselves are just outputs. They are not outcomes, nor do they measure the benefits of what you have done, and hence they also do not help you understand why you are creating them. They do contribute to outcomes, but they are not themselves actual outcomes.
Here is a summary of some of the project metrics (sufficient time has passed that I can share these):
The Learning and development group also restructured based on the new services they were now offering and the processes that supported them. The new processes and the restructuring ideas came from the people who were most affected by it - there was no need for organizational change management as it was change by engagement and with the design being done by the entire team.
We managed to achieve far more real value delivery in the 18 months than was expected and for the same money, hence, we were able to deliver what they actually needed, rather than what they had originally intended of simply procuring and implementing an LMS.
Build and Implement a Professional Licensure Management System
My role: had overall portfolio responsibility for guiding both the technical and business teams.
A national professional association wanted to build a professional licensure management system. Again, this sounds like an IT project to most - after all we would be building a software product but in reality it was more complex actual scenario:
Using outcomes-focused agility helped us to identify:
This was way more than simply building a software product.
A coordinated delivery was established across multiple years covering facilities, infrastructure, hiring, product development, as well as an organizational restructuring that would enable them to stand-up and support a national professional licensure management system.
Mature People, Process and Technology Capabilities
My role: portfolio leadership and agility mentoring
The last one I'll report on is one that I am currently engaged in to mature people, process, and technology capabilities. The particular team in this case is a technical team that connects business line capabilities to one another. They have been in existence for 4 years and started out as part of a larger project. They split off into a separate team to carry on the operational side for their original development efforts as well as to do similar development work for other business lines.
With the prospect of doing work for many business lines instead of just the original two, we felt that we needed to put more formality into what the team does and how it does it. We have identified four value streams to answer the four main outcomes questions as listed below:
The team sits inside of a very large IT organization, inside of a very large government department, so the work they do has a high degree of sophistication as well as being of significant consequence to the business.
The team currently owns the entire development and operational support of what they build including at the platform level so we have to address topics such as:
As there are multiple very sophisticated technologies in play, it is not just enough to know what you must do, but you also need to figure out which technology is the right one to use in each circumstance. As a result, in order to determine what we must do (the initiatives) to satisfy a given outcome, we have had to create and execute initiatives whose goal it is to help us sort out our strategy for the actual initiatives to support the identified outcomes.
By asking the four key questions above we have so far identified 40 initiatives that we need to undertake. The ones that are developing strategies for their focus areas will lead to the addition of more initiatives once they are completed.
This is another of the hidden benefits of outcomes-focused agility as noted above - we can use strategy-development initiatives to both identify and define the initiatives we need to undertake to achieve a given set of outcomes on the map, even after we have already started on the portfolio - now that is the ultimate in outcomes-focused agility! We have also had to tweak some of outcomes statements as based on what we have learned in some of initiatives we have delivered on so far.
When faced with such a high degree of uncertainty and ambiguity as this one presents for the team, outcomes-focused agility is proving invaluable in enabling us to do the things we need to do, rather than what we may have intended to do at the outset, across a very complex landscape.
The Results - so far
The fact that the goal of our work is to mature people, process and technology is not lost on us - maturing our people means constant inspection and adaptation to what we learn along the way. We are also able to adapt to new circumstances as they have emerged as we continue to do other work for the business lines.
We are also advantaged by constantly iterating our overall strategy, based both on the strategy initiatives we have identified, as well as the ones that are implementing those strategies, that in some cases, we have yet to define.
Another aspect of outcomes-focused agility is that it enables the portfolio team to more quickly assess the consequences of delays and changes in organizational priorities. Due to some external factors for example, we have had to revamp our outcomes delivery timelines within the portfolio.
In one example, we were able to assess the consequences of deferring some initiatives to a later FY on the basis of getting less money this FY. We were able to do this assessment in less than 30 minutes! All we were given was the dollar amount that had to be deferred.
Our map enabled us to make a value-centric decision as we already knew the relationships between initiatives, products, and outcomes (or results), and hence we could quickly determine which initiatives, products, and outcomes could be deferred while having the least detrimental impact on our overall strategic intent both in the short and long term.
Without these maps and their details, this would have taken days if not weeks for something this large, and even worse could have led us to defer the wrong things.
I have always ensured wherever possible that each of the initiatives within an outcomes map can be done within 3 months or less and that we use Scrum throughout. This incremental approach allows us to tackle complex situations in manageable pieces. It also allows us to re-vector our remaining work based on what we learn along the way.
We are very definitely seeing the value of allowing emergence to guide us by tackling things in small enough chunks, that even if something turns out to not be what we expected, our investment in each one is not that great, so our risk exposure is significantly reduced.
The Role of Emergence in Outcomes-Focused Agility
Emergence, as I discussed in Chapter 7 of Agile Value Delivery: Beyond the Numbers, is more than just about our architectures and design as described in the principles of The Manifesto for Agile Software Development.
It also applies to our understanding of the holistic messes we are solving that often contain many different problems as the examples above clearly demonstrated. In all of the above examples, it was never a single problem to be solved, nor a single project to be executed. I would suggest that this describes 99% of what we encounter in the real world, versus what is often attempted through single monolithic projects.
Outcomes-focused agility directly supports this form of emergence, and also provides the context in which to story-map your strategic intent - even when you have yet to fully describe your strategic intent, as was demonstrated in the last example.
Understanding emergence, and how to leverage the opportunities it uncovers, helps us to be comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Outcomes-focused agility helps deal with emergence in a rational manner which then allows us to use and adapt multiple frameworks, practices, methods and techniques to achieve value-delivery.
We use what is most appropriate to the context of each single problem we are solving, rather than trying a one-size fits-all approach, or even believing that we are solving a single problem, as we rarely are.
One of the areas of outcomes-focused agility I have not yet attempted is to take the same focus towards the team itself - what outcomes matter to them? I hope to do some experiments with that over the coming months within my current portfolio.
Rather than address benefits realization under each of the above examples, I though I'd deal with it as a separate topic. For those of us familiar with outcomes-driven approaches, we know that the measure we use to determine the presence of our expected outcomes is to identify the benefits we would need to see in order to determine that the outcome was present. This is as I described it in Chapter 2 of Agile Value Delivery: Beyond the Numbers.
Outcomes cannot be directly observed. They are only observable through measurable benefits. Much has recently been written about benefits realization, which is enjoying a noticeable resurgence of interest. However, without the context of outcomes-focused agility, we may end up focusing on the wrong things, and we still don't have a framework that facilitates our emergent and shared understanding in the face of ever-increasing uncertainty and ambiguity. Benefits realization by itself not enough.
Outcomes-focused Agility enables portfolio, program, and project teams to gain insights into both the magnitude,and the specifics, of what has to be done. It also provides executive levels with a high degree of confidence that we have thought things through enough at the front-end, without locking into solutions too soon, so that we can more fully create a shared-understanding of why we are doing things, and use that shared understanding to drive decision-making throughout and at all levels.
An incremental delivery approach through value-streams, and their associated programs within a portfolio framework, also significantly reduces financial, schedule, and delivery risks.
So we really don't have to plan or describe everything up-front. Recognizing this simple reality enables us to help the business and its customers/clients end up where they need to be, which may not be where they originally intended to be. And after all, isn't that what we all hope for?
How to contact me:
Want to engage me and my friends:
Subtitle: Outcomes-focused Agility - Story Mapping our Strategic Intent
I am going to make a bold statement.
More than 50-60% of project managers don't know why they or their project teams are doing their projects.
How can I possibly say that? Surely there are charters and project plans with backgrounders and scope statements? Maybe there are. But that does not mean they know truly know why the project is being done.
Why say that?
Numerous studies over the years have shown project failure rates of 50-60% (some studies are higher and some are lower to be sure). Likewise, where software development projects are concerned, it is estimated that 60-70 per cent of features built are never used or rarely used. Both of these statistics (and others) point to a lack of clarity on why the project is being done in the first place; The sponsors, the teams, the PM, and others really don't have a clear articulation of why they are doing it.
Another factor is that most projects are proposed - that is, someone has an idea for a project, they then write a business case or lobby the executive ranks to get it approved. Some even tie it to strategic goals or objectives. But that still does not mean they know why it is being done.
Projects focus on Outputs
Most project management books, when they distill the essence of project management, will show a diagram similar to the one below. Some project management practices may also refer to the Activity box as Tools and Techniques, but the premise is basically the same; Inputs are consumed through some form of Activity to produce Outputs which are the project’s deliverables.
While this model is simple, it is focused on the wrong things. It does not answer a very important question – why is this project being done? Focusing on why establishes the desirable Outcomes that the project would create if it were successfully completed.
Agile approaches are not immune from this phenomenon as they also start with the Outputs (i.e. deliverables, products, features, etc.) and then identify the activities and inputs needed to create them. The difference between traditional and Agile is in what the activities are and how they are accomplished. But it still does not answer the why questions.
Interestingly, normal business operations and projects both focus on using inputs to activities to create out-puts. Ditto for business processes work. None focus on knowing why.
Outcomes – The Source of Why
Outcomes Management enables organizations to define and use specific indicators to continually measure how well services or programs are leading to the desired results. Outcomes Management is used extensively in health care (it did start with Florence Nightingale after all) and the not-for-profit sectors.
For IT, it was articulated in the book “The Information Paradox” by John Thorpe of DMR in 1998. Before the book was published I was working for DMR and we were taught the Benefits Realization approach (based on what was in the book) as part of being consultants. It was also embedded into the “ValIT Framework” from the IT Governance Institute, with John Thorpe as the lead author.
Some of the questions we can ask ourselves and our Business colleagues to help us identify desirable outcomes include:
There are two important ideas to understand about Outcomes – their type and their timing which we look at next.
The first two types of Outcomes are ones that are desirable – that is they have a positive effect.
The last one is an undesirable Outcome type that we would wish to avoid. There are everyday examples in the non-project world of Outcomes that are bad and unintended. For example, introducing a new species into a habitat to overcome one particular problem with another non-native species can lead to the new species becoming equally invasive and also destroying native species’ which clearly was not an intended consequence and is not desirable.
We try to maximize the first outcome type, hope we get some of the second type, and try to avoid the third outcome type entirely.
Outcomes Timing and the Outcomes Map
The Outcomes Map as illustrated above highlights that Outcomes may be delivered at different points in time as follows:
An Outcomes Map is premised on helping us answer the why question which helps us to identify the Outcomes that we desire to achieve. The possible Outcomes Types (Good and Intended, Good and Unintended, or Bad and Unintended) that were described in the previous section can occur as any of the above timings (Immediate, Intermediate or Ultimate Outcomes).
Assumptions and Risks are also important to know. Risk Management does not go away because we will be applying Agile approaches – but some of the Risk Management practices we will employ will be different than those used with traditional project Management.
Mapping Outcomes is Counter-Intuitive
A counter-intuitive feature of an Outcomes Map is that you actually create it by starting on the right and working backwards to the left:
An Outcomes Map is one of the most important Products that a team will create on their way to understanding why so they can deliver Value that matters. As we create the Outcomes Map we also create the following artifacts:
But that's a lot of Work!
For those who think this is a lot of work, what we have essentially described is a diagram and some spread-sheets that are developed iteratively and incrementally and then updated as the portfolio of projects move along towards completion. It fits very well with the ideas of simplicity, time-boxing, and focusing on Value that are fundamental principles for Agile thinking.
The Outcomes Map with its associated artifacts is a reviewable and updatable Output throughout the execution of the portfolio during Agile Value Delivery. It also adheres to the basic Agile tenet of being driven through empiricism – we let the facts we uncover during execution guide us. Same for our Outcomes Maps - as we understand more, we get to update those as well.
The Outcomes Map and its artifacts also enable the Business and the Portfolio Teams that have to deliver to quickly and effectively:
Projects that are initiated in this way are purpose-defined as they are tried to specific Outcomes and their associated benefits.
This approach also means we don't need to do a business case or benefits case at the individual project level as they literally fall into our laps - knowing which Outcome a project is being stood up to contribute to means we know which benefits it will be enable.
Have you ever used this practice?
In the next post I'll provide some examples of where I have used this practice to identify the people, process, technology, facilities and organizational structure implications of major transformations before any real work was actually done. It also supports what I call Outcomes-Focused Agility which helps us to story-map our strategic intent. But then, would the post have caught your eye if I had used that title?
How to contact me:
Want to engage me and my friends: