Project Management

Disciplined Agile

by , , , , , , ,
#ChooseYourWoW | #ContinuousImprovement | #Kaizen | #ProcessImprovement | Adoption | agile | Agile certification | agile transformation | Analogy | Architecture | architecture | book | Business Agility | Certification | Choose your WoW | CMMI | Coaching | Collaboration | Compliancy | Configuration management | Construction phase | Context | Continuous Improvement | COVID-19 | Culture | culture | DAD | DAD discussions | DAD roles | Data Management | database | DevOps | Discipline | disciplined agile delivery | Documentation | DW/BI | Enterprise Agile | Enterprise Architecture | Enterprise Awareness | Essence | estimation | Evolving DA | Experiment | Financial | GDD | Geographic Distribution | global development | Goal-Driven | goal-driven | goals | Governance | Guideline | Improvement | inception | Inception phase | Large Teams | layer | Lean | Lifecycle | lifecycle | Metrics | mindset | News | News and events | Non-Functional Requirements | non-functional requirements | Operations | Outsourcing | People | Philosophies | Planning | PMI | PMI and DA | Portfolio Management | Practices | Principle | Process | process improvement | Product Management | Product Owners | Program Management | Project Management | Promise | quality | Release Management | Requirements | requirements | Reuse Engineering | Risk management | RUP | Scaling | scaling | scaling agile | Scrum | serial | Support | Surveys | Teams | Technical Debt | Terminology | Testing | testing | Toolkit | Transformation | velocity | Workflow | show all posts

About this Blog

RSS

View Posts By:

Scott Ambler
Glen Little
Mark Lines
Valentin Mocanu
Daniel Gagnon
Michael Richardson
Joshua Barnes
Kashmir Birk

Recent Posts

Would you like to get involved with the 20th Anniversary of Agile?

The Four Layers of the Disciplined Agile Tool Kit

The Disciplined Agile Foundation Layer

The Team Lead Role: Different Types of Teams Need Different Types of Leaders

Disciplined Agile is a Hybrid

Examining the differences between DA and existing PMI materials

Examining

Since Disciplined Agile (DA) joined the PMI family in August 2019 we've gotten a collection of questions from people along the lines of "Why is there a difference between the advice in DA and PMI's advice?"  So I thought I would write a few blogs examining why that is.  This is the first.

There are several reasons why there are differences between existing DA and existing (non-DA) PMI materials:

  1. They were created by different groups of people.  It's natural to get different takes on a topic from different groups of people.   
  2. DA took on a broader scope than PMI traditionally has (until now). PMI has focused on project management and critical topics surrounding it such as program management, portfolio management, and governance (amongst others).  That is the scope that PMI chose to focus on and has frankly done a very good job at doing so.  The scope of DA, on the other hand, has been to address how to take an agile/lean approach to all aspects of an organization, including but not limited to management.  This is a much broader scope than what PMI has taken on, until now. As a result DA addresses marketing, finance, enterprise architecture, operations, governance, software development, and many other process areas that are important to modern organizations.  Why is this broader scope important to PMI?  Because all of these areas need to be managed/led and governed.  I believe there's an interesting implication there. ;-)
  3. PMI has traditionally gone very deep into management and the governance of management activities.  I'll let the great material in our standards and practice guides speak for itself. As Stan Lee was prone to say, 'Nuff said.
  4. DA has traditionally taken a more holistic view.  DA includes both what is being managed as well as the management/leadership of it.  For example, consider The Standard for Program Management Fourth Edition.  Where the existing PMI standard does a fantastic job of addressing the management aspects of a traditional program it doesn't go into critical "doing aspects" of programs such as how to address architecture, requirements, and quality activities (it does address planning and management though) for example.  This isn't meant to be a criticism of the standard but merely an observation - When we (PMI) developed the standard our focus, and once again rightfully so, was on management and governance.  It was not on the overall, holistic view of what occurs with a program.  With DA we choose to take a more holistic view, as do agile frameworks such as SAFeR and LeSS amongst others, and go beyond management and governance.  

My point is that there are very good reasons for the differences between what is in DA and what PMI has traditionally focused on.  These differences are an important aspect of the value proposition of DA for PMI, and more importantly for our membership, because we can learn from these differences and then improve and grow based on those learnings.  We're currently evolving DA based on the great material encompassed by the existing PMI standards and practice guides and our hope is that the existing PMI offerings will evolve to reflect Disciplined Agile ways of working (WoW) too.  

In the next blog in this series I will do a deep dive into the differences between DA's take on Program Management and the PMI Program Management Standard.  I suspect this will help to make some of the ideas in this blog more concrete and it will certainly make the opportunity before us a bit more explicit.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: March 08, 2020 08:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Rolling Wave Planning in Disciplined Agile

Wave

The basic idea with rolling wave planning is that you plan things that are near in time to you in detail and things that are distant in time at a higher level. The thinking is that the longer away in time that something is the greater the chance that it will change during that time, therefore any investment in thinking through the details is likely wasted. You still want to plan at a high level to both guide your current decisions and to set people’s expectations as to what is likely to come.

Rolling wave planning is implemented in several places of the DA toolkit. First, as you can see in Figure 1 below, it is an option of the Level of Detail decision point of the Develop Initial Release Plan process goal. A rolling wave approach to release planning has the advantages of more accurate and flexible planning although can be a bit disconcerting to traditional managers who are used to annual planning strategies.

Figure 1. The Develop Initial Release Plan goal diagram.

Develop Initial Release Plan

 

The Portfolio Management process blade supports rolling wave budgeting as an option for its Manage the Budget decision point. This is depicted in Figure 2. The advantages are greater flexibility and greater likelihood of investing your IT funding more effectively, albeit at the loss of the false predictability provided by an annual budgeting strategy.

Figure 2. The goal diagram for the Portfolio Management process blade.

Disciplined Agile Portfolio Management

 

The Program Management process blade supports rolling wave planning of a program itself, as you seen in Figure 3. Planning and coordination are critical on a large program, and rolling wave planning offers the advantages greater flexibility, the ability to think important cross-team issues through, and the ability to react to changing stakeholder needs. The primary disadvantage is that it can be disconcerting for traditionalists who are used to thinking every thing through from the beginning.

Figure 3. The goal diagram for the Program Management process blade.

Disciplined Agile Program Management

 

As you can see in Figure 4, rolling wave strategies can be applied in Product Management to evolve the business vision/roadmap. A continuous, rolling wave approach is critical to your success because the market place changes so quickly – these days, few organizations can tolerate an annual approach to business planning and in the case of companies with external customers an ad-hoc approach can prove to be too unpredictable for them.

Figure 4. The goal diagram for the Product Management process blade.

Product Management Goal Diagram

 

Previously we saw that rolling wave strategies can be applied to evolve your technology roadmap, as indicated in the goal diagram for Enterprise Architecture in Figure 5. The advantages of this approach are that your roadmap evolved in sync with both changes in technology and with your organization’s rate of experimentation and learning. The main disadvantage is that your technology roadmap is effectively a moving target.

Figure 5. The goal diagram for the Enterprise Architecture process blade.

Disciplined Agile Enterprise Architecture

As you can see, rolling wave strategies are an integral part of the Disciplined Agile (DA) toolkit. In fact, in most situations they prove to be the most effective and flexible strategies available to you. The advantages of rolling wave planning tend to greatly outweigh the disadvantages. More on this next time.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: October 25, 2016 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Introduction to Rolling Wave Planning

Rolling wave

For a long time now we’ve been applying what’s often called rolling wave planning with our clients. Rolling wave planning is applied in several areas of the Disciplined Agile (DA) toolkit, including release planning by a delivery team, technology roadmapping, and product roadmapping to name a few.  This blog overviews this important practice.

The basic idea is that you plan things that are near in time to you in detail and things that are distant in time at a higher level. The thinking is that the longer away in time that something is the greater the chance that it will change during that time, therefore any investment in thinking through the details is likely wasted. You still want to plan at a high level to both guide your current decisions and to set people’s expectations as to what is likely to come.

In Figure 1 below you see an overview of how rolling wave planning works and in Figure 2 an example of how a Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) team applies it for release planning. Upcoming work is planned in detail, the planning unit “X” is one month in the case of the delivery team. In order to do their work they need detailed user stories and supporting artifacts such as acceptance criteria and supporting models such as user interface (UI) sketches or data source analysis. They have this information for the work that they are doing right now as well as about one month’s of upcoming work. They don’t yet need details for work that is several months away in time. In this case for work that is two to three months in the future they only have user stories developed and work that is four to six months away epics. Work in what the team considers to be the distant future, in this case six or more months away, is described in very high-level terms such as epics or solution capabilities.

Figure 1. Rolling wave planning overview.

Rolling wave planning overview

Figure 2. Rolling wave release planning on a solution delivery team.

Rolling wave release planning overview

Part of the work that the team is doing right now is to keep their plan up to date. For example, if they are working in two week iterations they will pull two weeks of work into the team. During the current iteration they will pull about two weeks of user stories from the near term category (the yellow box in Figure 2) into the very near term (the green box). They may also bring upcoming work into the near term category at this point too.

Rolling wave planning has its source in iterative software development such as the Rational Unified Process (RUP). It is a strategy that is commonly applied by agile software teams and the Project Management Institute (PMI)’s Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBoK) supports it.

In future blog postings in this series we will work through examples of applying rolling wave planning in practice.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: October 17, 2016 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(In Agile) Where do all the managers go?

Business team

On February 23, 2016 I gave a webinar entitled (In Agile) Where do all the Managers go? A recording of the webinar is posted on Youtube and a PDF of the slides on Slideshare. This blog overviews the webinar and provides answers to the numerous questions that were asked during it.

Webinar Overview

The webinar began with a discussion of four trends that are reducing the need for people in management positions:

  1. Technical management tasks are performed by the team. As a result there is much less work for managers to do.
  2. Leadership is addressed by new roles. Team leadership responsibilities are in the hands of non-managers.
  3. Experienced organizations are moving towards stable teams. Important side effects of this are that much less “resource management” is required and team budgeting is greatly simplified.
  4. Status reporting is being automated away. Once again, less work for managers to do.

We then discussed the options that existing managers have in an agile environment. In Disciplined Agile there are four roles that existing managers are likely to transition to: Team Lead, Product Owner, Team Member, and Specialist. Specialist roles – such as Data Manager, Portfolio Manager, Program Manager, and Operations Manager – occur at scale and the corresponding positions are few and far between. Read the article Disciplined Agile Roles at Scale for more details.

We end with words of advice for existing managers: Observe what is actually happening; be flexible; and choose to evolve.

Questions and Answers

We’ve organized the questions into the following topics:

Evolving to New Roles

Will not the existing technical managers be disappointed with only people management work?

That depends on the person. Some will be very happy to do this, some will not.

How will managers fit into a leader role?

It depends on the person again. Some managers are very good leaders right now, some have the potential to be good leaders, and some don’t. They will need training and coaching to fit into their new role(s).

Addressing “Management Activities”

If there are no PMs in Agile, who handles communication with clients (meeting deadlines, priorities, etc.)

The Product Owner. 

How does individual performance to be taken up in Agile team? I think that is more crucial and challenging for Agile Leader / Manager.

It is always difficult to address performance-related activities. There are many lines of thought on how to do this. The most progressive is for the Team Lead to provide feedback to team members on a just-in-time basis. If the Team Lead seems behaviour, either desirable or undesirable, but a team member then they should comment on it right away so as to reinforce or dissuade it as soon as possible. Many organizations still have an annual review process, a strategy that many organizations have abandoned due to it’s ineffectiveness, where functional managers get involved with the review process.

I have seen that you have selected the Team Lead as the responsible of assess team members and budgeting the project. In Scrum the Product Owner is compare to a CEO that’s the reason I would say the Product Owner is responsible for bugdeting and about assessing I prefer a more democratic form which involve all the members. So what do you think about PO managing the budget and a democratic assessing vs one single vision assess?

Yes, I misspoke during the webinar. The Product Owner is often responsible for the team’s budget and is responsible for reporting the current financial information to the stakeholders. The Team Lead is often responsible for similar reporting to their management team.

Having multiple people involved with reviews/feedback is usually a pretty good idea. The People Management process blade captures several potential strategies. However, it is still a good idea for the Team Lead to provide feedback as well, see my earlier answer.

Potential Management Roles

I think there is still a need a bridge manager role between Finance, Teams, and PMO type orgs to ensure Product owners have budget… views. Thoughts?

In smaller organizations this likely isn’t an issue. In larger organizations there is often a Portfolio Management effort that is responsible for such issues.

What might be potential responsibilities of an Operations Manager, Data Manager, …?

Please read the article Disciplined Agile Roles at Scale for descriptions of these roles.

Okay, the data management team needs a team manager/leader. Are large organizations using various resource managers? (Although would be less necessary with stable teams I would think)

Exactly. Large organizations still tend to have people in resource manager roles, although sometimes they have different titles such as CoE Lead or HR Manager, but with stable teams they need far fewer of them.

If the team has a Team Lead/Scrum Master that is only the servant leader for 1-2 teams, is it suitable to have people managers?

What value would a “people manager” bring to the team? This is the fundamental dilemma for managers, for everyone for that matter, when an organization moves to agile ways of working. If they’re not bringing real value to the team then they either need to find ways to do so, which likely isn’t whatever management activities they’re trying to cling to, or they need to go elsewhere and try to add value there.

Do you intend to update the DA 2.0 interative pic on the DAD site to talk about “Potential Management Roles at Scale” as mentioned in page 18 of this presentation?

Yes. We actually have something in beta that we haven’t released yet. We’re just about to release an update to the main picture, which in turn requires an update to the role version of the interactive pic.

What is the most basic difference between Project/Program/Portfolio Managers in Agile?

Quick answer is that there isn’t Project Managers in Disciplined Agile nor in methods such as Scrum, XP, and so on. At the program level (a large team of teams) you likely need someone in a Program Manager (or more accurately Program Coordinator) role to coordinate activities (see the Program Management process blade for details). A Portfolio Manager is focused on the IT level and should be concerned about pre-development activities, development/delivery teams that are currently in flight, as well as operational activities.

Also, please read the article Disciplined Agile Roles at Scale for descriptions of these roles.

People Management

How does one manage the career path of the Team Leads? Is there career progression beyond a TL to be a specialist or does s/he continue being a TL throughout his career?

Everyone is different, so there isn’t one exact answer. It depends on what the person wants to do and what positions are available to them. If their desire is to move into management then there are fewer IT management positions available to them. If they want to become an AO or PO then they need to work towards getting the skills and experience to fulfill those sorts of roles. The People Management process blade includes career management strategies.

How do you evaluate what roles are/will be necessary?

It depends on the needs of the team in the situation that they face. The primary delivery roles typically exist on all delivery teams and the secondary roles start to appear at scale.

How do you see the role of a BA in agile?

Most existing BAs, like most existing project managers, will need to transition to other roles. However, at scale there is a need for some people in the specialist BA role. I recently has a user group presentation recorded on this very topic. See Disciplined Agile Business Analysis: Lessons from the Trenches.

Management Reporting

How do we approach a situation where management wants weekly status reports from a Program Manager who can combine both Team Lead & Product Owner roles, as well as manage multiple projects that may be similar in nature or not.

A few thoughts on this:

  1. It’s an incredibly bad idea to combine the TL and PO roles because it puts too much responsibility in the hands of one person. Furthermore, putting it into the hands of a former manager, someone who may have a command-and-control mindset instead of the collaborative mindset required of agile, can exacerbate the problem.
  2. You may need someone that Team Leads should work with to coordinate activities between teams (such as a Program Manager or Portfolio Manager) and someone that Product Owners should work with (a Chief Product Owner) to coordinate requirements activities. See The Product Owner Team.
  3. I do see stuff like this happen when organizations are transitioning to agile. They are still learning how to make agile work within their environment, they have a lot of people who haven’t yet made the transition, and they have a lot of middle management staff whom they want to treat fairly by finding them other work. Sadly that other work is often overhead that can be done away with given a bit of thinking.
  4. If you institute automated dashboards, what we originally referred to as Development Intelligence in Disciplined Agile, then a lot of your status reporting goes away.

 

In a typical organization, where to team lead(s) report into?

It depends. We’ve seen them report into a Program Manager or a Portfolio Manager. During the transition effort a Project Management Office (PMO) may still exist so Team Leads might report into there, although we often find that there’s a serious cultural and mindset difference that can be very frustrating for everyone involved.

During Your Agile Transformation

What about managers being responsible to support an agile transformation journey in a large organization?

Yes, they would very likely be working as part of an Agile Center of Excellence (CoE), although that would be mostly staffed by experienced agile coaches. There is a need for one or more senior execs to sponsor your agile transformation.

How to deal with “Project Manager” role renamed as “Agile Project Manager” but expected to do the same responsibilities as traditional PM?

We see this sort of stuff all the time unfortunately. First thing to do is to get these people educated in how agile actually works in practice, we’d suggest DA 101: The Disciplined Agile Experience or DA 104: Introduction to Disciplined Agile as your best option to get the whole picture. Next, work through with them how they would actually add real value on the team (see the discussions earlier). Very likely many of the activities that they think need to be are being handled by someone else or have been automated away. Third, get them some coaching to help them to truly transition to agile.

On my project, I am the Team Lead and there is a Project Manager. So far, I have observed that there are several conflicts in responsibilities. How do we come to an agreement of who handles which responsibilities? For my next project, would you suggest I work on a project with no project manager?

We often have to run facilitated workshops in organizations where we work through the roles and responsibilities that are needed in practice. We do this with a wide range of people and we do so in a collaborative and public manner. You need to come to an agreement as to who does what. Doesn’t sound like that’s happened in your case. When you work through this sort of an exercise you quickly discover that you don’t need a project manager, although there may be some project control officer (PCO) responsibilities that would be assigned to either the team lead or some sort of administrative role (such as PCO).

Do you have any advice on how to deal with the removal of the traditional hierarchy – in a flattening of responsibilities, ‘reporting-lines’ and salaries (or having a vast range of skills and pay-scales all with a job title of ‘team member’?)

This is what an agile transformation will accomplish for your organization. It takes time and investment in your people to implement. I highly suggest that you get some experienced coaches to help you do this.

Management is severely, negatively, personally affected by Agile, and will not look fondly upon it in many cases. Any tips to reduce this? Do you recommend mass management reduction, or multiple smaller rounds?

The first step is to recognize that your organization doesn’t exist to create jobs for managers, regardless of what the managers may think. Agile is about focusing on value, so why wouldn’t a good manager be interested in being actively involved with doing so? My recommendation is always to get training and coaching for everyone, including managers. As I described in the webinar there are many options for existing managers in the agile world if they’re willing to be flexible and evolve. Your organization should choose to help people make these transitions to new roles. However, if people are not willing to make the transition then they shouldn’t be surprised if the find themselves being asked to seek employment elsewhere.

It sounds like the person asking about “who’s responsible for delivery” might have used “responsible” when they meant “accountable” – many managers are the single wringable neck for something in their job description. Do you feel Agile draws the same distinction between the two like ITSM, for instance, does?

Agile is based on a collaborative, teamwork-based mindset. Having said that, it does make sense to have someone ultimately responsible for certain things. For example, the Product Owner is responsible for prioritizing the work on an agile team. Similarly, you may have someone in the Release Manager role who is responsible for overall Release Management within your organization. This is particularly important for regulatory environments where by law you need to have someone not involved with development who makes the final decision as to whether the solution is released or not.

From your observations and experience, what is the average timeframe for the managers number to decrease? How long does the process of the shift take?

It depends. We’ve seen this happen over timeframes as short as six months to several years.  With solid coaching this process will go a lot faster and smoother.

How to motivate and enable senior leaders to give up control?

In agile, particularly in Disciplined Agile, senior leaders have greater visibility and opportunities to steer than what they had in the traditional world. What they need to do is give up their false sense of control that traditional strategies provide. The real issue usually isn’t senior leaders but instead is middle management. They are the people who are currently performing many of the management tasks that are implemented in a more streamlined manner following agile approaches.

How can middle management start the agility journey when top leaders are not yet on board?

Agile typically begins following a stealth adoption strategy where senior leaders are unaware that it’s happening. The point is that anyone, including middle management, can start adopting agile strategies long before senior leadership gets involved. Strategies such as working collaboratively, enabling your team(s) to plan and organize their own work, adopting dashboard technology, and streamlining the bureaucracy whenever possible is very possible to accomplish on your own.

Thanks for being frank about the role(s) for managers in an evolving Agile culture: Agree, traditional project management organization’s aren’t highlighting these trends (and positive outcomes.)

You’re welcome. Traditional project management organizations often go at it from the point of view of how to continue justifying management activities. We go at it from the point of view of how to improve your overall organizational effectiveness and as a result come to a different conclusion.

Stable Teams

Will the idea for stable team become stale after some years? People tend to get frustrated doing same work. What’s the solution in that case?

Stable teams evolve over time. You’ll get people joining the team every so often and similarly leaving the team every so often. It’s natural for people to want to move on and try something new every few years. As a result your organization will still need People Management activities in place that motivate and enable people to manage their careers.

As far as stable teams go, commonly Valve, Inc. is referred to a place where teams are formed around projects that the team members find the most interesting. Project leaders try to sell their project to get developers. Your thoughts?

This is great technique that other organizations may be able to adopt. Allowing teams to form themselves is likely the most effective way to do so. However, like all strategies, there are some potential disadvantages. Team culture may become ingrained and they will not attract people with a different culture who would have the potential to add some real value to the team otherwise.

Is there a method to build the stable teams? Domain, Product, line of business?

There are several strategies for doing this. The most common is to form feature teams that do all of the work to implement a feature as a vertical slice through your entire infrastructure. Another approach is to form component teams that work on a technical or domain component/framework/LoB. A third approach is internal open source. We’ve discussed these strategies in greater detail at Strategies for Organizing Large Agile Teams.

Do you think stable teams concept will work in service-based organisation?

Yes. It’s a bit more difficult because you’d be bringing entire customer projects to the team at once instead of a flow of smaller features. Of course you can break each large project up into smaller features and feed them to teams in an interleaved manner, requiring a sophisticated approach to requirements management.

Training and Certification

What baseline training do you recommend for agile managers?

A good place to start is training on agile thinking, often referred to as how to be agile. Then I would recommend training that describes the full delivery lifecycle from end-to-end, something like DA 101: The Disciplined Agile Experience or DA 104: Introduction to Disciplined Agile. You want to understand all aspects of the agile delivery process, not just the management ones. Scrum training is popular but far too narrow. SAFe training isn’t for beginners.

I would like to participate in a certification workshop/further training. There doesn’t seem to be many offerings in the US. Are there plans to expand training opportunities in the states?

Yes. In fact we have training coming up in the Baltimore area in March and Philadelphia in April. We will have more open enrollment workshops scheduled soon.  Please visit the homepage of the Disciplined Agile Consortium for a listing of upcoming public workshops.

What should we be telling folks that have PMP’s – are they still valid? is PMP training moving toward Agile software development.

Yes, the PMI is moving towards agile but they have a very large ship to turn. Unfortunately the PMI training tends to suffer from the challenges that I described earlier – it seems to promote a rather unrealistic vision of how managers can potentially fit into agile.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: February 29, 2016 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The practical realities of software estimation

In IT we are often asked to estimate the expected time/schedule or cost of software development. Sadly, the desire of stakeholders to have “predictable” schedules or costs results in significant dysfunction within a software development team.  When a software team is  forced by their stakeholders to commit to a schedule/cost they must then ensure that the schedule/cost doesn’t slip. For example, to protect themselves from increased time and cost due to scope creep, software development teams will make it difficult for stakeholders to change their requirements during Construction and even go so far as to drop promised scope late in a project. The desire of stakeholders to reduce their financial risk often results in behaviors by the software development team that ensure that stakeholders don’t get what they actually want.  Naturally IT gets blamed for this.

Practical Realities of Software Guesstimation

We need to do better.  In this blog we summarize the things that we know to be true about software development estimation. In no particular order, they are:

  1. Estimates are guesses. Look up the word in the dictionary – An estimate is a rough approximation or calculation, in other words a guess. Unfortunately, too many people think that estimates are promises, or worse yet guarantees.  In our opinion “guesstimate” is a far more appropriate word that “estimate”.
  2. Scope on IT projects is a moving target. Our stakeholders struggle to tell us what they want and even when they do they change their minds anyway.  Any guesstimate based on varying scope must also vary in kind.
  3. Guesstimates are probability distributions. Although your stakeholders may ask for a fixed amount guesstimate, for example “this will cost $1 million”, the reality is that there’s a chance the cost will be less than $1 million and a very good chance that it will be more.  There is ample evidence that the initial estimate for a software development project should be given in a range of -25% to +75%, so your million dollar project should be quoted as a range of $750,000 and $1,750,000.  This is shown in the diagram above by the green distribution curve.  In many organizations this can be politically difficult to do, and strangely enough in many cases stakeholders prefer to be lied to (it’s going to be $1,000,000) rather than be told the truth.
  4. Guesstimates must reflect the quality of the inputs.  A guesstimate needs to reflect the quality of the information going into it – if your scope is fuzzy your guesstimate based on that scope needs to be equally fuzzy.  Sometimes stakeholders want a guesstimate with a tight range, perhaps +/- 10% (the red curve in the diagram), early in a project.  To provide a tight range such as this you need to have a very good understanding of the requirements and the design.  Early in the software development process this can only be done through more detailed modeling, an expensive and risky proposition which often proves to be a wasted effort because the requirements will evolve over time anyway.
  5. Guesstimates anchor perception. The primary danger of providing guesstimates to people is that they believe them.  Tell someone that it’s going to be $1,000,000 and they fixate on that cost even while they are changing their minds.  Tell them that it’s going to be between $750,000 and $1,750,000 and most people will fixate on the cost of $750,000.  Some people will focus on the average cost of $1,250,000 even though the median was $1,000,000 (guesstimates are in effect Weibull probability distributions).
  6. It’s easier to guesstimate small things. ‘Nuff said.
  7. It’s easier to guesstimate work you’re just about to do instead of work in the distant future. It is much easier to identify the details of work to be done right now, and thus turn a large piece of work into a collection of smaller pieces that are easier to guesstimate.  In part this is because you have a much better understanding of the current situation you are working in and in part because you are more focused on the here and now.
  8. The people doing the work will likely give a better guesstimate.   They are more motivated to get the guesstimate right, particularly when they must commit to it, and have a much better idea of their abilities.  Granted, someone may need to coach people through the guesstimation effort.  In Disciplined Agile this is a responsibility of the team lead.
  9. Someone who has done the work before will give a better guesstimate than someone who hasn’t. Experience counts.
  10. Guesstimates reflect the situation that you face.  Which organizational situation do you think will result in a short schedule and lower cost: Five people co-located in a single room or the same five people working from different locations in difficult time zones?  Or how about a team working under regulatory constraints versus the same team without those constraints?  Context counts.
  11. Multiple guesstimates are better than a single guesstimate. Getting guesstimates from several people provides insights from several points of view, hopefully prompting an intelligent conversation that enables you to develop a guesstimate with better confidence.  Similarly, the same person producing guesstimates for the same piece of work using different guesstimation strategies will also provide a range of answers that you can combine.
  12. Guesstimates should be updated over time. As your understanding of what stakeholders want improves, and your understanding of how well your team works together, you should update your guesstimates.  As your understanding of the fundamental inputs into your estimate improves you are able to produce a better estimate, thus enabling the stakeholders of that guesstimate to make better decisions.
  13. It costs money to produce a guesstimate. The precision of an estimate is driven by the detail and stability of the information going into it. Want a tighter range on your estimate?  Then you’re going to have to have a better handle on the requirements, design, and capabilities of the team doing the work.  This greater precision requires greater cost.  The fundamental question posed by the #NoEstimates community is effectively “Is the value of improved decision making capability from having the guesstimate greater than the cost of creating the guesstimate?” The implication is that you must ensure the cost is much less than the benefit, hence their focus on finding ways to streamline and even eliminate the guesstimation effort.
  14. Guesstimation is far more art than science. See point #1 about estimates being guesses.  The best guesstimates are done by the people doing the work, just before they need to do the work, for small pieces of work.
  15. Formal software guesstimation schemes are little more than a scientific façade. Function point counting, feature point counting, and COCOMO II are all examples of formal strategies.  They boil down to generating numeric guesses from your detailed requirements and design, plugging these guesses into an algorithm which then produces a guesstimate. These are all expensive strategies (they require detailed requirements and design work to be performed) that prove to be risky (because they often force you into a waterfall approach) in practice.  Yes, they do in fact work to some extent, but in practice there are much less expensive and less risky strategies to choose from.  People like these type of guesstimation strategies because they provide a false sense of security due to their complexity and cost.
  16. Past history isn’t as valuable as people hope.  Some formal guesstimation strategies are based on past history, but this proves to be a false foundation from which to build upon for several reasons.  First, people have different levels of capability which change over time as they learn. Capers Jones has shown that developers have productivity ranges of 1 to 25, the implication being that if you don’t know exactly who is on a team and how well they work together your corporate history will be questionable.   Second, technologies evolve quickly so past history from working with older versions of technologies or completely different technologies becomes questionable at best.  Third, people and teams change (hopefully for the better) over time, implying that an input into your guesstimate is fuzzy at best.  Fourth, because every team is unique and faces a unique situation basing estimates on past history from other teams in different situations proves questionable.
  17. Beware professional guesstimators. They tend to break many of the rules we’ve described above.

To summarize, when you are required to provide estimates for your software development efforts that you should take a pragmatic, light-weight approach to doing so.  This blog posting has provided many practical insights that should help guide your decisions.  These insights and many more, are built right into the Disciplined Agile (DA) toolkit.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: January 24, 2016 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
ADVERTISEMENTS

"When one door closes another door opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the ones which open for us."

- Alexander Graham Bell