Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Pick a number from 1 - 9. Multiply by 3. Add 3, then multiply by 3 again. Add the two digits together and, using that number as a key, find the correct process for your project on the list below.
3. Feature-Driven Development
4. Extreme Programming
10. Team Software Process
I'm not aware of any assessment tools that aren't intended to drive you to a foregone conclusion, but it's an interesting idea. It also seems like there would be a lot of variables to consider, especially when a company might have to make some major changes to be effective but time limitations might prevent a full transformation to the most effective approach for the company in question. It might end up being more of a roadmap situation, not a big bang.
Great, my To Do list just grew... ;-)
Have you ever used "agile suitability assessment"
project management is not simple.
Though it is meant to reduce complexity.
The tool you are looking for is knowledge and judgement of the PM in charge. They should have knowledge of and better experience with a wide range of tools.
And must consider the context of the project for which they chose an approach. Context is king, what was good yesterday might not be appropriate today! And what if your team is experienced with one approach only, and good at it?
So I am cautious when I see people knowing about one tool (e.g. Scrum) and then deciding to use it on any project. Because.
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Hi Aaron, Nice response, I have taken a look at a couple of Stacey charts but few have question around complexity v's simplicity that would assist teams in choosing their Way of work.
Hi Luis, thanks very much for the steer. I will check this out.
Think I found what I was looking for , in the Agile Practice Guide
X2.4 suitability Filter Questions.
does anyone know if there is a web tool or workbook that will allow the team to agree on the different aspects of culture, team, complexity, change, and generate a radar chart with some proposed WoW.
I think the DA toolkit is the best I have seen at selecting the appropriate framework in a somewhat deterministic way. I also think the way it is organized and copyright protected do make it awkward to use in practice.
I'm in the process now of looking at how to establish the WoW for various project types in a portfolio. Since context is everything, I'm leaning towards adapting the DA approach for framework selections to my own needs.
Complexity factors are highly variable in the general case. In my own working environment, they're often more a constant. Similarly how I would make a decision tree would focus on variables I know are most important to my type of work. I think I can use the concepts, build my own toolkit, and then my own customized intellectual property can be shared with whoever needs it in my organization.
The DA toolkit does cover everything from selecting traditional waterfall to continuous delivery models though. I think the approach of what questions to ask in a specific context to select a delivery model is more useful than their general selection criteria for any imaginable situation.
Given the number of variables involved including:
- Regulatory requirements
- Internal standards & policies
- The innate complexity of the project scope itself
- The make up of the team
- The level of organizational PM maturity & support
- The appetite or bias of stakeholders towards one approach or another
any time of decision-support tool would just provide guidance rather than something one could adopt with full confidence.
Even the DA toolkit relies heavily on the concept of GCI and lifecycle choices are covered under that - if we don't find the choice we've made is suitable, run an experiment with a different one and decide what to do.
I would say that this is part of the judgment which a PM develops over time with regards to a specific category or segment of projects.
Would there eventually be an AI which could pick the right approach based on access to quality data of thousands (if not millions) of completed projects? Possibly, but I'm betting on "garbage in, garbage out" making that exercise extremely complex!
It might be better to have one assessment to identify the framework/methodology/lifecycle/whatever to use and a separate assessment to identify the approach to making the change (if needed). I think I have a couple of transformation/change readiness questionnaires buried somewhere. I've seen an agile transformation get shut down because (among other reasons) certain stakeholders wanted a fast, big bang change to scaled scrum when they barely had a couple of teams attempting scrum.
Most of the "transformation" approaches I've been exposed to have had more of a big bang feel to them. In my current role, I'm making incremental changes toward transformation (successfully, even if it seems slow). It's built around DA and value streams, but it's not textbook DA.
Stacey charts, DA assessments or agile suitability assessments are examples of tools supporting the selection of some agile concepts.
They are build on dichotomies like waterfall-agile, old fashioned-modern, complicated-complex or dumb-clever and meant to sell you a mental model with all the consulting, tools and unaccountability behind it. If you fail, your fault.
Nothing against using new tools, ideas, models in the pm's toolbox. But the main selection tool is a judgement of the guy in charge, heavily considering the context, as Kiron is saying.
I have use Mind Mapping in the past to help me determine what I need, what tools are available and what these tools provide. Once you have plotted out your needs based on specific project requirements you can analyse the available tools and pick the one that best suits your needs - or develop your own.
Please login or join to reply