Skip to main content

Agile Software Development and Governance

Today, Pierre Neis journeyed down from Luxembourg to talk to us about Agile and Project Governance. He talked about a 2-team Scrum project he had coached for a large organization and how that project tracking was integrated into their corporate governance tools. He then talked about a flavor of earned value management 'Agile-EVM' which he applied to the project.

EVM strikes me as an oxymoron: an inherent contradiction, like 'military intelligence' or 'serious play'. EVM was created to track the creation of value vs the accumulation of costs. A series of indexes get reduced down to a green/amber/red traffic light which indicates whether the project is on track or not.

The only trouble is, a waterfall project does not produce any customer value until the test phase is complete. So the EVM concept is meaningless when applied to a waterfall project.

The situation is quite different when applied to an agile project. A Scrum project produces finished functionality, i.e. value, every sprint. The product burn down chart compares the progress to the plan. Since the product owner can change the remaining scope after every sprint, traffic lights produce by Agile-EVM mean
  • Green: Plan and Progress are in sync
  • Amber: Plan and Progress are diverging
  • Red: A serious reality check is necessary.
In the discussion, we talked about the lack of Quality figuring into the calculation. If you have poor quality, this will be higher maintenance costs and must worse development performance in the future.

The big open question: How to integrate a Net Present Value calculation of the impact poor quality into the financial indicators of the project?

Download: His slides and the Nokia Test.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

10 Warning Signs, that your team is not self-organizing

How do you know that self-organization is working? The Bern Chapter of Scrum Breakfast Club looked into this questions, and identified the following warning signs (which I have taken the liberty of translating).

The team reports to the Scrum Master at the Daily ScrumPeople wait for instructions from the Scrum MasterTeam members don't hold each other responsible [for their commitments]The same impediment comes up twice"That's the way it is" => resignation"I" instead of "We"Flip charts are lonelyCulture of conflict-avoidanceDecisions processes are unclear, nor are they discussedPersonal goals are more important than team goals
To this list I would add my a couple of my favorites:
you don't see a triangle on the task board (not working according prioritization of stories)after the daily Scrum, people return directly to their desks (no collaboration)there are a least as many stories in progress as team members (no pairing)
P.S. You can join the …