≡ Menu

Pawel Brodzinski on Software Project Management

Lean Kanban Central Europe Leadership Track

Lean Kanban Central Europe Leadership Track post image

There’s a question I get asked pretty frequently: which conference I would recommend to attend. Of course the answer is always contextual but surprisingly often after some further inquiry I recommend Lean Kanban Central Europe.

On one hand it’s the content. Even today I remember all the keynotes from the first LKCE three years ago. That’s how much that stuck. Since then the program was only getting better. Then, there is exposure to new ideas. Lean Kanban series of conferences are surprisingly consistent when it comes to bringing to the mix new concepts, models and methods. One can bet that that thing which sounds so fresh on one of big Agile events was covered in extent a few years ago at Lean Kanban tour.

Then of course there is networking. With three hundred people networking is of very different quality than at the events that attract a thousand people or more. Everyone is more accessible and it’s not an ultimate challenge to track down someone who you really want to chat with.

The post wasn’t meant as a just an infomercial of LKCE. The conference, as every good event, evolves. One change that we introduced this year are consistent tracks and track chairs. This means that there’s always someone who made final decisions for the part of the program. This also means that there’s even more space for radical ideas as we as the program board aren’t driven by the consensus that much.

The track I’m honored to lead is the leadership track. One thing I didn’t want to do with it was just to throw a bunch of great speakers and just let them do their magic. What we’ll have instead is a theme and different ideas on leadership evolving around the same theme. Of course we still have a bunch of awesome speakers in the first place.

This approach means that everyone who will choose to stay throughout the whole track will get a consistent experience, while being exposed to different ideas. In fact, when working on the track I was thinking of it as of a mini-conference on its own.

The underlying theme for the track is broadening understanding of what leadership is and what approaches and tools we may use to let it emerge in our organizations. Esther Derby will kick off the track explaining that leadership at all levels isn’t just a nice theoretical concept or wishful thinking. At the same time the challenge is that there are no recipes that allow us to easily build such an environment. If there was such a thing as a track keynote it would be this one and I can hardly think of a better candidate than Esther to deliver it.

With no recipes we aren’t left alone in the wild though. We do have models and methods that, if understood correctly and used mindfully, can help us to shape the organization to steer emergence of leadership. When I think about people who easily mix different models and methods applying them contextually to provide most value Liz Keogh is on the top of my list. That’s why I asked her to cover that part. At least a bit of exposure to systems thinking and complex adaptive systems seems inevitable.

By that point the balance of the track will have swung toward more systemic approach to leadership. In that context however we can’t forget that at the end of the day it all boils down to people dynamics. That’s where Marc Burgauer will kick in with his message about how trust, connections, blame and fear of shame play pivotal role in building leadership across organization. Marc does an awesome job bringing people perspective into discussion.

The only missing bit in that mix is a practical story that shows how one may use all these building blocks to create a culture where leadership emerges and thrives. I tasked myself with that. On one hand at that point my job will be super easy as Esther, Liz and Marc will have covered the important parts and I’ll just build the connection between my story and earlier sessions. On the other, matching such a lineup of speakers is a challenge by itself. I guess my inner speaker now hates my inner track chair.

Of course leadership track will be competing for attendees attention with other awesome tracks. It was never our goal for LKCE to make choice between sessions even remotely close to easy. I do hope though that there will be some people who will choose to stay with us through all the leadership sessions. Especially that it is the shortest track of the event. As you can see though there was a lot thought invested to provide additional value for those who would be at all sessions.

The track is more than a sum of its sessions, it’s a product of interactions between its parts.

Have I just brought systems thinking again to the discussion? Oh well…

I hope this is one more argument to join LKCE this year. I’d love to see you there and I’d love to get feedback about the final outcome.

in kanban

Practices, Principles, Values

Practices, Principles, Values post image

I was never a fan of recipes. Even less so when I heard that I have to apply them by the book. What I found over years was that books rarely, if ever, describe a context that is close enough to mine. This means that specific solutions wouldn’t be applicable in the same way as described in the original source.

This is why I typically look for more abstracted knowledge and treat more context-dependent advice as rather inspiration that a real advice.

From what I see that’s not a common attitude. I am surprised how frequently at conferences I would hear an argument that the sessions weren’t practical enough only because there was no recipe included. This is only a symptom though.

A root cause for that is more general way of thinking and approaching problems. Something that we see over and over again when we’re looking at all sorts of transformations and change programs.

People copy the most visible, obvious, and frequently least important practices.

Jeffrey Pfeffer & Robert Sutton

Our bias toward practices is there not without a reason. After all, we’ve heard success stories. What Toyota were doing to take over the lead in automotive industry. The early successes of companies adopting Agile methods. There were plenty of recipes in the stories. After all that’s what we first see when we are looking at the organizations.


The tricky part is that practices, techniques, tools and methods are just a tip of the iceberg. On one hand this is exactly what we see when we look at the sea. On the other there’s this ten times bigger part that is below the waterline. The underwater part is there and it is exactly what keep the tip above the water.

In other words if we took just the visible tip of the iceberg and put it back to water the result wouldn’t be nearly as impressive.

Practices, Principles, Values

This metaphor is very relevant to how organizational changes happen. The thing we keep hearing about in experience reports and success stories is just a small part of the whole context. Unless we understand what’s hidden below the waterline copying the visible part doesn’t make any sense.


A thing beyond any practice is a principle. If we are talking about visualization we are implicitly talking about providing transparency and improving understanding of work too. Providing transparency is not a practice. It is a principle that can be embodied by a whole lot of practices.

The interesting part is that there are principles behind practices but there are also principles that are embraced by an organization. If these two sets aren’t aligned applying a specific practice won’t work.

Let me illustrate that with a story. There was a team of software architects in a company where Kanban was being rolled out across multiple teams. In that specific team there was a huge resistance even at the earliest stages, which is simply visualizing work.

What was happening under the hood was that transparency provided by visualization was a threat for people working on the team. They were simply accomplishing very little. Most of the time they would spend time on meetings, discussions, etc. Transparency was a threat for their sense of safety, thus the resistance.

Without understanding a deeper context though one would wonder what the heck was happening and why a method wouldn’t yield similar results as in another environment.


The part that goes even deeper are values. When talking about values there’s one thing that typically comes to mind, which is all sorts of visions and mission statements, etc. This is where we will find values a company cares about. To be more precise: what an organization claims to care about.

The problem with these is that very commonly there is a huge authenticity gap between the pretense and everyday behaviors of leaders and people in an organization.

One value that would be mentioned pretty much universally is quality. Every single organization cares about high quality, right? Well, so they say, at least.

A good question is what values are expressed by everyday behaviors. If a developer hears that there’s no time to write unit tests and they’re supposed to build ore features or no one really cares whether a build is green or red, what does that tell you about real values of a company?

In fact, the pretense almost doesn’t matter at all. It plays its role only to build up frustration of people who see inauthenticity of the message. The values that matter would be those illustrated by behaviors. In many cases we would realize that it would mean utilization optimization, disrespecting people, lack of transparency, etc.

Again, this is important because we can find values behind practices. If we take Kanban as an example we can use Mike Burrows’ take on Kanban values. Now, an interesting question would be how these values are aligned with values embraced by an organization.

If they are not the impact of introducing the method would either be very limited, or non-existent or even negative. This is true for any method or practice out there.


The bottom line of that is we need to be mindful in applying practices, tools and methods. It goes really far as not only does it mean initial deep understanding of the tools we use but also understanding of our own organization.

This is against “fake it till you make it” attitude that I frequently see. In fact, in a specific context “making it” may not even be possible and without understanding the lower part of the iceberg we won’t be able to figure out what’s going wrong and why our efforts are futile.

Paying attention to principles and values also enables learning. Without that we will simply copy the same tools we already know, no matter how applicable they are in a specific context. This is by the way what many agile coaches do.

Mindful use of practice leads to learning; mindless use of practice leads to cargo cult.

in software business
1 comment

There Is No Shortage of Leaders

There Is No Shortage of Leaders post image

I like the way Jerry Weinberg defines leadership.

Leadership is a process of creating an environment where people become empowered.


I don’t really like the word empowerment as it is frequently used in the context of making people empowered. The way I understand empowerment such thing can’t even be done. You can’t empower me to do something.

What you can do is give me enough positional power and possibly encourage me to do something. I can still cease to do it because of a number of reasons. I may not see value or sense in doing that. It may move me too far outside of my comfort zone. I may be afraid of peer reaction. Finally, potential consequences of failure may drive my decision.

The way I think of empowerment is that it is intrinsic. I can feel empowered to do something. What others can do is they can create conditions that would enable that. It means anything from creating experiments that are safe to fail to shaping the environment so it supports and not discourages me to act.

Only such way of interpreting empowerment makes Jerry Weinberg’s definition of leadership reasonable.


What Jerry Weinberg talks about is a process. That’s unusual as typically when we think about leadership we think about individual context. How to become a leader or how to become a better leader.

What “a process of creating an environment” communicates is that a discussion about leadership should happen in a different context. Instead of wondering how to help an individual to become a better leader we should discuss how to build an environment, or a system if you will, that supports emergence of new leaders and further development of existing ones.

This inevitably brings to a context of system thinking.

If we consider an organization a system there are many of its properties that influence whether, how and when people can lead.

One of the most obvious ones would be a formal hierarchy. How rigid it is and how many levels it is built of. A hierarchy is important as it often linearly translates to power distribution. Most often it would be managers who make most decisions and influence environment around in extent.

Then we have all the rules that people are supposed to follow. What is allowed and what is not. What stuff I have to comply to before I can do things I want. And most importantly whether everything is allowed unless rules state otherwise or the opposite: nothing is allowed unless rules state otherwise.

Thinking of an organization as of a system from a perspective of enabling leadership is important because the system defines constraints. Normally, one can’t go beyond these constraints without risking dire consequences.

In other words structures and rules define how much potentially is possible in terms of catalyzing leadership. It doesn’t automatically mean that fairly flat hierarchy and few rules is enough to see emergence of leadership throughout a company.


The bit that enables fulfilling potential created by rules and structures is organizational culture. We define organizational culture as a sum of behaviors of people being part of an organization. It’s not only abut behaviors though. It’s also about what drives them: values, principles, norms, beliefs, etc.

Organizational culture constitutes what is an environment we work in. This is what steers how far we would go within existing structures and rules. In fact, it may even let us break the rules. It may be perfectly acceptable to for an organization to go against the existing constraints as long as it means doing the right things and is aligned with organization’s values and principles.

What’s more, for companies that aim for good leadership distribution across the board will likely encourage such behaviors as it is a crucial condition for evolving the system and the culture.

The hard part about organization culture is that we can’t mandate its change the same way as we can mandate for example rules change. We can’t do it as the culture is a derivative of behaviors of many people.

What’s more we can’t mandate the change of behaviors in a sustainable manner either. We can introduce a policeman who would make sure people behave the way we want them to, but the moment the policeman is gone people would retreat back to the old status quo.

So what can we do with the culture? We can work on constraints. This is in fact aligned with a system thinking view of an organization.

A Process of Creating an Environment

The bottom line of this is that most of the time when I hear complaints about not enough good leaders it is because environment is designed in a way that doesn’t let them emerge, let alone thrive.

A litmus test that I use to quickly asses what climate there is for potential leaders would be bringing up famous Grace Hopper’s words:

It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.

The question to ask is how much of that attitude is present in an organization. An interesting observation is that the more people exercise that attitude the less they actually need to ask forgiveness.

The core of it though is empowerment. On one hand it translates to taking the rules into account and then doing the right thing even it means going beyond the rules occasionally. On the other it means that an organization accepts and supports such behaviors. It requires involvement of both parties.

It requires continuous effort to adjust rules and structures and evolve an organizational culture to reach such stage. It requires a lot of discipline across management on all levels not to break such attitude once it is present as it is fragile.

That’s why it’s a process and not a thing. Good news is that the better you do that the more leaders would get involved and the more self-sustaining the process will become.

At the end of the day, there’s no shortage of leaders, only a shortage of companies that let leadership emerge.

in team management

Scaling Up Is Not the Only Option

Scaling Up Is Not the Only Option post image

There is one thing that seems to be present in pretty much every company strategy these days. Given the opportunity, they want to grow. Obviously not every organization is successful at that but scaling up is treated as a default option and a universally desired goal.

In fact, it is sometimes assumed so obvious that it doesn’t even gets discussed. One example was a recent discussion on preserving culture (see comments too). The post that initiated the whole thing seems to assume that the growth is a fixed part of the equation.

An interesting thing happens when I mention scaling up strategy that we have at Lunar Logic, which is: don’t. All those blank stares and questions like “why would you pass an opportunity to grow?” Interestingly enough ceasing to grow means that we have to pass on some potential projects. This makes the whole discussion even more interesting.

An issue we forget is that scaling up doesn’t come for free and the biggest cost of growth is how it affects organizational culture. Given that the current culture is something one values, preserving the important parts of it during growth is extremely difficult. If we are talking about rapid growth it’s basically impossible.

If you happen to be in a place where the culture is a cornerstone of your success, which is exactly our case at Lunar, you may want to rethink whether scaling up is an obvious, or even desired, choice.

Nevertheless a story I keep hearing over and over again about different organizations is “we’ve been doing so great so far that we decided that we want to grow by 100% in a year.” The trick is that when they succeed they will likely be a very different organization. Different values will be shared across the group. Different behaviors will be treated as a norm. Different way of work will be considered a standard. It will be a different culture altogether.

It is likely that the very things that made them successful in the first place will be gone by then lost in rush to get bigger.

Obviously there’s only that many things one can do with couple dozen people but then decision about growth is typically made without considering all side effects.

And by the way, while I keep focusing on culture, as it is most vulnerable, there’s much more than that. One of the catchy themes these days is scaling Agile. Obviously part of the story is rolling out Agile in the context of big organizations. Another part though is maintaining all the value that we get thanks to using agile approach once we grow. While this is doable it adds to complexity of all the processes and the whole system.

It’s not without a reason that smallest organizations tend to be the most efficient and as they grow they tend to spend more and more effort trying to comply with their internal and artificial processes.

So why not dodge the bullet and keep an organization small? While I don’t say it has to be a default option it’s definitely an option to consider.

It changes the whole equation as suddenly you are incentivized to say no. No, we won’t take this project as we are fully booked. No, we won’t jump on that candidate even though she seems to be pretty good. Suddenly, we have higher standards for work we do and people we hire.

The focus is not on “more and more” but on “better and better.” Wouldn’t that be a nice option to consider?

in software business

Kanban: The Culture Challenge

Kanban: The Culture Challenge post image

My focus for past months drifted a bit away from the core of Kanban. I either focused on more enterprisey applications of Kanban in the context of portfolio management or on what’s blood of every company, which is organizational culture. Every year though I use Kanban Leadership Retreat as a perfect occasion to reset my focus a bit. It wasn’t different this year.

Those of you familiar with the method please forgive some of the basics in the post.

The classic definition of Kanban Method is as follows.


  • Start with what you do now
  • Agree to pursue incremental, evolutionary change
  • Initially, respect current roles, responsibilities and job titles
  • Encourage acts of leadership at all levels


  • Visualize
  • Limit Work in Progress
  • Manage flow
  • Make policies explicit
  • Implement feedback loops
  • Improve collaboratively, evolve experimentally

A side note: a super-common observation is that teams would understand and know the practices but would be almost completely ignorant of the principles. This is a pattern that leads to very shallow implementations that don’t yield sustainable improvements and typically stop at just better work management.

Another perspective we may use to define Kanban is through its values. The approach was proposed by Mike Burrows. What Mike achieved was translating the original principles and practices to more generic values.

The end result is a following list.

Kanban Values

  • Understanding
  • Agreement
  • Respect
  • Leadership
  • Flow
  • Customer Focus
  • Transparency
  • Balance
  • Collaboration

Since the values originated in the principles and practices there’s also an interesting exercise you can do to map one to the other.

The important part of this perspective of looking at Kanban is that it describes what values should be embraced by an organization so that Kanban implementation will have deep and lasting impact. In other words if an organization doesn’t embrace for example transparency or respect I would expect resistance during the implementation, rather ephemeral improvements and very limited sustainability.

Now, let me share yet another perspective of describing Kanban, which is Kanban agendas. Just to tease you there are three agendas: sustainability, service orientation and survivability. One nice thing is that the agendas nicely fit the values. Each of the agendas covers a few values.


  • Transparency
  • Balance
  • Collaboration

Service orientation

  • Customer focus
  • Flow
  • Leadership


  • Understanding
  • Agreement
  • Respect

Now we have a frame for further discussion (and some of Kanban 101 in a pill too).

Why I would bring this up, you may ask. One session that I attended at Kanban Leadership Retreat was about reintroducing an idea of maturity of Kanban implementations in the context of values. The workshop and the exercise we run there is a topic for another story. The important bit in this context is that Mike, who unsurprisingly run the session, decided to put Understanding, Agreement and Respect aside for the purpose of the exercise.

We may look at it from at least a couple angles. We may say that Understanding, Agreement and Respect, since they all were derived from principles and not practices are much more difficult to assess than the rest.

We may point that they are some sort of prerequisites for starting with the whole rest and thus we base on an assumption that these values are already in place.

Both of these points of view are, in fact, valid. I see a big problem here though.

First, this is a bit like saying that Understanding, Agreement and Respect are second-class citizens in this picture. The whole focus goes to the other six values. Now, let me remind one thing. The second-class values are derived from principles not practices. In other words it means petrifying the situation we have, where we discuss practices all the time and principles are relatively ignored.

Second, Understanding, Agreement and Respect all belong to survivability agenda, which puts that very agenda at risk. What does it mean?

If we get service orientation right this translates to doing things right and doing the right thing (at least as far as Kanban covers that part). If we get sustainability right it means that the evolutionary change is feasible. The problem is that without survivability it simply won’t last. We’ll see a pattern that is pretty common across Agile and Lean adoptions. Promising results and early success that is followed by systematic reversal of the change.

Third, there’s one of my recent pet peeves, which is organizational culture. Obviously the culture relates to all the values by definition. However, Understanding, Agreement and Respect summarize the most common missing bits of culture. Also, these bits are least related to specific solutions we have in our toolboxes which means it is much more difficult to influence the change in these areas than it is in the rest.

Finally, the assumption that we have Understanding, Agreement and Respect in place before we start with Kanban is simply not true in my experience. We wish it was, but that’s not what I see. Sorry. It is a common case with pretty much any method that reaches a specific level of maturity by the way.

It all boils down to the challenge I teased in the title of the post. The challenge is to think about methods that aim to change or improve how we work from a perspective of organizational culture. A starting point would be answering a few questions.

  • Do we understand the existing culture of an organization?
  • Is the existing organizational culture well-suited to support the change we want to introduce?
  • Which elements (behaviors, values, beliefs) of the culture are missing?
  • How can we influence the culture so that it evolves toward the expected state?

Before we can answer these questions in a meaningful way introducing a major change is simply gambling. And the odds are against us. Bad news is that in majority of cases the answer for the very first question would be negative and the further we get the sadder the answers would be.

A good thing is that, at least as long as it comes to Kanban, we advance our thinking toward better understanding of what it takes to make the change survive. It should help to shift the perception of Kanban from a simple, light-weight tool that can help you with organizing work in one’s team toward deep and sophisticated model that requires understanding of quite a lot of related concepts.

A word of warning: don’t expect the end results of the latter if you treat Kanban as a former.

in kanban

Portfolio Management: Stop Starting, Start Finishing

Portfolio Management: Stop Starting, Start Finishing post image

Whenever I end up discussing project portfolios with people representing or knowing specific organizations out of curiosity I ask a couple of questions. How many projects? How many people running those projects?

Note, most of the time I don’t ask these questions in the context of completely random organizations. The most common case would be asking people who are a part of Agile and Lean community. People who understand the concept of limiting work in progress and its implications.

Disturbing news is that, even among the most mindful people, the answers I would get are pretty much shocking.

Kanban Leadership Retreat is an occasion to meet people advancing thinking for a community that painted limiting work in progress prominently on their banners. One would expect that these people, if not anyone else, would be ahead of the rest of the crowd in addressing the issue of too many concurrent projects.

Well, maybe we are. At the same time the ratio of a number of projects run by an organization to a number of people who work on those projects reported at the last Kanban Leadership Retreat in Cascais is terrifying.

1.0, 2.1, 4.5 and 6.0. Let me rephrase what this number is. This is how many projects per person an organization runs on average. In fact, it does mean that some people are in a situation that is much worse than that.

I didn’t gather that data in any consistent manner. I just asked my question any time the context would pop up in a discussion. It isn’t by any means proper research. It shows, however, a very interesting trend. The best result is a project per person, and we are talking here about an organization with a hundred engineers in this case. Few of those projects, if any, require attention of a single person only.

From that point though we go downhill. I can’t imagine any situation where a single person runs concurrently a few projects and they are at least a tiny bit effective. This means heavy multitasking for those initiatives that get any progress and lots of others where progress is nil. Effectively, they are parked even if management believes that they are active.

Let me repeat. It wasn’t reported by a random community. It is the community that calls their user group meetings Limited WIP Society. Not Visualization Society or Flow Society. Limited WIP Society. We do care. We do pay attention. Yet still, we do suck at that. Big time.

Larry Maccherone in his talk at Lean Kanban North America reported that teams that work on a single project are significantly better in terms of defect density. We can use that as a proxy for quality of work. It’s not anecdotal evidence. Larry bases his research on raw data from almost ten thousand agile teams.

By the way, Larry also reported that team size of 5-9 people is by far the most popular one. In other words, ideally, we should be looking as projects to people ratio of 0.2 and below. Of course it is contextual and shouldn’t be treated as the true north. In organizations that typically run tiny projects that require attention of 2-3 people such ratio may be unachievable. At the same time we do have companies that typically run huge initiatives that involve dozens of people.

In either case anything above 1 is obviously crazy. In fact 1 is crazy already.

We can’t make this possibly work.

The easiest way out is obviously reviewing the portfolio and putting on hold or abandoning a big chunk of ongoing initiatives. This would mean that the active remainder would get more, hopefully enough, attention so that these projects can be completed in reasonable time.

Sad truth is that I know such an expectation is unrealistic.

If we understand that potential projects are options that we can execute and once we decide to start them it means commitment we should also understand the consequences. Commitment means that there’s a price to be paid for abandoning an initiative. What’s more that cost isn’t easy to assess. How much would reputation of a company suffer for letting a client down? How much bad word of mouth would be triggered?

Another way is to go with the theme of Lean Kanban Central Europe conferences: stop starting, start finishing.

In other words make it hard to start new stuff. Discuss the cost and risks attached to adding one more thing to your plate. I don’t expect an explicit WIP limit. On portfolio level it is rarely a feasible option anyway. The strategy that you can use is WIP limits by conversation.

There’s not much guidance needed to shift these conversations to a broader context that is frequently ignored. It’s not only how much a new project would cost and how much we are going to get in revenues. It is also about available capabilities: can we staff a project appropriately for its whole lifecycle? What is the cost of delaying the project? What risks are we going to introduce by starting a new initiative both to that initiative and to all ongoing ones? And what is ultimately value of completing the project?

The value question goes way beyond simple financial outcome. In fact, it is a very deep discussion as one needs to understand the goals of an organization. Otherwise discussion about value is pretty much irrelevant. Also discussion about value doesn’t happen in isolation. Remember how hard it was to let down current clients breaking our commitments to them? Well, that’s clearly negative value for the company. If that’s the cost you pay you better have a damn good reason to do so.

I do admit that WIP limits by conversation is a concept that seems vague and fuzzy. However, given that people understand what is effect of too much of work in progress I find it a surprisingly powerful tool. It simply shift the focus of a discussion and thus influences how decision making process looks like. It is like a facilitation tool that helps us to use knowledge that we already have.

Then we stop starting and start finishing.

If we do that in a continuous manner we evolve toward more effective way of working. Not only does it mean fewer emergencies or better reliability but also choosing the right initiatives to run. It would be a nice situation to be in, wouldn’t it?

in kanban, project management

Recipes Are (Almost) Useless

Recipes Are (Almost) Useless post image

One of the least useful pieces of advice you may ever get on management would go along the lines: “we’ve done such and such and it worked freaking miracles for us, thus you should do the same.” In fact, all the ‘shoulds’ and ‘musts’ are sort of a warning signal for me, whenever I learn about someone doing something right.

This is by the way something that is surprisingly prevalent in many management books. A story of someone wildly successful who shares how they believe they achieved it. While I do appreciate a story and all the insider’s insight that help to understand a little bit more it is only a story.

Was it backed up by credible research? Was it successfully adapted in a number of other organizations? What might be critical assumptions that we base on and how would the story be different in another context?

It’s not that I would call each of these stories bullshit. Pretty much the opposite. I often find that many of the ideas shared are aligned with my experience. The issue is that on occasions I can track down some of the underlying prerequisites that aren’t even mentioned in the source. Does it mean lack of good will? I don’t think so. I’d rather go with fairly shallow knowledge.

Unfortunately this has a lot to do with what we, as consumers of books, articles or conference presentations, expect. It is oh so common when the basic expectation is to get a recipe. Tell me how to build my startup. Tell me how to fix my effectiveness problem. Tell me how to grow an awesome team. Tell me how to change my organizational culture. Tell me how to scale up a method we are using.

Yes, recipes sell well. They are sometimes dubbed “actionable content” as an opposition to theories that are non-actionable. That is unless someone undertakes effort to understand them and adjust to their own context.

Over years I’ve been enthusiastic about some methods and practices I discovered. I’ve been skeptical about many more. I’ve changed my mind about quite a bunch of them too. An interesting realization is that the further from a plain recipe a method is the more I tend to consider it useful in the long run. I guess one of the reasons for me to stick with Kanban for all these years is that I quickly realized how adaptive the method is and how much liberty I could take using it.

This is also a reason why I never become a fanboy of Scrum. While obviously there’s much value in specific practices it offers in specific contexts I got discouraged by early “do it by the book or you aren’t doing Scrum” attitude promoted by the community.

I digress though. The point I want to make is pretty simple.

Recipes are useless.

OK, OK. Almost useless.

It doesn’t really matter whether we discuss a project management techniques, software development practices or general management methods.

It’s not without a reason that pretty much any approach, once it becomes popular, ends up being not nearly as useful as it was reported in early success stories. There are just too many possible contexts to have any universally sound solution.

What’s more, during its early days, a method is typically handled by people who invest much time to understanding how and why it works. After all, there are no success stories yet, or very few of them, so a sane person handles such a thing cautiously. Then, eventually it goes downhill. Some would treat a method as universal cure for all the pains of any organization, others would sense a good certification business opportunity and suddenly any understanding of ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ is gone.

One thing is what I believe in and how I approach the tools I adopt to my toolbox. Another one is that I frequently get asked about an advice. I guess this is inevitable when you do at least a bit of coaching and training. Anyway, in every such situation the challenge is to dodge a bullet and avoid giving a recipe as an answer. This by the way means that if I am answering your question with ‘shoulds’ and ‘musts’ you should kick me in the butt and ignore the answer altogether.

A much better answer would be sharing a handful of alternatives along with all the assumptions I know that made them work in the first place. Additional points are for supporting that with relevant research or models.

In either case the goal should be the ultimate understanding why this or that thing would work in a specific context.

Without that a success story is just that – a story.

Don’t get me wrong. I like stories. We are storytellers after all. It’s just that a story itself bears only that much value.

The next time you hear a story, treat it for what it is. The next time someone offers you a recipe, treat it for what it is.

in software business

Evolutionary Change of Portfolio Management

Evolutionary Change of Portfolio Management post image

There’s a fundamental flaw in how we manage project portfolios. What typically happens is we focus on estimated cost of work and expected profit. After all these are parameters that decide whether a project is successful or not.

Estimated Cost and Expected Profit

There’s whole ongoing discussion on how to estimate, when estimates give us value and whether we should estimate at all. A bottom line is that getting estimates right is extremely hard.

A problem is that, even if we got our estimate right, the scope of a project will change anyway thus it will affect the original estimate. Few companies would bother to change the estimates but even for these few there already are some numbers in contracts and budgets that won’t change anyway.

It seems that one of the critical numbers we use to make decisions about our portfolios is vague.

By the way if we are in the context of fixed price contracts it automatically means that the other number—expected profit—has changed as well.

It’s not a rare case to see these values changing drastically. I can come up with examples from my experience when, because of misestimate or increasing costs instead of margin of 30-60% the project ended up costing a few times more than the revenue a company got for doing it. Not only wasn’t it even close to breakeven but the company paid a huge toll in terms of both direct costs and lost opportunities.

A partial solution to that is transiting to time and material contracts where the revenue is a derivative of effort invested in building a project. While that definitely helps to avoid direct loses it doesn’t really fix the variables. The time span of a project can be changed thus the absolute numbers will be altered.

What You See Is All There Is

Even if we potentially could get our number right it wouldn’t really help. A root cause for that is a concept described by Dan Kahneman: What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI). Human brain doesn’t look for data points other than those readily available. In other words if we define existing and potential projects from a perspective of estimated cost and expected profit these will be the main, or even the only, inputs for decisions on starting new projects.

This has very sad consequences. In neither case we assume that in normal circumstances we will be working on unprofitable ventures. If we are in the world of fixed price contracts the final price will directly depend on an initial estimate.

We’ve already discovered one painful dependency between an estimate and a profit. While costs are changing the contract terms remain the same affecting profits. It is even worse than that. The price was calculated based on the same estimate most likely by multiplying it be a factor of expected margin. Unfortunately humans are crappy at estimation.

And don’t even get me started about all those dysfunctional situations when there’s a pressure to reduce an estimate because a client has a limited budget or something.

In either case, a picture of all the potential projects will be rosy. We won’t allow it to be different than that. We will tweak the numbers back and forth until they fit the rosiness of the picture.

The ultimate issue of this is that, because WYSIATI kicks in, our decisions about starting new projects will be overly optimistic and heavily biased toward perceived attractiveness of our endeavors. A simple fact that it has very little to do with the real outcomes of projects or our appalling track record with assessing attractiveness doesn’t change it. What you see is all there is.

Overcommitment and Multitasking

The end result of this bias is easy to predict. Since all things seem to be overly attractive we tend to start too many projects. Eventually, and pretty soon, we are overcommitted beyond the point where we can comfortably finish everything before agreed deadlines.

Even in the cases when a flash of sanity keeps us from jumping off the cliff and stop one step before there’s usually not nearly enough slack in the system to account for any emergency that would happen.

Of course there’s no plan whatsoever in case our initial estimate was wrong and we need more effort to finish a project, because we’ve proven to be perfect estimators in the past and never got anything wrong. Oh, wait…

What does happen next? Expediting of course. When heroics within a team is not enough we pull people from other teams just like there was no tomorrow and they weren’t doing meaningful work on other committed projects. Anyone wants to guess what happens in the projects that we cannibalized to save the other one?

More of the same vicious cycle.

Not only such work is ultimately inefficient but it also hits sustainability of the business as it damages relationships with clients.

Informed Decisions

To reverse that cycle we need to go to the first place, the point of commitment, and change the drivers that influence our decisions. Bearing WYSIATI in mind, what we need is access to meaningful bits of information.

We need to know how our current commitments affect our capabilities over time. In other words we want to know which teams are working on which projects. Not only now but also in reasonable future. What reasonable future means will of course vary depending on a context.

How would a new project fit available capabilities? Do we have people with the right skills and knowledge available? When are they available? How much slack do we need to be able to respond to uncertainty in existing endeavors?

We need to know, at least roughly, what is Cost of Delay for new projects. Is it possible to delay start of this project for a month? How about longer? What kind of costs, or lost future gains will it incur?

What is value of a new endeavor? Is it money that earn only? How about long-term relationships with a client or bringing more financial safety thanks to a steady flow of work?

By the way, when we are talking about value, it is crucial to remember that value for our organization doesn’t equal value for a client. Of course, the more aligned these two are the better, but it’s almost never an ideal fit.

What are the risks attached to a project? How sure can we be about all the assumptions we make?

These are all crucial factors that we should be taking into consideration when making a decisions about starting any new project. If we don’t have them at hand, as a result of WYSIATI, they will be ignored and we’ll be back to our rosy, overly optimistic and utterly harmful view of portfolio.

Bad news is that to do better we need pretty broad understanding of the mechanisms that drive us sideways. Good news is that once we know that the change isn’t that painful. Focusing on different kind of data will alter decision making process on a portfolio level.

in project management

A Fool With a Tool Is Still a Fool

A Fool With a Tool Is Still a Fool post image

When I first discovered how Kanban in general, and Work In Progress limits specifically, worked as a catalyst for deep systemic improvements it was like an epiphany. Kanban, which at the beginning seemed like a neat and light-weight process management tool, proved to be far more than that. Not only was it helping to clean up the mess short term but also steered sustainable changes in the long run.

When Tools Fail

These were my early days with Kanban. Since then I’ve seen a lot of teams applying Kanban in all sort of ways. A thing that surprised me was that, even among the teams that achieved a certain level of maturity of the adoption, the results were mixed at best.

Some of these teams are doing great and the early results I’ve seen no longer stand as exceptional. Most of them though weren’t even close. Clearly the magic of WIP limits that induce slack time, which in turn results in a steady stream of sustainable improvements, is neither obvious nor granted. There has to be something else.

No curious person, and I tend to consider myself one, would pass on this observation without a second thought. No reasonable person, and I tend to consider myself one, would keep sharing the success stories ignoring all the counterexamples.

Of course, one obvious reaction would be that the teams that failed to achieve exceptional results got it wrong. In fact, if you want to look for such attitudes among our thought-leaders it is pretty common. The method works, only those unskilled folks mishandled it, they’d say. No wonder these teams still crawl in the misery, they’d add. Actually, they sort of deserved it by not doing the thing the way we preached, the thought-leaders would sum up.

Fortunately I’m not a consultant or an owner of a business that depends on popularity of a specific approach. I consciously chose to stay in practitioners’ camp. This leaves me with no neat and simple (and wrong) answer to the puzzle.

A nice thing is that, given enough experience, we will stumble upon such puzzles on and on. Gemba walk which seems to be mentioned in every other important management book from The Goal to Lean Startup was another such realization for me. Failed stories of applying Kaizen boards and holding Kaizen evens was one more. Organizations struggling with Improvement Katas is probably the most recent one but the list goes on.

Cargo Cult

A cargo cult is, in short, defined as mechanically following practices or rituals without understanding why they worked in the first place and expecting the same results as achieved originally. In case you wondered it doesn’t really do miracles. In fact, the only known successes are creating prophets of cargo cults.

A common observation, and a sad one, is that our efforts with applying different methods are surprisingly close to that definition. Even worse, such attitude is often encouraged. By the book applications of any tool means spreading the disease. It is like saying that we need to trust an enlightened prophet who guarantees two-, three- or fourfold productivity increase as long as we do exactly as they say.

Don’t get me wrong the other end of spectrum, which is NIH syndrome, is equally bad. If NIH syndrome was a good guidance it would mean that entire management knowledge is useless because no one in the world was exactly in the context such as ours.

In either case the missing bit is understanding the underlying principles behind the tools. One exercise I typically start my Kanban training with is asking a group about practices and principles. While they always know a few practices, sometimes most or even all of them, almost no one remembers any of the principles.

By the way, the same thing is true when it comes to Agile Manifesto. Everyone knows “this over that” part but most of the time that’s pretty much it. It seems like we haven’t understood what we read. Alternatively, we never read that thing at all but heard about it somewhere where they used only the marketing part of the manifesto on a slide.

It is kind of like knowing how but having no clue whatsoever why we’re doing something. And then we wonder why we fail so frequently.


I know that belief in universal solutions has certain appeal. It doesn’t require us do to the hard work of trying to understand what is happening around. I don’t think there’s a shortcut here though. I mean one can get lucky, as I did during my early adventures with Kanban, but this experience can’t be easily translated to different contexts.

Now, certain techniques give us a promise of help in facilitating the understanding how we work. Visualization and Gemba walks come as obvious examples. However, before we rush to apply them we may want to ask ourselves a question do we understand how and why these techniques work. Seriously. Even something seemingly so straightforward as visualization may be a waste unless a team understands that one of its biggest powers is reflecting current condition and current process and not projecting an expected state, or that too much burden on keeping it up to date will render it irrelevant, or that that too many objects on a board makes it incomprehensible and, as such, pretty much useless.

I think the most common practice across all agile teams I know, no matter which method, if any, they follow, is a daily standup meeting. I believe I can safely assume that vast majority of agile teams have their daily standups. Now, how many of them asked themselves why they are doing that? Why are standups a part of a canon of Agile and Lean? Why were they introduced in the first place? And why, the hell, are they so prevalent?

It doesn’t seem to bug many people. That’s interesting because they may be just following a cargo cult and maybe they could have been doing something much more useful in their context.

Take pretty much any popular practice, technique or method. The same story again. We don’t understand why the tools we use work and simply blindly apply them. Doesn’t that fulfill a definition of a cargo cult?

By the way, I think that one of significant contributors to the situation we have here is pretty common perception that Shu-Ha-Ri model universally applies in our context. A basic assumption that when being on Shu (apprentice) level we should do as a master say because we are incapable of understanding what we are learning doesn’t seem to be an extremely optimistic view of our teams.

Call me lucky but most the time I worked with teams that are perfectly capable of better understanding how the work gets done and how specific tools contribute in that. The missing bit was either knowledge itself or curiosity to get that knowledge.

A side note: the higher up we go through hierarchy the less of that curiosity I see, but that’s a bit different story. Most of time talking about tools we are in the context of teams, not VPs and execs.

A Fool With a Tool is Still a Fool

Any time a discussion goes toward tools, any tools really, it’s a good idea to challenge the understanding of a tool itself and principles behind its successes. Without that shared success stories bear little value in other contexts, thus end result of applying the same tools will frequently result in yet another case of a cargo cult. While it may be good for training and consulting businesses (aka prophets) it won’t help to improve our organizations.

A fool with a tool will remain a fool, only more dangerous since now they’re armed.

Not to mention that I don’t think orthodoxy is anyhow helpful in this discussion.

By the way: as much as I didn’t want to engage the recent TDD versus anti-TDD discussion you may treat it as my take on it.

in kanban, software business

Hyperproductivity Myth

Hyperproductivity Myth post image

If you are in broadly understood context of Agile you eventually has had to hear about being hyperproductive. Sources reporting a few hundred, or even as much as more than a thousand, percent productivity improvement aren’t unusual. In fact, 200% improvement seems to be “guaranteed” by some.

That’s great! Good for them! They’re going to get hyperproductivity badge or something. Yay!

What Hyperproductivity Is

Let’s start with the basics though. What is this whole thing? When a team becomes hyperproductive? How much do they have to improve? Oh, and by the way, if a super-crappy team improves three times and guys that were already great only by 20% would that mean that hyperproductivity was reached by the former, the latter, or both?

The most common metric I hear about in the context of hyperproductivity is velocity. Actually, I consider using velocity to measure productivity evil or dumb. How much should my team improve? By the factor of three? Nothing easier. Oh, and by the way, we don’t use our estimation poker card worth 1 that often anymore.

Note: I don’t deny teams improve. I merely point that stating so purely on a basis of velocity improvement is naive at best. There are so many potential dysfunctions of such approach that I don’t even know where to start. How the scope of work is split into individual tasks? What is a distribution of point estimates? How has it changed over time? What do we understand as a task in the first place? How do we account for rework?

In other words without understanding a specific context mentioning hyperproductivity is meaningless. Just a marketing fad, which it might have been in the first place.

Efficiency As a Goal

Even if we agreed on a reasonable proxy for measuring productivity there’s a bigger problem ahead. We are not in a business of writing most code, delivering most features or achieving best velocity. If you think you are, go talk to your clients, but this time try to actually listen to them.

If you spend about 5 minutes looking for sources pointing how notorious software industry is in not building the right stuff you may change your mind. Is a half of the stuff we build utterly useless? How about two third? Oh, and by the way the rise of the methods that are literally aimed to avoid building things unless we know we’re going to need them tells a story as well.

So yeah, focus purely on productivity and you’re going to achieve your goal:

Processing waste more effectively is cheaper, neater, faster waste.

Stephen Parry

The most painful problem of software industry is not efficiency. If it was, we’d already be in haven, given how much easier it is to build a software app these days than it was a couple decades ago. The problem is we are building wrong stuff.

We may as well be efficient, but unless we are effective in the first place, i.e. doing the right thing, there’s no glory waiting for us.

How We Create Value

This brings me to the utter failure of pursuing hyperproductivity. Let’s (safely) assume that our goal is to deliver value to our clients. We do that by building stuff. Except the value almost never is clearly defined. In almost every case software development is a knowledge discovery process.

This has some serious consequences. If we go by this assumption we may take all the functional specifications with a tongue in a cheek. It’s just a sketch of a map and most of the time not even an accurate sketch. This also means that amount of artifacts, like code, features, etc., we produce is not nearly as important as figuring out where exactly the value is, which bits and pieces we should build and which should be ignored.

This happens when we discuss the features, look for solutions, research options, prototype, A/B test, change stuff back and forth to see what works. This happens when we don’t score on velocity or any other productivity metric.

But wait, to become hyperproductive we should rather avoid that…

That’s exactly why I don’t give a damn about hyperproductivity.

I use to say software development is a happiness industry. We thrive only as long as our clients are continuously happy. We don’t make them happy by delivering more stuff. We make them happy by delivering stuff that has value for them and their customers.

in software business