Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Category: software development

  • Value for Money

    There’s one observation that I pretty much always bring to the table when I discuss the rates for our work at Lunar Logic. The following is true whenever we are buying anything, but when it comes to buying services the effect is magnified. A discussion about the price in isolation is a wrong discussion to have.

    What we should be discussing instead is value for money. How much value I get for what I pay. In a product development context, the discussion is interesting because value is not provided simply by adding more features. If it was true, if the following dynamics worked—the more features the better the product—we could distill the discussion down to efficient development.

    For anyone with just a little bit of experience in product development such an approach would sound utterly dumb.

    Customers who will use a product don’t want to have more features or more lines of code but they want their problem to be solved. The ultimate value is in understanding the problem and providing solutions that effectively address it.

    Less is more mantra has been heard for years. But it’s not necessarily about minimalism, but more about understanding the business hypothesis, the context, the customer and the problem and proposing a solution that works. Sometimes it will be “less is more”. Sometimes the outcome will be quite stuffed. Almost always the best solution will be different that the one envisioned at the beginning.

    I sometimes use a very simple, and not completely made up, example. Let’s assume you talk to a team that is twice as expensive as your reference team. They will, however, guide you through the product development process, so that they’ll end up building only one third of the initial scope. It will be enough to validate, or more likely invalidate, your initial business hypothesis. Which team is ultimately cheaper?

    They first team is not cheaper if you take into account the cost of developing an average feature. Feature development is, however, neither the only nor the most important outcome they produce. Looking from that perspective the whole equation looks very differently, doesn’t it?

    This is a way of showing that in every deal we trade different currencies. Most typically, but not necessarily so, one of these currencies is money. We already touched two more: functionality or features and validation of business hypothesis. We could go further: code quality, maintainability, scalability, and so on and so forth.

    Now, it doesn’t mean that all these currencies are equally important. In fact, to stick with the example I already used, rapid validation of business hypothesis can be of little value for a client who just needs to replace an old app with a new one, that is based on the same, proven business model.

    In other words in different situation different currencies will bear different value for a purchasing party.

    The same is true for the other side of the deal. It may cost us differently to provide a client scalable application than to build a high quality code. This would be a function of skills and experience that we have available at the company.

    The analogy goes even further than that. We can pick any currency and look how much each party values that currency. The perception of value will be different. It will be different even if we are talking about the meta currency—money.

    If you are an unfunded startup money is a scarce resource for you. If at the same time we are close to our ideal utilization (which is between 80% and 90%) additional money we’d get may not even be a good compensation for lost options and thus we’d value money much less than you do.

    On the other hand, if your startup just signed round B funding abundance of available money will make you value it much less. And if we just finished two big projects and have nothing queued up and plenty developers are slacking then we value money more than you do.

    This is obviously related to current availability of money and its reserves (put simply: wealth) in a given context. Dan Kahneman described it with a simple experiment. If you have ten thousand dollars and you get a hundred dollars that’s pretty much meh. If you have a hundred dollars and you get a hundred dollars, well, you value that hundred much, much more.

    Those two situations create a very different perception of the offer one party provides to the other. They also define two very different business environments. In one it is highly unlikely that the collaboration would be satisfying for both parties, even if it happens. In the other, odds are that both sides will be happy.

    This observation creates a very interesting dynamics. The most successful deals will be those when each party trades currency that is low-valued for the one that is valued highly.

    In fact, it makes a lot of sense to be patient and look for the deals where there is a good match on this account than to jump on anything that seems remotely attractive.

    Such an attitude requires a lot of organizational self-consciousness on both sides. At Lunar Logic we think of ourselves as of product developers. It’s not about software development or adding features. It’s about finding ways to build products effectively. It requires broader skills set and different attitude. At the same time we expect at least a bit of Lean Thinking on account of our clients. We want to share understanding that “more code” is pretty much never the answer.

    Only then we will be trading the currencies in a way that makes it a good deal for parties.

    And that’s exactly the pattern that I look for whenever I say “value for money.”

  • Minimal Indispensable Feature Set

    Minimal Viable Product (MVP) is such a nice idea. Let’s build something that is as small as possible and at the same time viable, which translates to “provides value and thus make sense to build it.” Two adjectives in a mix where one counterbalances the other and vice versa.

    Since I currently run a web software house I hear the term MVP very frequently. Or to be precise I hear the term MVP being abused very frequently. On some occasion the viable part would be ignored. Much more frequently though the way people understand MVP has virtually nothing to do with the minimal part.

    During the early discussions about products our potential clients want to build I would typically ask about a business case behind a project or an app. It’s not about what it is that someone wants to build. It’s about why it is worth building that thing in the first place.

    Note, I’m not judgmental. We contributed to better or worse ideas but I don’t reserve the right to know what’s worth building and what’s not. In fact, my questions have a very different purpose. What I want to achieve is to learn the value behind the app so that we can have a meaningful discussion about stuff in a backlog.

    Now, this is the part where typically I’d really like to have people read Lean Startup before they are even allowed to talk to any software shop about building their product. And then, read it once again to understand what they are reading in depth.

    The reason is that most of the time I can instantly come up with a batch of work that is one third, one fifth or one tenth of what was labelled an Minimal Viable Product by a potential client and it would still validate a business hypothesis behind a product. It likely means that with a bit of effort and better understanding of the context our clients would be able to cut it down way further than that. It may mean that they’d be even able to validate the basic idea without writing any software at all.

    These so called “MVPs” wouldn’t recognize a real Minimal Viable Product even if it kicked them in the butt.

    A sad part is that most of the time discussion around what really is minimal is futile. While I can provide my insight and encourage to learn more about the topic an argument often boils down to “we really need to build it all because, well, we don’t believe anything short of that would work.”

    The long story short, I believe that MVP is in the top 5 most abused terms in our industry. By now referring to MVP is mostly meaningless unless you ask a series of questions to understand what one means by that. We could have skipped he MVP part, have the same discussion and we’d save a little bit of time.

    That’s why I believe we need another frame for discussing what the initial increment of a product is.

    What I caught myself on a number of times was proposing our clients a different constraint. Let’s step aside from discussing what is minimal and what is viable. Let’s figure out which features will be the part of the product in every single, even most crazy, scenario that we can think of. And I really mean every single one of them.

    What I try to achieve with this discussion is to find the set of features that is a common denominator for all the options of building the product. There’s always something like that. A core process that the app support. A basic idea that the app is built upon. An ultimate issue that the app attempts to solve.

    What I don’t expect is to see the full solution, even the most basic one. It would be an MVP on its own and we’d be back to the square one. What I expect is just a bunch of bits and pieces that are required to eventually build the app.

    It is neither minimal nor viable.

    It is indispensable though.

    There are a couple of reasons to do that. The first one is that it reframes how both parties, the client and us, think of a product. We don’t try to settle on what is viable and what is minimal. We simply go with something that we know will be useful.

    The other one is that it addresses the huge challenge of building a relationship. In fact this part goes really deep. It typically starts with a question how much building something would take. Some sort of an estimate. Well, it’s another thread. I’m not fundamentally against the estimates and see value in understanding generally how much something would take. At the same time I acknowledge that humans are simply not well equipped to estimate as we can’t learn to assess stuff in abstract measures. At the end of the day though, the smaller the batch size of work the smaller the potential risk and the smaller the estimation mistake.

    In other words the smaller the initial batch of work the easier it is to start working.

    It is true from another perspective as well. The most important modifiers of the cost of building a product in a client-vendor scenario isn’t anything related to the product itself. It is the quality of collaboration. It’s about both parties feeling like they’re the part of the same team. It’s about short feedback loops. It’s about working together toward the goal.

    Unless it is about lack of transparency, distrust, and exploiting the other party.

    The tricky part here is that you don’t know where at this spectrum you are until you start working. Building the smallest possible batch of work together pretty much gives you all the knowledge you needed. Seriously, you don’t need more than just few weeks to get a good feeling where collaboration part is going.

    That’s why this the idea of Minimal Indispensable Feature Set is so useful whenever more than a single party is involved in building a product.

    Minimal Indispensable Feature Set is perfectly aligned with building an MVP. In fact it is a subset of an MVP. At the same time it addresses the part of the setup that goes way beyond simply defining of what product is.

    We live in a world where more and more frequently the building part is outsourced to another party. Getting the collaboration right at least as critical as getting the product idea right.

  • Happiness Index as Team Sustainability Metric

    One of the discussions that happened during Don Reinertsen’s product development workshop was the one about absorbing turbulence. Absorbing turbulence is a metaphor for how well a team deals with unplanned variability of the process. These would be situations like arrival of a bigger batch of features to build, or especially complex work items, etc.

    Normally, every team is suitable to absorb some turbulence. Beyond that point this capability will not be sufficient and the situation would quickly escalate. A good example may be that the team would gracefully deal with some additional features but above certain threshold we’ll quickly the situation escalating to a high queue state. This would result in long lead times, long feedback loops and generally decreased responsiveness of a team.

    These all result in lower efficiency too.

    If such a situation persists over longer period of time it can take a heavy toll on people as we are running at risk of burning people out.

    I really like the analogy that Don uses in his work: when a human body is losing blood, interestingly enough, blood pressure doesn’t go down. What our body is designed for is to pump enough blood to the brain so it can operate normally.

    To compensate for losing blood the heart rate keeps going up. It goes up to the point where this mechanism is no longer sufficient and the organism crashes over a very short period of time.

    A similar thing happens when we overload our teams. For some time they deal with the overload just fine introducing their own coping mechanism. They’d likely work overtime, introduce additional multitasking, etc. A problem is that, similarly to the situation when a human body loses blood, there’s a price to be paid for that.

    Eventually people end up burned out and leave an organization. From that perspective a good question would be: what kind of early signals we get so that we can address the problem early.

    One answer would be careful monitoring of work. How much work in progress we have. How our queues in backlog change. This kind of stuff. While obviously that would provide us some signal, that wouldn’t really be a proxy measure if we want to consider people first, not the process first.

    What strikes me is that we at Lunar Logic already use a nice signaling mechanism that would give us an early warning. The mechanism is a happiness chart. Despite the fact that a happiness chart is a super simple, super low-tech tool it works on a few levels.

    On one level we have individuals. When I see a deviation from the norm in the chart of one person it likely means that something’s going wrong. It may be related to the work, it may be related to a personal life. Whatever the case is it does affect the work.

    If the case is individual it will unlikely be related to the whole project.

    Another context is the one of the whole company. If things were going generally wrong I’d expect to see a strong signal across the whole board. “Generally wrong” may mean either mediocre business results, or a cultural problem, or a strong source of frustration, or a bunch of different things.

    In such situation the signal would be broader than just a single project or product team.

    There’s another scenario, which would be a bunch of people recording worse than typical mood and the correlation would be around a common project. Process-related parameters of that project may look OK: a backlog queue wouldn’t grow, throughput would go up, etc. Is there anything wrong then?

    In this case happiness chart would serve as blood pressure – it would be a countermeasure pointing that something is going not exactly OK and if we keep doing that we may end up crashing.

    The rule for our happiness chart is that the color translates to the mood. Green means happy, blue means so-so, and red means not happy. Once the chart for a project team gets more bluish or even reddish that’s a very strong indicator that we are not absorbing turbulence in that team gracefully.

    The interesting part is that a happiness chart would provide such an information no matter whether a root cause is overloading a team with tasks, interpersonal conflicts that affect collaboration or anything else. The alarm would go off in either case. That’s actually perfect as we want to react to dangerous turbulence early in any situation.

    From that perspective the outcome of happiness chart isn’t a leading indicator per se – when the change is triggered it means that there’s already something happening. It isn’t a lagging one either. We can correlate it with other parameters or even check with people to figure out what is happening. We would know that we’re not coping with turbulence well enough much earlier than when we are on the verge of crashing.

    The reason why I think this strategy is so valuable is because it allows to merge the data from two different universes. On one hand we have all the process metrics that tell us how we are doing from efficiency perspective. On the other we get a social metric that tell a lot whether the current state is sustainable.

    It is exactly like a combination of a blood pressure and a heart rate. The former translate to efficient work of our steering center – the brain. The latter tells a little bit how sustainable current conditions are.

  • The Fallacy of the Ideal Team Size

    An argument over the best team size is as active as ever. As long as we are in broadly understood context of agile the starting point usually is 7 plus or minus 2 people, which was widely popularized along with Scrum. This, by the way, leaves pretty wide margin for the optimal team size. You can find more precise answers though.

    It may be 6.

    My rule of thumb is that no work team should have membership in the double digits (and my preferred size is six), since our research has shown that the number of performance problems a team encounters increases exponentially as team size increases.

    J. Richard Hackman

    Or maybe it is 4.6. By the way, does it mean that we need part-timers to chase the ideal? Oh well…

    For the contrast Larry Maccherone reported at Lean Kanban North America 2013 that his quantitative research on data from nearly 10,000 teams showed that there’s no difference in productivity and quality in teams of 5-9 people and those of 10-12 people.

    Yet another argument to the discussion: Anita Woolley’s research shows that collective intelligence, which I find a key ingredient of team effectiveness, raises along with a team size. It flattens out between 10 and 11 people.

    But wait, didn’t Fred Brooks in his classic Mythical Man Month taught us that along with team size growth a number of communication paths grows exponentially? That would mean that for a team size the bigger means the worse.

    This is confusing, isn’t it?

    We are talking about the range between 4 and 12 already. I guess it wouldn’t take much of research to find sources that would broaden that range even more.

    The tricky part, and one that often go unnoticed, is that when discussing the perfect team size we don’t ask the question: perfect for what?

    Each of aforementioned sources focuses on a different angle. Be it performance issues, decision making, quality, productivity, problem solving or communication. Would optimizing any single one of these make a perfect team? I doubt it. Is it possible to optimize all of them at the same time? Well, it seems pretty unlikely. The numbers are just too far one from the other.

    That’s not the fallacy of the perfect team size though. I know I’ve just introduced a complex equation with many variables to solve the ideal size problem. However, knowing our specific context we can use different weights for different parameters and solve the puzzle. Oh yes, it would be super-contextual and probably would be very hard to copy even for another team within the same organization. It doesn’t really matter though as the effort would be futile.

    It doesn’t matter because the whole discussion is flawed unless we understand how our teams operate. While we typically assume that structural or hierarchical borders are what constitute a team it is a huge oversimplification.

    An interesting thing happens when we observe organizations without fixed teams. One example may be Lunar Logic where people are assigned to ephemeral project teams and when a project is finished they move on to a next challenge. Another example may be Valve where someone who has an idea looks for others who are willing to develop the idea with them. These teams are even more unstructured as, at least in theory, people can come and go as they want.

    Now, let’s think for a while how people work in such environments. Do they function only within a team they are currently a part of? To some point. As long as a discussion is related strictly to the matter of a project they likely keep it within a project team. However, given that the borders aren’t that strict it’s much easier to go beyond a team to look for new ideas or solutions when an issue is more general.

    In other words people function in at least two different teams depending on a context. In Lunar, if I have 3 people in a project team this would be one entity they are part of. Another one would be 7 people who sit in the same room. Yet another one would be everyone within a range of a shout which is pretty much everyone in the company (yes, I know it’s easier with a small organization).

    Depending on a specific situation people would organize themselves to optimize a key parameter to accomplish a task. When they are discussing the scope of new batch of work they would go to an empty room to optimize communication and focus. When they are solving issues they would have an open discussion and likely invite people from other projects to improve creativity and collective intelligence. When they want to make sure the quality stays high, they’d look for another pair (or pairs) of eyeballs to look at the code as very small teams seem to have worse quality than bigger ones.

    Now, a big question: what team size we are talking about here actually?

    Well, I told you. Three people. Except, when you look at a broader context, it isn’t much of answer, is it?

    By the way in the context of Lunar Logic whenever I’m talking of teams I like to think of two layers of teams. One is a project team which typically is small. Two or three people per team aren’t a rare situation. Another layer is the company as a whole. In many cases we act as one big team. No hierarchy whatsoever of course helps a lot but that’s a different story. It means that we flexibly operate in 2-25 range in terms of a team size. I bet the ideal size, whatever it might be, is within this range.

    Of course, an unstructured environment makes it easier to break the hierarchical borders. However, even in pretty structured organizations I know I see the same behaviors, except they are not that intensive.

    The fallacy of ideal team size is that there is no such thing as the ideal team size. Instead of organizing people according to some sort of a magic number we should rather think of how to create an environment where people can easily adjust that size by themselves depending on the context.

    Then the whole discussion of what’s the best size will simply be irrelevant.

  • Refactoring: Value or Waste?

    Almost every time I’m talking about measuring how much time we spend on value-adding tasks, a.k.a. value, and non-value-adding stuff, a.k.a. waste, someone brings an example of refactoring. Should it be considered value, as while we refactor we basically improve code, or rather waste, as it’s just cleaning after mess we introduced in code in the first place and the activity itself doesn’t add new value to a customer.

    It seems the question bothers others as well, as this thread comes back in Twitter discussions repeatedly. Some time ago it was launched by Al Shalloway with his quick classification of refactoring:

    The three types of refactoring are: to simplify, to fix, and to extend design.

    By the way, if you want to read a longer version, here’s the full post.

    Obviously, such an invitation to discuss value and waste couldn’t have been ignored. Stephen Parry shared an opinion:

    One is value, and two are waste. Maybe all three are waste? Not sure.

    Not a very strong one, isn’t it? Actually, this is where I’d like to pick it up. Stephen’s conclusion defines the whole problem: “not sure.” For me deciding whether refactoring is or is not value-adding is very contextual. Let me give you a few examples:

    1. You build your code according to TDD and the old pattern: red, green, refactor. Basically refactoring is an inherent part of your code building effort. Can it be waste then?
    2. You change an old part of a bigger system and have little idea what is happening in code there, as it’s not state-of-the-art type of software. You start with refactoring the whole thing so you actually know what you’re doing while changing it. Does it add value to a client?
    3. You make a quick fix to code and, as you go, you refactor all parts you touch to improve them, maybe you even fix something along the way. At the same time you know you could have applied just a quick and dirty fix and the task would be done too. How to account such work?
    4. Your client orders refactoring of a part of a system you work on. Functionality isn’t supposed to be changed at all. It’s just the client suppose the system will be better after all, whatever it means exactly. They pay for it so it must have some value, doesn’t it?

    As you see there are many layers which you may consider. One is when refactoring is done – whether it’s an integral part of development or not. Another is whether it improves anything that can be perceived by a client, e.g. fixing something. Then, we can ask does the client consider it valuable for themselves? And of course the same question can be asked to the guys maintaining software – lower cost of maintenance or fewer future bugs can also be considered valuable, even when the client isn’t really aware of it.

    To make it even more interesting, there’s another advice how to account refactoring. David Anderson points us to Donald Reinertsen:

    Donald Reinertsen would define valuable activity as discovery of new (useful) information.

    From this perspective if I learn new, useful information during refactoring, e.g. how this darn code works, it adds value. The question is: for whom? I mean, I’ll definitely know more about this very system, but does the client gets anything of any value thanks to this?

    If you are with me by this point you already know that there’s no clear answer which helps to decide whether refactoring should be considered value or waste. Does it mean that you shouldn’t try sorting this out in your team? Well, not exactly.

    Something you definitely need if you want to measure value and waste in your team (because you do refactor, don’t you?) is a clear guidance for the team: which kind of refactoring is treated in which way. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether you think that all refactoring is waste, all is value or anything in between; you want the whole team to understand value and waste in the same way. Otherwise don’t even bother with measuring it as your data will be incoherent and useless.

    This guidance is even more important because at the end of the day, as Tobias Mayer advises:

    The person responsible for doing the actual work should decide

    The problem is that sometimes the person responsible for doing the actual work can look at things quite differently than their colleague or the rest of the team. I know people who’d see a lot value in refactoring the whole system, a.k.a. rewriting from scratch, only because they allegedly know better how to write the whole thing.

    The guidance that often helps me to decide is answering the question:

    Could we get it right in the first place? If so then fixing it now is likely waste.

    Actually, a better question might start with “should we…” although the way of thinking is similar. Yes, I know it is very subjective and prone to individual interpretations, yet surprisingly often it helps to sort our different edge cases.

    An example: Oh, our system has performance problems. Is fixing it value or waste? Well, if we knew the expected workload and failed to deliver software handling it, we screwed this one up. We could have done better and we should have done better, thus fixing it will be waste. On the other hand the workload may exceed the initial plans or whatever we agreed with the client, so knowing what we knew back then performance was good. In this case improving it will be value.

    By the way: using such an approach means accounting most of refactoring as waste, because most of the time we could have, and should have, done better. And this is aligned with my thinking about refactoring, value and waste.

    Anyway, as the problem is pretty open-ended, feel invited to join the discussion.

  • Cadences and Iterations

    Often, when I’m working with teams that are familiar with Scrum, they find the concept of cadence new. It is surprising as they are using cadences, except they do it in a specific, fixed way.

    Let’s start from what most Scrum teams do, or should do. They build their products in sprints or iterations. At the beginning of each sprint they have planning session: they groom backlog, choose stories that will be built in the iteration, estimate them etc. In short, they replenish their to do queue.

    When the sprint ends the team deploys and demos their product to the client or a stakeholder who is acting client. Whoever is a target for team’s product knows that they can expect a new version after each timebox. This way there is a regular frequency of releases.

    Finally, at the very end of the iteration the team runs retrospective to discuss issues and improve. They summarize what happened during the sprint and set goals to another. Again, there is a rhythm of retrospectives.

    Then, the next sprint starts with a planning session and the whole cycle starts again.

    It looks like this.

    All practices – planning, release and retros – have exactly the same rhythm set by the length of timebox. A cadence is exactly this rhythm.

    However, you can think of each of practices separately. Some of us got used to the fact that frequency of planning, releases and retrospectives is exactly the same, but when you think about this it is just an artificial thing introduced by Scrum.

    Would it be possible to plan every second iteration? Well, yes, why not? If someone can tell in advance what they want to get, it shouldn’t be a problem.

    Would it be a problem if we had planning more often then? For many Scrum teams it would. However, what would happen if we planned too few stories for the iteration and we would be done halfway through the sprint? We’d probably pull more stories from backlog. Isn’t that planning? Or in other words, as long as we respect boundaries set by the team, wouldn’t it possible to plan more frequently?

    The same questions you can ask in terms of other practices. One thing I hear repeatedly is that more mature teams change frequency of retrospectives. They just don’t need them at the end of every single sprint. Another strategy is ad-hoc retro which usually makes them more frequent than timeboxes. Same with continuous delivery which makes you deploying virtually all the time.

    And this is where the concept of cadence comes handy. Instead of talking about a timebox, which fixes time for planning, releases and retrospectives, you start talking about a cadence of planning, a cadence of releasing and a cadence of retrospectives separately.

    At the beginning you will likely start with what you have at the moment, meaning that frequencies are identical and synchronized. Bearing in mind that these are different things you can perfectly tweak them in a way that makes sense in your context.

    If you have comfort of having product owner or product manager on-site, why should you replenish your to do queue only once per sprint? Wouldn’t it be better if the team worked on smaller batches of work, delivering value faster and shortening their feedback loops?

    On the other hand, if the team seems mature frequency of retros can be loosened a bit, especially if you see little value coming out of such frequent retros.

    At the same releases can be decided ad-hoc basing of value of stories the team has built or client’s readiness to verify what has been built or on weather in California yesterday.

    Depending on policies you choose to set cadences for your practices it may look like this.

    Or completely different. Because it’s going to be adjusted to the specific way of working of your team.

    Anyway, it is likely, that the ideal cycle of planning, releases and retrospectives isn’t exactly the same, so keeping cadences of all of these identical (and calling them iteration or timebox) is probably suboptimal.

    What more, thinking about a cadence you don’t necessarily need them to be fixed. As long as they are somewhat predictable they totally can be ad-hoc. Actually, in some cases, it is way better to have specific practice triggered on event basis and not on time basis. For example, a good moment to replenish to do queue is when it gets empty, a good moment to release is when we have a product ready, which may even be a few times a day, etc.

    Note: don’t treat it as a rant against iterations. There are good reasons to use them, especially when a team lacks discipline in terms of specific practices, be it running retros or regular deployments. If sprints work for you, that’s great. Although even then running a little experiment wouldn’t hurt, would it?

  • Get Rid of Estimation

    Software estimation. Ah, a never-ending story. Chances are good that, whenever you’re talking about building software, this subject will pop up soon. You can be pretty sure that basically everyone around has problems with estimation or simply struggles with it. And that’s virtually obvious that there would be a new sexy method of estimation every year or so. The method which is claimed to solve an unsolvable puzzle.

    Recently there was yet another question on estimation on Project Management StackExchange. This sole fact isn’t probably worth writing a whole blog post about that, but there was one side thread which is worth focusing at.

    One of advices I shared was that whenever you can you should avoid estimation at all. This sprung sort of objection. OK, so the subject definitely is worth wider discussion.

    First things first. Why do we estimate at all in the first place? Well, we usually want to know how much time it’s going to take to build this damn thing, don’t we? Um, have I just said “usually?” Meaning, “not always?” Actually yes. It’s not that rare when we either don’t need any estimate at all or we just want to have a general insight whether the project will be built in hours, days, weeks, months or years. In either of these cases just a coarse-grained wild-ass guess should be fine. If it’s needed at all.

    OK, but what about majority of cases when we need some kind of real estimate? For example all those fixed price projects where estimates are basically a part of risk management, as the better the estimate is the smaller are chances that the project goes under water. I can’t deny that we need to have something better than wild-ass guess then.

    Yet, we still can avoid estimating quite often.

    Let me start with one of obvious things about estimation: if you base on historical data, and you apply them in a reasonable way of course, you can significantly improve your estimates. In other words, no matter the method, if you are just guessing how much something is going to take, you will likely to end up with way worse results when compared to a method, which uses your track record. And yes, I just dared to name planning poker “guessing.” It is collective, involves discussion, etc but usually it is just this: guessing.

    Cool, let’s use historical data then. What’s next? My next question would be: how precise must your estimates be? Seriously, what kind of precision you aim for? My point is that we need very precise estimates very rarely. This is by the way the reason why I don’t use Evidence Based Scheduling anymore.

    Anyway, ask yourself a question: how much you would pay for bringing your estimates to the next level of precision. Think of it like being correct in terms of estimating in years, months, weeks, days, hours, etc. Let’s take just an average several-month-long, fixed-priced type of project.

    If I’m wrong with years I’m totally screwed, thus I’d pay significant part of project budget to be correct on such level. If I’m wrong with months it might be a hit on our reputation and also it may consume our whole profit we get of the project, so I’d be ready to invest something around the profit to be correct with months. Now weeks. Well, a week here, a week there, does it make such a difference in this kind of project? Can’t I just assume there is some variability here? Unless of course our deadlines are written in stone, e.g. you adjust your software to law changes. In most cases I’d invest just a handful of bucks here at best. Days? Hours? Are you kidding? Does it even make a difference that I spend a day more on such project?

    Now you know what kind of precision you expect from your estimates. Would it be possible for you to come up with estimates of such precision basing purely on historical data? I mean, can’t you just come up with a simple algorithm which automatically produces results reasonable enough that you can forget about all the effort spent on estimation?

    Whenever we come to discussing estimation I like to share the story from one of my teams: basing on a fact that we were collecting data on our cycle times and we reduced variability in task sizes coming up with the idea of standard-sized features we were able to do a very good job with estimates not estimating at all. We were simply breaking work down so we could learn how many features there are to build and then we were using very simple metrics basing on our track record to come up with the numbers our sales department requested. By the way: a funny thing is, almost all of that appeared as an emergent behavior – something we started doing as a part of continuous improvement initiative.

    Either way, even though we were capable of providing reasonably precise and reliable estimates we didn’t really estimate. I was surprised how easy it was to get rid of estimation, but then I can come back to the point from the beginning of the article: what is the point of estimation? You don’t do it just for the sake of performing the task; you do it for a reason. As long as you achieve your goal, does the method really matter? It means that you can get rid of estimating even if you do need some kind of estimates.

  • When Kanban Fails

    In my story from Lean Kanban Central Europe 2011 I promised I will elaborate more on my session there, titled Kanban Weak Spots. The starting point to the session was analysis of a number of situations where Kanban didn’t really work, finding out a root cause and then trying to build a bunch recurring patterns from that.

    By the way I have an interesting observation. Whenever I called for Kanban failure stories I heard almost perfect silence as an answer. It seems everyone is so damn good with adopting Kanban that it virtually never fails.

    Except I’ve personally seen a bunch of failed Kanban implementations. Either I’m the most unlucky person in the world and saw all of Kanban failures out there or for some reason we, the Kanban crowd, are still sharing just success stories and not putting enough attention to our failures.

    Actually, when I was discussing the session with fellow presenters we quickly came to the point that basically every time we think about Kanban failures it can be boiled down to people. However, and it is one of recurring lessons from lkce11, we should address vast majority of ineffectiveness to the system, not to the people. In other words, yes, Kanban fails because of people, but we change the system and only this way we influence people behavior.

    This is exactly the short version of the presentation, inspired by Katherine Kirk and Bob Marshall.

    There is the long version too. Symptoms, which show you that something isn’t working, and if you do nothing about them you’re basically asking for failure. I have good news though. Most of the time you will look for these symptoms in just one place – on your Kanban board.

    Probably the most common issue I see among Kanban teams is not keeping the board up to date. In short, it means that the board doesn’t reflect the reality and your team is making their everyday project decisions basing on a lie. A very simple example: given that there is a bottleneck in testing but it isn’t shown on a Kanban board, a developer would come to the board to see what’s next and they would decide to start building a new feature instead of helping to sort bottleneck out. Instead of making things better they would make them even worse, thanks to the board which isn’t up to date.

    I face the same problem but on a different level, whenever a team tries to make a board showing the way they’d like to work, and not the way they really work. Actually this one is even worse – not only do you make your everyday decisions basing on a lie again but it’s also more difficult to get things back on the right track again. This time it’s not enough to update the sticky notes – you need to fix the design of the board too.

    Another board-related issue would be forgetting about a good old rule: KISS. When people learn all these nice tricks they can use on their boards they’re inclined to use a lot of them. Often way too many. They end up over-engineering the board, which means that they bury important information under the pile of meaningless data. Soon, people aren’t able to tell what means what and which visual represent which situation. Eventually, they stop to care to update the board because they’re basically lost, so they’re back to the square one.

    Violating limits has its own place in hell. Of course it is a matter of your policies whether you allow abusing limits at all. However it is pretty common situation that it is generally acceptable that limits are violated very often, or even all the time. Now, let me stress this: limits in Kanban are the fuel of improvements; if you don’t treat your limits seriously you don’t treat improvement seriously either. Limiting work in progress is a mechanism, which makes people act differently than they normally would. When a developer, instead of starting to build another feature, goes to help with a blocker in testing it is usually because limits told them so. Eventually they learn to predict such situations and act even earlier, before they fill up the work queue. Anyway it all starts with simple actions, which are triggered by limiting WIP.

    The interesting thing is that all these problems can be seen on a Kanban board. The reason is pretty simple: the board should reflect the reality, no matter how sad the reality is. You deal with lousy process the same way as you deal with alcoholism: the first step is admitting you have a problem. Even if your process looks like a piece of crap show it on your Kanban board. Otherwise you’re just cheating yourself and you aren’t even starting your journey with continuous evolution toward perfection.

    There is however one driver of Kanban failure, which won’t be seen on a Kanban board. It’s also my recent pet peeve. Treating Kanban as a project management or a software development approach is basically begging for failure. It is asking Kanban to deal with something which it wasn’t designed for. It’s using a banana to hammer a nail. Seems funny indeed, but if you care about a success, well, then good luck – you’re going to need a lot of it.

    Kanban can be called change management approach or process-driving tool or even improvement vehicle but it doesn’t say a word on how you should manage your projects or build your software. If you don’t build Kanban on a top of something, be it a set of best engineering practices or project management method of your choice, you’re likely to fail miserably. And then you will be telling everyone that you need to have experienced team to start using Kanban and that it wouldn’t work otherwise.

    So here it is – a handful of risks you should take into consideration whenever adopting Kanban in your team. A bunch of situations observed by the most unlucky guy in the world, who actually sees Kanban failures on occasions. However, what I want to achieve with this post is not to discourage you to try Kanban out. Pretty much the opposite. I want you to think of this list and actively work to avoid the traps. I just want you to succeed.

    And this is why you will hear me writing and speaking about Kanban weak spots again.

    Now, even though I teased much of the content from my lkce11 session above, here are my slides.

    Kanban Weak Spots

    By the way, if you happened to be on my session in Munich please rate it.

    If you’d like to see some more content on the subject, fear not. As I’m very passionate about that I will definitely write more on this soon.

    Advertisement: Want to have such nice Kanban boards in your presentations or blog posts as well? Check InfoDiagram Kanban Toolbox. Use pawelBBlog code to get $10 discount.

     

  • Best Practices: Continuous Build

    Under my recent post about best engineering practices I was pointed that it is just another “do whatever works for you” or “I don’t know experiment” kind of advice. Well, it was that kind of advice indeed. Have I ever given you a different one?

    Anyway I admit shot was on target. If someone is one of those battlescars who has seen much they probably would be more than happy to hear something like that. On the other hand if you happen to be a freshman you may expect to get something like a real advice. You know, the one which you can simply take and apply in your team without much thinking since “the wise guy said so.”

    Coming back to best practices than. What can I tell you besides you should experiment with your practices to find what works for you? Well, if I had to choose one engineering practice which is definitely a sure shot I’d go for continuous integration. And yes, I’m not expecting a flame war under this post.

    “Who the hell doesn’t have continuous build yet? We are in 21st century, haven’t you heard?” Yes, I used to treat continuous build as an obvious thing a decade ago and you know what? I was wrong. There are many teams and companies which don’t have continuous build implemented. Why? Because they think it is hard, because it takes time to setup the whole thing, because the project is oh so legacy, because no one cares, because no one approved order for build server, because, because, because… If you want to hit the dog you will find a stick. And many companies are still beating poor puppies hard. I could name huge systems sold to big institutions which never touched a build server.

    I can tell it as an anecdote: pretty much every company I worked for set up continuous build once I was working for them. This basically mean the earlier you hired me the better. Not that every company I’ve worked for still exists but we aren’t discuss business here, are we?

    If I think about setting up a team or project the very first task to do is getting and configuring a build server. It is a prerequisite to write a first program. And I’m not going to take a look at damn hello world application until build server is up and running. Don’t even say you dared to write any code without continuous build set up.

    So this is my first answer about specific engineering practices we all should employ. Unfortunately once I started to give you specific answers I expect to hear “what’s next?” And from this point every answer can be only more difficult.

    That doesn’t mean I won’t try though.

  • Which Engineering Practices You Should Use

    XP is a “software development through the eyes of an engineer” kind of methodology. It focuses heavily on engineering practices.

    On contrary, neither Scrum nor Kanban seems to care much about best software development practices. But wait, if you read about Kanban a bit you’ll quickly find an advice to focus on your engineering practices too as Kanban (or Scrum) alone is not enough.

    Actually I can’t recall any project management approach which says “when it comes to code, do whatever – this whole programming thing doesn’t really matter.”

    So we’re back here again – a set of best software development practices is important. Yet, there is plenty of them, how to choose the right ones?

    You may choose a set of tools you believe are most valuable. However if you don’t have comfort of choosing toolbox first and then looking for people who are familiar with tools (or at least willing to learn how to wield them) you’re likely to fail.

    Every change is difficult and developers tend to be pretty stubborn. Yes, they will do this whole code review if they really have to, what a big deal anyway, but don’t expect to get decent results unless developers believe it is a valuable technique. They will hate it probably as much as filling data in time tracking app, which isn’t even close to what you wanted to achieve, right?

    And this brings me to another approach: let engineers choose which engineering practices they want to employ. Let them argue. Let them look for consensus. Help them in facilitating discussion if it’s necessary but don’t enforce any specific technique. Throw in a few ideas but if they don’t catch up don’t try to use your magic power: “I can force you to do so.” If you’re a team leader or (even worse) a manager it’s not you who will be doing this darn thing every single day for next couple of years so just shut up, OK?

    The best set of engineering practices is the one which will be adopted by engineers. And yes, this means it will be changing over time. The more mature the team is the more practices people are able to adopt.

    The same rule works in other areas too. Product management? Well, don’t you have a product owner or something? Let her decide. Testing procedures? Shouldn’t you agree to whatever your QA guys want?

    When it comes to discussion on standards a manager should take a step back and let a decision to be made by people who will be affected.

    There’s one trick here however. If you happen to work with inexperienced or just average people the consensus may be “let’s just hack some code instead of wasting time on this stuff, we’re Cowboy Coding Wizards and nothing can beat our code.” But then you have a bigger problem than deciding which of best practices your team would use. You better start to evangelize your team a bit or look for another job, whichever looks easier.

    There’s another trick too. What to do if you have hundreds or thousands of developers? Well, different toolboxes should emerge in different teams and it would be pretty stupid to try to standardize all of them. “What if nothing emerges despite a multiple teams working on software development?” you may ask. Well, running away while screaming would be a pretty good option there I guess.

    You didn’t really expect to see here The Big List of the Best Engineering Practices Every Team Should Adopt, do you?