Author Archives: Kiron Bondale

About Kiron Bondale

Measurable business value can be realized through the successful initiation, prioritization, planning & execution of strategic projects. Striking a pragmatic, value-based balance between people, process & technology is a key to achieving success with Project Portfolio Management initiatives. Effective change management is crucial when trying to improve PPM or PM capabilities. Having been involved with multiple capability improvement initiatives, what I've learned is that "it's easy in theory, difficult in practice"! Continuous improvement of hard & soft skills gained by assisting organizations in the achievement of their business goals through the execution of the right projects in the right way is my ongoing mission.

Influencing the eternal optimism of a delivery team

When I teach agile fundamentals classes, I frequently emphasize the importance of inspection and adaptation. Teams which don’t use feedback loops with their products and their processes should not consider themselves to be very agile.

For those teams which use an iteration-based cadence for their delivery such as those who have implemented the Scrum framework there have multiple feedback loops to help them improve. A common example is comparing how many product backlog items they were able to successfully complete during an iteration with how many they had forecast that they would be able to complete at the beginning of the iteration.

For stable teams using fixed duration iterations, a reasonable assumption is that over time the volume of work which they can complete should become progressively more predictable which in turn should improve forecasting.

So what happens when a team consistently misses their iteration forecasts by a significant margin?

If it is a team which regularly completes more work than was forecast, this could be the result of traditional management oversight causing team members to act very cautiously when estimating their work. Letting the team know that it is normal that they might miss their iteration forecasts on occasion and spending effort on making the team feel safe might help them to start making more aggressive forecasts over time.

But what about the team who is frequently completing a lot less than they had forecast?

It would be very easy to write off such teams as undisciplined or immature but such judgments won’t help the situation.

There could be many factors causing the team to fall short including:

  • Underestimating work item effort or complexity
  • Insufficient dependency identification
  • Poor risk management
  • A lack of focus caused by multitasking or other sources of distraction

A retrospective provides a safe place to identify the situation and to come up with improvement suggestions which the team can take into their next planning session.

This might also provide a good opportunity for the product owner to express some sadness that the team wasn’t able to meet their forecast and to help them understand how this could reduce their credibility in the eyes of key stakeholders.

Regardless of the cause, understanding why the team is over-forecasting is an important step as that information can then be used to create a sense of urgency regarding this behavior.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Categories: Agile, Project Management | Tags: | Leave a comment

Defeating the multitasking monster

Multiple research studies have shown the negative impacts of multitasking.

Whether it is the waste generated by context switching, the elevated stress levels for staff or the increased cost of poor quality, few people would assert that it is a good practice for knowledge-based work. Front line workers might argue that their managers think that multitasking works, but I have yet to meet a management team who believe in the practice since most of their members will also suffer from its negative outcomes.

Lots has been written about the benefits of reducing multitasking, but this is not a straightforward feat for most organizations. The Lernaean Hydra (as opposed to the Marvel universe’s evil organization) could be used as a metaphor for this unhealthy practice. Deal with one contributing factor and others will take its place.

Here just a few of the forces encouraging multitasking and some suggestions on how to slice and cauterize each one:

  • Using batch-based, push-oriented delivery approaches. When there is finite scope, batched work prevents team members from being kept busy throughout the delivery lifecycle. To avoid idle time, managers are required to assign additional project or operational work. Shifting to a flow-based, pull-oriented delivery approach can increase the likelihood of the full team being busy.
  • A limited capacity of high demand skills. When only a few team members within a delivery organization possess a set of technical or business competencies which are in high demand, managers feel obliged to spread them as thin as possible to help projects or products get some support. There might be insufficient funding to hire more staff with these skills, but a long term solution is to leverage techniques such as non-solo work to build bench strength.
  • Use of inappropriate metrics. Maximizing utilization is easy to do. Set up a time tracking system and track actuals against high targets. Performance incentives (and disincentives) will be based on the level of individual and team utilization. Unfortunately, maximizing utilization is not the same as maximizing the value delivered. Henrik Kniberg does a great job of illustrating this fallacy in this YouTube video. Moving to value-focused metrics should help shift team members and their managers away from just keeping busy.
  • Weak portfolio management. The essence of strategy is saying “No” to the urgent to ensure that the important can be delivered efficiently. Governance committees can start to use criteria such as the cost of delay to determine which investments really must start now and which can be safely postponed.

Similar to battling the Hydra, these ideas need to be considered from a holistic perspective to avoid sub-optimizing the whole.

Reducing multitasking might seem like an impossible feat, but leadership teams should draw inspiration from Heracles.

Categories: Agile, Facilitating Organization Change | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Just because you have information radiators doesn’t mean senior stakeholders will review them!

Information radiators are a great idea.

After all, who wouldn’t want to reduce the effort involved in keeping stakeholders up-to-date about a product or project or increase the consistency in messaging to all stakeholders?

But convincing executives to use information radiators as a primary means of staying current is not an easy task. Yes, there might be a few early adopters who are open to trying a different way  but most are likely to prefer to receive these updates the way they’ve always got them through one-on-one or steering committee meetings using status reports. So project managers or Product Owners spend time harvesting and curating information from the radiators into traditional status reports or presentation decks.

This introduces a few challenges:

  • The activity of creating these reports or presentation decks is non-value add
  • The information shared is likely to be somewhat stale
  • There is an increased likelihood of reduced transparency as the “warts & all” information available in radiators might have been redacted or modified to fit the spin which the publisher wished to portray

So how can we help executives through the transition to using information radiators?

Start with why – if they don’t understand how traditional reporting approaches hurt them, they are unlikely to have any sense of urgency about adopting a different approach. Whether it is reducing delivery costs or improving the quality of information presented, find out what concerns them and use that as a lever for change.

Second, you will want to ensure that the information radiators being published are relevant to senior stakeholders. Taking the time to understand what they need to support their decision making should help in creating dashboards which they will actually want to use.

Finally, rather than asking them to make the significant leap from a meeting-based approach to a self-service model, consider continuing the meetings, but use information radiators as the supporting materials for the discussions in place of traditional presentation decks. This should spark your stakeholders’ curiosity as they are likely to ask questions based on their interpretation of the information published which will provide you with an opportunity to provide live “color commentary” about the project or product’s status.

If you want management to change, you need to apply effective change management.

 

 

Categories: Agile, Facilitating Organization Change | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: