Continuous Digital published – done?

CDpile2cut-2018-10-9-14-43.jpg

Continuous Digital is done.

Probably. Maybe. Definitely maybe.

Continuous Digital is the second of my two #NoProjects books. Many people ask: “why two?” “What is the difference between them?” “Do I need to read both?”

Short answer: Project Myopia explains why the project model is bad for software development. Continuous Digital describes what to do instead.

Long answer: as the #NoProjects hypothesis grew, as I thought about it more, as I talked to others about the ideas – specifically Steve Smith, Joshua Arnold and Evan Leybourn – the ideas grew. My thinking both on “what to do instead of project management” and “why do something different” grew.

Specifically I saw that the combination of Continual Delivery and Digital Business meant there was a stand alone case for moving beyond the project model. Whether you agree with the problems I discuss in Project Myopia or not there is a case for changing the way businesses are managed.

That is why I split the too books. Project Myopia is a companion book, it is not a prequel, a sequel, a book one or a book two. It is a book some people will read in its own right.

Continuous Digital argues that since business are increasingly digital, and as businesses strive to survive and grow then technology development is not a separate “project” it is inherent to the business. Technology and innovation are business as usual.

Stopping, even pausing, work – as in the project model – surrenders competitive advantage and introduces extra costs (time, money, risk). What is needed is a new model. A continuous model.

Continuous Digital is now published on Amazon in digital form and will soon be there – and in other booksellers – in physical form. (If you can’t wait for a print copy you can buy one from Lulu where they are slightly cheaper too.)

So I’d like to say Continuous Digital is done. But…

Even before I saw the final print version I had requests for an audio version of both Project Myopia and Continuous Digital. I’m debating whether to do these, if you would buy an audio version please let me know, if enough people want it I’ll do it.

Second, once I saw and held the final, done, version in print new ideas came to me. I don’t want to revisit the text – although I might fix a couple of typos – but Continuous Digital is a big book, 350 pages. And I know many people will be put off by the size.

So I’m thinking of turning it into four smaller books, each around 100 pages in length and each corresponding to one part of Continuous Digital. Maybe.

It is never done. It is continual.

How should we organize our teams?

StartingPoint-2018-09-18-12-23.jpg

Q1: How should we organize our teams?
My team is owner of different trading platforms and the core services around it. But we depend heavily on other products (e.g. financial feeds, client identification, services to send orders to stock markets, etc.). And of course each of the team managing these services have other platforms that are their clients.

When Vasco Duarte and I ran the #NoEstimates/#NoProjects workshop (or #NoNoWorkshop as I think of it) in Switzerland last month the attendees asked some good questions. With Project Myopia done and published, and Continuous Digital almost done it seems like a good time to repeat, and elaborate, the answers publicly. This will take a few blog posts to work through.

(I now have several Continuous Digital workshops and briefings available, please let me know what you think. Vasco and I are looking at repeating the workshop in London later this year, please get in touch if you are interested.)

The picture above is the way I see the question, if you have another interpretation, or another scenario please let me know.

The Continuous Digital model is for stable, long standing, autonomous, value seeking teams staffed with all the skills they need. Much of my thinking derives from Amoeba Management. Importantly each team needs to see how it adds value. In this case the business facing teams can see this – they enable the business do make money. But the back office teams find it hard see how they add value.

Now there are several possible answers to this question most of which involve some sort of re-organizations.

Option 1: Share the value

This solution does not involve reorganisation and comes straight from the pages of Amoeba management: allocate some portion of the value earned by the business facing teams to the teams they depend on. For example, the Trading platforms team might generate $10m each year. It could not do this without the services of the other three teams. Therefore some portion of Trading team’s earned value is passed to those teams.

Think about it, Trading Platforms affectively buys the services of three other teams. If those teams did not exist Trading Platforms would need to do that work themselves. Therefore those teams are contributing and deserve some credit.

This requires a serious conversation and probably needs more senior managers to intervene. Indeed, in Amoeba Management, Kazuo Inamori says that such decisions were among the most difficult ones facing Kyocera and often required more senior managers to make the final decision.

Nor is it always clear who buys from who, does a Sales Amoeba earn the value and pass part of it to the manufacturing team who build the product. Or does the Manufacturing Amoeba hire the Sales Amoeba to get their product to customers and therefore book the revenue and pass some to sales?

In the case above one might find it better to consider the value of the whole trading team including both the traders and the programmers who make the platform. Or perhaps the traders rent the platform from the technologists.

According to Inamori Kyocera standing allocations are set between teams. Alternatively one might create an internal market in which teams bought services from others on a piecemeal basis. On the one hand I like that idea model because it would allow for negotiation and trade-offs. On the other hand I imagine it creating a whole new set of bureaucracy, politics and internal sales. On balance, I’d fix the allocations and review periodically.

Option 2: Vertical slice

If you look at the picture above you might replace the word “team” with “library” or “services” and you would have a module dependency chart. Conway’s Law is at work – the organization and system reflect each other. (Although without knowing the history here it is difficult to say whether this was Conway’s Law or Reverse Conway’s Law at work.)

The services can stay as they are but we just disband the back-office teams and pass their responsibilities to the (enlarged) business teams.

Vertical-2018-09-18-12-23.jpg

The three teams will need to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other as they now have shared responsibilities. This itself can be a problem – two developers changing the same code anyone? But the world has moved on. Technology has improved.

In the days of SCCS, Visual Source-Unsafe, manual testing and monthly deployments it was a pain to have two teams working on the same code. But distributed source code control, automated testing and continuous delivery make this option far more viable than it once was.

On the plus side each team can work at their own pace on their own priorities and knowledge is spread around. On the downside teams can still trip up each other, they may duplicate work and specialist knowledge can get lost. (Note I am not saying “nobody has overall design authority” is a downside because while a single Linus can be an advantage it can also be a liability.)

One more problem here: this solution directly breaks Conway’s Law. In theory it could work but quite possibly the homomorphic force behind Conway’s Law might reassert itself. This might create some problems further down the line so needs monitoring.

Option 3: Independence

Taking option 2 to the extreme you might even separate the teams completely. Again there are plus and minuses.

Indepence-2018-09-18-12-23.jpg

On the one hand the teams are completely independent, they can move at their own pace, with their own priorities, value is clearly attributed and there is now resilience in the system and risk is reduced.

However, there is duplication. Not only does this mean more work it means that there may be inconsistencies, a client recognised by Trading might not be recognised by Yet Another.

Both options 2 and 3 demand larger teams and this option might requires more people overall. One can’t be sure because teams might come up with innovative solutions or come up with some new mechanism for sharing.

I’m sure some readers will discount this option very quickly but there are big benefits to complete independence – particularly when teams are separated geographically (e.g. Trading in London, Some Other in Frankfurt and Yet Another in Singapore) or when they are addressing different markets. One of the dangers of shared modules is that they become bloated by generic features nobody really wants but someone has to pay for.

This approach might also be advantageous when the company is in a growth and innovation mode. Let each team grow as fast as they can and innovate. In time a “winner” might emerge or common elements appear naturally.

Another variation on option 3 would be to have one team take the lead. Say Trading, this would be a larger team who developed the share services as part of their business facing work. But they would not “genericise” those services. The other, smaller teams, would do what they needed, when they needed, to service their own value streams.


That is three options. I could come up with some more, none is perfect. The important things are:

  • Create a clear way for teams to see the effects of their work and share in the value.
  • Allow teams autonomy in decision making and reduce dependencies.
  • Keep it simple so everyone can see cause and effect.
  • And of course, keep the teams stable – don’t break them up.

If you have any questions about Continuous Digital and #NoProjects please mail them over and I’ll do my best to answer them in this blog.

Receive these posts by e-mail?

Subscribe to my newsletter & receive a free eBook “Xanpan: Team Centric Agile Software Development”

#NoProjects: Project Myopia is published

ProjectMyopiaNew-2018-09-10-11-17-1.jpg

Project Myopia – the original case for #NoProjects – has been a long time in the works but it is now done. Published. For sale on Amazon.

Projects fail. Some say 40% of all IT projects fail, some say 70%. And it has been that way for years. Each project fails for its own reasons but they all share one thing in common: the Project Model. Could it be the project model itself which creates failure?

Projects end. Successful software continues. Twenty-first century digital businesses want to continue and grow.

Project Myopia is available to buy on Amazon today – the physical version should joined the eBook in a few days.

Project Myopia gives the case against projects – the hard core #NoProjects arguments. A second book, Continuous Digital will join Project Myopia in a few weeks on Amazon. Right now copyediting isn’t finished on Continuous Digital, plus the physical copy needs to be worked out. In the meantime late drafts of Continuous Digital are available on LeanPub.

Agile is the process digital technology needs

1200px-Workers_in_the_fuse_factory_Woolwich_Arsenal_Flickr_4615367952_d40a18ec24_o-2018-07-18-12-19.jpg

In my presentation at Agile on the Beach last week I continued my discussion of Agile and Digital. It is increasingly clear that digital and agile are intrinsically linked. Specifically, business need agile processes to get the most out of digital technology. My “Agile, Digital & the new management paradigms” presentation is online but let me give you the argument here.

There is a long standing model of technology change – so widespread I can’t find the original source – which says change comes in three steps:

  1. First new technology allows the same processes and activities to be done better, faster, cheaper, more efficiently. In this stage new technology is used to do the same things, the processes and practices change little.
  2. Next new technology allows process and practices to be reconsidered and changed to make the most of new technology. Work becomes even better – whether that be faster, cheaper, higher efficiency, superior products, whatever.
  3. Finally new innovations appear because of the technology and new processes. One can see opportunities for new businesses, new business models, the next round of technology innovation and more.

So the whole thing repeats.

Look at the photo above. According to WikiCommons this is a picture of a factory at Woolwich Arsenal sometime in the 1800s. Notice the belts stretching from the ceiling to the workstations. These carried power, or to be more precise motion. Above the workers is the line shaft which turns. The shaft is driven by a central power (motion) source somewhere, probably a water wheel or a steam engine.

This is before electricity. The line shaft and the belts carry the power the factory needs to work. And they break, the longer they are the more prone to breaking they are. Factory design is constrained by the need to have straight lines for the line shaft and short distances between the shaft and the workstation. And factory design dictates layout and processes.

Then came electricity.

Electricity allowed each workstation to have its own motion generator. At first factory owners used electricity to do the same things faster and more reliably. They could dispense with the steam engine and thus the stokers and coal it needed. But at first they didn’t seize all the advantages electricity brought.

It took time to understand how a factory could be laid out more efficiently and how processes could be changed. When they did factories got even more efficient and faster. Some might argue that it took the coming of Lean manufacturing to complete these process changes.

The same story has played out in industry after industry with technology after technology. Think of Word processors: first they helped secretaries do their job faster, then processes changed and everyone wrote themselves, goodbye secretaries. Containerisation in the shipping industry is another. First ships loaded and unloaded faster. Then the shipping companies innovated but more importantly world trade innovated. Some observers claim containerisation was a more significant factor in trade globalisation than free-trade agreements.

Digital technology is like electricity. It changes business, it creates new opportunities for doing things differently. To get the most from digital technology you need new processes. Right now most companies are stuck – even happy – doing things faster. Only when they change processes will they get the full benefits.

Agile processes are that change.

Agile ways of working help companies get more from digital technologies. Without Agile companies using digital technologies are just doing the same old thing faster.

Agile started in software development for two reasons. First software developers had a lot of problems, they had the need to change. Second, programmers had the first access to digital technologies.

Ray Tomlinson, a programmer, was the first person with e-mail. Tim Berners-Lee, a programmer, had the first web-browser. Ward Cunningham, a programmer, had the first Wiki. I could continue.

Software developers created Agile because they needed to and they could.

This is why Agile is taking off in marketing.

Outside of technology itself marketing has probably been more exposed to digital technology than any other part of business. First with digital publishing then with social media. At first digital helped marketing departments do the same work faster. Next it changed what you could do entirely. Marketing is adopting agile because those processes allow marketeers to do a better job when working with new digital technology.

So forget all those arguments about agile being a better way of working (it is but never mind).

Forget all those stories of agile like processes and practices before 1998 (yes they existed but that doesn’t change things).

Forget the debate about waterfall and upfront planning versus agile and just-in-time (that is history).

All you need to know is:

  1. Digital technology is helping you do things faster/better/cheaper.
  2. Agile ways of working allow you to get more from digital tools.
  3. More innovation is coming.

Agile is the process for digital businesses.

Sign-up to receive these posts by e-mail and free eBook of Xanpan

Image of Woolwich Arsenal factory taken from WikiCommons, no known copyright.

Organizational structure in the Digital and Agile age

iStock_000003002725XSmall-2018-07-3-18-18.jpg

Someone asked the other day: how should an organisation be designed?

There are two potential answers, which actually aren’t as contradictory as they look at first sight.

The first is very simple: Don’t.

That is, don’t design your organization, don’t set out an organizational chart, don’t set out a plan and aim to restructure your organization to that plan. Rather create the conditions to let a structure emerge.

I suppose its the difference between “design” meaning “create a plan for the way you want things to be” and “design” meaning “the way things are arranged.” To differentiate them the first might be called “intentional design” and the latter “emergent design.”

That does not necessarily imply all emergent structures are good. As we see in code sometimes emergent designs are not always the best and over time they need refactoring. Which implies at some point there needs to be intentional design.

Put it like this: I’d rather your organization pulls the design rather than you push a design on the organization.

Organizational structure is itself a function of business strategy. And both need to be part emergent and part intentional. Although you might have noticed I tend towards emergent while most of the world tends towards intentional!

Thus it helps to have a reference model of how you think the organization should be, maybe something to steer the organization towards.

So the second answer to the question would be longer:

  • Create standing delivery teams which are embedded in the business line itself. This is sometimes call stream teams, or stream based development, or “teams aligned to the value stream”, or several other names I can’t think of just now.
  • Each business line is itself a stream of work and digital delivery teams support that work.
  • Teams contain all the skills and authority to do the work that is required for that business stream.
  • The team is part of the stream so the business/technical divide should dissolve. Something I call BusTech.
  • Teams are value seeking and value creating: the team seeks opportunities to create value for the business and delivers on the most valuable ones.
  • Devolve authority to the teams whenever you can. Teams are mini-businesses. (Notice I deliberately don’t use the word empowerment.)
  • Teams grow when the business is successful and more digital capability is needed. And teams shrink when money is tight or less capability is needed.
  • Teams may split (Amoeba style) from time to time. New teams may be in the same business line (addressing another question) or part of another, possibly new, business line.
  • Active – or Agile – Portfolio Management sits on top to monitor progress, provide extra resources, remove resources, etc. There may even be multiple portfolio processes, one at the business line level and perhaps one above multiple business lines.
  • Minimally Viable Teams are started to explore new initiatives, sometimes these go on to be full standing teams but they may also be dissolved if the idea doesn’t validate.
  • Seek to minimise common services between teams because these create bottlenecks, conflicts and delays. Each team should stand alone. This may mean some duplication, and therefore some extra costs, but accept that. Once you have your model working you can fine tune such things later.
  • Don’t worry about planning and synchronisation between teams to much, worry more about getting the teams to release more often and deal with synchronisation issues when they become a problem.

They are the main points at any rate. If you’d like to know more Continuous Digital contains a longer discussion of the topic. (Continuous Digital actually builds on Xanpan in this regard, and the (never finished) Xanpan Appendix discusses the same idea.)

Sign-up to receive these posts by e-mail and free eBook of Xanpan

#NoProject #NoEstimates workshop

MilkCartons-2018-07-3-17-57.png

In August I’m running a 1-day workshop in Zurich with Vasco Duarte on the bleeding edge of Agile: #NoProjects and #NoEstimates for Digital First companies.

This is a pre-conference event for the ALE 2018 conference which is happening the same week in Zurich. Everyone is welcome, you don’t need to attend the conference.

If you book in the next two weeks you get it for cheap, after July 20 the price goes up – although its still only a few hundred euros.

Book now, save money and secure your place – places are limited!

For those ho can’t get to Zurich in August I’ve got a Continuous Digital workshop of my own and a half-day management briefing. Right now you can book either of these for private in-house delivery. I’m looking at offering these as public courses here in London, if you are interested get in touch and help me fix a date.

(I have a love hate relationship with #NoProjects, I’d love to retire the name but it resonates with so many people. So I tend to use #NoProjects when I’m discussing my critique of the project model and Continuous Digital when I’m setting out my preferred alternative.)

Closing the Product Owner mini-series: they are all different!

StopStart-2018-05-9-09-45.jpg
With some final words I’d like to draw this mini-series on the Product Owner to a close and open a new chapter with a new book. I’ve written six blog posts in the last two months and I have drafts for more but there are other things I want to blog about.

I have drafts for more posts and ideas for even more. So its time to make this into another book: Product Ownership. This is on the LeanPub site now and you can buy it. So far it just contains a new prologue story but I’ll add these posts soon as the first chapters.

Ever since I wrote Little Book of User Stories I’ve thought there should be a companion volume: “Little Book of Product Ownership”. The intention is for the first part of the new book to discuss the product owner role – and whether it should even exist – and then quickly get into the tools of Product Ownership.

Now some closing words…

While I’ve suggest a lot of things that a Product Owner should do, and a few that they should not do, there are really no hard and fast rules about what a Product Owner should or should not do.

In the language of business schools: there is no contingent way of being a product owner, every product owner and organization is different and they need to find their own path. I cannot give you a flow chart for what a product owner does or should do, nor can I give you a set of rules to say “When the customer says Foo the Product Owner should do Bar.”

Every Product Owner has to work out what is right for them because every organization is different. And every organization will – rightly or wrongly – expect different things from the people it christens Product Owner.

Additionally every team is different and contains different skills and experience. As a result every team will differ in what it needs from the Product Owner(s) and how the team members can support the Product Owner and share the work.

And every Product Owner is themselves different and brings different skills, experience and insights to the role.

Job #1 for a newly appointed Product Owner is to sit down and decide what type of Product Owner they are expected to be and what type of Product Owner they want to be:

  • They may be a Backlog Administrator taking instructions from others.
  • They may be a Subject Matter Expert using their expert knowledge of the domain to decide what the right product to build is and help other team members understand the details of what is being built.
  • They may need to analyse internal process and business lines using the skills of Business Analysis.
  • They may need to get out on the road to meet customers – and potential customers – to understand the market and where the opportunities are using the skills of Product Management.
  • They may need to call on skills from other fields to: Project Management, Consulting and Entrepreneurship to name a few.

But a Product Owner is not some other things:

  • If they were a developer they need to accept they will not be coding any more. There simply isn’t time and anyway, they need to trust the team.
  • If they were a Project Manager, Development or Line Manager they need to resist any urge to tell people what to do or look too far into the future. They need to re-focus on value not time, and recognise that their authority comes from their competence not from a position on a chart.
  • Product Owners from a Business Analysis background need to look beyond Business Analysis, specifically they need to immerse themselves in the world of Product Management.
  • While Product Owners who were Product Managers probably have the easiest ride they too need to change, they need to think more about internal stakeholders, processes and delivery.

Every Product Owner and everyone working with Product Owners needs to read and reflect on the role. Hopefully some of the words in my recent posts – and the new book – will help with that – and hopefully some of you might like to hire me for advice or a training course – just call 🙂

Finally, I sincerely believe there are better Product Owners and not-so-good Product Owners, and that some organizations (teams, companies, enterprises) which offer a better environment for Product Ownership and equally there are those which are downright hostile to product ownership.

Want to receive these posts by e-mail? – join the newsletter today and receive a free eBook: Xanpan: Team Centric Agile Software Development

Product Owners need 4 things

iStock_000008515543Small-2018-03-5-16-09.jpg

To be an effective Product Owner – and that includes product managers and business analysts who are nominating work for teams to do – you need at least four things. You may well need more than these four but these are common across all teams and domains.

  1. 1. Skills and experience

There is more to being a Product Owner than simply writing user stories and prioritising a backlog. Yes, you need to know how to work with a development team and how to work in an Agile-style process. Yes you need to be able to write user stories and acceptance criteria, perhaps BDD style cucumbers too; yes you need to be able to manage a backlog and prioritises and partake in planning meetings.

But how do you know what should be a priority?
How do you know what will deliver value? And please customers? Satisfy stakeholders?

Importantly Product Owners need to be able to do the work behind the backlog.

Product Owners need to meet people, have the conversations, do the analysis and thinking behind those things. Any idiot can pick random items form a backlog but it takes skills and experience to maximise value.

Product Owners need to be able to identify users, segment customers, interview people, understand their needs and jobs to be done. They need to know when to run experiments and when to turn to research journals and market studies. And that might mean they need data analysis skills too.

If the product is going to sell as a commercial product you will need wider product management skills. While if your product is for internal use you need more business analysis skills. And product managers will benefit from knowing about business analysts and business analysts will benefit from knowing about product management.

You may also need specialist domain knowledge – you might need to be a subject matter expert in your own right, or you might become an SME in given time.

Some understanding of business strategy, finance, marketing, process analysis and design, user experience design and more.

Don’t underestimate the skills and experience you need to be an effective Product Owner.

  1. 2. Authority

At the very least a Product Owner needs the authority to nominate the work the team are going to do for the next two weeks. They need the authority to choose items form a backlog and ask the team to do them. They need the authority not to have their decisions overridden on a regular basis. (OK, it happens occasionally.)

As a general rule the more authority the Product Owner has the more effective they are going to be in their role.

The organization may confer that authority but the team need to recognise and accept it too.

I’ve seen many Product Owners who while they have the authority to nominate work for a team don’t have the authority to throw things out of the backlog. When the only way for a story to leave the backlog is for it to be developed it is very expensive. This leads to constipated backlogs that are stuffed full of worthless rubbish and where one can’t see the wood for the trees.

If the Product Owner doesn’t have sufficient authority then either they need to borrow some or there is going to be trouble.

  1. 3. Legitimacy

Legitimacy is different from authority. Legitimacy is about being seen as the right person, the bonafide person to exercise authority and do the background work to find out what they need to find out in order to make those decisions.

Legitimacy means the Product Owner can go and meet customers if they want. And it means that they will get their expenses paid.

Legitimacy means that nobody else is trying to fill the Product Owner role or undermine them. In particular it means the team respect the Product Owner and trust them to make the right calls. Most of all they accept that once in a while – hopefully not too often – the Product Owner will have to say “I accept technologically X is the right thing but commercially it must be Y; full ahead and damn the torpedoes.”

It can be hard for a Product Owner to fill their role if the team believe a senior developer – or anyone else – should be managing the backlog and prioritising work to do.

  1. 4. Time

Finally, and probably the most difficult… Product Owners need time to do their work.

They need time to meet customers and reflect on those encounters.

They need time to work-the-backlog, value stories, weed out expired or valueless stories, think about the product vision, talk to stakeholders and more senior people, and then ponder what happens next.

Time to evaluate what has been delivered and see if it is delivering the expected value. Time to understand whether that which has been delivered is generating more or less value than expected. Time to feedback those findings into future work: to recalibrate expected values and priorities, generate more work or invalidate other work.

Product Owners need time to look at competitor products and consider alternatives – if only to steal ideas!

They need time to work with the technical team: have conversations about stories, expand on acceptance criteria, review work in progress, perhaps test completed features and socialise with the team.

They also need time to enhance their own skills and learn more about the domain.

And if they don’t have the time to do this?

Without time they will rush into planning meetings and say “I’ve been so busy, I haven’t looked at the backlog this week, just bear with me while I choose some stories…”

More often than not they will wing-it, they substitute opinion and guesswork instead of solid analysis, facts and data. They overlook competition and fail to listen to the team and other managers.

And O yes, they need time for their own lives and family.

I sometimes think that only Super Human’s need apply for a Product Owner role, or perhaps many Product Owners are set up to fail from day-1. Yet the role is so important.

I plan to explore this topic some more in the next few posts.

Outsourcing banana skins: Warning signs that your supplier isn’t as good as they claim

iStock-500539718m-2018-02-1-11-06.jpg

So you think you want to contract out some development work? – yes, you know this area is full of banana skins to slip on, and you know others have problems but you still want to do it.

And you want to contract it out to an “Agile” development shop?

There are no laws against opening a development shop – a digital agency, an outsourcer, a consultancy, call it what you like. That is the beauty of capitalism, it allows pluralism. The hard part is choosing one that is competent, some outsourcers are pretty awful.

Everyone who can spell “Agile” can claim to be Agile, and most hire a copywriter to give them an online spin so they all end up making the same claims.

Those who are half good can coach their staff in what to say. And in truth, most of them genuinely want to do the best possible job for you – and be agile too. But how can you really tell?

Well… when I’m being cynical I think you can’t. The only way to really tell is to give them some work and see what happens. Of course once you’ve engaged someone you need to be both legally and mentally prepared to walk away.

So to help you here are some warning signs that you have stepped on a banana skin and your supplier isn’t as good as you – and they – want to be. You might even say these are warning signs that they aren’t really Agile.

1) Customer involvement

They don’t want customer involvement. They don’t want your people on site. They claim that your people get in the way. They want to be left alone to do things.

Obviously I’m thinking primarily of actual Customers, Users, Product Owners, Business Analysts and so on. These people should be working closely with the suppliers people. They should have direct contact, they should be discussing stories.

If your supplier isn’t embracing your people and treating them as their own team members something is probably wrong.

The supplier should be challenging your people – after all the suppliers are the experts, if they are simply accepting everything you ask for then something is wrong.

The same is true of other people you might want involved: a consultant or Agile coach should be welcome too. And if you decide to ask a third party to inspect their development then they should be open to this too.

Naturally they should also be open about the code too. After all the code will be yours one day.

2) Regular demonstrations

The supplier should be providing regular demonstrations – “show and tell” – as a very minimum. Every couple of weeks I expect the supplier to show the latest work. You – and your people – should be able to see working software offering more than the previous demo.

If the supplier is NOT providing regular demonstrations then you should be worried. Likewise, if the demonstrations don’t show progress get worried. Most of all, if the supplier doesn’t want to talk about why demonstrations aren’t happening, or how they can show progress then something is wrong.

3) Release, release, release

Show and tell demonstrations are good but the real test is to release to live. Releasing all the way to your live system. You might hide it on an obscure URL that nobody knows, or call it a beta release or something, I don’t care, the closer they can get to real live the better.

You supplier should be releasing to a live environment – or an exact copy – very very regularly.

The longer the supplier goes without an actual release the more nervous you should be. Sure, once in a while things go wrong and nobody is perfect. They may go two weeks with nothing to show for it. I don’t like it – and neither should you – but an occasional gap is OK.

Going four weeks without a release… I suppose it might happen in the early stages of the work. But it is in the early stages that you most need reassurance that they can deliver something – anything!

Six weeks with no release… well here we are into “3 Strikes and you are out.” Sure they will be able to give technical reasons why things messed up three times in a row. But take it from me, something is wrong.

The longer they go without an actual release to more concerned you should be and the more you should offer to work with them to address the issue.

Eight weeks? – eject, eject, eject.

4) Show me the tests

Maybe this should be warning sign #1 but for this you need someone technical, someone who knows what a test looks like. In the show-and-tells your supplier should be able to show you automated tests executing. Not very exciting perhaps and certainly not meaningful to the business but if they can’t show you then how do you know they even exist?

And if your supplier doesn’t have an automated test suite then it is certainly time to get out.

Ultimately the system they are building is yours. Your people will need to maintain it, or you will need to pay someone else to maintain it. Without automated tests that is going to be hard. Skipping tests now might make it look like you are saving money but you are not, even in the short term the lack of tests will bite you hard, it will push up costs and destroy schedules.

5) “Feature complete”

The phrase alone should be a warning sign. Equally the words “75% feature complete” (or any other percentage) is a big red flag.

If the supplier doesn’t have a test suite, if they can’t show working (preferably releasable) code then its probable they are feature stuffing. They will say they are making progress because “60% of features are done”. They may even start to claim they are feature complete but remember: a feature without a test isn’t done.

A feature without a test is pure risk. At any time a defect can put a hand up and say “Fix me!”

An automated test isn’t a guarantee of bug free code but without automated tests then I guarantee you have defects waiting to appear.

If you are in a relationship exhibiting any of these five sign then it is certainly time to talk. It may be time to end. But how do you avoid getting into that position?

Let me be as clear as I can: both you and your supplier should prioritise working, usable, functionality over more functionality. As the old saying goes “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, working, deliverable (even better released) features are the priority, there should be less work in progress, fewer incomplete features, fewer “almost done” and as few as possible defects.

While cynical me thinks you might not be able to avoid it that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, so here are four warning signs that you are about to step on a banana skin:

1) “Agile is not that different”

Don’t let them tell you Agile isn’t different. In many ways it isn’t but if a supplier is trying to persuade you that you don’t need to change the way you work then it is a sign that either a) they don’t appreciate the magnitude of the change or b) they will tell you anything to get the contract signed.

Since you want a supplier who will challenge you it might not be a good idea to hire one who doesn’t like challenging you or doesn’t prepare you for difficulties.

2) “We are certified”

An extension of warning sign #1 is that the supplier is proud of how certified they are: ISO-9001, PMI, PRINCE-2, CMMI – some in the Agile world would regard these certifications as warning signs in their own right.

Scrum Master Certified, Agile Project Manager Certified, Scrum Product Owner Certified: these are slightly better but anyone who can’t tell you the flaws in all these certifications has myopia.

Question any organization that offers up badges rather than working products.

(Disclosure: for better or worse I hold a couple of Kanban certifications, while I think Lean Kanban University have done a better job than many in making their certifications meaningful I don’t think they are a panacea either. Anyway, Kanban certifications aren’t as recognised as those I just mentioned.)

3) Fixed or long term contract

IT suppliers have a long history of locking clients into “fixed contracts” – fixed scope, cost and time. These contracts are utterly flawed. Anyone claiming they can fix everything is a charlatan. Give them a copy of “Dear Customer: The Truth about IT” (the Xanpan prologue) and say goodbye.

Similarly locking yourself into a long term contract with a supplier before you have done some work with them is a bad sign. Do a small piece of work, for a small fee, with your potential supplier and see if they are as good as they say.

In my experience the best – most “agile” – digital suppliers can pick and choose their customers. If your supplier needs you more than you need them then it is a bad sign.

Read more? Subscribe to my newsletter – free updates on blog post, insights, events and offers.

Minimally Viable Team in a nutshell

Workers_000011166993XSmall-2018-01-26-11-03.jpg

Last week I was in Holland helping a client with their agile adoption and digital transformation. When the subject of teams came up I started talking about Minimally Viable Teams. Yesterday I found myself writing an e-mail to the client expanding on the idea. And it seemed to me that the e-mail – or an edited version – was worth sharing here…

The idea of an Minimally Viable Team (MVT) is based on the observation that if a team is overstaffed then team members will find work for themselves – Parkinson’s Law.

Mix in Conway’s Law: the recognised phenomenon where team copy the organization structure they are in. So for example, if you have a database expert on the team the final design will use a database whether one is needed or not.

If one is aiming for a self-organizing, goal-directed, value-seeking team then making any decisions about the team, the software design, or even the problem before work begins is questionable. The more decisions that are made the more the team is constrained, the more the team is constrained the less it is master of its own destiny.

Further, those decisions made before work begins: one expects them to be rational, which means some pre-work is needed to understand what decisions are needed and make the decisions. That pre-work costs time and money. The more money that is committed then the more difficult (i.e. more career threatening) it becomes to reverse those decisions if things go wrong.

Some companies spend an awfully long time thinking and planning to do something: longer than it takes to actually do the thing. I once visited a company which had spent five years planning a particular project and not building anything.

Add two more things to this.

We know from experience that planning has rapidly diminishing returns. A little bit of planning creates great learning, but after a little while the rate of learning drops off. Very soon learning by doing becomes more effective, i.e. switch from thinking about what might be done to trying to do it.

This has never been truer than today – 2018: with the computing power and tools it is faster and cheaper than ever to build a prototype, a concept, an MVP, version 1, alpha version or whatever else you want to call it.

However, going to the other extreme and doing no pre-work doesn’t make a lot of sense either.

Enter the Minimally Viable Team: the team jumps to doing, all that pre-work is given to the team. They get to decide what is needed.

To traditionalists the team/project/product is launched prematurely but actually all we are doing is extending the start date backwards so that the pre-work is now part of the thing. By tasking the initial team with all the traditional pre-work the team becomes master of their own destiny again. And they can choose to approach the mission with a traditional approach (market research, architecture design, resource planning) or in an agile/digital fashion (build a small product and test it) – that is their choice.

The MVT idea is to “starve” the team and make them pull only the necessary resources as and when they need them. When organizations decide who (which roles) will be on the team in advance they are in effect designing the software.

And since agile approaches and modern tools allow us to make progress that much faster why not move more quickly to a working product? Minimise the design, postpone the architecture.

This approach also means the initial team can be kept small which means they are cheap. So if they conclude the project shouldn’t be done the organizational inertial is less and the project can be cancelled. Which hopefully means the organization will take more chances on more ideas.

Try this thought experiment.

On Day-Zero there is nothing.

Someone decided there should be Product X. How did this happen? They may have had the idea days ago and have spent the intervening time researching the market, the competition, the problem and so on. (During which time their normal job has been disrupted, the sooner they can dedicate themselves to the new idea the faster things will happen.)

On Day-Zero they talk to an architect who considers a design.

This takes a few days at the end of which there is an outline design and the architect suggests the team needs four programmers, two testers, a UXD and a DBA. Plus a project manager and product owner. 10 in all.

It now takes time to make the business case and gather those resources.

At that point work can officially begin, call that D-Day.

Then the team need to learn to work together, build something and launch it into a market.
They also need to understand what the architect had in mind.

Officially the project began on D-Day, or perhaps the day the business case was approved.

How much time has been spent so far? Without testing the market? Allowing competitors to do something? – all this time cost of delay has been at work changing the business case.

How has all that “getting ready” time been accounted for? How has this work been managed?

The MVT approach says: Time is of the essence the team should decide all these things.

So, as quickly as you can, spend a little venture money on an MVT.

That team has to investigate the market, competition, problem, etc. The team can think about architecture but their primary aim is to build something, and MVP, a prototype, a proof of concept, whatever – build it, show it to customers, launch it, put it in the market.

By keeping it small the team can quickly invalidate ideas which don’t work. Ideas that do work can be built on. They are free to learn.

The initial MVT will do all the same things that a “pre project” phase would do but in a much more agile/digital way. The MVT also allows for continuity, when the team find success the team that can be expanded and grown – applying Gall’s Law.

This also looks a lot more like a start-up than a normal corporate project.

If the idea of a Minimally Viable Team is new to you then check out the discussion in Continuous Digital or some of my earlier blog posts on MVTs.

Read more? Subscribe to my newsletter – free updates on blog post, insights, events and offers.