Agile Development Blog

Michael Hugos, principal at Center for Systems Innovation [c4si], writes, speaks and consults on strategies for IT and business agility and mentors development teams. He spent six years as CIO of a multibillion dollar distribution cooperative developing a suite of supply chain and business systems that transformed the company’s operations and revenue model. He won the CIO 100 Award and Premier 100 Award for his work. He’s author of several books and writes an online column for CIO magazine called “Doing Business in Real Time.” We recently met with Michael at the Agile 2010 conference, which resulted in “Agile is Ready for the Enterprise” and sparked the idea for this blog post.

Rally asks: What issues and trends are you seeing across technology departments, development teams and in discussions with CIOs?

Michael Hugos answers: The example set by companies such as Google, Facebook and Netflix shows how companies can use iterative development to continuously enhance products and grow market share. This is being noticed by business and technology leaders in other companies and they are asking if they can do the same thing to drive development in their own companies. People realize that IT is right down the middle of everything a company does, and that traditional software release cycles of once a year, or even once a quarter, are not able to keep up with the pace of change and innovation these days.

Just like the word “athlete,” the word “Agile” grabs your attention; it sounds great. But moving from desire to reality always tests peoples’ commitment. A lot of companies are struggling with the all-too-common reaction of, “That’s not the way we do things here…” Agile approaches are interesting and fascinating to companies, but then there is the tendency to immediately criticize new ideas – we’re all prone to it. As soon as someone suggests a new way of doing something, we all think of 10 reasons why that can’t be done or why it won’t work.

Rally: What is driving enterprise adoption of Agile?

MH: To begin with, agility is no longer just a good idea; it’s now backed by law – the law of probability. This law says if a company can’t keep up with rapid rates of change in the world then its probability of success is getting smaller and smaller every day. And since companies need IT infrastructure and applications to operate, just as our bodies need a nervous system and muscles to move, IT agility is critical for a company to achieve business agility.

In the last few years, software tools have enabled executives to measure and track progress on Agile projects and to see the performance of Agile teams in widely dispersed geographical locations. That makes Agile methods more feasible for large companies. A pervading feeling exists throughout business that just about everything else has been tried and IT groups are still not really keeping up with the backlog of user requests. Users are starting to go around IT and do their own things using SaaS, social media and mashups to put together systems. So why not give Agile a try?

Rally: How do Agile methodologies help large organizations foster, regain or accelerate the pace of innovation?

MH: Agile practices offer the best way to improve communication and collaboration between business and IT. Meaningful innovation always starts with communication and collaboration. Another thing that Agile practices enable is the ability to try out new ideas and explore opportunities quickly without investing a lot of money up front. With more traditional approaches, companies invest a lot of time and money planning up front before they start something new. This is expensive. And since most new ideas don’t pan out in the end, this traditional approach makes it difficult (if not impossible) for companies to try out enough new ideas in a year to find that small handful of ideas that do work out and deliver the profits they are looking for.

I like to say that in this high-change and unpredictable economic environment, companies need to: “Think big, start small and deliver quickly.” That’s the best way to keep up, adapt and respond to change, and find the opportunities they are looking for. Agility means letting go of slow, deliberate decision-making in favor of quick, repeatedly-tested decisions. That’s why Agile methods are so appropriate for energizing companies and helping them develop innovative products and services.

Rally: How do you make a case for Agile and address the fears of risk-averse CIOs, CTOs or CEOs?

MH: First, I remind executives of something that has become a fact in the last 10 years: business operations and technology are so tightly intertwined that there is no meaningful distinction left between the two; you can’t do business without technology. That might seem obvious to many but, executives who have been around for a while (like me) may still remember the days when IT was just a back office operation.

Once people acknowledge this reality then I point out that, over the last 10 years, Agile practices have been thoroughly field tested and have an impressive track record for delivering success. There are software tools now, like Rally and others, that address Agile project management and reporting, business and IT collaboration, software testing, and the continuous integration of new software with existing systems infrastructure. So going Agile is not just a leap of faith anymore.

Agile is actually a better way to manage risk versus using traditional waterfall approaches. With Agile practices, big projects are divided into lots of smaller projects that build on each other. This enables people to employ short feedback loops, learn quickly and change plans in light of new information. Two of the biggest causes for failure in business and failure in new development projects is that companies have no inexpensive way to investigate new opportunities, and they blindly follow predefined project plans without change – even as the world itself keeps changing.

The IT profession is at a turning point: one group of IT practitioners has learned that agility is the way to go, but more traditional practitioners still call it radical. Yet, the traditionalists continue to apply the same old ways of doing things that result in the same old horrendously expensive, multi-year projects that produce systems barely better than what was there before, if they even work at all. More and more business executives are coming to the conclusion that the effective support of business agility is the main reason for their company to have an internal IT group. Otherwise, there are options now to just outsource IT operations to cloud computing vendors and get new applications from SaaS providers and social media.

Rally: What does the future hold for Agile and Lean development practices?

MH: Probably the biggest change will be analogous to what happens when a company grows and transitions from an entrepreneurial startup to an established business. When this transition happens, there is a need to become more pragmatic and less idealistic. In the Agile world, this means that “Scrum-but” will actually be the best way for most companies to adopt Agile methods. Each company will customize versions of Agile that best fit their needs and it will be some combination of practices from Scrum, XP, Lean, Kanban, etc. Even waterfall practices have some benefits which should be incorporated where they make sense. Agile practices will not be set in concrete; they will continue to evolve over time as companies learn more and the world keeps changing.

Another big change for Agile is the realization that Agile development is not an end in itself. The value of IT agility is its ability to drive business agility. In the end, agility is more about business than about IT. Instead of co-locating business people with development teams, we will embed IT people in business operating units and co-locate development teams with business people.

I talk about this in my most recent book Business Agility: Sustainable Prosperity in a Relentlessly Competitive World. Agile companies will become real-time organizations that use IT to drive a process of continuous focusing on and responding to opportunities and threats. They will employ IT to drive three continuous feedback loops that make their real-time operations possible. The first feedback loop (I use the Yin-Yang symbol), provides awareness of a changing environment and identifies threats and opportunities. The second loop (I use a sunflower because of how it constantly adjusts itself to follow the sun across the sky), provides balance and continuously adjusts existing operations and processes to fit changing circumstances. And the third loop (I use the leaping panther), provides agility in the sense that it is how companies create new processes and products to seize new opportunities. The figure below illustrates this.

There are other conferences that cover Agile software development, but the Agile 20xx show reigns supreme. At nearly 2000 attendees from around the world, this year’s show is happening at Walt Disney World in Orlando.  (It was moved there after the flood in Nashville.) For the first time, three of the major analyst firms (and as a result 5 of  the key analysts who cover Agile and ALM) are attending the conference – Forrester, Gartner and IDC.

Rally coaches, sales and marketing folk at booth setup

As a result of the show’s success, it has become the most significant market rhythm in our industry.  So this week, we announced a few things:

• Rally Software Extends Agile ALM Platform to Meet the Unique Needs of Global Organizations – New customization options, full traceability with build and source code, and sharing with corporate dashboards create a single source of record for progress and quality
• Rally Software Extends Visualization of AgileZen Kanban Board – New non-profit program offers a 50% discount on leading visual project collaboration tool
• Innovation Games Company Announces Integration with Rally Software – The leader in serious games for business brings customers improved collaboration and prioritization capabilities
• Tasktop Introduces Agile Planner for Eclipse – New product enables Agile planning from the IDE and integrates multi-vendor Agile ALM solutions

I am speaking tomorrow on PDCA: Moving Beyond Simple Inspect and Adapt. (Thurs 9:00 a.m. in A-1). Other Rally speakers remaining this week are:

Get your Rally cap

• Former Rally developer turned Rally technical account manager turned Rally coach Chris Browne speaks Wednesday on The Art of the Hackathon (Weds 15:30 – 17:00 in Asia 3).
• Rally coaches Alan Atlas and John Martin speak Thursday on “Your Team, Your Freedom, Your Responsibility” (Thurs 15:30-17:00 in Asia 3).

Follow the news from the show on Twitter at #Agile2010. Come see us at the booth and get a Rally and Deliver ballcap. Or let us know if you’re not at the show and want us to send you one (send name and address to kcaraway@rallydev.com).

Ryan Martens is an organic farmer, founding board member of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Colorado, and CTO at Rally Software Development.

I have a reason for liking Bob Payne. Bob has empathy and a true love for giving back. That resonates with some of what we are trying to do here in Boulder. Rally, as a B Corporation, has expressly created a charter about giving back to the community: 1% equity giveback, 1% employee volunteer hours (over 2500/year in the last two years) and a number of other local not for profit initiatives. For Bob and us, adopting Agile has  been an important component in how will pull our empathy and our software skills together. With Agile, we seek to deliver feasible, effective, desirable solutions in our complex world. And reaching beyond our corporate walls to deliver that desirability catapults us to being truly empathic in our solutions.

When you meet Bob, you immediately get what “giving back” and empathy is about in his Agile work and beyond. Bob is always looking for new ways to bring Agile to our community and the greater community: our complex world. Out of his own interest in giving back to the Agile community, Bob set up his Agiletoolkit podcasts site. A gift for all of us. At the recent ADP West conference, Bob was there with his sound setup.  Bob took interest in Rally’s Agile Zen acquisition when interviewing Ryan Martens. And I  had the great fun of talking about Seth Godin’s book “Linchpin” that both Bob and I had read.

In this post, I’m so honored to have the opportunity to turn the tables on Bob and be the interviewer.

“Bob, what got you started recording your Agiletoolkit podcasts?”

I began recording the Agiletoolkit podcasts in 2005 after hearing several interesting podcasts and wondering if anyone would be interested in a podcast about Agile. I had always been a gadget person so fiddling with recording equipment and microphones was a natural for me. In fact, I now also have an iPhone App for the podcasts.

I love having the conversations and the podcast gave me an excuse/push to have conversations with people that I might not connect with in the halls at a conference.  A good example of that was when someone said to me, “You have to talk to this guy Arlo.” Without that introduction via the podcast I am sure I would not know Arlo Belshee as well as I do now.

While I am by nature gregarious, I do not search out “networking opportunities”. The podcasts have forced me into a new comfort zone that includes a lot more people from the community than I would have connected with through normal channels.  While I hope people appreciate and benefit from the podcasts, I do them for myself.  That affects the style of the podcasts. Since I am not trying to be polished or create an edited product, the podcasts have a more natural/comfortable feel.  I just wish I said “UM” less and a was little more polished on my delivery. But…I am who I am and it is what it is.

“How did you get into Agile philanthropy?”

Agile philanthropy started as a way of trying to meld my passion for doing good in the world with my passion for agile methods.  Using the power that is evident in the agile community to do great things is one of the goals of Agile Philanthropy.  Ideally we will get to the point that this movement is self-sustaining. But we are really just starting out on this journey.  I hope that I can grow the movement in the direction of local chapters doing work for local not for profits. Right now everyone is very busy and I am the bottleneck.  We are currently working with Mano a Mano and Haiti Partners. And, I would love to have people with a passion for a particular cause to contact me and start up their own chapter.

“What about your other philanthropic interests?”

I am very interested in local sustainable food, economic development and social justice. I volunteer in my kids’ schools quite a bit.  Most recently, I built incubators with the kids and hatched chickens and worked with the teachers to incorporate that into the curriculum. I have been working to get local food into the schools; to create school gardens; and, to relax the laws in Washington DC as they pertain to the keeping of bees and hens. Most of my other work is more directly related to the work I do in Agile Philanthropy.

“When did you start the Mano a Mano project work and what have you and your yearly teams accomplished at the Agile conferences?”

Seems like forever but we introduced Mano a Mano three years ago when the conference was in DC.  I was running the development lab in the basement and hoped that I could get some real work done in the lab that would do some good.  After that, I tried to make it more formal and improve what we have done for them each year.  They have been very appreciative and very patient with us since I am learning as I go with this process.

To date, we have moved them onto a Content Management Platform and developed their iPhone optimized donation page.  Most importantly, I am happy that I have connected Mano a Mano with David Hussman and a number of other volunteers in the Twin Cities that are helping out on a regular basis.  Wayne Simacek showed up for an event that Jeff Patton and Ed Kraay were holding to help Mano a Mano define their web strategy and ended up staying on as a volunteer member of their IT staff.

It is that kind of leverage that I hope to bring by connecting the two communities.

“What do you have in store for us at the Agile2010 conference?”

For the Agile2010 Conference, I am working again with the UX stage to do an Extreme Makeover for the Mano a Mano web presence.  We hope to be able to work on their information architecture and site design to improve the impact of the message that Mano a Mano is putting out. We are looking for volunteers to come by the LiveAid lab and help with the effort (hint, hint).

I also hope to get people interested in replicating this model for not for profits that they are passionate about.

You can do this too

To end this post, I want to thank Bob for the example he sets for all of us. I also want to emphasize Bob’s call to action to get engaged locally. You can do this through your existing local Agile group. Or, you can create a new group with an express charter to give back to the community. Recently Brad Feld here in Boulder wrote about the “Boulder New Technology Meetup” event that supported over 300 people engaged with 20 local non-profits. And here at Rally, we are marching along with Bob philanthopically working to give back: supporting  Intercambrio, donating time to local non-profits (Community Food Share and Growing Gardens) and working with the Salesforce Foundation.

I am passionate about design; if it were not for the boom-bust cycles in architecture, I would have followed that education/career path.  As a result of that passion, I got really excited when I saw HiveLive four years ago.  So excited in fact, that Rally jumped in as key first customer and based Agile Commons on HiveLive’s platform.  I even personally invested in the effort led by three Kembel brothers: John, Jeremy and Geoff.  Last year, HiveLive’s  journey took another turn as they sold to RightNow. After meeting RightNow’s David Vap and speaking with a good part of their technical team,  I would say John, the VP of Social Solutions, is right that they made a great move.

John’s design-thinking approach was front and center to HiveLive.  It came from his background at Standford’s design school and a stint at IDEO.  As I got to know John, he mentioned all the great things going on with his other brother and twin George.  George was busy creating a new version of the design school, called the Stanford d.school.   The new d.school has broadened beyond just a partnership of art and mechanical engineering to become a interdisciplinary school that brings design thinking to all majors.   As I learned more about this, I started pulling on John’s shirt to get me out there so I could go see the place and meet George.  Well last week, I participated in the first ever d.social summit for two days with 15 folks focused on the intersection of design thinking and social thinking.  Twins John and George Kembel actually facilitate in stereo.  To watch and be a part of their combined effort was like drinking from a fire hose.

The event and the people were great fun to work with and pushed my limits on the overlap of design thinking and social thinking.  Working there really made me feel strong and I found myself in a flow most of the time.  It caused me to notice that I really love the expansion of design to design thinking. But for you and your agile teams, the innovations in team room furniture was really important. Creating a culture of innovation relies on creating the right environment.  If you have read Takeuechi and Nonaka’s book on Knowledge Management, you will recognize the concept of “Ba.” Ba is the shared space that creates context for the knowledge-creating company.  (See figure 4.3 on page 102 of their book for a cool illustration of the whole concept)

The d.school is full of flexible, collaborative space of all kinds, shapes and sizes.  They are constantly trying new things there.  Built for running multiple, parallel design projects in 15 week cycles, it is empathetic to extreme users.  The space is in its sixth iteration of the space.  Scott Doorley and Dave Baggeroer worked with George over the last five years to really make this place something special.   As a result of working at the extreme of rapid collaboration, they have come up with some fantastic furniture designs that you should consider copying for your team and meeting rooms.  Unfortunately, you can’t buy this stuff – you have to build it locally.

Here is a set of stackable and highly portable white boards.

Notice the Z-shaped foot that allows them to stack and move around corners.  These ideas came from retail stores.  Also notice the red peg in the whiteboard.  This is designed to hang portable whiteboards that you can take back to your own space.   It could also hold a pad of flip-chart paper.

This line is where they store the student efforts.  Notice how the hanging whiteboards are stored.  It is easy to imagine collaborating in another person’s office and then bringing the whiteboard back to your office without using tons of flip chart pads.

Below is a portable wall system built with spring-loaded feet to allow you to make semi-transparent or opaque walls by lightly snapping them into place.  You can see them used above to make the line where student’s store their work.

These cool pommel horses, pictured below, make great furniture for a team collaboration space.  You can sit, stand or work at the structures and they force you to not think in hierarchies:)

Finally, don’t miss the d.school’s blog and the coverage of their sugar cubes.

I hope some of these pieces of furniture compel you to try some new furniture in your space.  If you are not quite sold, you might read Tim Brown’s new book “Change by Design.” It is a great living example of the approaches that IDEO and the d.school use to create empathy, insight and desirable design in physical, virtual and social systems.

Do you have any experience applying design thinking in your agile teams?  Jared Spool’s talk at Agile 2009 was a great example of applying design thinking to software.

Ryan Martens is a tomato grower, founding board member of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Colorado, and CTO at Rally Software Development.

Matt Phillips is a Senior Project Manager who has spent the last few years helping shape the Agile development process at Lulu.com. He currently heads up the Lulu Project Management Office and has spent several months setting up Agile practices in Lulu’s India office, based in Bangalore. In advance of his executive panel discussion at Rally’s Agile Success Tour in Raleigh, NC, we sat down with Matt to ask him 5 questions about Agile.

1. How have you implemented Agile across your organization?

We’ve rolled Agile out among all of our distributed teams, which are located in Raleigh, NC, the Ukraine and India. The time zones have historically been a challenge, so we had our remote teams spend several weeks in the Raleigh office working through daily Scrums. Now, they’re essentially as included in the process as possible. We use video conferencing for daily Scrums and to schedule iteration planning. All the teams collaborate to define stories, determine velocity, and plan iterations. We use Rally to make projections, track our velocity, and get visibility into the health of our projects. The metrics have become indispensible for judging how we’re doing, making accurate projections, and delivering upon our commitments.

2. What was your #1 reason for adopting Agile development?

Lulu adopted Agile at a point where the company was very much in start-up mode. The ideas were coming at a frenetic pace and the engineering team size was poised to expand. Agile methodologies were a good fit for Lulu’s culture and environment. The concepts of short iterations and regular release cycles paired with Scrum provided a quick time-to-market period for new ideas. At the same time, by adopting Agile methodologies, Lulu gained increased insight into the development team’s progress and performance as the team grew and feature sets became more complex.

3. What has been the biggest benefit of adopting Agile?

The metrics and amazing visibility we have into development projects. This is especially important for a team that’s 9,000 miles away. We have visibility into how they’re progressing on features, what’s coming next in the roadmap, and really flushing out what the product backlog looks like and where we’re headed.  Prior to implementing Agile, it was very hard to sync-up  (because of the 9 ½ hour time difference), maintain a feedback loop and foster collaboration with teams so far away.

4. What one piece of advice would you give to new Agile teams?

My advice would be to ease into it – kind of like steering a cruise ship, not turning on a dime. Start with familiar concepts and gradually introduce Agile practices over time. We started with familiar ideas like release dates, associated task lists, estimations, and tracking criteria. Then, we used a phased approach to introduce the concepts of iterations, story points and relative sizing, velocity, and ranking. We continue to work toward more granular inputs to smoothly coordinate roles, tools and dependencies within Rally as we go along to continuously perform at higher levels and get better outputs.

5. How can you tell that Agile is successful at Lulu.com?

One of top ways I can tell that Agile is successful in our organization is that people, even outside of engineering, are speaking in story points. That tells me that Agile has really taken hold. Using story points and velocity for our release planning makes it easy to arrive at a date that everyone is comfortable with. On top of that, our track record since adopting Agile shows that we’ve been delivering on our commitments every time.

This is #4 in a Series on the Culture of Innovation with guest blogger Lee Devin.

Do you notice a difference between problems and difficulties? A problem has a solution. When engineers solve it, the problem goes away. It’s a question raised for solution with fixes, tests, and checklist updates. In contrast, a difficulty has no solution. A difficulty wants you to sit with it, address it, not solve it. Artists know this world of the difficult very well.  No definitive fix, test, or checklist will suffice. Sitting with and playing with the difficult is simply part of the knowledge work of the artist.

For both the engineer and the artist, a difficulty is often what tangles up the solution to a problem. We see problems and difficulties all around us in the world of innovation. What’s needed to address a difficulty may not be clear at first, if ever. You may, in fact, never achieve that lovely industrial clarity. And yet, our ability to gaze unflinchingly into the face of difficulty will lead us to solve problems with greater innovation and deeper artistic mastery.

Difficulties require “AND” thinking

Difficulties are fuzzy. Improving how we address difficulties requires us to hold a large container with the word “AND” versus the word “OR.” This concept was first introduced to me in Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. I also delved into the topic in his course on Leading and Learning for Sustainability. To work with difficulties, we hold and play with a spectrum of possibilities, multiple solutions sets: this AND this AND this AND this. For the actors in a theater ensemble, AND means absorbing a variety of possibilities with the materials surrounding the play. Many innovative outcomes await based on the ensemble’s ability to hold the ambiguity of the art and embrace that sense of release.

For engineers, this might look like the following: you are solving multiple simultaneous equations for problems you see in the larger system. To be able to hold on to this container, you and the team have to feel safe “failing” with lots of little experiments. You must keep the “art of the possible” in mind. This is not an easy task for an individual, much less a group. Difficulties that accompany problems require the courage and patience to sit in a large container of ambiguity.

Consider the wicked problem example

In their book Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions Peter DeGrace and Leslie Hulet Stahl help us delve further into problems and difficulties. Wicked problems arise out of several conditions. First, the problem domain is complex and fraught with difficulty. Then, the solution domain is similarly complex and difficult.  Finally the two overlap. That is a wicked problem. Wicked problems hold nests of difficulties. Let’s compare the wicked problem of an engineer and one of an actor.

The engineer’s work begins by reading a user story and exploring the problem sheet from the architecture council. In this assignment, the engineer must be prepared to address known and unknown difficulties on the path to a solution. The engineer recognizes that there is no one solution. How difficulties are addressed may be the key to just how innovative the resulting solution is.

This assignment is the equivalent of a script given to actors. The script is not a limit, but rather material on which to perform and interpret to create something new. There is no one solution. And so, the actors hold ambiguity as they move to the ultimate offering to their audience.  How the final play comes together may depend on the ensemble’s ability to play with and address the large realm of possibilities.

The art of the possible and innovation

Like actors, engineers and other knowledge workers need to do our homework, invite innovation and alternative solutions. We need to address difficulties not by point solutions, but by applying “AND” thinking, creating large containers of possibility. We must embrace the art of the possible. In the case of the actor, this comes in the form of rehearsal, ensemble and release that ultimately leads to the actual performance. In the case of the engineer, this work comes in the form of design spikes, set-based engineering, and tests. In both cases, experiments create space around difficulties. The art of the possible broadens the team’s or troupe’s innovative outcomes.

For such a culture of innovation, “AND” thinking is a vital function. At Rally, we apply “AND” thinking in how we address difficulties in a variety of ways. We may take a particular problem with its difficulties and spread it across a paired team of engineers. The teams work safely in an “art of the possible” mode for addressing difficulties in a way that leads to a better solution. We eventually move through the “AND” to a final solution, having addressed the difficulties in a variety of contexts. How you invite “AND” thinking and the art of the possible into your organization may include your Chief Engineer, a Product Owner, Director of System Engineering or a peer engineer all working in a new larger container.

Say “No,” to “No way!” and “Yes,” to “Imagine if…”

Within given circumstances, which are different for each team member, and a safe container for the conversation, the group can play out the implications of a solution, and discover its virtues and flaws. As with an ensemble of actors working through the possibilities of a scene, the only rule is: Never say, “No!” Swallowing that “No” can be hard! You must fight your first response to a suggestion or proposition, which is often “No, there is no way that it will work.”

Instead, the thing you must do is think, “Wait a minute. Let’s assume it will work. Let’s find out what happens when it does.” And, you’ll find out what happens when it does by behaving (thinking, talking, deciding) as if it is in place and working. If your first response is “Oh, wow, what a great idea!” the release might be, “How do I fit myself into this? What can I do personally to make it work?” The tool here is imagination.

We must find comfort in ambiguity and uncertainty. The question is: how can you create the container that allows your team to live with this difficulty and keep from jumping to try and solve it? If we create a culture friendly enough to notice accident and serendipity, we set ourselves up for the asymmetric payoffs associated with successful innovations. Our “AND” thinking and art of the possible ferret out the wicked problems and harvest collective team creativity.

Here’s something obvious I’ve learned the hard way: delivering “potentially shippable product increments” each and every Sprint isn’t easy.  Essentially you’re trying to take all the disparate activities that occur throughout the waterfall process, focus them on just the little product increment’s functionality and then jam them into a teensy little Sprint.  Hard to do and definitely pretty unlikely to get accomplished right out of the chute. The authors of “Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development”, Craig Larman and Bas Vodde, forgive you in advance for not getting this done straight away. In fact they suggest that this is more a goal the team will approach over time than a rule they put in place on day one.

The authors propose something very simple but very insightful:

• Sketch out all the things you need to do to get your product out the door.
• Define “done” as that subset of those the team is currently capable of performing every Sprint.
• Use your retrospectives to challenge the team to bring more and more of the “undone” work into each Sprint.

This has already changed the way I think about retrospectives. For other nuggets from Larman and Vodde’s book, read on.

Overall a Must-Read for Agile Development Leaders

I was blown away by “Scaling Lean & Agile Development”, as you can see from my bullish review on O’Reilly.  Some time has passed since then but I still feel that it’s one of the most important development books I’ve read.  That book alluded to the companion volume, “Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development”, and as you can imagine I awaited its publication eagerly.  It came out in February – I’ve worked my way through it now.   It’s most definitely a worthy successor.

The first book presents theoretical and philosophical underpinnings for agile and lean development. The second book presents a survey of practices relevant to all aspects of the process of developing software at scale, presented by two guys who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table.

Continual Investment in Requirements

Larman and Vodde present practices relevant to a continual investment in requirements throughout the product development process. This is done both up-front, in seeding the product backlog, and iteratively, in refining requirements to support upcoming Sprints.

I love the emphasis they place on whole-team involvement in the initial Product Backlog development effort – even for projects with large teams.  Too often I’ve seen this be the provenance of Product Owners, working in near isolation, which does little to get the project off on a good footing.  The first the team sees of the requirements is the Product Backlog itself, having been involved in none of the  discussions and thought that went into it.

The notion of requirements areas, which was introduced in the first book, is leveraged here to help parallelize the initial requirements development work.  Concurrent sizing and value estimation workshops keep the requirements work rooted in reality.  They spend some time on the problem of bootstrapping a consistent sizing process in a large scale team. The use of cross-team estimation sessions result in the development of a canonical set of sized stories used as a basis for subsequent sizing at the team level.

In Favor of Forward-Looking Requirements Refinement

The discussion of forward-looking requirements refinement really resonated with me. I’ve found in my own practice that peeking ahead at the Product Backlog items upcoming in the next Sprint and then spending time together working through them to understand what they really mean – before we get into the Sprint planning session – goes a long way towards supporting a predictable iterative process.

It also puts the requirements elaboration just barely outside the Sprint that the work is planned for.  This separates coming to an understanding about what we want from the stress of figuring out how to fit it into a Sprint, which makes for more open and enjoyable requirements development.  The authors suggest the use of examples and Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATTD) to more precisely capture the intended behaviors of the stories in a way that realizes both conversation and confirmation of the “three Cs” . Smart.

The authors show how traditional approaches to project scoping and commitment (where separate product management and development organizations act essentially as competitors) are very much analogous to the contract negotiation that the Agile Manifesto cautions us against.  I’m surprised to admit this never occurred to me – I always read that part of the manifesto pretty literally. But it’s inarguably true that the wrangling between these two groups over project scope and timelines that happens in many organizations is a form of contract negotiation, and the waste it drives can be startling.

The arm wrestling of the product management “market ask” captured in a Market Requirements Document followed by the team’s “development response” carefully defined in a Product Requirements Document is a case in point.  Weeks and months can go by during this ritual.  What are the development teams doing during this time?  Not at lot, in my experience.  Does development really “win” if they manage to push out the end date or reduce scope?  Does product management really “win” if they manage to squeeze in extra features or pull in the release date?  I’ve seen how the empowerment of the Product Owner and the establishment of the Product Backlog as the single high-level requirements and release scoping artifact helped to prevent some of these painful dysfunctions but I’ve never thought of them in terms of an imbalance of contract negotiation over customer collaboration.

Creating “Desire Lines” in Design

Larman and Vodde strongly advocate wikis as the preferred basis for the technical documentation the team develops.  They suggest a page for the overall product and pages for each Sprint. That worked for my teams as well, although there was always a certain (healthy) tension regarding what was appropriate for Sprint documentation and what should be living documentation at the product level.

They present the compelling idea of “desire lines”, which, in landscaping, refer to paths that develop naturally, as people use a given space.  Rather than guessing how people would use the area, they are observed using it and then the landscaping is designed around their actual usage.  Similarly in design, rather than trying to guess what the needs are, let them emerge and then refactor to support the emerging design tensions.  A lovely analogy, I thought, and one that will stay with me.

They suggest both a priori design in collaborative design workshops and design after the fact in System Architecture Documentation (SAD) workshops.  I like the acceptance that both approaches are going to be useful. The former stresses the need for team contribution to the design as the Product Backlog items are being developed, while the latter recognizes that team needs for technical documentation will emerge over time and so setting time aside to fine tune design documentation is both warranted and healthy.

The authors also address the question of whether and when to rewrite code – like Joel Spolsky, I personally favor refactoring to improve legacy code rather then re-engineering.  The authors present a compelling and complementary argument for refactoring and incremental improvement based on the value of instilling a notion of continual (rather than punctuated) improvement in the development teams.  They stress that the real problem isn’t the legacy code you’ve got but rather the legacy code you continue to write.  Encouraging the team to have a mindset of each check-in leaving the code base better than it was before – fixing the broken windows and taking out the trash – is a better solution to the problem of poor code quality than is carving off large sections of time for exclusively improvement-oriented work.

Acceptance Test Driven Development

The book’s worth it just for this material alone.  Larman and Vodde present a wonderful analysis of ATDD and characterize its place in the context of Scrum, including tying it into iterative requirements refinement, the Definition of Done and the Sprint Review.  I’d seen teams go in this direction driven largely by the desire to better engage testers in their teams throughout the Sprint and avoid “scrummerfall.” The authors take this further to show how ATDD, in which acceptance tests are defined and automated in advance of the development of the code that will pass those tests, does for teams in an iteration what Test Driven Development (TDD) does for individual developers in ten minutes.

They stress the need for the test automation to be a distributed responsibility shared by the whole team rather than one assigned to a specialist team.  I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve seen many attempts to establish test automation through the creation of a group apart from development and I can’t say that I’d call any of them particularly successful – at least not in the broad and encompassing sense that Larman and Vodde are envisioning in this book.

Continuous Integration at Scale

I was particularly glad to see treatment of Continuous Integration (CI) at scale. I’ve seen groups start with vanilla CI as it is described in the Extreme Programming literature and do well with it initially but then fail as their groups grew larger.

Essentially, Larman and Vodde propose a nested set of continuous integration builds, each larger one subsuming sets of smaller ones within it and each build defined for a particular concern.  Examples of these concerns include the verification of specific components and subsystems but also particular kinds of testing – including things like performance and stability testing.  One key aspect of this approach is that, at each level, you’re trading off the immediacy of feedback to the developer against the likelihood of the developer’s submission affecting quality at that level and the expense of the tests.

The Elusive Definition of Done

As noted earlier, Larman and Vodde,  suggest defining “done” as that subset of the work needed to release the product the team is currently capable of performing each and every Sprint – then use your retrospectives to challenge the team to bring more and more of the “undone” work into each Sprint.  The authors point out that there are really only two ways to extend the Definition of Done:  increase the cross-functionality of the team or increase the degree of automation the team uses.

In the meantime, however, while the Definition of Done leaves some work undone, Larman and Vodde suggest meeting that problem honestly, by doing things like defining an undone work team and pushing undone work onto the Product Backlog.  By being explicit about where the team currently stands against the goal of delivering potentially shippable product increments, this undone work can be better managed and the team’s insights can be directed to the problem of expanding that definition of done to get them closer to the goal.

For the Bookshelf of any Agile Team Member

The book isn’t without its faults.  It’s certainly long enough and some sections can be tedious (there’s a fifteen or so page section where different scenarios for story splitting are laboriously addressed – I get that this common complaint about stories needs to be put to rest but this feels like killing me with kindness :)).  The book’s organization lends itself more to use as a reference than as something you’d read cover to cover.   There are many repetitive sections that allow each chapter to stand on its own but are a bit hard to get through when you read it straight through.  But these are really just quibbles.  In all, “Practices for Scaling Lean  & Agile Development” is, just as its companion volume before it was, a tremendous book that belongs on the bookshelf of any agile coach, manager or team member.

I’d like to thank Anne Greenhaw and Selaine Henriksen for their help in developing this post.  Thanks also to Ryan Martens for inviting me to post here.

About the Author: Ed Willis has been a ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Scrum coach and trainer.  He is currently a developer in the telecommunications industry.

Managing the right goals in software development can have a major impact on your team’s success. You get what you measure. In this regard, the goals you choose can be a defining factor in whether your organization’s Agile adoption thrives or dives. So, what are your choices?

A story about goal-setting

Imagine you are a runner. You have a running coach defining targets for you. Your coach chooses miles and seconds in order to measure you. These metrics turn out to be useful; they are universally understood by you, your coach and your competitors. That’s a good thing. A target goal exchange around these metrics might look like the following:

Coach: “I need you to run a 2-minute mile.”

You: “Uh, I’m not sure I can do that. In fact I don’t think it has ever been done before by any land animal other than a wildebeest, a pronghorn antelope or a cheetah. And, I’m not a wildebeest.”

Coach: “You’re not listening. I already told Sports Illustrated you will. Don’t make me look bad.”

You: “Seriously I’m pretty sure that’s just not humanly possible. I’m no Usain Bolt and I’m not sure even he could sustain a 2-minute mile.”

Coach: “Hey, I set the goals. Run that mile in 2 minutes. Just hunker down and work harder. 2-minutes is the target goal. If you don’t meet it, I’m kicking you off the team.”

You: (muttering under your breath to self, “I can’t do it, you aren’t listening to me, and you are a moron. Why do I even bother to open my mouth?”)

Why goals matter

Get the idea? I’ve been reading John Seddon’s Freedom from Command and Control: Rethinking Management for Lean Service. My colleague Alan Atlas recommended the book. Then my manager Ryan Martens became very interested which led to a book appearing on my desk. Soon after, Karl Scotland mentioned it in an informal conversation about Lean and Kanban. Time to pop it to the top of my reading stack!

Seddon sets a context about Purpose driving Measures that then drive Methods. The combination of purpose and measures start to look like goals. And Seddon breaks goals into two types: Target Goals and Capability Goals. While John’s book is not specifically about software, I could see how we use and abuse goals in our software world. So I decided to delve deeper.

Target goals are arbitrary and doom-laden

Target goals are set to measure hopeful results, often an arbitrary number. Think about our runner story and the 2-minute mile. That target goal was  set by someone else. A target goal typically does not account for your strengths, capabilities , availability and skills. Target goals don’t serve you. They don’t serve organizations either. And yet we cling to them. Consider if, as a developer, I hear the following from my manager:

“Jean! You missed the release deadline we gave you. We told marketing and sales who then told our customers that dev would deliver this specific functionality on this specific date. You’re ruining everything. We’re doomed I tell you, doomed! And all because YOU didn’t hit YOUR deadline.”

Uh, it wasn’t my deadline. And yet, missing that goal is now rippling negatively through the organization. This is a lose-lose situation all due to expectations hinged to an arbitrary target goal.

So why do target goals exist?

In many hierarchical, command-and-control software organizations, target goals are how deadlines are set. As Seddon points out, use of ineffective target goals usually arises due to an impossible purpose coupled with non-value add methods. The measures (or goals) are meant to drive teams to the impossible purpose. A command-and-control organization believes that goals must be set top down. The negative impact of these goals is inextricably woven into unrealistic expectations, death marches, and non-value add methods for controlling the work toward the goals.

Enter the capability goal

Let’s replay the runner scenario again.

Coach: “There is a race coming up, a half marathon. That means we need to start training now. What is your time currently?”

You: “I haven’t been really running lately. Rather than guess my times, I’ll start running now. Do you want to know in terms of how long it takes me to run a mile, or how far I can run in a specific timebox?”

Coach: “Let’s start with how you finish a mile. What is your typical way of getting going?”

You: “First, I do a walk/run combination. Then I can give you my actual mile capability in a week.”

Coach: “Okay, let’s set up a plan and together set some sort of goals based on your capabilities. That will help me guide you and figure out when we are faltering. I know you can do this. I’m going to work with you starting right now.”

You: (muttering under your breath, “This is amazing; yea me! I am going to finally put my passion for running to work, keep improving, and run my first half marathon. I love my coach!)

Capability goals are based on real data

Together, the runner and the coach watch the capabilities of the runner to define goals. The purpose of the goal is clear. Measures are set up that usefully help determine the runner’s progress. The method (or running regimen) for attaining the goal is then applied. Simple.

We use this same approach in Agile teams. A team lead or project manager does not set an arbitrary target goal. Rather, the Product Owner sets an overall purpose/vision. The Agile lead, often referred to as the ScrumMaster, works with the team to assess what goals can be reached based on a team’s capabilities and availability. From iteration to iteration, the team provides feedback on what it is able to complete based on its capabilities. The Product Owner absorbs this information and sets expectations outside the team. The process of continuous improvement continues. The team declares, “Based on what we tend to complete, and given the purpose from the Product Owner, we are going to improve our methods in the following ways.”

When good capability goals go bad

There’s a Gary Larsen “Far Side” cartoon of an open refrigerator with a bowl of glop inside holding a gun. The caption? “When good potato salad goes bad”.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen good capability goals go bad in a number of organizations. Listen to this conversation:

Program Director: “I see that our Agile teams are all now using these things called story points to track their work.”

Me: “Yes, it’s working well. Each team has a good sense of what it is capable of delivering iteration over iteration. That helps me figure out how to help remove impediments, where bottlenecks are, and where any team may need us to better resource them. It’s great!”

Program Director: “Hmmmm.”

Me: (muttering under my breath: “That ‘Hmmmm’ just doesn’t sound good. I think I’m about to get sick.”)

Program Director: “So, what’s the highest story point commitment a team has made?”

Me: “27.”

Program Director: “Great!  I’m setting 27 points as the target goal for all teams to commit to for each iteration. Every point will represent 3 hours of work. This precision will help me calculate exactly what we’ll deliver when. Plus, I’ll know which teams are really working and which ones are slackers.”

Me: “Hmmmm.”

Program Manager: “So, let’s get out there and commit! This Agile stuff is great!”

Me: (muttering under my breath, “We’re doomed, I tell you doomed!”)

What just happened must not be allowed

As you roll out your organizational Agile adoption, you’ll encounter many challenges. Pay attention to the usefulness of capability goals. Insist on using them.  Non-Agile organizations won’t like this. At times, you may feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock up hill for all eternity. Be strong. Don’t allow Agile measurement abuse. Create team and organizational trust.  Remove target goals and embrace the incredible value of capability goals. And, don’t allow any backslide. Don’t let your capability goals devolve slowly into target goals in sheep’s clothing.

You: (muttering under your breath, “You know? This MAY just work. Capability goals versus target goals. For the sake of my team, our organization, and the value we deliver to our customers, I’m going to do it!”)

It’s clear, there is not a one-size-fits-all way to define Agile success. Every organization is different, every Agile team is different, and every software development project is different. Each organization has to figure out how to pilot, extend and excel at Agile. Distinct Agile teams within the organization also have to determine how to move to performance in their own ways and make the most effective use of team members to meet their commitments. Full participation from everyone involved is critical to move the organization, process and infrastructure to a better place. The successful approach to adopting Agile acknowledges Agile is not just fad or a quick fix, it is part of an ongoing dialogue of what’s working, what’s not and what are we going to change.

Bringing the Agile community together is a great way for both new and mature Agile teams to share best practices, pain points and success stories. Rally hosts regional events, called Agile Success Tours, to bring the Agile community together for just this purpose. At a recent event in Dallas, we asked participants how they defined Agile success and posed the same question to Twitter. We caught some great answers on video and got some nice, succinct tweets defining Agile success:

These answers illuminate that Agile is a different way of thinking and working for organizations. It’s a smarter, more skeptical and fun craft that addresses the systemic issues found in our increasingly complex and interconnected world. Through Rally’s work over the years helping organizations both large and small adopt Agile, we’ve come to figure out some fundamental components of what success looks like. Agile success comes down to creating the yearning to continue to ratchet up your agility and discipline as a team.

There truly is a simplicity behind Agile adoption when you create the shared commitment and vision that drives your organization – then you begin to see the beauty and the possibilities attainable in an Agile business.

I would like to welcome Ed Willis to our blog, as a guest blogger.  I spent a couple of days with Ed and his team of internal coaches this Winter and I am glad to have him share some of their lessons from the field of large distributed Agile – Ryan

Question: What are we, as Scrum team members, committing to in a sprint?

The higher-level Sprint Goal or the more detailed set of selected Product Backlog? If you are a customer of the team, what is the team telling you it will do?

I recall being pretty confused about what the team was committing to in Sprint planning after reading Agile Software Development with Scrum, by Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle, for the first time. There seemed to be some ambiguity around whether the Scrum Team commits to the set of selected Product Backlog items or to the Sprint Goal, which is a higher level and less precise concept. A couple of quotes from that book will help illuminate the situation:

“A team commits to achieving a Sprint Goal.”

“The Scrum Team commits to turn a selected set of Product Backlog into a working product.”

And this from Schwaber’s The Enterprise and Scrum: “… the team selects as much Product Backlog as it believes that it can transform into a completed increment of potentially shippable product functionality by the end of the Sprint. The team commits to the Product Owner to do its best to complete that amount of functionality.”

From the first book again, “The Sprint Goal is an objective that will be met through the implementation of the Product Backlog … The reason for having a Sprint Goal is to give the team some wiggle room regarding the functionality … If the work turns out to be harder than the team had expected, then the team might only partially implement the functionality. “

Note that that last quote appears nearly verbatim in a recent (Feb 2010) version of the Scrum Guide published on scrum.org.

Between the current Scrum Guide and 2001’s “Agile Software Development with Scrum”, Schwaber’s Agile Project Management with Scrum presents an overview of Scrum in its first chapter which does not discuss the Sprint Goal at all – similarly, “The Enterprise and Scrum” provides a summary of Scrum in an appendix that does not talk about the Sprint Goal.

So what are we, as Scrum team members, committing to: the higher-level Sprint Goal or to the more specific set of selected Product Backlog? And why am I so focused on Sprint-level commitments? I focus on commitments because my stakeholders and customers value them. Their plans are in part based on my team’s delivery and so being able to make and meet short-term commitments makes us a better partner to them – “don’t trouble your customer”.

Can You Commit to an Incomplete Sprint?

“Agile Software Development with Scrum” states, “Sometimes only a partial Sprint Backlog can be created … define the initial investigation, design, and architecture work in as much detail as possible, and leave reminders for work that will probably have to be done once the investigation or design has been completed.”

Both that quote and the earlier one on the purpose of the Sprint Goal suggest that the Scrum canon allows for both incomplete Sprint planning and a mechanism to de-scope the Sprint if the team falls behind. If you find yourself in a situation similar to mine (and I suspect many, many of us find ourselves in this situation) where your customers and stakeholders really do value the ability to make and meet high-level commitments in terms of working software that will be delivered at Sprint’s end, then I think that finding a way to do this more regularly is a path you can and should pursue. And it’s one my colleagues and I have embarked on wholeheartedly. All you really need to do to become a better partner in this regard is advance your Sprint planning practices and adapt the strategies you use when you discover you’ve fallen behind.

Reliably Committing to the Selected Product Backlog – One Group’s Perspective

Being able to reliably deliver against Product Backlog commitments isn’t hard conceptually – it starts with doing a better job in Sprint planning. There are probably many ways to do this but I thought I’d share what we’ve done to accomplish this.

Capacity Planning

Our Sprint planning starts with a detailed view into capacity. Is anyone on the team going to be away on training or vacation during the Sprint? Will the remainder of their time be focused on the Sprint? If not, how much do time they think they’ll have to spend in the Sprint? Knowing the total capacity of the team in the coming Sprint is the foundation of a solid Sprint plan.

Ideal Time Estimation

To estimate our Sprint Backlog tasks, we use “ideal time” as it is described in Planning Extreme Programming by Beck and Fowler: “Ideal time is time without interruption where you can concentrate on your work and feel fully productive.” Ideal time on any given task is in essence the answer to the question “how long would this task take you in a perfect world?” Ideal time is then converted into real time in a very similar manner to how story points are converted into expected duration for stories – you measure the velocity of the team. For example, if ideal time velocity of a team is measured at 0.66, then two ideal days of work has been seen in the past to be about three calendar days.

That use of past experience is critical because it rolls up estimation error, overhead, interruptions et al into a single factor used to improve the accuracy of the task estimates while only requiring of the people doing the estimates that they do so consistently. We’ve found it useful. Conceptually I also like it because, along with the use of story points and their corresponding velocity, it increases Scrum’s fractal, self-similar nature.

Assigning Tasks

Typically we assign all the tasks in the Sprint Backlog during the planning meeting. There’s probably enough divergence of thought on this point to warrant its own post, but to stick to the matter at hand, we do this for reasons relevant to the goal of producing more reliable Sprint plans. One major motivation is the fact that estimates provided by the person who will actually do the work are demonstrably more accurate. The second major motivation is our observation that, when trying to achieve greater work sharing and improve the flow of value to the customer by avoiding bottlenecking through specialists, we do a better job of supporting people who are branching out into unfamiliar territory if we know they’re going to do so a priori. Specifically, we can build time into our Sprints for the people who are more knowledgeable in a given area to mentor or review the work of those who are working in areas less familiar to them.

Spikes

We make frequent use of spikes to allow us to develop a better or more complete understanding of what a given story will entail thus giving us the insight needed to build more complete Sprint plans.

Reviewing the Sprint Plan

We review our Sprint plans to look for mistakes we commonly make. We’ve gone as far as enumerating the mistakes we make most often to help us look specifically for those as we do Sprint planning. Most of these are different flavors of not applying our “definition of done” and thus ending up with incomplete plans. If your goal is to develop challenging plans but plans that you’re likely to deliver on, then trying hard to ensure your plans are complete is important.

Note that none of the above should be intended to suggest that we value immutable Sprint Backlogs or task assignments. We can and do frequently grow and shrink the Sprint Backlog as the team uncovers more information about what’s needed to deliver the committed Product Backlog. Similarly, we shuffle (and re-estimate) tasks regularly. What we don’t do is allow significant parts of the work to go unplanned or unassigned at the point we decide what we’re committing to deliver.

Beyond Yes or No

Beyond improved Sprint planning, the second critical aspect for us in delivering committed Product Backlog in a Sprint is how we deal with falling behind. I frequently say in delivering Scrum training that if someone comes to you asking if a bunch of features can get done given fixed resourcing by a given date, that the best of all possible answers is “yes”. The worst of all possible answers is “no” – but not because you’re delivering bad news but rather because saying “no” reinforces the fallacy that that decision is really binary in nature and ignores the great value to be gained by digging into the details to see what’s actually possible.

Similarly when Scrum teams fall behind, they frequently see their choices as being to either: stick with the plan or remove lower priority Product Backlog in consultation with the Product Owner. Those are reasonable choices but I much prefer a third option: work very closely with the Product Owner to find an easier way to deliver the committed Product Backlog items in the time remaining – essentially, use the combined talents and insights of the Product Owner and the team to find simpler, cheaper ways to get the selected Product Backlog done. Honestly, it can feel like magic when it happens.

We once had a Sprint on a tool development project that had fallen far behind – it appeared that no amount of plan scrubbing or task shuffling would allow us to deliver the committed Product Backlog by Sprint’s end. We met with the Product Owner with the intention of choosing Product Backlog to remove from the Sprint. In the course of conversation though, the Product Owner got a better feel for the approach the team was taking in developing one specific item – the item that was driving most of the over-run. Collectively, they realized that the approach was fancier than was really required and in short order sketched out an alternative. We immediately revised our Sprint Backlog to remove the old approach and built a plan for the new one – in about an hour, we went from hopelessly behind with no chance of delivering the complete set of Product Backlog to being close to on schedule. I think having a strong team desire to deliver the whole of the selected Product Backlog was key to making this happen.

Anecdotally, I can say that my colleagues and I worked hard to improve our Sprint planning and replanning practices and pretty quickly found ourselves doing much better in meeting our Product Backlog commitments. For example, during one ten month stretch, I counted 93% of Product Backlog items delivered on time in the Sprints in which they were planned. This isn’t the only thing that matters but it made a big difference to us and our stakeholders: it gave us confidence in the team.

Conclusions

• Use the Sprint Goal to capture over-arching but incremental project goals if this concept is meaningful to you and if goals like these are more meaningful commitments than would be the selected Product Backlog – but definitely don’t use the Sprint Goal as a crutch to support poor Sprint planning practices.
• Don’t let the Scrum canon hinder your team’s thinking when tuning your process to better satisfy your business needs – the canon wasn’t created to limit your thinking.
• And above all, don’t believe that your team won’t be able to reliably commit to the selected Product Backlog Sprint over Sprint – you almost certainly can and, if your team and your stakeholders value this, then by all means pursue improvements in this area.

I’d like to thank Anne Greenhaw, Selaine Henriksen and Ryan Martens for their help in developing this post.  Thanks to Ryan also for inviting me to post here.

About the Author: This is the first guest blog post of Ed Willis. Ed was a soldier, a cab driver, a security guard, a tree planter, an auto glass installer and shop manager, an employee of several bookstores, a house painter, a dish-washer, and a foot messenger, among at least a few other things before buying his first computer. Since then he has worked as a research assistant at Queen’s University, driven a data mining company into the ground and ridden Nortel Networks nearly all the way down. He currently works for company in telecommunications. Born in NY, NY, he now lives in Ottawa, Ontario.