Agile Development Blog

In my post “What’s with all the Agile Process Overhead? Part 1″, I reviewed the contents of the Sprint  Backlog. Hold, commit to, and track items of value there. Nothing else.

I eluded to two other perceived Agile Process overheads, one of which I’d like to peek at today: how do you allocate your time effectively?

This came about from the same client discussion that prompted the post on the Sprint Backlog. In conversation, I discovered that the team believed that they had to be 100% allocated for the entire duration of their Sprint. Hence, the lengthy, detailed nature of their Sprint Backlog. Time to back up.

Team Members determine their ideal effort availability

We’ve already covered one problem with this allocation paradigm: you are tracking the wrong thing in your Sprint Backlog if it is not showing value-add work completion. Now, here is the second villain. No-one can accurately account for all hours of every working day as “ideal effort hours”; that is, hours of completely uninterrupted, undistracted work. Ravi Jha stole some of my thunder on this with his great comment to my previous post. Heed his advice from February 27!

Teams preparing to plan their commitment for a Sprint/Iteration look at their capacity; that is, how much work do we believe we can take on and complete by the end of the Sprint? As Ravi pointed out, a good team assumes from the start that it cannot devote a full 8-hours a day strictly to product backlog value-add work. A good beginning capacity number is 6.  Why 6? Because it is not 8. Until informed otherwise, of our 8-hour work day, we believe each of us can truly be heads-down concentrating for 6 of those hours. The rest of the time will be swallowed up by interruptions, emails, unplanned meetings, and other distractions.

Now, here is the sticky part. As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, Agile teams must also take into account slack for what they can’t know. This is different than the 6 hour number of ideal effort hours. When we make a commitment in a Sprint Planning meeting, the commitment is:

• We are committing to moving forward with what we currently know so that we can continue to learn by building a potentially shippable increment of the product.
• Our intention is to complete all of these Sprint Backlog items based on the analysis and conversation that has happened to this point.
• We think it will take these many ideal effort hours and we believe we have this many hours available.
• Everyday, we will honestly evaluate how we are doing with our commitment so that we can improve on meeting this commitment AND improve on how we make commitments in the future.

Therefore, a team, not knowing what it doesn’t know, applies a certain additional level of slack or buffer to how it commits. Call this the “Commitment – Buffer of Unknownables” (or C-BOUs). Now the team that has 6 uninterrupted hours per team member per day may additionally say, “Our C-BOU is about 1 hour person right now per day because we just don’t know this product or this process very well. We don’t know what we don’t know, though we know we want to get better.” As the team evaluates the Product Backlog Items with the Product Owner, and as they determine tasks and estimates for this work, they are keeping in mind:

• what ideal hours they will need
• what ideal hours do they have
• how much C-BOU should they hold back

By the end of the Sprint Planning meeting, a commitment then truly represents:

• Items of value we intend to deliver
• Commitment by the team to learn about commitment
• Intention to use the buffer for what they couldn’t have known
• Agreement to evaluate the C-BOU at each retrospective to see if it needs to be bigger or smaller

Some teams call for a bigger C-BOU due to the volatility of their environment. (Okay, they prefer to say their business is very “organic”.) Tracking this capacity buffer is a great way to enable getting to the root of that “organic” nature. Without paying explicit attention to the truth of unknowns and the amount of time they take, a team and the agile project management can create waste and overhead. Teams go into a frenzy mode to meet a commitment that allowed for no buffer, no unknowns. Management applies pressure to meet the commitment despite the clear and present issues that are eating up the efforrt. None of these tactics improve team commitment; they create overhead, waste, and low morale. And they add the cost of manaing all three of these.

That’s it for Part 2. In Part 3, I’ll talk about how you plan for unplanned work, without using a crystal ball :- )

When we started with Scrum at Rally years ago, we used to just do a design meeting every few weeks with a couple of key stakeholders to talk about what was coming up and prepare the backlog.   This worked relatively well, but as we added more discipline to our release cycle, the ad-hoc backlog planning our Product Owners were used to started to break.

If you want your team to be able to make a commitment around 8 weeks of backlog, you need to do somewhat more prep than you would with vanilla Scrum.  And if you want your team to meet that commitment, you need a mechanism to manage your stakeholders to minimize backlog churn.

About a year ago, we chartered a Product Council to solve this problem.  The Product Council is led by the uber Product Owner for each product, and consists of stakeholder representatives from all interested departments.  This team operates as lightweight Scrum that grooms the backlog for the next release, working in 4 meetings that are 2 weeks apart.

Meeting 1: Retrospective on the last Release

The first meeting falls about a week after the engineering team does Release Planning.  The Product Owners review the plans for each Scrum, talking through the stories for the stakeholders.  We’ll also highlight the work that definitely does not fit into the release.   Usually we have commitments from the development team as to what will be delivered.

We then ask people to rate how they feel about the product (what we plan to deliver) and the process (how we decided).  We tabulate these numbers, and then move on to a regular retrospective on the process – what went well over the last 8-week cycle, what didn’t go well, and what should be changed going forward.

Meeting 2: Bring Your Ideas

In the second meeting, we hang the roadmap and various backlogs on the walls – usability, platform, deferred defects, technical debt, customer requests, etc.  The Council spends about 20 minutes “walking the walls” – reviewing the roadmap and various backlogs.   People add items they think are missing, shift items forward where necessary, and talk about issues and concerns.  The purpose of this meeting is to identify those items the Product Owners should research for the next release – we usually leave with about 10 epics that need investigation.

Meeting 3: Presenting the Design Continuums

The Product Owners spend about 2 weeks researching those key epics, and come back with rough design continuums (backlogs) for each one and high-level estimates.  In Meeting 3, they present these ideas.  Sometimes an epic is too complex or unknown to be considered for the next release, or perhaps it’s too expensive to build given it’s value.  The Product Council votes to rank the different epics.

Meeting 4: Presenting the Detailed Backlogs

Based on the voting from the last meeting, the Product Owners go off and begin blending the strategic epics from the Product Council with small customer requests, deferred defects, and other small items.  In Meeting 4, we present the detailed, forced-rank backlogs that we intend to present to the development teams in Release Planning.   We talk about what’s changed and see if there are any last-minute, “Stop the line” type shifts that have to happen.  We get a fist-of-five commitment from the Product Council to confirm their support for these backlogs.

Moving forward, I’ll post more details about how these specific meetings work.