Agile Development Blog

At Rally, we are always working on both maturing and growing our use of Agile. We started with a single development team and over the past 6 years have been through the process of splitting, growing, partnering, and acquiring.

We did this while continuing to inspect and adapt our development and our strategy execution processes.  We have teams in various stages of maturity using Scrum and Kanban to run all parts of our company.   As the CTO, I have my focus on our strategic planning and execution process.

In 2008, I started to focus on maturing our annual and quarterly planning.  To do that, I used Pascal Dennis’ book titled “Getting the Right Things Done” to structure those efforts.   (See related post about Learning from A3’s a story of 2009 Quarterly Planning at Rally.)

As part of that effort, we worked to change our quarterly and annual planning process to specifically follow a Plan-Do-Check-Adjust model. (Note that I like Pascal’s use of Adjust, not Act which is typically quoted in the Toyota models.)

Prior to 2009, we were simply using an inspect and adapt process to determine annual and quarterly priorities, aka quarterly rocks, based on feedback from last quarter’s results and the corporate roadmap.

This process worked well, but we had some issues including:

• A moving definition of done based on different standards of work (research, implementation, campaigns..)
• A delay in the feedback loop on strategic efforts made it hard to check and close well
• Too many efforts in a quarter lead to poor quality (We found 5 rocks to be too many for us during a quarter)

None of these are different than what most teams experience with going Agile.  So we (1) adjusted and moved to limit our WIP to three rocks, (2) focused on inspecting the definition of done in the meeting, (3) used company wide survey’s to keep from developing group think and (4) chose to do company celebration based on quarterly metrics and not the completion of quarterly rocks.

These all helped make the current process work, but the process was still frustratingly unpredictable, semi-random and always left something to be desired.  Many of the reasons for this are explained in Alan Shalloway’s and Don Reinertsen’s posts on PDCA and types of process The Difference Between “Inspect and Adapt” and Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). Unlike Alan, I do not see or perceive a big issue with Scrum.  Based on my previous post around the roots of agile; Dean Leffingwell and I are in the same camp; Scrum is Lean.

As a result of moving to PDCA approach, we created a single “True-North” goal for the year and drove our quarterly rocks  towards that goal.

Now in Q4 of the year, we had some new changes to our process. By following the PDCA cycle for the year, we put a fine point on CHECK in this final quarter; Subsequently, we have a  Q4 quarterly rock focused solely on checking our Q3 and annual work to fine tune it based on real output.  This is an example of where PDCA cycle is more intentional than basic inspect and adapt at forcing the discipline of checking.

We focused a quarterly rock on checking  to make sure that we are done-done-done with our True North goal for the year.  We also have another Q4, cross-functional rock team focused on preparing for Q1 and 2010 annual planning.  This PDCA-driven rock is a major milestone for me personally.  It moves annual planning solely from my shoulders to a team effort; this pushes ownership of strategy down to the extended management team.  As a result, I am very happy with the move to PDCA for our 2009 strategy execution process. In Don Rienertsen’s terms,  our PDCA-driven process is more defined, while still with un-predictable output and governed with lots of feedback.   This was simply an increase in process maturity that was mandated by our continuing growth.

To do this, we create a team, called the Mountain team, to help the company transition our strategy execution process.   This team steered the transition and proposed our quarterly rocks based on the PDCA process.  And thanks to the ego-less and steady hand of our CEO, we have a very collaborative culture that quickly converge on these changes and quickly put them into action.

I hope this was helpful for you to learn about our experiences with continuous process improvement and our step-function transition processes.  Please note that we are not a perfect comparison to larger organizations trying to transition to large scale agility.  In addition to doing lots of growing, we have another difference that started when we began back in 2003.  We built Agile and Lean principles into our core values.  You can see the difference this might make in my comments to Israel Gat’s post More on Agile Social Contracts.

Specifically our core values are:

• Create your own reality
• Make and meet commitments
• Theory-driven decision making
• Treat people with respect
• Support our community and give back
• Maintain a healthy work/life balance

This is the social contract that we keep with employees. During transitions like this you need culture or a social contract to reinforce your moves toward Agile and Lean behaviors.

About the Author: Ryan Martens is a telemark skier,  founding board member of the Entrepreneurs Foundation of Colorado, and Founder and CTO at Rally Software Development. Subscribe today to get free updates by email or RSS.

Never back down from an intelligent debate - or whatever these idiots are doing

The question over product management vs. product ownership is a huge issue that many companies face as they try to scale Agile. Dean Leffingwell just finished up a great series on Agile Journal in which he makes the case that the Enterprise Product Manager is Likely NOT the Agile Product Owner.

The Agile Journal article series is a great place to jump into the debate, but his blogging on Scaling Software Agility is also excellent and very deep – what Dean tends to call “pithy.” I am sure some of you will call foul with some of Dean’s points, but his methods have proven to be very effective with large-scale agility. I’d ask, are you skeptical based on personal bias or real Agile principles?

Here are four other resources that are great at analyzing product management and product ownership:

1. Enthiosys – I highly recommend their “Product Bytes” newsletter (Luke, Scott and Rich’s leadership here)
2. Pragmatic Marketing – They are shutting down my favorite Tuned In blog, but the others are also good and Tuned In has excellent archived topics
3. On Product Management – I love their lens on product management overall, not purely Agile
4. Accidental Product Manager – Very pithy blog on product management and timely topics

Final note to readers: Dean is a good friend of mine, and he helped me start Rally.  He is an investor and worked for us between 2003 and 2005.  Now he does his own consulting on large-scale Agile and continues writing for Prentice Hall.  I cannot thank him enough for his personal support in shaping my thinking around large-scale software development, building a network into some of the world’s best practitioners, and coaching me as an entrepreneur.  He is a passionate software craftsman.

Thanks, Dean, and very nice work on this critical topic.

This post continues on our series of questions and answers from the webinar Dave West from Forrester and I did on Scaling Agility with Lean: Proven Methods of Operational Efficiency.

At Rally, we often get questions about how Agile fits in with a variety of other practices and processes, so the below questions about Agile and CMMI, Agile and RUP, and Agile and Architecture come as no surprise. Stay tuned for the final Q&A on Agile champions.

DW – is Dave West from Forrester

RAM – is Ryan Martens from Rally

How can Agile be integrated in a CMMI certified application in regards to the tremendous amounts of required CMMI artifacts (documentation)?

DW – The flippant answer is it can’t. ☺  But actually I have seen some great systems integrators use CMMI to help check list their processes of which some of those processes are Agile.  Agile development works really well at the team level, but it needs to be surrounded with other processes. CMMI makes sure you remember those processes, some of which are inside the Agile team, others are not.  The PA’s always seem to imply lots of documentation, but they do not have.  You can keep the documentation to a minimum, but still deliver them.  Do not, however, burden the Agile team with proving their compliance – Use the checklist, build the software and get others to prove they did what they said they did.

RAM – I am not quite as negative as Dave on this topic. CMMI and Agile combine just fine. There are a number of proof points that are easily found from past Agile conferences and by searching “Agile and CMMI.”  The problem is that many folk misinterpret CMMI and are convinced that it mandates waterfall, heavy process and heavy documentation.  According to SEI, it does not.  Most teams would not adopt CMMI without a specific business need.

(more…)