Skip to main content

Review Constraints before Projecting Desires


A fractal flower pattern
I find Scrum practices to be very self-similar at various scales of granularity. For example the Sprint appears to start with a planning sessions. Yet within the flow of a sprinting team the planning sessions actually starts with a Sprint Review and Process Retrospective and only then do we look into the future. So in the big picture, planning starts with review. Just like in the Scrum Standup meeting - the 3 questions - it starts with a review. What did you get done (past tense)? Next, what will you do (future tense)? And last, what impedes your progress (current tense)?

The Scrum Standup meeting has a flow of past, future, now. When laid out end to end sprints have a similar pattern: Review & Retro (past), followed by Planning (future), followed by sprinting or doing the work (every day, the now). This self similar pattern can be found in many of the Scrum practices. Practices that mature agile teams use to deliver working tested product increments in a few weeks. For example: the Release planning that many teams use to plan multiple sprints at a larger scale than the sprints, ideally starts with a review of the current project state and the path that lead to now. Scrum doesn't state prescriptively that a team must do release planning within the Scrum framework - yet many mature teams do this. And fewer teams do Release Retrospectives - yet the fractal nature of the pattern is very obviously missing, once you have started to see the self replicating patterns of simple rules that lead to complex behaviors.

So if the rule is to review before planning - what is another instance of this pattern?

In sprint planning, a common process flow is to review the velocity from last sprint and to project a future velocity to target for this sprint. The XPers called this the "Yesterday's Weather" pattern.

Woody - Toy StoryI call this capacity planning. And I've just learned that I'm confusing people by using this term. They are typically use to doing individual level capacity planning based upon some type of work hour commitment. Since we pay you for 8 hours, we expect 8 hours of work - myth. I realized today when Woody helped me to see my mistake. This organization has a known process called capacity planning. I suggest they do capacity planning in a team meeting called Sprint Planning. I assume it's understood that we plan at the level of a team, not at the granularity of an individual. This underlying misunderstood assumption is leading to confusion.

Team Capacity planning is much simpler than individual capacity planning. At the appropriate level of granularity it doesn't lead to dysfunctional behaviors. Behaviors like individual members trying to game the system of tracking performance to make themselves look better than another member that they are in competition with for a raise, position, bonus, etc.

So team level capacity planning is a review activity that should take place before the team forecasts a target velocity for Sprint Planning Part A (the What). This is a logical abstraction of reviewing constraints before projecting desires. When teams invert this practice they create a desire bias that will typically lead them to over commit. We all have lots of desire, regardless of our knowledge of constraints, hence the effectiveness of Christmas advertising.

So, please, start a practice of planning with the essential activity of a review.

Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

What is your Engagement Model?

What must an Agile Transformation initiative have to be reasonably assured of success?

We "change agents" or Agilist, or Organizational Development peeps, or Trouble Makers, or Agile Coaches have been at this for nearly two decades now... one would think we have some idea of the prerequisites for one of these Transformations to actually occur.  Wonder if eight Agile Coaches in a group could come up with ONE list of necessary and sufficient conditions - an interesting experiment.  Will that list contain an "engagement model"?  I venture to assert that it will not.  When asked very few Agile Coaches, thought leaders, and change agents mention much about employee engagement in their plans, models, and "frameworks".  Stop and ask yourselves ... why?

Now good Organizational Development peeps know this is crucial, so I purposely omitted them from that list to query.

One, central very important aspect of your Agile Transformation will be your Engagement model.  

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Refactoring - examples from the book

Martin Fowler's book Refactoring:  Improving the Design of Existing Code has a simple example of a movie rental domain model, which he refactors from a less than ideal object-oriented design to a more robust OO design. Included in this Refactoring_FirstExample.zip Zip file are the Java source code files of the Movie, Rental, and Customer classes. Along with a JUnit CustomerTest class. Using these example source files you too can follow along with the refactoring that Fowler presents in the first few chapters of his book.


Metrics for a Scrum Team (examples)

What metrics do you collect to analyze your scrum team?

We live in a world of data and information.  Some people have a mindset that numbers will diagnose all problems – “just show me the data.”  Therefore many directors and senior managers wish to see some list of metrics that should indicate the productivity and efficiency of the Scrum team.  I personally believe this is something that can be felt, that human intuition is much better in this decision realm than the data that can be collected.  However, one would have to actually spend time and carefully observe the team in action to get this powerful connection to the energy in a high-performing team space.  Few leaders are willing to take this time, they delegate this information synthesis task to managers via the typical report/dashboard request.  Therefore we are asked to collect data, to condense this data into information, all while ignoring the intangible obvious signals (read Honest Signals by Sandy Pentland of MIT).
What if …