Skip to main content

The Holiday Stratagem

What do the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays do to your teams tempo and cadence?

For most US teams this holiday period from mid November to after the first of January is hectic and disruptive in various ways.  This calls for a Holiday Stratagem.  A trick to allow the team to have some semblance of continuity and flow during these times.
The Sontaran Stratagem - Doctor Who

To discuss this stratagem let's first define some terms:

Tempo - the rate of workdays to calendar days
Cadence - the beat of the sprint events to fall upon the same calendar day of the week
Sprint duration -  in work days (in this example I'll use 10 work days)
Sprint length - the length of calendar days between two sprints (14 days for the example 2 week sprint)

What do you value more?  The ability to deliver more work in the short term -or- the ability to predict long term the capability of the team to deliver that work?  Or perhaps something else, like teaching a new team the trade-offs in making decisions and helping them to learn from reflecting upon these decisions.

This is one area that I find lots of variability in agile coaches answers when the team just wants an answer to the question - what do we do?  I love this variability.  I enjoy the ensuing debate over the better answer and delving into the reasons why for a specific case.  And this is definitely one domain that is not simple - nor is there a best practice.  So reader beware - there will be no one best practice, no correct way - here is the land of trade-offs.  And it is an interesting land well balanced between the trade-offs such that the replications of the decision are virtually uninteresting.  I think that makes a great play space for the team to practice decision making.

Let's use an example and then discuss the options.  Team Alpha-Dog is on a 2 week sprint schedule with the beginning on Monday (Sprint Planning) and the end of sprint activities (Demo & Retro) on the Friday of the following week.  Along comes the 2013 holiday season with the company's holiday plan for Thanksgiving days off on Nov. 28th & 29th.  In the sprint planning on Monday, Nov 25th the team has a decision.  Do they keep the sprint duration constant (at 10 working days) and there by break cadence - or - do they break tempo and keep the sprint length consistent at 14 days?


Option A - Illustrated
Option A:  Sprint duration constant at 10 working days.  Sprint begins Nov 25th and runs to Demo on Tuesday, Dec 10th.  The cadence of the team and stakeholders will change.

Option B:  Sprint cadence constant at 14 calendar days.  Sprint begins Nov 25th and runs to Demo on Friday, Dec 6th.  The duration changes to 8 working days - impacting planning and subsequent velocity calculations.

Option C: Sprint duration and cadence are broken.  Sprint begins Nov 25th and runs to Demo on Friday, Dec 13th.  A sprint duration of 13 work days to try to reestablish the Monday/Friday cadence - just on an alternate rhythm.

I'm sure someone will offer another option, I'm just going to stop with these three and quickly rule out option C as the worst of all.  It's always nice to have an option everyone can agree upon - even if it is the worst - at least we all agree.

One may want to do a bit of mid-term planning before making the decision.  What will happen with the Christmas and New Year's holiday if we continue with the decision principles we use now; does this leave us in a cadence we wish for the coming year?



If the team desires to switch it's cadence or duration - there is no better time than now.  Have you met the 13+2 Sprint Cadence?



If the team chooses option A then planning is easy, the average velocity calculation is consistent (no need for an asterisks in the log book); however the team ends up changing the sprint cadence and this may wreck havoc on stakeholder's schedules.  The impact to this decision typically ripples outside the team more than inside the team.  It's a good test of the servant leadership paradigm at your company.  Do the leaders server the team or does the team serve the leaders?

If the team chooses option B then planning is a touch harder involving fractional math (I've found this surprisingly difficult for some,  capacity this unique sprint is 8/10 times the typical sprints velocity).  This sprint's velocity may be thrown out of the set for future statistical calculations.  Stakeholder's may be happy because they don't have to rearrange their busy calendars.  But the externality impact to the team may be hidden, it is the compression of the sprint that will throw them off, they will be off tempo.

Projecting these decision into the mid-range future and through to the middle of January may help you make a decision on principles.  But don't expect these principles to hold true when it comes to the following year's calendars.  These are not true principles but just situational guide lines.  It is a good time to practice team consensus making tools like the fist of five.

Have a happy holiday!




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…

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, …

Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



Orientation - Why am I here?
"Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…

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.


Do You Put “CSM” After Your Name?

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:
Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order. That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …