pam summit cracow, the abb.com goes agile story
Post on 28-May-2015
201 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Workshop The OneABB Team Goes Agile
The Tricks Used for Crea8ng Awareness and Desire for Change and Actually Doing the Change
Ma?hew Caine
AGILE
Some people call it a method or an approach
above all
It is about PEOPLE and RESULTS
Assump8ons
• You are looking for real challenges of “Agile” • Expect some quick-‐win “take-‐aways” • You are not here to fine-‐tune your Standups
Who am I? • English • Come from near Liverpool / Manchester • I.T. background • Lived in Zurich since 1994 • Worked in London, NY, Berlin, Geneva and ZH • Discovered “Agile” in 2009
August 2011 Setup M.C. Partners & Associates
September 2012 Launched the Agile Academy
Community
OneABB’s Purpose: “An Awesome Website”
www.abb.com
www.abb.com
80 country sites
2000 content editors
over 1 million urls
10 million views / month
ABB’s website is a key customer connection
Facebook and LinkedIn are the top sources of traffic after direct visits, search, and visits from the intranet
The Real Story • No transparency on status, people or ac8vi8es • 50 people in four countries • 40 people in Krakow organized by skill • Culture of maintenance • “Hero culture” with Prima Donnas • Agile, but not really • Constant “firefigh8ng” • Stuff was late, not as expected, poor quality
This Workshop is about the changes above and beyond Agile skills.
It is about some of the things we
had to do con8nue to do
and s8ll need to do
to give Agile a chance!
How the Workshop will Work
• 9 topics… The first 5-‐6: – Examine the Scenario / Theory – You get 5 minutes at your table to discuss – I then chose 2 groups for feedback – We then look at what was actually done
• At the end we’ll scan the remaining topics.
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire
Performance Reviews
Managing Prima Donnas Be?er Transparency on Work
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
Remote Team
Percep8
on
The Gan? Lie Chart vs “Agile Planning” Looking for & Building Trust
Remote Teamwork
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire The Scenario
It is May 2012. You are in a room with the key people from Krakow and Zurich. They know things have to improve. But don’t know where to start.
Your Task
Discuss how you would get them to: 1. Share & agree on their pains 2. Want to address the pains 3. Agree on the most important changes?
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 1: Brainstorm to Visualise “Tensions”
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 2: Run a Normal Retrospec8ves Session
Categories
What went well?
What do we need to start?
What do we need to stop?
What do we need to improve?
Out-‐of-‐the-‐box innova8ve ideas
3a) Place “tensions” on top
3b) Re-‐examine any lem-‐overs
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 3: Which Tensions could be Resolved and Examine Lem-‐overs
A
B
C
D
E
F
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 4: Group & Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
1. Each Team-‐member has 3 votes. 2. Take 5 minutes to vote. 3. Facilitator checks and summarizes the vo8ng. 4. Debate results.
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 5: Priori8se
Priority
B
E
C
F
D
A
Priority Owner
B John
E Mary
C Mark
F Paul
D
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire Step 6: Assign Owner
Don’t do low prio stuff!
As a peer-‐group they have iden8fied their tensions, priori8zed and assigned owners. By default they are aware and have the focus and desire to change.
Project Methodology
Well Structuring the
Work (Basecamp)
Start Regular
structured standups
Improve Priori8za8on and deadline serng
Improve PM ISDC GWH
Stop Having every task a top priority
Improve Planning and Priori8za8on
Well Doing the scope planning together
Improve Be persistant with things we have started. Do not abandon things.
Start Have a board
with projects and priori8es visible to everyone.
Stop Classic BA process
Stop Making promises
without consul8ng
execu8ng party
Well Projects where we have a clear deliverables schedule
Everything is a priority to everyone in
GWM
Improve Set up common rules for running
a project
Maintenance burden of “old” vs developing
new
Improve Intera8ve: Get feedback more omen, earlier
Start Get the UX – BA –
DEV process working
Well Projects with
weekly mee8ngs to followup on overall status
Improve Working on deadlines together
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire
Managing Prima Donnas
Managing Prima Donnas
Your Task
Discuss and list your thoughts on : • The risks of prima-‐donnas to the teams, department & company. • How you could get the knowledge of the individual prima-‐donnas shared.
The Scenario
Krakow has a number of Individuals that are “prima-‐donnas”…
Managing Prima Donnas
Ø Bo?leneck for the teams Ø Difficult to plan Ø Create dependencies in a sprint Ø Burn out Ø Cause resentment Ø “Under a bus” syndrome Ø Like to keep know-‐how Ø Poor team members
Managing Prima Donnas
Typical Solu8on
Two or more teams share:
But s8ll: • Bo?leneck • Difficult to plan • Create dependencies in a sprint • Burn out • Cause resentment • “Under a bus” syndrome • Insecure – like to keep know-‐how • Poor team members
50%
Alterna8vely
• Make them free-‐agents • No longer responsible for deliverables • Now responsible for coaching &
suppor8ng team members who deliver
Thus • Know-‐how transfer happens • Can support many people • Ego is not damaged ;-‐)
Be?er Transparency on Work
Be?er Transparency on Work The Scenario
• Zurich has no idea who is working on what or why people are working on things. • Krakow does not understand the priori8es, as they constantly change. • Krakow do not know what to work on or why it is suddenly “important”.
Your Task
List your thoughts on how to gain transparency on: 1. Why work is important (Purpose)? 2. What is coming (Future stuff)? 3. Who is working now on what? It is important that both Krakow and Zurich see the same informa8on.
Be?er Transparency on Work
Idea OpAons High Level Plan Features Maintenance
Based on DSDM: Pre-‐Project, Feasibility, Founda8ons, Explora8on & Engineering
Step 1: Define Phases that Projects are “in”
A long 10m Wall will help!
Be?er Transparency on Work Step 2: Map Projects to the Phases and the Projects to Teams
Teams can start to PULL work…
Be?er Transparency on Work Step 3: Assign People to Teams & Iterate (Ac8on Gaps!)
Be?er Transparency on Work Step 4: Make it All Accessible to All (Zurich & Krakow) All the Time e.g. Google Drive Docs
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
The Scenario
Krakow development speed is slowed due to: • Developers gold-‐pla8ng • Poor quality Yet developers want to work on the next latest sexiest work.
Your Task
What do developers need to understand to: • reduce gold-‐pla8ng • deliver quality • get developer working on the next sexy project?
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
ü Build the absolute minimum.
ü Don’t be tempted to do what is interes8ng.
ü Build it well.
ü Make it from simple stuff.
Ø Frees developers from future maintenance.
Ø Gives 8me to start the next sexiest job.
Remote Team
Percep8
on
Remote Team
Percep8
on The Scenario
• There is miscommunica8on in the team split across Zurich & Krakow. • People are by-‐passed and feel unappreciated • Others have to much to do.
Your Task
Two groups will: 1. Read their team descrip8ons 2. Put names to the Roles
(based on DSDM) – Flipchart Provided
3. Reveal the results “Spot the Difference”.
Business Sponsor
Business Visionary
Business Analysts
Business Ambassadors
Business Advisors
Technical Coordinator
Solu8on Testers
Solu8on Developers
Project Manager
Team Leader
“End user”
“Expert user”
Remote Team
Percep8
on
SPOT TH
E DIFFER
ENCE
Remote Team
Percep8
on Zurich’s Percep8on Krakow’s Percep8on
Business Sponsor
Business Visionary
Business Analysts
Business Ambassadors
Business Advisors
Technical Coordinator
Solu8on Testers
Solu8on Developers
Project Manager
Team Leader
????
Business Sponsor
Business Visionary
Business Analysts
Business Ambassadors
Business Advisors
Technical Coordinator
Solu8on Testers
Solu8on Developers
Project Manager
Team Leader
????
????
Mike Mike
????
Nolan Piotr
Lukas Casper Pawel
Eloise
Casper
Claire
Nolan
Casper
Lukas Piotr Pawel
Casper
Anna
Eloise
????
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
The Gan? Lie Chart vs “Agile Planning”
The Gan? Lie Chart vs “Agile Planning” The Scenario
• Scrum & sprints are perfect for systems that are already live. • Zurich however, occasionally want to launch new products. • Some8mes for things that we don’t even know if they are possible. DSDM is great for star8ng a new product… • Take an idea • Test op8ons and feasibility • Set up a high-‐level plan and context (JEDUF) • Finally to launch into regular sprints / Timeboxes.
Your Task
What could the context be? What makes sense to agree before development starts, especially in large corporate IT environments?
Assess Benefits
Increment E J, A G
Increment H C B
Increment I D F
High Level Planning
Op8ons
Deploy Deploy Deploy • Maintenance strategy • Tes8ng strategy • Non-‐func8onal needs • Audit requirements • Regulatory needs • Hardware, somware, middleware
• Priori8sed Highlevel Requirements • Timebox Plans with MoSCoW’d requirements • Financial cost for en8re plan. • Repor8ng • Resources • Delivery plan (training etc)
• ROI, Business Case • Risks, assump8ons
• Business case, vision, assump8ons • Op8ons considered • Recommended op8on • Highlevel plan (ext deadlines) • Indictor of poten8al cost • Plan + cost to deliver “High level planning” • Key resources
Idea!
• 1-‐Pager • Business driver • V. Highlevel Objec8ves • Request to invest $x in
“Op8ons” Decision Point (Go on, Stop)
Timebox
Deploy Into produc8on (Not necessarily switch-‐on)
PrioriAsed Requirements A m B s C s D c E m F c G m H m I s J m
“Agile Planning”
AT THIS POINT STILL NO DETAILED SPEC or DESIGN (JEDUF)
Looking for & Building Trust
The Theory: The Five Dysfunc8ons of a Team (P. Lencioni, 2002)
Looking for & Building Trust
Ina?en8on to Results
Avoidance of Accountability
Lack of Commitment
Fear of Conflict
Absence of Trust
Invulnerable: Don’t admit mistakes and weaknesses.
ArAficial Harmony: Incapable of unfiltered and passionate debate.
Ambiguity: Rarely, if ever, buy-‐in and commit but “pretend” to agree.
Low Standards: Don’t challenge peers when their ac8ons appear counterproduc8ve.
Status & Ego: Individuals put own or department’s needs before that of the collec8ve team’s goal.
Looking for & Building Trust The Scenario
• People in Zurich have started to distrust those in Krakow.
• People in Krakow have started to distrust those in Zurich.
• “Finger poin8ng” & blame has started.
• There is an absence of trust!
Your Task
Agile teams have perfect moments to admit mistakes and weaknesses. Ø When are they? Ø If team-‐members do trust each other, what do you hear when they talk?
Looking for & Building Trust
ü Sprint Planning
ü Standups
ü Review
ü Retrospec8ve
ü Backlog Grooming
ü “I need help”
ü “I made a mistake”
ü “I found an issue, can we look together”
ü “Your work was great”
ü “This is taking longer than I thought”
ü “Sorry, my assump8on was wrong”
ü “I am not familiar with this code, who can help me?”
ü “You said you’d work on this… why have you not done so?”
Remote Teamwork
Remote Teamwork The Theory
Control from ZH
Krakow Autonomy
Freedom in a Framework
Top-‐Down
Bo?om Up
“Agile” is the framework
Them and Us!
Remote Teamwork The Scenario
Like 85% of teamwork, this team is remote (Zurich and Krakow). People think that only co-‐located teams can be Agile.
Your Task
Discuss the reality that 85% of teams are not co-‐located. Then think about: Ø How far away do you have to be, to be “remote”? Ø Why is being Agile actually be?er for a remote team?
Remote Teamwork
ü In the next room
ü When you cannot hear a conversa8on
Community Decay
50
Trust Mo8va8on
Time
Face-‐to-‐face event
Face-‐to-‐face event
Remote Teamwork
Community Decay
51
Trust Mo8va8on
Time
Face-‐to-‐face event
Face-‐to-‐face event
“Communica8on Decay”
Remote Teamwork
How Does Agile Help?
52
Trust Mo8va8on
Time
Face-‐to-‐face event
Face-‐to-‐face event
Through Frequent Planning, Standups, Reviews, Grooming and Retrospec8ves
Remote Teamwork
Performance Reviews
Performance Reviews The Scenario
You are now “Agile” your teams are working well. However, people s8ll have personal goals based on SMART deliverables.
Your Task
Discuss the reality that the teams cannot “predict” their deliverables: Ø What could be reviewed instead? Ø Who should review it? Ø Do we s8ll match performance to bonus?
Performance Reviews
ü Reward good “Agile” behavior
ü Never 8e performance to a bonus
ü Manager should never evaluate
h?p://www.management30.com/workout/merit-‐money/ Jurgen Apello:
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire
Performance Reviews
Managing Prima Donnas Be?er Transparency on Work
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
Remote Team
Percep8
on
The Gan? Lie Chart vs “Agile Planning” Looking for & Building Trust
Remote Teamwork
Crea8ng Awareness & Desire
Performance Reviews
Managing Prima Donnas Be?er Transparency on Work
Gold Pla8ng = Quality /
Remote Team
Percep8
on
The Gan? Lie Chart vs “Agile Planning” Looking for & Building Trust
Remote Teamwork
Con8nuously Review
Improve Everything
We are S8ll Improving…
Next Week: ATDD, “Hardening”, Planning
An awesome Website needs PEOPLE
to deliver RESULTS
Any Ques8ons?
PlaNorm Link
Telephone +41 79 936 7060
Email ma?hew.caine@mcpa.biz
Homepage www.mcpa.biz
Library www.mcpa.biz/blog
Xing h?ps://www.xing.com/profile/Ma?hew_Caine
LinkedIn h?p://ch.linkedin.com/in/ma?hewcaine
Twi?er mc_mcpa
Skype mc_mcpa
YouTube h?p://www.youtube.com/MCPartnersAssociates
Stay in Contact
Support Material
Remote Team Perspec8ves
• Team 1 – Zurich’s View Mike is paying for the work. We know that Nolan is responsible for the whole thing with lots of help from Claire who works with the users. Piotr helped to define the architecture together with Lukas, Casper and Pawel who are developers. Claire tests and Eloise is looking amer the backlog. Nolan organises the retrospec8ves and Casper is running the daily sprints in Krakow.
Remote Team Perspec8ves
• Team 2 – Krakow’s View Mike is paying for the work. We know that Nolan is responsible for the whole thing and gives us our sprint backlog. Casper is our team leader with Lukas, Piotr and Pawel who are developers. We also ask Casper for help with the technology. Anna tests and Eloise is our BA. Nolan organises the retrospec8ves and Casper is running the daily sprints in Krakow.
top related