Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
More
Next Blog
Create Blog
Visualisation
Popular Posts
Scaled Agile
Framework
Applied 2/5 Demand
Management and
the Portfolio
Kanban
Introduction As described in the
introductory post , the
implementation being described is
not managing an enterprise level
p...
Scaled Agile
Framework 3/5 Program level
pipeline
management and
the program
kanban
Introduction Part 2 of the series
concluded with the final stage of
the demand management process
1 or more Epics generated...
Scaled Agile Framework Applied Part 1/5: Introduction and Context
Since encountering Dean
Leffingwells Scaled Agile
Framework(SAFe) , I have
presented the model to dozens of
senior executives a...
When is a SAFe
PSI not a PSI?
Over the last
couple of months, I
have delivered the
Leading SAFe
course half a dozen times to a
diverse set of companies and
audiences. Wh...
Scaled Agile
Framework
Applied 4/5 - Inplay work and the
program level
Feature wall
In Part 3 , we covered the program
backlog lifecycle. This post will
focus on implementation life and
feature level visualisation. We
have...
Since visualisation is the enabler of so much else, it's where we'll start. Finding the right
way to visualise 'in play features' involved a series of failed experiments.
The first of these failures began with us saying "well, everything else follows a kanban
system for visualisation why don't we build a feature kanban wall?" So, we identified a set
of lifecycle states for the feature and built the wall. It looked great, but achieved nothing.
No conversations triggered, no insights generated, simply maintenance overhead. We
learnt two things: firstly that at this level our interest was more in a sprint based view than
a lifecycle view and secondly that we needed a finer grain.
The third incarnation delivered the answer. In large part, it was a logical extension of the
'PSI planning board' utilised to construct the overall view of the PSI during PSI planning in
Launching your
Agile Release
Train - Preparing
for the first
Release Planning
Event
You've decided to adopt SAFe,
found your first Agile Release
Train and are embarking on the
launch journey. You have a bunch
of Safe Ag...
Scaled Agile Framework Applied
5/5 - Conclusion
What you see is all there is I've
just finished reading a book called
"Thinking Fast and Slow" by
Daniel Kahneman. Set in t...
Sign In
Blog Archive
2016 (1)
2015 (1)
2014 (10)
The columns represent sprints/iterations. They convey dates for the iteration
and also denote any deployment or other significant dates which fall within it.
On the image above you'll notice there's a public holiday in iteration 32 (the
pink post-it) and a gateway checkpoint for enterprise release "1304" on the
28th of Jan. Iteration 33, on the other hand, has an independent deployment
window (on the pink post-it for 17th Feb), a gateway checkpoint for enterprise
release 1303, and a code-drop into enterprise release 1302.
The rows represent feature teams. The scrum-master of the team is
responsible for keeping the content of the 'team row' up to date.
The "cells" represent a given team for a given iteration. In the top left corner of
each, you'll see the "Planned Velocity" and "Committed Capacity" for the
iteration for that team.
The train runs on a "cost per point" model, derived by summing the run
cost per iteration of the combination of APMS, Deployment Services and
the feature teams and dividing by the combined velocity of the feature
teams.
Whilst this greatly simplifies the division of costs amongst active funding
sources, it is reliant on confidence in velocity projections. Thus, a
particular velocity point is used for calculation. As teams start to routinely
exceed this velocity, a review cycle kicks in to determine whether the
"planning velocity" can be uplifted. When the train commenced
operation, this velocity was 40. 3 months later, it was raised to 45, and
most recently revised up to 55. Shortfalls in individual teams are
generally balanced out by overachievement in others, and by and large it
works out with most epics coming in 10-20% under budget.
The other factor in planned velocity, of course, is planned leave and
public holidays - which you'll see reflected in the planned velocities on
the wall (quite varied with lots of annual leave during January in
Australia).
Committed capacity (shown as "planned"), on the other hand, represents
2013 (9)
November (1)
October (1)
September (2)
March (2)
Scaled Agile Framework
Applied 5/5 - Conclusion
Scaled Agile Framework
Applied 4/5 - In-play work ...
February (2)
January (1)
2012 (8)
About Me
Mark Richards
Follow
103
the "in-play" stories scheduled for the iteration. Where this exceeds
planned velocity, it is either a "red-flag" for risk or an indication that the
team is expecting a good iteration.
What goes on the wall?
The cards inside the cell represent the work the team has planned for the iteration. They
run at the feature level, and are tagged with a couple of extra pieces of information:
How many points of work will be done on the feature that iteration (either on a
post-it or in the top right corner on the card)
A "completion flag" if that is the iteration when the feature will complete.
We experimented with numerous grains for this representation - both more detailed (ie
what will be happening for the feature rather than just how many points) and less detailed
(feature cards only go in the iteration where they will complete). In the end, it was a
tradeoff between how rich the information, how much maintenance overhead it required
and how visually cluttered the space was (too much information obscuring what you really
wanted to see).
Continuous Improvement
From a continuous improvement perspective, you want three things:
Teams figure out how to be become better teams
The release train figures out how to become a better release train
Teams benefit from other teams' learning and innovation.
The first is, of course, covered off by the team retrospective. The other two, however,
need attention. Built into each team's capacity planning is a 10% reservation for
"innovation and contingency". Likewise, the leadership team builds into their time "10%
for driving train-level improvement" through the function of team loco (introduced
previously).
One of the keys here is treating improvement/innovation initiatives as first class citizens.
The leadership runs an entire wall dedicated to their initiatives, and innovations feature
teams commit to appear as innovation features on the feature wall.
Conclusion
Prior to the introduction of the Release Train, the primary management vehicle for the
program was a weekly 3 hour management meeting attended by program attended by
program management, release management and project managers. It was supported by
a 40+ page status report, and was often entirely disconnected from what was actually
happening in the teams. It was followed 2 days later by a "senior management' program
status meeting which ran another 2 hours dealing with escalations from the main meeting.
Both meetings are now entirely gone. For archiving purposes, the status report is still
produced (as a Rally extract) but the knowledge of "what is really happening" comes from
the "cocktail party" on a daily basis and the standard sprint ceremonies. Most importantly,
the leadership group no longer have "managing the teams" as their primary mandate instead they focus on finding the right way to support the teams in delighting their
stakeholders. Status and planning discussions simply look at the question to be answered
and pick the wall with the right grain to support the discussion.
In Part 5, I'll wrap the series up with a look at some of the quantitative results and key
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comment...
Comment as:
Publish
Google Account
Preview
Newer Post
Home
Older Post