The middle management is a transformational change agent exhibiting industry expertise, business acumen, negotiation skills, empowerment skills, and strategic leadership, according to my post-doctoral TONES research. I present my ongoing observations to demonstrate my commitment to continuous learning. For more games, thought leadership, book, and KOL talks, please visit my site.
Search This Blog
Monday, October 14, 2024
What can a Scrum member do when they have finished commitments but Sprint is not done?
Wednesday, December 20, 2023
Kanban India 2023: Reflections on Kanban Awareness
I had an opportunity to present a 90-min workshop on boosting business agility leveraging Kanban principles in the Kanban India 2023 conference organized by Innovation Roots in Bengaluru, India. This conference was represented by various types of people from many industries but mainly from project management offices and information technology professionals. So, it was not surprising for me to see the diverse roles of project manager, product manager, product owner, director or project management office, agile coaches, scrum masters, and a small percentage of resource managers and senior leaders. However, what surprised me largely was the complete unawareness of the Kanban principles by almost all the 30+ members that sat in my workshop across all these previously represented roles!
First, Kanban is not a framework or methodology! It is a method because Kanban can be adopted within any plan-driven or adaptive framework as well as the organization specific methodology adaptations of these frameworks specifically within their organizations! Without understanding these distinctions among framework, methodology, and methods, people have rushed to the same thought process of how they conceived waterfall methodology when the original author never even promoted the concept of such linear waterfall thinking (Rajagopalan, 2014). Instead, Kanban has been conceived as a set of cards organized in status-driven swim-lanes such as "To Do", "Doing" and "Done".
Contrary to popular thinking of Kanban cards in such statuses reducing the Kanban implementation as a tactile execution, Kanban has a set of principles that promote business level systems thinking among the team members for strategic value delivery. Since value itself flows both vertically across projects, programs, and portfolios (and hence the notions of benefit management in programs, value stream mapping in product management, and expanding these concepts with risk management in programs and portfolios), Kanban applied the lean manufacturing concepts combining managerial (efficiency) and leadership (effectiveness) with a concerted qualification efforts (efficacy) applying five important principles. Without all these five thoughts, business agility with both horizontal and vertical value delivery simply does not exist!
First among these principles is the Andon thinking promoting the notion of team accountability through a transparent visual factory. While the Andon thinking emphasized team level ownership by allowing the team members to self-organize using the visual cards and queue buildups towards better documentation and training as needed to ensure cost of quality!
This team accountability was supplemented with Jidoka that ensured people thought value delivery from an overall system (not just tactical cards like how people conceive of tasks and subtasks) but the combined influence of all these tasks towards benefits (requirements, specifications, design, quality, etc.). This "systems thinking" thought process also elevated people to relieve themselves of mundane tasks (for the sake of doing them - remember being busy is not being productive) by intelligent automation wherever possible.
This simultaneous concept of thinking both from a systems perspective and automating mundane activities intelligently also was supported by teams and their line managers (hence project managers, product owners, scrum masters, agile coaches, managers) thinking of Heijunka bringing the resource optimization principles of reducing unevenness and minimizing overburden in distributing work for people or load with systems and processes. The entire notions of the total quality management (focusing on muda, mura, and muri) emerge from these Heijunka thinking for cost of quality!
As people owned the processes (means to end) that supported in delivering products (evaluating value for customers), the focus on Kaizen emerged on continuously improving the processes (simplifying documentation, training, reducing errors (Poka Yoke, for instance), risk management, etc.) and evaluating customer success factors and business benefits. This is when objectives and key results (OKR) were evaluated with the right level of key performance indicators (KPIs) along with built-in quality thoughts of critical success factors (CSF).
Just to ensure that Kaizen thinking itself didn't apply to product and process increments in a monotonous way, the systems thinking was further advanced by radical innovations of continuous experiments. This thought process led to Kaikaku ensuring that everyone contributed researching market trends in augmenting business value by doing something innovative avoiding the notion of "this is how it is done here" (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2016)
As Kotter & Rathgeber (2016) very nicely discuss the using of meerkat colonies organizing differently to deal with emerging threats to their survival, it is pivotal to understand the principles of Kanban rather than bring it down to its knees by reducing them to a set of nice visuals (cards and swim-lanes) limited to the tools used! If all these principles are not understood and practiced, no tool or technology can help the teams to swarm, self-organize, and survive!
References
Kotter, J. & Rathgeber, H. (2016). That's Not How We Do It Here!" Plantation, FL: J.Ross Publishing.
Rajagopalan, S. (2014). Review of the myths on original software development model. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(16), 103-111.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Adapting Scrumban to Personal Productivity
Scrum
|
Kanban
|
1.
Scrum focuses on timeboxed iterations with
self-organized cross-functional teams.
2.
Team decides on what can be accomplished in a
2-week sprint and emphasizes continuous improvement by retrospectives
3. The customer representative is expected to be
sometimes on-site and be multi-functional with skills in product, project, account,
technical, business analysis, etc.
4.
Measure of progress is working software
delivery
|
1.
Team visualizes the workflow in queue
2.
Anyone can pull (i.e., take) any task that is
in the queue
3.
Tasks are generally not dependent
4.
Balances work in progress
5.
Reduces waste between tasks
|
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Differences between Kanban and Scrum
Recently when
attending the 5-day Agile 2014 conference in Orlando, Florida, I had an
opportunity to discuss various agile implementations. Some of the discussions
centered on selecting the right type of agile methodology to consider for
software implementations from extremely regulated medical devices industry and
government projects where Scrum was considered prevalent. Then, when I found in
my network of work and friends, there were questions that revolved around using
Kanban because Scrum wasn’t working.
Having used
Kanban and Scrum, I wondered why there is still confusion among the early
adopters of Agile and why Kanban would be considered as a substitute for Scrum.
Unclear understanding of agile concepts may lead to failure just like how
people created a non-existent theory of waterfall based on inaccurate practices
(Rajagopalan, 2014). So, I focus below on a comparative study of the basic
premises between Kanban and Scrum. I hope this article captures the essence of
these approaches demystifying the confusion and helping in the selection of the
right approach for the challenge at hand.
One of the
primary differences is that Kanban is a method that can be used independently
or along with other approaches like Scrum. This is why we even have derivative
approaches like the Scrumban.
Concept |
Kanban |
Scrum |
Management focus |
Maximize resource usage avoiding delay and
enhancing accountability to support flow. |
Consistent delivery in the cadence of
execution, as the features in the product backlog is delivered. |
Operating rhythm |
No time-boxed iterative development exists. |
Time-boxed iterative development – usually
two to four weeks. |
Granularity of work |
Focus is at the task level for which the
scope of work is generally known. |
Focus is at the user story level for which
the scope may not always be known, requiring it to be estimated before tasks
can be identified and taken up by the team. |
Agile Estimation & Planning |
Estimation is generally not done. There is
little to no ambiguity on the task that any member of that team should be
able to take on the next available task and execute it. |
User stories are estimated. Then, they are prioritized,
and risk adjusted so that these are included in the release and iteration
planning. |
Value Delivery |
Every task completion may not necessarily
add minimally marketable value to the customer. Task identification and
dependency require careful coordination. |
The cadence of release and iteration
planning focuses on adding minimally marketable feature through the scrum
cycle. The self-organized team determines the task identification and
dependency. |
Progress Tracking |
Flow of items throughout the lifecycle
limiting delay. This is why the focus is on limiting “Work in progress (WIP)”
is promoted through “Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY)” focuses on maximizing work
not done |
Focus is on tracking the velocity measuring
the user stories done and delivered to customer in an iteration |
Utility value |
Better for managing workload and resource
management. E.g.: How many projects of
different combinations can be taken up by a project? |
Better for managing products, programs, and
projects. |
Thoughts to consider in software
development |
Use of Kanban for software development may
impede flow if all the units don’t consume the work produced at the same
speed. Therefore, additional processes must be in place to support Kanban. E.g.: QA not having capacity to
test code developed by engineering team. If QA’s capacity comes from the fact
that more defects are found in the build, then, more granularity in tasks to
ensure proper code review, unit testing, and documentation are processes that
the organizations must have in place. |
Implementing Scrum doesn’t mean the ability
to write user stories and avoiding documentation completely! This requires a
management shift to ensure critical thinking on the product, program, and
projects. If iterative delivery is not understood by the management and
client, then, Scrum is not an option to consider. |
In summary, Kanban and Scrum are both light-weight approaches, but the operating philosophy is different. Scrum focuses on the work being delivered to customers through multiple iterative deliveries of minimally marketable value by assembling a cross-functional, skilled, and self-organizing team or team of teams. Kanban, on the other hand, is a pull-based system and focuses on the visualized workflow where flow is maximized by limiting what gets worked on by the team. Although both approaches require prioritization in the items represented in the backlog, Scrum team can’t pull an item outside of the Sprint backlog when they have capacity. Kanban team can pull the next priority item from the backlog. So, depending on what product, service, or result the team is delivering, or the benefit being sustained in operations, Scrum, Kanban or Scrumban may work. Select the right tool for the right job!
Thoughts?