Subscribe via RSS Feed

Tag: "alignment"

Discovery: Going Where No Person Has Gone Before

Discovery-Going-Where-No-Person-Has-Gone-BeforeTypically, at the beginning of a project, we begin by collecting requirements from the business. We might spend a month or more gathering requirements. If we are using a more Agile approach, we may spend a few weeks gathering requirements for the first few iterations in the form of stories.

Every once in a while, I find myself starting a project where  for every step  forward we seem to be taking two steps backwards (or at least sideways).  Let me explain: As soon as the development team starts to code, literally within the first week or two of coding, the change-requests start. Does this mean the business is already changing their mind? We are just beginning to code!

So how is it that the business is changing their needs within weeks of starting a project? I can see change requests occurring once they see some initial software delivered.  But why do we regularly see projects with  change requests before the business even sees a deliverable?

We might assume that we had the wrong stakeholders in the room.  Another potential cause could be that we didn’t do a great job collecting requirements. Certainly, there are projects where one or both of these problems exist.

But what I often find  is that the project is suffering from a case of “Discovery”.  More specifically, the business is stuck in Discovery and is not ready for Definition.

Discovery vs. Definition

Let me contrast the difference between Discovery and Definition. Put simply:

Discovery is the phase where the business identifies what problem to solve as well as a description of the end-state or goal of the project.

If Discovery defines what problem to solve, then Definition defines the path to the solution. In other words, the Definition phase focuses on how we are going to achieve the end goal.

An Example:

A small company is in growth mode, doing very well. At a recent Board-of-Directors meeting, the company’s management team was asked how they can continue their revenue growth over the next two or three years.

They currently develop advanced Word Processing solutions for Android products. Their solutions are customized to that platform and to take advantage of all the Google Android features, giving a rich experience on a mobile platform.

To increase revenue, they can choose to develop a complimentary Spreadsheet tool for the Android platform, providing the same, rich user experience and Google feature integration.  On the other hand, they can choose to create an identical Word Processor and user experience on other mobile platforms such as iPhone and Blackberry mobile devices.

There are probably other paths as well, all providing a path to their continuous revenue growth. At this point, we are “Taking a single goal and generating multiple ideas.”

Moving from Discovery to Definition

After much research and due-diligence, you conclude that the best direction would be to offer your current Word Processor and all of it’s rich user experiences on the iPhone and Blackberry platforms, solidifying your brand as “The Mobile Word Processor. Period.”

At this point, we have completed the Discovery phase because a decision was made on the overall goal. Now, it’s time for Definition.

In Definition, we  begin to define the path to that goal.  We start to define the key features that MUST be in the iPhone version and how we will replace Google Android features within the Apple iPhone environment.

Clearly identifying this  feature list is what is called Definition.

So Why Should We Care?

If you are trying to define the requirements for a solution, but your business stakeholders are still discovering what they call success, then you are destined for rework! And this will show up as:

  • A proliferation of change requests early and often
  • Slipped schedules, since they didn’t anticipate these discovery changing goals
  • Budgets being blown since they didn’t anticipate the increased costs associated with rework

Because they are still in Discovery, we can’t be sure of the right direction. Any step we take could cause rework that translates into budget and schedule variances.

My guess is that you could think of a project or two right now where the business stakeholders were probably not ready to define their system. And, most likely,  this “re-thinking” of their projects goals created a great deal of pain for everyone involved.

So What To Do?

When you are collecting requirements, or engaging with the business, if you believe they are not ready to define how the system will work, you need to “pop-a-level”.  I use this term when I want folks to take a step back, and take a different view.

So if you suspect you are being setup for a great deal of rework, then pop-a-level and ask your business team:

  • Do you have the right Subject Matter Experts who are knowledgeable and empowered to help define your needs?
  • Are you  still in Discovery? Are you unsure of what a clear definition of success is?

In either case, try to create transparency around the issue, highlighting the potential costs of continuing to move forward when the wrong stakeholders are involved or the goals are fuzzy.

Realizing your project is in Discovery is half the battle. No matter what’s ahead, this realization will enable to you stay on course and manage the project more effectively.

Have you experienced Discovery? Please share your experiences in the comment area below.

November 16, 2011 | 2 comments | View Post

The Role Call: A New Practice to Set Your Team Up for Success

The-Role-Call-ChecklistLast post I wrote about how often we begin a project from a disadvantage right from the start. Usually it’s because the team doesn’t have the resources or the commitments it needs from outside of the team.

In this post, I want to talk about a new best practice I am experimenting with. This practice is  designed to help set teams up for success by focusing on the project team resources. I call this best practice: The Role Call Checklist.

Key Roles On a Project

First I need to  explain the common thinking on key project roles: Specifically, every project is made up of 4 key roles. In no particular order, these roles are:

  • The Architect: This is the person responsible for the technical solution. For example, “does it work or do you get 404 or blue screens of pain”?

 

If the final application doesn’t technically work, or if it doesn’t meet a non-functional requirement, such as scale, then the Architect is accountable. I am not going to follow up with the Project Manager. It’s the Architect’s responsibility.

  • The Senior Business Analyst: This role is about  understanding what business problem this project addresses and, from a business point of view, what is success. Business Analysts are the proxy for our business users.

 

If the final solution works technically, but doesn’t do what the business needs, and doesn’t allow the business to achieve their goals, then the Senior Business Analyst is responsible.

  • The Senior Quality Analyst: QAs are responsible for the quality of the solution. Before everyone jumps on me, I don’t want to get into the discussion of exactly what the QA role is and how encompassing it is. I am a true believer that the QA role is larger than a testing organization. Their job is not to simply test and place a sticker on the software saying “Inspected by #12”.

But for this post, I hold the Senior Quality Analyst accountable to identify what quality the system holds.  What are the defects and is the system compliant with the intent? If the system technically works, and if it was designed to meet the business needs, then the Senior Quality Analyst is accountable to say whether it is ready to ship.

Finally,

  • The Project Manager: The PM is responsible for overall transparency.  This person needs to have an accurate picture of where we are in relation to schedule, budget and meeting Business Objectives. Further, they are accountable to serve the team by helping to identify and, more importantly, facilitate removing obstacles that can prevent the team from being successful. They are the manager.

Although I believe every project, small or large, has the need for these four roles, they don’t necessarily need to be four separate individuals. On smaller projects, you may have a single individual playing the Project Manager and Business Analyst role.  Or you may have the Business Analyst playing a Quality Analyst role. It depends on your culture and the strengths of your team members.

But the need to define:

–        What you are building,

–        How you are building it,

–        Whether you built it properly, and

–        How you’re managing the process

is required on every project. When a smaller team doesn’t believe they need each of these roles, it can create a gap to successfully delivering a solution.

And this brings me to the new best practice I am experimenting with:

The Role Call Checklist

I create a mini-checklist for each these roles. Under each role, I write what the role is accountable for. While there probably will be a common list of  responsibilities across many of our checklists, each role will also have some unique views.

If you are assigned a new project, I recommend creating this checklist to determine who is playing each of these roles.  On a smaller project, you may have one person playing two or three roles.  On a larger project, you’ll want to  identify the key owner of each role.

Then, I recommend that you meet with your team and make sure you are all in agreement as to who is doing what, and what the team is relying on each person for. I believe this small exercise can help a team start more successfully, especially when resources are scarce.

If you have a checklist, I would love to hear from you and find out what works and what doesn’t.  Does it make a difference?  Are you willing to share yours?  Feel free to add a comment below.

October 19, 2011 | 0 comments | View Post

Are You Holding Back Your Team’s Success?

Damaged WallRecently, I hooked up with a friend and decided to do a 3-day hike on the Appalachian Trail.  As part of our preparation, we decided to try a day-hike in a State Park near our homes. We took this trial quite seriously and even planned how to mentally and physically prepare for the day hike.  I won’t bore you with the details, but the day we set out for the hike, we were pretty psyched.

We did 8+ hours on the trail, walking up and down paths that burned our legs by the end of the day. In the last hour or so, when were truly coming to our “wall of tolerance”, we kept repeating to each other how fortunate we were for all the planning. Had we not trained for this or lacked  the right supplies, we would have never lasted the day. Without a doubt, doing the day hike before setting out on our 3-day hike out east was the smart thing to do.

We focused on setting ourselves up for success.  And even with all the planning, we still learned a lot about what to do differently on our next day hike.

Learning From the Hike…

I can only imagine how painful that day would have been if we didn’t work our way up to walking an entire day of 13+ miles.  Or what would have happened  if we only had half our water ration (we used it all).  It would have been one embarrassing, failure of a hike.

This is a far more common scenario than any of us realize. When we start a new project, we typically overlook fundamental / key things that would set us up for success.  We may actually be holding our team back from the start.  And because of that, our team  may be digging out from this “team debt” for the majority, if not all, of the project.

Hold Up There

If you don’t agree, let me  give you just two common scenarios  that prove my point:

  • You  are starting a project. The  team is staffed and eager to move forward. The technical team is building out the environment and frameworks.  The Business Analysts are ready to collect and refine requirements, but are struggling to get the needed time and commitment from the business.

This not only causes churn for the BAs, but typically squeezes the schedule during the initial coding activities, with incomplete requirements and test plans.

  • Another example: You  are staffing up a project quickly so you can hit a set of aggressive dates for the business.  In doing so, you need to procure development environments and machines for all of the developers. However, due to an overworked infrastructure team, or worse, due to corporate processes, a third of the team may be without development hardware and tools while they wait for their stuff.

While they find other activities to do while they wait, this literally amounts to two or three weeks that could have been spent on actual deliverables.

These are just two common examples. You could probably start listing off a couple more.

What Are They Thinking?

So when this happens, what is management thinking? Are they intentionally setting a team up with an obstacle? Do they simply not care and assume we can adapt?

I believe that in most cases, management simply doesn’t realize that the team is being put into this position and the cost is more than a slow ramp-up to the project. I, myself, have asked teams to “see if they could work around some obstacles”, clearly not realizing the pain I may be introducing, not just short term, but to the long term success of the team.

So What Are We To Do?

I think one of the most basic things we can do in these situations, is to be vocal.  Share your clear and honest explanation of what the cost and impact is.  It is important to be accurate and not embellish or magnify the challenges.

For example, let’s say you have a project starting and are scheduled to collect requirements for the first deliverables during the week of 11/01.  Your  goal is to have the requirements and test plans completed by 11/15 so the developers can begin development.

If the business stakeholders are not available as needed the week of 11/01, I think it’s important to point out that development may not start until 11/22.  This is because the test plans won’t be complete and the requirements won’t be clear enough (the normal clarification won’t have happened).

If you can clearly show the cause and effect, management should take ownership of the cost and impact of these situations. If we can show them the cost in terms of dollars or in terms of schedule, then you have the best shot of setting your team up for success and getting management to own the challenges.

What do you think?  Have you found other approaches to help set teams up for success?

October 4, 2011 | 0 comments | View Post

Prototype Technologies are Ruining Your Prototypes

Prototyping-TechnologiesI want to challenge our thinking on how we use prototype technology in our world of software development. Are we using prototypes to help our business users all get on the same page and visualize a solution?  Or are prototypes targeted at our internal team, so they can understand what the resulting system “should look and behave like”?

Prototyping can mean different things to different groups. For purposes of this post, let’s use this definition:

A prototype is an early sample or model built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from.

When I researched this definition, there were some key points that consistently turned up.  They include:

  • A Prototype isn’t the final product.It is designed to test a vision and illustrate a requirement for a final product. For example, if you want to design a car with the gear shift on the left side of the driving wheel, you could create a prototype with only that level of detail. It may not have a horn etc… Just enough to ‘prototype’ the proposed change.
  • A Prototype is used to eliminate ambiguity. In other words, it helps drive a common vision across project participants.  For example:  “Oh… so when you said make it smaller, you really meant tiny or minuscule. I see now”.
  • A Prototype is used to drive feedback. This helps an idea grow before making huge resource or financial commitments.  We might build a working prototype of an Internet Alarm Clock that plays your music stored in the Cloud on the Internet.  It may be fully functioning, but it is a one-off. Its purpose is to gather our initial reactions and generate additional ideas based on the working prototype.
  • Finally, a Prototype might be a Proof-of-Concept. This is used to test the feasibility of an idea and whether the initial vision can actually be delivered with the desired results. This is more of a design based prototype.

Why We Prototype

To summarize, prototypes can be used to:

  • Drive a common vision across stakeholders
  • Confirm our understanding of a desired end-state
  • Provide a forum for feedback among internal stakeholders and external customers.
  • Act as a proof of concept, flushing out the feasibility of an idea

Most prototypes serve one or more of the above the purposes.

These days, there are many tools for prototyping.  Everything from HTML for creating  working-light-weight prototypes for review to wireframe tools such as iRise or Balsamiq.  There are even PowerPoint files with “wireframe templates” in them to build wireframes and mockups using PowerPoint and it’s native tools.

So What’s the Problem?

In spite of the great tools out there, I’ve been in situations where these tools actually get in the way of our goals. They don’t help the business users get to alignment. In fact, prototypes created with these tools can actually drive a “compromise” in their design. Let me explain using an example:

I have three business users working to define a new “quick order” system for their web site.  The Business Analysts spend a couple of hours working with them to collect their vision for the new shopping experience and all the tweaks necessary to take their website to the next level.

We take these requirements and have a designer build a quick prototype so we can make sure this is what they wanted. The final wireframes (built in HTML or another technology) are then emailed around to the business folks for feedback.

Now Volleyball Sets In!

Volleyball starts when one group, in this case the designers, emails information to the users and then the users email back their clarification or changes and the cycle continues.

It’s like each side is sending something over the wall or volleyball net. And, just like in volleyball, if one side drops the ball (or gives up) the other side scores a point.

At this point, the  challenge  is to effectively create a  common vision across multiple stakeholders using email! (Hmmm, I wonder if this is how congress works.)

More often than not, the business gets the prototype to where it’s “Good Enough” and then approves it. They want to get going and hope they can tweak it as it is being developed.

Let’s see how effective this is at achieving our goals for prototyping:

  • Drive a common vision
  • Confirm understanding of a need
  • Provide a forum for feedback
  • Checking feasibility

I would argue that this process is extremely ineffective and delivers inconsistent results.  When someone says this is close enough, are they really saying they feel like we are all on the same page?

If it DID accomplish these goals, then any system that used this approach would have less change requests, less defects and lower overall development cost.

But there is a better way. The Lo-Fi way.

Enter Lo-Fi Prototypes

Here is another way to create and finalize prototypes.  Let’s go back to the meeting where the Business Analysts were collecting requirements.  After they collected the high-level requirements, they use actual post-its that are cut into screen widgets. For example, there are post-its in the shape of data entry fields, list boxes etc. You can even use fan-folded post-its looking like a drop down box.

Now we ask the business users to actually build their screens. Using the post-its, scissors and markers, they create a lo-fidelity prototype. Whenever possible, we print out existing screens, even screens of a competitor, and mark these up with post-its and markers.

The prototype is NOT designed to flush out usability or the end look and  feel. It is used only to enable the business users, as a group, to quickly build their lo-fidelity prototypes and share their vision and intent for the system.

I’ll emphasize that it is CRITICAL they understand that the final system will be a bit different due to design requirements, usability, branding, etc…

This approach is extremely effective and scalable. In fact, I have facilitated a small group of business users using this method to create more than 50 screens and report prototypes in a session.

There are a couple of great benefits using this approach:

  • The stakeholders feel ownership for the prototypes
  • It eliminates ambiguity, frustration and misunderstandings due to volleyball
  • Stakeholders can iterate immediately
  • They work as a group, helping drive alignment which results in less rework
  • Prototypes can be scanned into the requirement documents

At times, we give a few of the more critical lo-fi prototypes to a developer to create a hi-fi prototype (an HTML based prototype that can be interactive) over lunch.  And yes – I said over lunch! The users can then get a real understanding (feedback) on their vision.

So if you really want to use prototypes effectively, forget about all those fancy tools. This down-to-earth, friendly  approach will help you fast path collecting clear requirements and reduce confusion around the real needs and intent of a system, eliminating the pain of volleyball.

As a final note, I believe there is a place for using technology in prototyping. I am a fan of those tools. But I think we have gotten so technology focused, we tend to forget the real goal and use the technology appropriately.

What kind of prototyping tools does your team use? How do you think the post-it approach would go over in your environment?

June 7, 2011 | 2 comments | View Post

You Guys Start, We’ll Figure This Out Later

Ready Set GoWe’ve all experienced a project that is kicked off just a bit sooner than maybe it should. You know this because you hear those infamous words:

“You Guys Start,
We’ll Figure This Out Later.”

Consider this simple phrase a warning sign that your project is in danger before you even start. The business team is still trying to figure out what they need. Yeah, they know their problem is clear but the solution is anything but.

So what’s behind this all too familiar call for help?
Lack of Alignment.

What the business is really saying:

“You Guys Start and We’ll Get Aligned. Right Now We Can’t Agree.”

This lack of alignment is almost always due to the business stakeholders’ struggling to determine and agree on what “success” is. This can apply to a product implementation, customer software development or even a change in business processes.

Some disagreements can be on the large scale:

Should our first release of tax planning software only focus on Federal tax strategies or must it support State tax planning too? If it should, which State? All 50? Isn’t that going to take forever?

Should we develop a full suite of open source Office type products including a word processor, spreadsheet, Powerpoint like tool? Or should we simply focus on our core offering, the presentation tools?

Some disagreements appear less strategic:

Does the solution have to support our customers in four countries and be localized in six languages? Or can the first release simply support our current client base?

Should our solution include a Spellchecker for the medical terms that we will collect in our survey tool?

“You Guys Start, We’ll Figure This Out Later” = Less Than Successful Project

In spite of this warning, the project needs to start. So we begin our planning and whenever possible, hedge our design to accommodate change. But, in the end, how likely is it that we deliver what they, the un-aligned business stakeholders, fuzzily define as success?

More often than not, they never get aligned. And if a new business person gets involved, who knows what their view of success is. At the end of the day, we are responsible for a potential “less than successful project”. Hmmm – they may even call it a failure!

And this shouldn’t surprise us! In fact, if you hear the words “You guys start…”, that should be a predictive flag that you may be setup for failure.

The message is clear: The Business needs to own the risk of having an I.T. team start without alignment among the Business. And the Business along with I.T., needs to jointly own and collaborate on how I.T. will re-plan once the business has completed their work by finally agreeing on what is project “success”.

What About Agile?

When I share these ideas with colleagues, I typically get two reactions. The first includes smirks and smiles saying: “Yep – we’ve heard that and you are right, it is painful.”

The second reaction comes as a challenge: “Wait – isn’t that what Iterative development is all about? The business can plan and change direction with every iteration?”

The assumption is that Iterative methodologies such as Scrum or Agile, can be an effective way to solve nonalignment situations. They break up a project into small durations (iterations) that focus on specific feature sets. An iteration may be as small as a week, but may be defined as large as four weeks. (You’d be surprised at how much energy this last point generates.)

This is often considered a safe/natural solution because at the beginning of each iteration, the business will look at the list of everything they want and define the target features they would like the team to work on for the next iteration(s). This re-planning allows the business to change its mind and adapt based on feedback and potentially changing business conditions.

An Iterative process doesn’t resolve alignment issues!

But we still have a problem here: The Business Stakeholder who kicks off each iteration is now accountable to determine what “success” is for that iteration. If they aren’t aligned with the original/other stakeholders, then they are actually steering the ship off-course. And there is NO visibility. The rest of the stakeholders may not even know what decisions and tradeoffs have been made within an iteration planning meeting.

But wait Bob! When we do an Agile project, we always have all stakeholders in the loop about which features were completed and what will be planned for the next iteration!

And to that I say: You are not the norm! So congrats!

When most organizations embrace Agile, they are focused on the core I.T. team, planning and execution. They don’t have a model for how this changes the behavior of the business stakeholders in their planning and management of initiatives.

True, we tell the business folks we want them in the room with us, giving us quick feedback, etc. But what we often don’t do is explain to them that this level of feedback requires them to constantly re-baseline what features are “in and out” based on their goals and budgets. There is no formal process for shifting this ownership over to the business.

So what’s the point?
ITERATIVE ALIGNMENT

The fact is that more often than not, a project will be started after hearing: “You Guys Start, We’ll Figure This Out Later”. It is the nature of business and politics. In fact, as I illustrated above, our iterative processes can almost “enable” a lack of alignment.

It’s important for us to set goals for the business to do regular “alignment-check-in”. We need to make sure the business owns and is accountable for understanding what they are asking for, and what changes have been made.

We should strive to eliminate the surprises at the end of a project where a business stakeholder asks:

  • Where did this feature come from? or
  • Why is this functionality missing?

Even if we followed the requirements to the letter.

So what do you think? Do you disagree? If you agree, who do you think should be accountable for managing this within your team? Within the business?

May 24, 2011 | 0 comments | View Post

What Abbott & Costello Can Teach Us About Software Requirements

Whos-On-FirstGrowing up, I used to love watching old black and white comedies, particularly Abbott & Costello.  If you’ve never seen their classic “Who’s on First”, you can find it right here on YouTube.  Feel free to watch it now (but be sure to come back)!

Briefly, this comedy skit is about Abbott explaining to Costello the names of the players on their baseball team.  The names of the players include “Who” playing 1st base, “What” playing 2nd base and “I Don’t Know” playing 3rd base.  Costello wants to know what the players’ names are, so he would ask “Who’s playing first base?” and Abbott would proudly respond “Exactly”.  A frustrated Costello asks “What is the name of the person on first base” and now Costello would reply “No, he plays second”.

If you have never heard the routine, you must listen to it to appreciate it. The link above should help. But I digress.

“Who’s on First” can teach us a great deal about the pitfalls of collecting requirements:

We can have two business users reviewing the same requirements document, each thinking it says something very different. It gets worse. In the real world of requirements, this confusion isn’t limited to two individuals. It spans the entire team, including the business analysts, testing team and developers.

The obvious difference between the “Who’s on First” routine and real life requirements, is that Abbott & Costello know they are having a communication problem.

In the real world, the situation is actually much more challenging.

The “Spellchecker”

Let me share with you an actual “Who’s on First” example that happens almost every time we collect requirements.  I call this the “Spellchecker” (and this is totally fiction, made up for illustrating my point).

Let’s pretend we need to add Spellchecker capability to our mobile application. We send out an RFP to various firms. In this example let’s say we send it out to Apple and Microsoft.

Apple responds and says they need two people working for two weeks.
Microsoft responds that they need four people working for six weeks.

We wonder: how does one company’s estimate result in four person-weeks while another is twenty-four person-weeks?  Did Microsoft pad their estimate? Or did Apple simply not spend the right energy on estimating and they pulled a number out of the air?

So we ask Apple: “What are the two people going to do for two weeks”? They respond that they will build two screens and one engine. The two screens will include the screen that shows you replacement words and a confirmation screen.  The engine is the actual “Spellchecker”.

Seems reasonable.

Then, we ask Microsoft: “What are four people going to do for six weeks”? They respond that they will be working on eleven screens and three engines and possibly some APIs.

Hmmm. We pause and ask: What are these eleven screens going to be used for? They explain the same two screens and engine that Apple discussed.

But they also have screens that allow you to add and maintain a list of “custom words” for your personal dictionary.  Further, they have screens that allow you to plug in a proprietary dictionary such as a medical dictionary or a special language.  That is how they got to eleven screens.

WOW! I never thought of that detail. Now I have to think of which version of the “Spellchecker” I really want.

If I want the two-screen version, I have to ask Microsoft to change their assumptions and re-estimate.  If I want the eleven-screen version, I have to provide the clarity to Apple and ask for their re-estimate. Most likely, I may want something in between. Maybe a seven screen version. I want the “custom dictionary of personal words, but NOT the proprietary dictionaries”. So I clarify and ask them both to submit a re-estimate.

Unlike Abbott & Costello who knew they weren’t communicating, in  the real world, we usually don’t catch our “Spellcheckers”. The BAs write up the requirements and the developers deliver the code.  We all think:  How difficult can it be to understand? After all, the business folks said they just want a Spellchecker! How much more straightforward can you get?

And later, when we deliver a solution that missed the point, the business will hold the BA and developer accountable! I mean it’s as simple as “Who’s on First”!

Taking the First Step

After sharing the “Spellchecker” story with the teams I work with, we actually use the word “Spellchecker” in our every day conversations to help uncover ambiguities and assumptions. It’s sort of a “keyword” around here.

Say we are discussing how we  can’t put the next release of our software into production until we fix all of the defects that our top executive just finished screaming at us about. The developers estimate that this can take two to three months.

Our manager responds that we are estimating out of fear and these defects can be squashed in weeks. There is no way he is telling the executives that they have to wait another “three months”!

Then, someone pop-ups in the heat of this conversation and says:

Time-out.  Do we have a “Spellchecker”? When you say fix “All the Defects”, we see there are over 50 defects in the system and we can’t imagine fixing all of those with four developers in a matter of two weeks.

Our manager responds:

50? No way!  We only need the Severity 1 defects fixed. There are only four of those defects.

And the team responds:

That makes a big difference. Yes we should be able to get that done in a couple of weeks. But are you sure that the Executives agree to only work on the Severity 1 defects?  It’s a Spellchecker to them too!

The Benefit of Acknowledging Spellcheckers

Not only do the teams I work with use the word Spellchecker to call out ambiguities, I have clients that have adopted this practice, calling out situations where they question whether  “are we really talking about the same thing”. (In fact, the spellchecker concept is so useful, even my family has adopted using it).

There will always be areas that slip in between the cracks. You can’t catch every Spellchecker. However, the real benefit of acknowledging Spellcheckers is the fact that everyone acknowledges that unintentional Spellcheckers, not individuals, can be obstacles to a team’s effectiveness.

More important, Spellcheckers often point to a two-sided misunderstanding.  Many times, when you uncover a spellchecker in requirements, the business person will say: I didn’t even think about that. I am not sure what I meant.

I’ll add one more example: When a business user identifies a defect in the software we delivered, we argue that this is an enhancement and not a defect. This is usually a Spellchecker in action and we are both right (or wrong)!

Now, Who Did You Say Is On First?

My suggestion is to introduce the concept of Spellcheckers to your team and ask everyone to speak up when they see Spellcheckers.  Share this with your business folks, management, and everyone else involved on the project. When you identify a Spellchecker, everyone can agree that no individual is at fault. It is simply a challenge in every day communication.

I’ll leave you with a final link.  I recently came across another short video that is a modern day technical version of “Who’s on First”.  I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. I especially like the punch line at the end.

Please comment and let me know about how Spellcheckers create confusion in your world and any other insights on the topic.

If you think others in your network or organization would benefit from learning about Spellcheckers, feel free to share this post using the tools below.

Photo Credit: Purple Slog

April 26, 2011 | 2 comments | View Post

How to Turn a WAG (Wild-Ass-Guess) Into a SWAG (Scientific-Wild-Ass-Guess)

Next in our Providing Meaningful Estimates series we talk about turning WAGs into SWAGs.

SWAG-Bar-Chart1S-W-A-G stands for a Scientific Wild Ass Guess.  It’s sometimes used more as a tongue-in-cheek way of saying: “This estimate isn’t really reliable. I pulled it out of the air.”

I’m going to  show you how to put the S — the science — back in a WAG so even an off-the-cuff estimate can be meaningful and useful to your audience.  The easiest way for me to demonstrate how to improve your SWAGs is to use a simple example.

Consider providing a SWAG, an order of magnitude estimate, on how long it would take you to read to The Fountainhead (752 pages) by Ann Rynd. In fact, stop reading this  article right now  and come up with your estimate.   Please don’t do any research.  Just take a moment and give me your “best” wild-ass-guess (WAG) right now.  I’ll pause for a sec.

No seriously, take a moment, and come up with how many days it would take you? 1, 7, 14,…… 365?  Just take a moment.

Now, I’m going to l give you a technique that to  add some  S to your WAG and make it a more  a scientific answer.

Actually, It’s All In the “Words” We Use When We Present  to Provide Our Estimates.

Whenever someone asks you for high-level-estimate and you can’t really do proper research, you will need to make assumptions.  The key is to expose  these assumptions with your estimate and to demonstrate how changes in assumptions might impact your estimate.

Here’s a framework that demonstrates how this  works:

  • When providing an estimate, always provide a range. And for each number in the range, provide assumptions. It sounds simple, but the difference is pretty significant.Always start out by thinking: What is the lowest reasonable number your estimate might be. More importantly, explain provide why do you think it is unreasonable to assume that the estimate might be lower.So for The Fountainhead, you might start the estimate with:“I can’t imagine it taking me less than 7 or 8 days. Assuming I find the book interesting, I can probably read 100 pages a day and a little more on the weekend. But with my workload at work, and errands in the evening, it’s not realistic to expect me to read more than 100 pages or so each day during the week.”
  • Next,  think about what is realistically the longest this task should take you. When you give this estimate, you also share what assumptions need to be true for you stay within this estimate (not exceed your high number).Returning to our example with The Fountainhead, you might continue your estimate with:“I can’t imagine it taking me more than 40 days.  If it does take longer, then the book must have been written in a 3-point font or in French (I don’t speak French) or a crisis at work came up.  I have to believe that I could force myself to read 20 pages a day, and even if I find it boring, I’ll get through the book in 35 to 40 days.”

Wild Ass Guess Vs. Scientific Wild Ass Guess

Now, let’s  contrast these approaches in terms of reading The Fountainhead- a. All 752 pages.

WAG: It  might take me anywhere from 7 days (a week) to 30 days (a month).

Using our new framework, you would answer:

SWAG: “I can’t imagine it will take me less than 7 days, assuming life doesn’t throw me any unexpected curveballs and I can  read 100 pages a day.  I can see it taking  me as long as 38 or 40 days if I can only get through 20 pages a day due to boring content or unexpected crises at work. If it takes me longer than 40 days, then it not only was painfully boring, it probably is written in some ridiculous font or written in French (I don’t know French).”

I hope you agree, that the second  example provides a level of confidence that we thought through our WAG and have some reasoning behind our estimate.

Check Assumptions. Manage Expectations.

The correct wrap up for a SWAG is an opportunity to further manage expectations by saying:

“If The Fountainhead  is as  good a book as you say it is,  , then let’s assume I’ll get it done in about 14 days. Within the first 2 or 3 days, I can update you on whether this was a reasonable swag or not.”

This means within the first 2 or 3 days, you determine if the SWAG assumptions are correct. You  can even restate your  SWAG now that you have started reading it and verified your assumptions (one way or another).

If you still aren’t convinced, let me show you how effective this approach can be might be by by using a  one more example real life example.

A Real SWAG in Every Day Life.

You own a home and want to build a deck on the back of your house. You ask two contractors to come out to your house and give you bids on the work. With each of the contractors, you walk through the backyard and show them where you want the deck.  They show you different styles of decks and after reviewing the pictures, you choose your preference.

Each contractor tells you they will give you an exact estimate for cost and a proposal by the end of the week. But you have a key question:  Your son is graduating college in two weeks and you want to know if the deck will be completed in time for the graduation.

Contractor #1 answers:

WAG: “The deck could take anywhere from 2 to 5 days. So if we start Monday we should have it done by the weekend. Let’s just hope we don’t get any bad weather.”

Are you at all nervous that the deck will not be done in time?

Contractor #2 answers:

SWAG: “I can’t imagine it taking less than 2½ days. If we can get the deck primarily built the first day, we’ll need the 2nd day to stain, make final adjustments etc. So by the time it’s dry and tweaked we are at the 2 or 3 day mark. It’s important that we don’t get any rain on Tuesday when we stain the deck.

Sometimes when we put the “supports” in the ground, we find obstructions we need to move. That could make the job take up to 5 days.  If it takes longer than 5 days, then you have a surprise waiting under the ground.  I don’t think you do, but until we start the job, I can’t be 100% sure.  Of course, this assumes the weather doesn’t blindside both of us.

So barring any golden surprises, we should be able to complete the job between 2 to 5 days. I would hope to have it wrapped up by day 3 but I’ll know more on Monday.”

Which contractor gives you more confidence in their ability to deliver on what they said?

More importantly, if the estimates are off, they can talk with meaning. They can discuss what assumptions were wrong, or what had they not considered. In other words, it doesn’t feel like they just pulled a number out of the air without any thought or real consideration.

In summary: The Framework

So, in order to turn your WAG into a SWAG, start your estimate with:

  • The  shortest or lowest estimate that is reasonable
  • Why it isn’t reasonable to be shorter/lower
  • Explain how large it is possible to go
  • What are the assumptions that would make it go that large
  • What are your assumptions that could cause it to larger
  • Finish your estimate with a viable, in between reasonable “target” in between that you believe is reasonable to start with. Explain how and when you will be able to validate assumptions and firm up your estimate.
April 8, 2011 | 2 comments | View Post

Estimating Without Fear: How To Do Away With Padding and Still Come Out Looking Like a Hero

Estimate-Without-FearWhen your team puts together an estimate, does it command a sense of confidence, trust  and respect from those reviewing the estimate? Or, is it assumed that  your estimate typically  is padded and may be off-by-an-order-of-magnitude?

 

Do people believe, that even though some changes will occur due to dependencies out of your control, your estimate is still reasonable and something the organization can  manage to?

Or, do they say that it would be great to hit that date, but still  challenge your assumptions and believe you’re really going to miss it?

I am sure that most of us will answer that “it depends”. It depends on the size of the project, the complexity, the individual asked (Harry never trusts our estimates), and so on.

So let me ask you to think of this from a different perspective.

  • Does your immediate management, your boss, typically have confidence in your team’s estimate?
  • Do your business sponsors and senior executives typically have confidence in your team’s estimates?
  • And for the most telling question of all: Do all of the members of your team who participated in creating the estimate, typically have confidence in the estimate and the ability to manage to it?

I am always surprised at how inconsistent these questions are answered, especially the last question.

In this post, I want to discuss the estimating activity that does the most damage in terms of  building  credibility and confidence, as well as  our  ability to predictably meet expectations.

Padding Your Estimate!

Padding an estimate is as common place as speeding over the posted speed limit. Sure, there are a few folks who typically follow the posted speed limit, but most of us realize that when they posted the 55 mph limit, that really is “highway speak” for 65 mph.  We pad that speed limit too!  But NOT for the same reason.

From my experience, padding an estimate is done out of fear.

We pad an estimate for fear of the unknown.

“I have worked with Jerry often enough to know that there is a chance he will want to tweak the report layout.  Also, even though he says keep it simple, he’s going to change his mind and will want to add features like exporting to Excel and PDF. If I pad this estimate, I’ll have enough time to give him what he really wants and be a hero by coming in on schedule and on budget. Hmmmm should I pad it by 25%, 100% or more? Hmmm?”

We also pad an estimate for fear of the known.

“I am going to need some new tables from the DBA team. I’m also going to need the backend services team to add some features to two web services.  This should only take a day or two, but I know that the process and wait time will take at least a week or two.  I should pad my estimate to allow for that, so I am not blamed if they take longer to deliver their changes.  I don’t want to be blamed. “

Remove the Fear Factor With Contingency Estimating

Your  fear is real. In fact, the truth is that many times, the fears become reality and we need the extra time. This is where  Contingency Estimating comes in.

The one consistent theme that padding an estimate has is a base and a pad. I think it will take two days (the base estimate), but because they always change their minds, this will take a full week to deliver (the pad).

With Contingency Estimating, you actually want to “advertise” and “magnify” your pad!  This is counter-intuitive, but you want to describe your estimate in the following way:

We believe this will take two  days.  We also believe, from experience, that we will take time during the review and find changes and enhancements. This happens every time and since Joe will want these changes, we believe we should plan on additional three  days of contingency time to let Joe volleyball back and forth so we can deliver this. So my estimate is two days to get it initially done, and three  days to let Joe modify,  enhance and get this done/done/done.

Now management can understand that if they want to reduce your five day estimate, they need to work with Joe – not you – on how to eliminate the rework or agree that the extra  three  days is  needed estimate to “get this right”.  The key is Joe owns the contingency time! And you have been transparent about what is driving your estimate.

Just as important, Joe knows that we have planned to allow for three days of review and enhancements and that he needs to have some ownership in time-boxing his review in that time-frame and schedule.

Here is another example:

We believe building this functionality will take about  one week. We can manage our part to the one week. However, we have to wait on the ERP team to modify their web services to handle the changes.  This typically should take three  days, however, they are so backed up, they typically take up to two weeks to complete the work and remove any defects. So my estimate is one  week and three days to do the core work.  However, I am adding seven business days as contingency time for integration, testing and making sure the ERP team and us are talking the same language.

Again, management can now understand the cost of the team-to-team communication and integration.  It doesn’t necessarily mean there is an ERP team problem! In fact, the challenge may be with your team and their ability to pro-actively manage in an integrated and distributed environment.

The truth is, it’s irrelevant “why” this happens when you build the estimate. It’s important to share the contingency time and then to tackle how to optimize later. This will build more confidence than “Padding” your estimate.

In Summary…

I hope you find this a reasonable approach to clarifying  for your management and team members what drives  your estimates and what part of your estimate is contingency planning for the “real world” challenges you deal with day to day.

Taking it a step further, I also hope this approach allows everyone to come to the table and begin the process of identifying areas that the teams can start managing better and  improve the actual time it takes to complete work. This would be done by first identifying contingency estimates and then addressing potential waste in the organization.

If you have a different opinion, I’d love to hear it. Please leave a comment and let us know!

March 18, 2011 | 0 comments | View Post

Quality Assurance: Band-Aid Fix or Vaccine Cure to Software Projects

The Vaccine Approach to a Software Development Project: Quality Assurance as a Value Added Partner

Syringe-1Last week, I talked about the risks that go hand-in-hand with the Bandaid approach to software quality assurance.  With the vaccine approach, software quality assurance is not seen as overhead or a bottleneck. Instead, it is a value added partner that brings transparency and visibility in software development predictability.

Significantly different than the Band-Aid approach, in the vaccine approach the software quality assurance team is dedicated, full-time participants within software development teams.  They are co-located and work collaboratively with both the business and developers.  Acceptance criteria is defined in collaboration with the business and integrated with requirements.  This provides significant advantage over the “Band-Aid” approach to testing, both within projects and across the enterprise application portfolio.

The Vaccine approach to software quality assurance provides more than operational benefits. It strengthens both the delivery team and the quality assurance function overall.  Being embedded with and dedicated to a development team, software quality assurance people are immersed in the business problem as well as the solution while it is being developed.  Being fluent in the application, a tester is more likely to recognize the difference between an application failure and an environmental or situational blocker, and better prepared to correct the situation.  As a result, they are less likely to raise false defect reports that create “noise” that masks the state of application quality and impairs team efficiency by wasting other people’s time in disposition.

This approach also protects quality assurance leaders.  When able to work only part-time in any given project, software quality assurance can do little more than produce testing artifacts and perform tactical execution. Working in full collaboration with a project development team, however, allows the software quality assurance team to gain deep business knowledge.  A quality assurance team that is immersed in the problem domain is in good position to be IT knowledge workers.  This makes them better business problem solvers, and stronger participants in IT solution delivery overall.

Engaged Participant vs. Disengaged Auditor

The intended deliverable of any IT project is a technically sound, functionally fit business solution.  This is achieved through the engaged participation of all IT disciplines, including infrastructure, requirement, development, and quality assurance.  By only playing the role of auditor, the quality assurance team is a disengaged member of the solution team that certifies an application as production-ready.  Alternatively, by collaborating from the early stages of the software development lifecycle, and executing quality assurance continuously throughout, the software quality assurance team works as a value-added partner that directly contributes to an increased understanding and gradual evolution of a business solution.  Ultimately, this approach increases both the value of software quality assurance and the return on IT investments.

What steps can your team take to move from a bandaid approach to a more holistic approach to software quality assurance and testing?

Photo Credit: Andres Rueda

December 28, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Quality Assurance: Band-Aid Fix or Vaccine Cure to Software Projects

If Quality Assurance is intended to be a vaccine to projects, then why is it so often being used as a Band-Aid?

BandAid-1In our daily life, we take preventative measures such as flu vaccines early in a season to avoid, eliminate, and/or to reduce chances to get sick. This is similar to QA being part of a software development project early on in order to reduce defects and minimize project duration and cost. Unlike a conventional testing approach–which merely reacts to whatever has been designed or developed and frequently is perceived as interfering with development)–QA’s role early in the Software Development Cycle helps improve predictability and makes development faster, and less aggravating.

During my career, I have seen QA teams that are “shared resources” supporting many projects simultaneously rather than dedicated to specific projects.  Huge armies of QA teams execute defined test cases/scripts to test and certify an application once development is complete.  Because QA team members lack application familiarity and test only at the end of the development lifecycle, they require significant execution support. Often, the feedback they provide is late in coming and often inaccurate.

The Value of the Vaccine Approach

Compare this to a vaccine approach where the QA team is dedicated for the duration of the software development project and testers are co-located with the business and development team.  Because they collaborate with the development team on formulating acceptance criteria and engage in testing continuously through development, they can spot the commonly-overlooked showstopper problem. Now, QA feedback is considered as timely and relevant and a value added partner in delivery. This increases the efficiency of the software development process and the effectiveness of solutions produced.

We all have our examples of exciting projects turned into nightmares. Creeping deadlines, tsunamis of defects, applications that fail to deploy or performance bottlenecks that just cannot be found. Unfortunately, these kinds of situations always occur at times when they are least welcome – right before the project deadline, during the holiday season or when you had planned that nice weekend getaway. Most of these nightmares can be eliminated if QA is considered a vaccine for the project lifecycle rather than a Band-Aid fix.

The Risks of the Band-Aid Approach

There are many operational risks with Band-Aid approach.  It assumes that the test cases are of high quality, and that feedback is timely and actionable.  These are unwarranted assumptions.  Like any IT artifact, test cases may be ambiguous or confusing to testers (of poor technical construction) or they don’t test what needs to be tested (of poor functional construction). Since QA leads are shared across several applications, there are chances for error in writing test cases.  Being part-time on every project, the QA team is forced to work independently from the development team.  Test cases/scripts are often written to abstract specifications in the early stages, before software is ready to be tested, and executed in much later stages of a project once development is complete.  They are not written in conjunction with the development of the software, or in full collaboration with development.  Also, the development team is often not made aware of specific QA and UAT acceptance criteria, nor does it receive testing feedback, until very late stages of a project.

There is financial risk as well.  This approach emphasizes unit-cost efficiency of test execution over a holistic approach to quality assurance.  On a test-cases-that-can-be-executed-per-person basis this model looks attractive, but to be cost-effective, there must be low overhead of execution.  The greater the effort required to stage testing activity (e.g., with test data or instructions to carryout testing), or to interpret the results of testing performed, the greater cost of execution.

What approach does your IT organization have to QA?

Next week, I will take a closer look at the benefits of a more holistic, Vaccine approach to QA and testing.

Photo Credit: Guerrilla Futures | Jason Tester

December 13, 2010 | 1 comment | View Post
« Previous Page — Next Page »