Skip to main content

Theory of Constraints and Agile Project Management

Recently on the LinkedIn forum PM Toolbox, Arash Sadati asked for comments about tool support for how Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (TOC) or Critical Chain Project Management can be integrated as part of the Agile Project Management. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
One thing all agile projects share is that - because of a conscious removal of dependencies between features wherever possible - they will be resource constrained rather than critical path constrained (a generalisation but broadly valid). Methods like Scrum-XP try to avoid specific role constraints (e.g. we can't make progress because we don't have a BA or a GUI expert or a middleware expert available) by specifying only 3 role types (Product Owner, Scrum Master, Team Member). So the team as a whole must to some extent be generalists (or at least prepared to learn / fill in specific roles) to reduce the risk of role constraints. In any real application of Scrum of course such role constraints may be real and teams will have to pay attention to them. The default condition though is worth understanding because it's a means to keep the effect of role constraints to a minimum.

FDD defines many more roles and I think as a result there is a greater risk of role constraints. Availability of specific class owners for example is a typical problem which Palmer and Felsing discuss in their book on FDD. Flexibility, especially in small teams, for people to wear multiple role "hats" is crucial. The really interesting observation in comparing agile to waterfall is the requirements process where detailed specification of features is ideally "just in time". David Anderson and others point out that it is a serious waste of precious resources to allow too much work to be done on future requirements when the critical constraint is the development team.

When we were specifying the xProcess product which is designed to support any priority-driven process (any agile process in other words), we did want to be able to give visibility to problems arising from role or resource constraints. Patterns of tasks can be defined in custom processes that require specific or general roles - or even allocation to specific team members - so that forecasting can take into account not only the total development effort available, but in the cases where specialised roles are required. It can therefore show the impact of limited availability of critical roles. Custom reports can be generated to show resource utilisation, and where these show less than 100% utilisation, the situation is likely to be one where specific roles are "critical", requiring other roles to wait for them.
2 comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…