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.
The Improving Projects blog from Huge IO (UK & Ireland) is primarily about products, organisations and projects... and how to improve them. As well as musings on agile processes, software engineering in general, and methods like Kanban and Scrum, there's advice here too for users of process planning, execution and improvement tools - and the metrics they can provide. https://uk.huge.io
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Breakout sessions that ensure everyone in the meeting meets everyone else
Lockdown finds us doing more and more in online meetings, whether it's business, training, parties or families. It also finds us spendin...
-
Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many su...
-
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 - ...
-
Understanding Cost of Delay (Part 2): Delay Cost and Urgency Profiles In part one of this series of blogs on Understanding Cost of Dela...
1 comment:
Post a Comment