Skip to main content

Measuring Progress and Performance in Large Agile Developments

Large agile programmes can suffer from the worst of all worlds - management managing with "on-time-on-scope-on-budget" in mind with a methodology which is designed to allow all three of these variables to change during the project. Having spent the past 18 months grappling with this problem in one of the largest agile projects in Europe, I'm off to Denmark for the GOTO Aarhus conference next week to share some of my conclusions with delegates - and hopefully learn from others' experiences.

The concept of measurement in software projects is not new. But nor, over decades of trying, has it it been hugely successful. While it is tempting to draw up very long lists of what can and should be measured to improve team performance, I am very much of the opinion that less is more, and that the place to start is the basics. Every project must measure cost; and if they look at the calendar they can measure time. Agile methods use story points to measure size, which although it is a relative metric, only providing an estimate to the story's size compared to others in the team's backlog, it is possible to build a picture across many teams of the backlog size for a whole programme. These 3 metrics of cost, time and size are the foundation metrics that all teams need. While Earned Value Management (EVM) is a traditional method for measuring the degree to which a team is following a plan, it can be modified for use with agile projects where the scope of the backlog is dynamic. It's potentially a very powerful tool for management to home in on problem areas and it's one of the techniques that I recommend for hybrid life-cycle projects.

The 3 metrics (cost, time, size) provide the basis for moving on to more interesting but much less measurable parameters such as quality, business value and productivity. These are the real quantities we'd like to know definitively. Unfortunately "interesting" maps to "elusive". As W. Edwards Deming said, "The most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable... successful management must nevertheless take account of them".

Post a Comment

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…