January 2009

The Modus Cooperandi card wall, circa December 2008

cardwall

Jim, An, and Jeanine discussing a work ticket at the daily standup.

This is the card wall we’re currently using in the Modus Cooperandi office.  It’s not terribly complicated, because there are only five of us, but there are still a couple of interesting things about it.

We’re working on a number of different programs in the office.  Some of these programs have distinct workflows.  Most of them don’t, or more accurately, don’t yet.  So, we’ve split the board into two sections.

The top section is the workflow for software development.  The workflow is yet another variation on the two-tier workflow that I’ve discussed here before.  The green tickets are Minimum Marketable Features (MMFs) and they occupy the outer, slow-moving workflow with states { backlog, ready, busy, demo, verify, done }.  The yellow tickets are User Stories that are decomposed out of the green MMF tickets.  The inner User Story workflow is { ready, busy, demo, done }.  Stories should be done in a few days.  MMFs may take several weeks.  The workflow is not particularly detailed because the team is small and the work is exploratory.  The emphasis on the demo states is because most of the work is done off-site.  We’ve allowed capacity for two MMFs in process at any time, but for now we are only scheduling one.

The rhythm of pull, and the discipline of the MMF make planning a self-regulating activity.  Naturally occuring pull events occasionally trigger planning events, which trigger further pull events and so on.  Demos and process improvement are built into the workflow, so no planning contrivances are required to make these happen.  Keeping the “Minimum” in MMF isn’t always easy, so having a “Minimum Champion” around is pretty important to making this kind of self-regulation work.  Time spent thinking about real options strengthens one’s resolve in this matter.   Enforcing the MMF is still much easier than wasting a lot of time on estimating and forecasting.  And after you gather enough cycle time data, the work begins to forecast itself.

Software development is one thing we’re working on, but we also have a number of other programs which are…not software development.  For now, these are mixed work item types that don’t have well defined workflows.  Instead of assigning them to a workcell, we assign them to individuals, with a generic common-denominator workflow of { backlog, ready, busy, verify, done }.  Backlog tasks are unassigned.  Ready tasks are assigned by affinity or consensus.  At the time that a task is assigned, it is given a due date.  When busy tasks are judged complete by their owner, they are moved to the verify state, where somebody else has to agree that the task is complete.  When a task is verified, it moves to a pooled done state.  Blocked work, as always, gets a pink ticket for issue resolution and/or process improvement.

Some of these programs are content development and we expect that they will develop more regular workflows over time.  When we identify those workflows, we’ll redraw the board and move their tickets out of the personal rows and into new workcells.  Eventually, we may collapse all of the personal rows into a single “miscellaneous” row.  The miscellaneous row is worth keeping because there’s always random stuff to do that still merits tracking.  The card wall is a living system that is subject to evolution as we learn more about how to do our work.

We haven’t set hard WIP limits on the personal rows, because we’re able to manage it through peer feedback…mostly.  The emphasis on controlling WIP still allows us to plan new work and manage the backlog on demand.  We all know that if the WIP ever gets out of hand, we can restore order by setting kanban limits.  The card wall is the focus of the daily standup, where we gather around, point at the tickets, move them around, write new tickets, and make plans for how we’re going to advance the board for the day.

The lesson is that, with or without kanban, the investment in a thoughtfully designed and carefully managed visual control is already enough to obviate time boxing and the planning ceremony that goes along with it.  Go with the flow.

Comments (0)

Print This Post Print This Post

Email This Post Email This Post

Permalink

Video: Lean Thinking for Agile Process Evolution

Merlyn Albery-Speyer invited me to speak at Extreme Programming Portland (XPDX) this month and was kind enough to put up a video of the event. Thank you to all who put on the event and made these recordings.

Part 1 (45 min): Lean Thinking in software development, Deming and quality, customer pull vs Kano model and gemba:

Part 2 (60 min): Cumulative flow diagrams, pull and kanban, kanban and Scrum, Scrumban:

Part 3 on evolutionary design, minimum marketable features, and feature crews did not make it to video (sorry, maybe next time!)

Comments (1)

Print This Post Print This Post

Email This Post Email This Post

Permalink

Software development is like golf …

18th_hole_pic

Software development is like golf in that your chosen path to the pin is a primary problem.

The choice involves weighing your capabilities (people), the course (technology), and the conditions (market).

Confident you can do anything?  Bring out the big guns and send it over that treeline on the left. If you make it, you must land it among that sea of traps. This is the most common choice in software development, and the #1 reason why we so frequently turn “par 5″s into 10, 15, and 20s.

Don’t have a team of Tigers?  Then go long down the center if you can avoid that large sand trip on the left and lake beyond it. But is this abstract little map accurate enough?  Does it tell us about the 50 yards of soggy turf there in the middle?  How about wind howling left to right over the lake?  Unless you’ve played this hole before you don’t know.  What makes software development so tricky is by definition we never play the same hole twice.  Technology is changing around us, even while we make our own changes.

Want to make sure you don’t turn a par 5 into a 10?  Land it short of the traps on the fairway and take it from there with comfortable strokes. There’s a price to pay for this caution: no holes in one for you.  You’re less likely to be a hero this way, but in team-scale software development, the hero model will fail you are sure as a week in Vegas, anyway.

And, sometimes, the conditions are particularly bad.  In the downturn of 2008/2009, one could say the conditions for technology products are analogous to “a raging hurricane, with chance of nearby volcanic eruption and ash over the course.”  So take care. Be humble.  And may you keep both your work in progress and your golf scores down.

(apologies to all software developers offended by an anology from the “sport of salespeople and CEOs”.  Think of it as an analogy to bridge the divide)

Comments (6)

Print This Post Print This Post

Email This Post Email This Post

Permalink

Why should you care about Lean for software development?

  • You are building a large product and you want to give your customers high visibility into your progress before you deliver.
  • You operate an online service or application and you want to deliver frequent product enhancements to your users.
  • You are building to schedule and you want to deliver the maximum value in the time available with minimum risk.
  • Your product requires professional contributions from people with non-overlapping skill sets (artists, engineers, subject matter experts) who have to coordinate with each other in order to deliver anything.
  • You outsource some part of your development process.
  • You have technology suppliers.
  • You are a technology supplier.
  • Your old product requires maintenance while your new products are under development.
  • You care about time to market for new features.
  • You have a competitor.

If you don’t have any of these problems, then maybe you don’t need Lean.

Comments (1)

Print This Post Print This Post

Email This Post Email This Post

Permalink

Mechanics of pull development workflow

~ OR ~

Adventures in workflow diagramming

We have talked a bit about workflow here.  This has mostly been analysis of existing, well-known workflow types.  We’ve also talked quite a bit about the pragmatics of operating those workflows as pull systems.  We have spent less time trying to describe the organization of workflows designed specifically for pull.  Understanding something about how to organize workflow might help us to understand something about how to organize people, which is ultimately the hard part.

workflow0Suppose I am building a product and I ask you to build a component for me so that I may complete the product. That simple transaction already creates three phases:  1) I start making the product;  2) You make the component while I continue working;  3) I receive the finished component and integrate it into the product. We can represent such a process by a simple branch/merge workflow.

If we know we have a parent/child relationship between the branches, we might simplify the diagram by collapsing some of the parent process:

workflow1

…which is a convenient representation, for reasons that we’ll see shortly.

workflow2We can easily transform our branching workflow into a pull system by adding kanban, flowing in the opposite direction to the product.

There is more than one way to break down a process into steps.  We might decompose a product into components, or we might decompose a workflow into processes. In practice, we may have a blend of these.  An evolutionary design process should have more of a workflow orientation, as the “product” should be a small cross-cutting enhancement to the previous instance of the system.  For a design product, the value added is almost entirely in the application of the knowledge and judgement of the participants.  A design workflow should be somewhat consistent between each design iteration, while the structural decomposition won’t be consistent at all. For the purpose of example, I’m going to assume an evolutionary design process.

Remember that the states in our workflow map to processes and not people. People will organize themselves to operate the processes according to their judgement.  There may be some correspondence between people and process, but that is a another concern.  There will be constraints on reasonable roles for team members.  You should be cautious about multitasking.  If you are serializing activities in the service of “one-man flow” then you are off in the weeds.

That said, let’s explore an example of how workflow might be structured for evolutionary design.

Ideal design of a pull development workflow

1. A customer comes to the team with wallet in hand and says, “I want a new feature.”  Now, the customer might say she wants a new feature, but what she really means is that she has a problem to solve and she’s willing to pay for a solution.  Maybe that solution will be the deployment of a new feature, and maybe not.  Maybe we can provide her with an off-the-shelf product that already does what she wants.  Maybe we can supply her with instruction on how to use existing features to solve her problem.  We don’t know yet, and neither does she, so we should start by working with her to describe the problem to be solved.  This description of the problem to be solved is a requirements specification, and it’s the first thing we’ll do in our workflow.

For the sake of example, let’s assume that the solution really is to develop a new feature.  In order to satisfy the requirement, we will have to build and deploy something, which will require time and resources.  So the next thing we do is…

2. Request a release package that will eventually include whatever we need to build and deploy a new feature.

workflow5

Organizing our workflow in this way makes a statement about the meaning of done.  We’re not done when we throw some bits over the wall.  We’re done when we’ve satisfied the requirements and delivered value to the customer.  When reading the diagram, it’s important to understand that we don’t release the feature until we have a consensus that the requirement will be satisfied.  The diagram says that we can’t close the original request until everything is really done and the customer signs off and goes away.

Our new release package can’t be completed until it contains something worth releasing.  The thing that the package contains is made of bits, and the way we make bits is by producing source code,  so the next thing we do is…

3. Request the provision of development resources.  We can’t deliver on our promise to develop the feature now if we don’t have the resources to develop it.  In order to release the feature, we will need a development team and whatever tools they need to create the feature.

workflow6

But the customer didn’t come looking for any random feature.  She wanted a particular feature, which means that we have to…

4. Produce a design that actually solves the customer’s problem.

workflow71

In order to design a feature, we have to know what the requirements are.  But we already know that!  Which means something interesting happens now.  Design is the deepest state of our development process.  Even though it seems that we are not done yet, in one sense we are.  We are done decomposing the workflow.  The next steps are not to issue further work requests.  They are to complete the requests that have already been issued and deliver the results.  We are unwinding the call stack.

When the design is complete, we can integrate and verify all of the code that represents that design:

workflow72

This won’t happen instantaneously, but once enabled, the transition will eventually fire, which will then enable the next transition:

workflow731

This process repeats for the remaining layers, until we are finally done:

workflow74

We’ve designed a workflow (though still an abstract one) specifically for pull.  We can check our assertion by asking a few whys:   Why do we design a feature?  So that we can produce code.  Why do we produce code?  So that we can release a feature.  Why do we release a feature?  So that we can satisfy the customer’s demand.  Why do we satisfy the customer’s demand?  So that she will give us her business, now and in the future.

Please don’t be too concerned about the apparent direction of flow in our diagram.  Iteration is possible in this model.  The nodes running down the center of the diagram are in parallel.  The transitions don’t fire until their corresponding processes complete.  Also, it’s just a model.  We don’t throw a design over the wall.  The code isn’t released until everybody is satisfied that the design satisfies the requirement.  But iterative or not, at some moment in time the feature is actually released to production.

Note that this isn’t a pull system yet.  It’s just a workflow.  There’s nothing here to prevent you from starting 100 features and never finishing any of them.  We will have to add something else to implement the mechanics of pull.

Turning a workflow built for pull into a pull workflow

A curious thing happens if you grab our previous workflow diagram by the ears and give it a good stretch:

workflow81

You transform our nested call-stack view into a sequential instruction-stream view.  Our sequential view highlights both the work stream and the work-in-process tokens that store the return addresses of the work stream.

This sequential projection maps directly to our now-familiar card walls.  Sometimes I draw arcs across the top of the card wall to remind people of the symmetry between design and design verification, or specification and functional verification.  These are a little faint, but you can still make out the dotted lines connecting states:

workflow9

In order to make our process a pull system, we have to have a way to regulate work in process.  As we described at the beginning of the article, a way that we might do that is to add kanban tokens moving against the direction of flow.  Our new diagram seems to have more than one kind of flow, so where do we put the kanban?  We can try something like our first example and make kanban for “coding-in-process” or “feature-in-process”:

workflow10

This kind of kanban system is analogous to Microsoft’s Feature Crew process, or the original Scrumban process.  But there also seems to be another type of kanban system, more like a David Anderson-style maintenance process:

workflow11

Isn’t that interesting?  I knew there were different types of kanban system, but I don’t think I ever quite articulated the difference between the two that are now commonly in practice for software development (there are still others).   If there is more than one, then which is right?  Which should we use?  The first type seems to be looser, more vertical, or product-oriented.  The second type seems tighter, more horizontal, or flow-oriented.  If you are starting a new workflow and you can’t calculate detailed limits yet, then you might start out with one or two limits of the first type.  This is how the Modus Cooperandi card wall is currently set up.  We can have 2 MMFs in process at a time, but no detailed limits on user stories or activities.  Later, we may change that.

You can also have a mix of kanban types.  Here, we can have 3 specifications-in-process at a time, but only 1 of them can be in the specify state:

workflow12

We can fill out more of the workflow kanban if we decide we want to try to smooth out a lumpy cumulative flow diagram.  Workflow synchronization can help to flatten organizational hierarchy and maximize specialized resources.  But I don’t want to come in with guns blazing and put labels and limits on everything I see.  I want to put just enough control on things to see the constraint appear.  If everybody is carrying a huge pile of inventory, it’s not always immediately obvious who is producing new inventory the fastest.  The combination of kanban styles helps us approach the problem with a lighter touch.

Comments (8)

Print This Post Print This Post

Email This Post Email This Post

Permalink

Close
E-mail It
Socialized through Gregarious 42