Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [kanbandev] Re: Is there a lack of perceived schedule pressure in Kanban?

Expand Messages
  • Karl Scotland
    Hi Tim, Let me try again. 2009/1/31 timuttormark ... I ll start by describing my perspective on the Scrum approach to dealing with
    Message 1 of 95 , Feb 3, 2009
      Hi Tim,

      Let me try again.

      2009/1/31 timuttormark <timuttormark@...>

      In Scrum, all tasks for the iteration are estimated by the team in
      sprint planning.  Tasks assignments are not known at the time of sprint
      planning.  The task estimate results from a team consensus, so the one
      doing the work on a task is not (solely) responsible for creating the
      estimate.

      In my example, Harry (due to his incompetence) and Bill (due to his
      laziness) would fall short of the standard set by the team's task
      estimates.  Jeff's behavior will not point as clearly to him as the
      problem, but will still be manifested as a team issue.  Since he is
      highly skilled, he is probably able to produce at a higher rate than the
      average team member, and he can finish his tasks on time despite
      overengineering them.  The team however would be better off if he
      stopped at "good enough", finished early and moved on to other tasks.
      Jeff's dysfunction would likely be manifested as the team missing their
      sprint commitments -- the team needs the above average performers to
      complete more than their share of tasks to compensate for the lesser
      performers.   In this case the team's estimate of how much work they can
      commit to completing in an iteration provides a standard for comparison
      of team performance.  Of course this can be gamed too, but requires more
      of a team conspiracy than just individual efforts to undermine it.

      I'll start by describing my perspective on the Scrum approach to dealing with your example.  Then I can compare/contrast the Kanban approach similarly.

      Sprint Planning is where the team collectively and collaboratively plans and commits to a small increment of work.  As you say, this meeting will highlight any mismatches in understanding of the problem or solution by generating the Sprint Backlog with tasks and estimates, such that the whole team has a common understanding of what needs doing and how long it should take.  Harry's incompetence can be mitigated because he should have a better understanding of the solution. Bill's laziness can be mitigated because he has been part of the estimation process, and Jeff's over-enthusiasm can be mitigated because scope has been clearly discussed.

      The Sprint Review is where the team are accountable for their Sprint commitment. This accountability should again mitigate for Harry, Bill and Jeff, because they have to demonstrate their progress and explain variation from the plan.

      The Sprint Retrospective is where the team can explore reasons behind variations from the plan (and strengths and weaknesses in general) and can inspect and adapt in order to learn and improve.  Over time, this can also mitigate individual weaknesses.

      So for Kanban...

      Sprint Planning becomes Feature Planning.  Rather than planning a timeboxes worth of product increment, the team plans a single valuable increment at a time - sometimes referred to as a Minimal Marketable Feature (MMF). The team limits the amount of work in progress in order to minimise the cycle time of these MMFs.  Once they have completed and released an MMF, the pick up a new one and start by planning it. The Planning can happens as a team, and break down into tasks and estimates as per Scrum, thus bring the same benefits and mitigating weaknesses in the same way.  A possible downside is the break in flow that may happen when you bring the team together.  A solution to this could be to keep a prioritisation and planning cadence - e.g. a weekly meeting to decide what the team will be working on next, and to plan it out.  The frequency of this meeting will probably depend on throughput.  The more frequently the team is able to complete and release work, the more frequently this meeting can be scheduled.  A difference between this planning cadence meeting and a sprint planning meeting, is that the planning is 'de-coupled' from the release.  In other words, whatever is planned does not have to be completed and released before the next planning meeting.  In an ideal world, however, the MMFs are able to be small enough such that they can be completed and released within a week.  In this case, Scrum with weekly Sprints can look very similar to Kanban.

      Because of this 'de-coupling' of planning and release, a commit and deadline is made per MMF.  This is sometimes referred to as a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the team and business.  The SLA says that the team will deliver features X days from when they are prioritised in the planning cadence, and is usually derived from past measurement of cycle-time.  Where there is variability in the size of MMFs, different SLAs can be set for different sizes.  Standard Scrum story point estimating can be used to classify the MMFs into different SLAs.  A Due Date Performance (DDP) metric can also be  measured, which is the percentage of MMFs delivered within their SLA.  This SLA and DDP is what creates the equivalent team accountability in Kanban.  I blogged some more about this here: http://availagility.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/kanban-commitment/

      Sprint Review can still happen as part of the Release cadence.  However, as we have de-coupled planning from release, this can happen as frequently as necessary, depending on the cost associated with a release.  In the ideal world, this cost is zero, and you could release small MMFs daily.  In this case, a small review of each MMF as it is completed might be appropriate.  If there is a small release process the team needs to go through, then a weekly release cadence might be better, with a weekly Review.  Whatever the frequency, the release cadence brings the same accountability for what has been delivered, and how long it has taken.

      Sprint Retrospectives, similarly, can still happen with their own cadence.  Kanban does try and shift the emphasis on the improvement to be as continuous and 'kaizen' as possible, but a fortnightly or monthly retrospective would certainly be a good thing to start with.  Again, the retrospective brings the same benefits as in Scrum.  I blogged some more about this here: http://availagility.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/kanban-and-retrospectives/

      So I'd say in summary that a kanban approach includes all the elements of Scrum (including stand ups as well), but decouples them from all being tied to the Sprint.  This can create a more natural process.  On the other hand, it can also be less clear what to do when as its not so defined.

      I hope that helps - keep asking if anything needs discussing further.

      Karl

      --
      Karl Scotland
      Agile Coach
      http://availagility.wordpress.com/
    • jdn3times
      ... Thanks for re-posting this. I saw this when it first came out, but now that I m more into the flow of things (pun? intended), a lot of it clicks more. jdn
      Message 95 of 95 , Mar 23, 2009
        --- In kanbandev@yahoogroups.com, benjamin.mitchell@... wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > Corey Ladas has already done an excellent blog post (and a book as well!)
        > on the concept of Scrum-ban - which shows how a Scrum team might evolve
        > towards a Kanban solution.
        > http://leansoftwareengineering.com/ksse/scrum-ban/
        >
        > Keith - have you read this? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Benjamin.
        >
        >

        Thanks for re-posting this. I saw this when it first came out, but now that I'm more into the flow of things (pun? intended), a lot of it clicks more.

        jdn
        >
        > Internet
        > raould@...
        > om To
        > kanbandev@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent by: cc
        > kanbandev@yaho
        > ogroups.com Subject
        > Re: [kanbandev] Re: Is there a lack of
        > 23/03/2009 perceived schedule pressure in Kanban?
        > 17:46
        >
        >
        > Please respond
        > to
        > kanbandev@yaho
        > ogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > hi,
        >
        > I have a Scrum background, no personal experience with Lean or Kanban,
        > but wish to learn all about L + K.
        >
        > > I'd love to see something that said, for example, "stopping production to
        > > have a retrospective is wasteful, so instead of that we do X, Y, Z, which
        > > gives us all the benefits (or more) of doing retrospectives without the
        > > waste." Note that I have a particularly strong notion of what ALL the
        > > benefits of doing retrospectives are.
        >
        > This sounds very helpful to me. Like, if there were a table on a wiki
        > somewhere that Scrummers could look at to learn how to map their
        > thinking and habits towards Lean/Kanban, I think that could be quite
        > nifty. (Of course, one should stress on such a page that they are
        > examples of principles, and it is actually the principles that are
        > important, not so much any dogmatic proscribed habits.)
        >
        > sincerely.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > This communication is confidential, may be privileged and is meant only for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply and delete the message from your system. Any unauthorised dissemination, distribution or copying hereof is prohibited.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Trust Corporation UK Limited, BNP Paribas UK Limited, BNP Paribas Commodity Futures Limited, BNP Paribas Asset Management UK Limited and Investment Fund Services Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
        >
        > BNP Paribas London Branch and BNP Paribas Wealth Management London Branch are authorised by the CECEI and supervised by the Commission Bancaire.
        >
        > BNP Paribas London Branch is authorised and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Services Authority. Details about the extent of our authorisation and regulation by the Financial Services Authority are available from us on request. BNP Paribas is also a member of the London Stock Exchange.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Wealth Management London Branch is subject to limited regulation by the Financial Services Authority. Details about the extent of our authorisation and regulation by the Financial Services Authority are available from us on request.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Securities Services London Branch is authorised by the CECEI and supervised by the AMF, and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Services Authority. Details on the extent of our regulation by the Financial Services Authority are available from us on request. BNP Paribas Securities Services is also a member of the London Stock Exchange.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Trust Corporation UK Limited is registered in England and Wales (registered no. 4042668) at registered office 55 Moorgate, London EC2R 6PA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas UK Limited is registered in England and Wales (registered no. 1488108) at registered office 10 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Commodity Futures Limited is registered in England and Wales (registered no. 2391477) at registered office 10 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Asset Management UK Limited is registered in England and Wales (registered no. 2474627) at registered office 10 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA.
        >
        > Investment Fund Services Limited is registered in England and Wales (registered no. 6110770) at registered office 55 Moorgate, London EC2R 6PA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas London Branch is registered in England and Wales (registered no. FC13447) at registered office 10 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Wealth Management London Branch is registered in England and Wales (registered no. FC023926) at registered office 10 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA.
        >
        > BNP Paribas Securities Services London Branch is registered in England and Wales (registered no. BR006393) at registered office 55 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6PA.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.