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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs. actuals?

Expand Messages
  • Dan Rawsthorne
    It would be a good idea to track the total estimate versus the total actuals, but not at the task level. What makes the totals work out is the law of large
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 4, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      It would be a good idea to track the total estimate versus the total
      actuals, but not at the task level. What makes the totals work out is
      the law of large numbers - that everything averages out. What your boss
      should be hoping for is that your estimates average out to be correct.
      It is unreasonable to expect that every individual estimate will be
      correct, and trying to get that to happen always leads to analysis
      paralysis. However, making sure that your estimates are converging to
      actuals at the iteration level makes sense to me.

      Dan ;-)

      Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, Sr. Consultant
      www.netobjectives.com
      DrDan@...
      office: 425-269-8628

      Net Objectives' vision is effective software development without
      suffering. Our mission is to assist software development teams in
      accomplishing this through a combination of training and mentoring.


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
      > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 11:35 PM
      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
      > actuals?
      >
      > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs.
      actuals.
      > They
      > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
      > gave
      > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task
      with
      > the
      > hours actually spent on that task.
      >
      > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to
      the
      > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
      > shoulder.
      > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
      >
      > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
      >
      > - Daniel
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
      > Subject: New Scrum Article Available
      >
      > No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals
      even a
      > small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
      > chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the
      resolution
      > of
      > the measurements.
      >
      > What this means for software development is that even though we can
      use
      > previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software
      we
      > have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it
      can
      > wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
      > process
      > model is very tightly defined.
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
      > unsubscribe@...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
      > Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
      > service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
      > http://www.messagelabs.com
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
    • Ken Schwaber
      Dan, It s not posted yet, but someone reminded me of Holland s description of a complex process or object. It is something of which the only model is itself;
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dan,
        It's not posted yet, but someone reminded me of Holland's description of a complex process or object. It is something of which the only model is itself; there is no abstraction of it that is possible. That's the core problem with comparing estimates to actuals; there is no abstraction that will improve the estimating in the future. Your managers are thinking of simple processes, not complex processes.
        Ken
        >
        > From: Daniel Gackle <gackle@...>
        > Date: 2003/10/05 Sun AM 01:35:20 CDT
        > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs. actuals?
        >
        > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals. They
        > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we gave
        > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with the
        > hours actually spent on that task.
        >
        > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
        > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our shoulder.
        > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
        >
        > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
        >
        > - Daniel
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
        > Subject: New Scrum Article Available
        >
        > No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
        > small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
        > chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution of
        > the measurements.
        >
        > What this means for software development is that even though we can use
        > previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
        > have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
        > wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the process
        > model is very tightly defined.
        >
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Mike Cohn
        I d say you shouldn t do it because it doesn t add value commensurate with its cost. Don t argue with your bosses that it adds no value because comparing
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add value commensurate with
          its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds no value" because
          comparing what you originally thought a task would take with what it did
          take can help make you a better estimator.

          But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals, especially for a full team
          where some on the team are probably already decent estimators.

          Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for monitoring whether all the
          work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment, daily burndown charts,
          daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same reliance on early and
          accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall approach does.

          So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or waterfall. The
          benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

          --Mike



          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
          > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:35 AM
          > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
          > actuals?
          >
          > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.
          > They
          > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
          > gave
          > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with
          > the
          > hours actually spent on that task.
          >
          > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
          > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
          > shoulder.
          > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
          >
          > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
          >
          > - Daniel
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
          > Subject: New Scrum Article Available
          >
          > No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
          > small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
          > chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution
          > of
          > the measurements.
          >
          > What this means for software development is that even though we can use
          > previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
          > have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
          > wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
          > process
          > model is very tightly defined.
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
          > unsubscribe@...
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Marc Hamann
          ... What are they trying to improve with this metric? Make the team better estimators? The bound on estimation is knowledge: the more you know about what you
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            At 02:35 AM 10/5/03, Daniel wrote:
            >At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.

            What are they trying to improve with this metric? Make the team better
            estimators?

            The bound on estimation is knowledge: the more you know about what you
            have to do, the better you can estimate.

            This means that if you are doing something you've done before in exactly
            the same way, you can estimate it better than for something you haven't.

            But the whole idea of being agile is to be able to respond to the unknown
            changes that inevitably come. Encouraging people to become better
            estimators is equivalent to asking them to take fewer risks and to be in
            denial about radical changes in requirements and circumstances. Dealing
            with those things means throwing your estimates off.

            So why measure it?

            What I WOULD want to measure is effectiveness: is the team delivering more
            functionality per sprint (especially over the first several sprints), or at
            least an acceptable constant level. Delivered functionality is the only
            metric that matters, IMHO, so spending time and "guilt points" on any other
            metric that isn't directly dependent on this is counter-productive.

            You'll simply encourage "improvement" in a direction that is not aligned
            with your primary goal.

            Hope this is an argument you can use. ;-)

            Marc
          • David J. Anderson
            I m glad this topic came up because I ve been thinking about it a lot recently. Thanks Daniel! In FDD as documented by De Luca, Palmer and Felsing, developers
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm glad this topic came up because I've been thinking
              about it a lot recently. Thanks Daniel!

              In FDD as documented by De Luca, Palmer and Felsing,
              developers are asked for planned and actual dates for
              each of the 6 Feature milestones. In my own very
              recent book, "Agile Management for Software
              Engineering", http://www.agilemanagement.net/ , I
              document a different - more Scrum-like approach and
              described why I changed FDD and why I believed the
              alternative worked better.

              I abandonded planned dates on individual Feature
              milestones and replaced them with a single date for
              delivery of a Chief Programmer Work Package (an
              approximately 2 week batch of work) along with a
              scrum-like daily standup meeting. The team was asked
              to focus daily on the production rate (equivalent to
              burndown rate). With the team I was managing in Kansas
              City, at the time, this worked much better. I
              documented this in The Coad Letter #101,
              http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,29686,00.html

              It eliminated the local safety problem of individual
              commitments, i.e. too much buffer on each fine-grained
              task. It also [as Mike C] points out eliminates cost
              of calculating the planned dates. In FDD the cost of
              tracking the actual deliveries is trivial.

              However, a Development Manager - Mike Watson - that I
              work with currrently in Seattle, is busy changing his
              team back to Jeff De Luca's preferred approach of
              individual milestone commitments. Why?

              We have concluded that whether or not the aggregated
              commitment and daily standup works best versus planned
              individual milestones has a lot to do with the culture
              of the organization and the mindset or attitude of the
              team. In the most recent case, the daily standup
              meeting was proving ineffective for reasons too
              complex to explain in this post. Also the team
              mentality tended towards another time delivery problem
              - student syndrome - the idea that a task is started
              at the last available moment and any safety buffer is
              used up first through procrastination. Hence, even on
              a 2-week commitment the team wouldn't get going at
              full speed until closer to the completion date. The
              result was that often the completion date was missed.
              By changing back to fine-grained planned versus actual
              dates, this problem was eliminated.

              Hence, I now feel that both solutions work under
              certain conditions and circumstances, with different
              sets of people and different management cultures.

              Regards,

              David
              --
              David J. Anderson
              author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
              http://www.agilemanagement.net/


              --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:

              I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add
              value commensurate with
              its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds
              no value" because
              comparing what you originally thought a task would
              take with what it did
              take can help make you a better estimator.

              But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals,
              especially for a full team
              where some on the team are probably already decent
              estimators.

              Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for
              monitoring whether all the
              work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment,
              daily burndown charts,
              daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same
              reliance on early and
              accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall
              approach does.

              So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or
              waterfall. The
              benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

              --Mike




              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              http://shopping.yahoo.com
            • Marc Hamann
              ... I don t think this is a planning problem but engineering practices problem. If the team is failing to meet their commitments due to procrastination, you
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:35 PM 10/5/03, David J. Anderson wrote:
                >Also the team
                >mentality tended towards another time delivery problem
                >- student syndrome - the idea that a task is started
                >at the last available moment and any safety buffer is
                >used up first through procrastination.

                I don't think this is a planning problem but "engineering practices" problem.

                If the team is failing to meet their commitments due to procrastination,
                you have to ask yourself if you have the team you need.
                If you decide not to fire them immediately, you can use the daily meeting
                to expose that progress is not being made early in the sprint, and to push
                them to use techniques that produce more regular increments of value. (One
                such technique is test-driven development.)

                As an alternative, reduce the length of your sprint until they don't feel
                there is any buffer.

                I think that baby-sitting the team into behaving like professionals through
                micro-measurements can only have deleterious effects in the long run, and
                will neutralize the benefits of using an agile development methodology.

                If on the other hand, the team IS meeting its commitments, in spite of
                procrastinating, let them procrastinate, I say. Maybe that just works
                better for them, and so be it.

                Either way, you encourage the wrong adaptations by instituting an
                estimation improvement regime.

                Marc
              • Ron Jeffries
                ... Probably not, but I ll try. Some folks have touched on some of these thoughts already. My initial reaction is that for some reason, someone doesn t trust
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 5, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sunday, October 5, 2003, at 2:35:20 AM, Daniel Gackle wrote:

                  > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals. They
                  > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we gave
                  > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with the
                  > hours actually spent on that task.

                  > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
                  > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our shoulder.
                  > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.

                  > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?

                  Probably not, but I'll try. Some folks have touched on some of these
                  thoughts already.

                  My initial reaction is that for some reason, someone doesn't trust you. I
                  hope that's not the case, but if it is, I'd try to figure out some way to
                  deal with it directly.

                  Second, it probably really doesn't do any harm if you collect this
                  information. They might try to use it to set objectives to make the numbers
                  match. If they did, I'd respond thusly:

                  1. Seems to me that what's important is that the project is on schedule.
                  (If it is. If it isn't, that's what's important.) When we schedule things
                  into a Sprint, the team looks at the whole picture, not just the
                  individual tasks, and rallies around to get the best possible combination
                  of software does that meets the Sprint Goal. That's what's making this
                  work. We don't really even know who is going to work on some of these
                  tasks, until the time comes to do it. The purpose of the estimates is to
                  be able to add them up and come close enough to a Sprint Goal that can be
                  attained. We're not trying to get them "right", we're trying to use them
                  to estimate the overall cost of gaining the business value represented by
                  the next Sprint Goal. Here's how well they're working for that <drawing
                  their attention back to the point of how the whole project is going>.

                  2. When we look at these numbers, we see two things: we see a general
                  (under/over) estimate component, that looks like about (X) percent. And
                  around that systematic error, we see a random component that is about (Y)
                  percent. So long as the random component is reasonable (and it is (unless
                  it isn't)), the laws of large numbers cancel the errors out. That's why
                  the burndown chart looks so straight <drawing their attention back to how
                  well burndown is going>.

                  3. We are concerned about systematic error. [At least I guess that Scrum
                  must be concerned about that. XP is not.] Here's how it is varying over
                  time. Each Sprint we look at how we did and we adjust our estimates
                  basically proportionately, taking into account anything we've leared
                  about specific requirements that might make their estimates go up or down
                  relative to the others.

                  4. The most important thing, boss, is this: we're new at Scrum. Scrum has
                  been designed by people who are much smarter than we are about these
                  things, and it has been tested in many situations like ours. Until we get
                  more experience with doing the process out of the box, chief, I recommend
                  that we stick with the basic Scrum. We should take a look at making it
                  better once we can do it in its standard form. After all, it's delivering
                  us good results.

                  Or something like that.

                  Of course, having collected the information and showed it to them, we might
                  find out that it's completely harmless to do so. That's always possible ...

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  Master your instrument, master the music,
                  and then forget all that *!xy!@ and just play. -- Charlie Parker
                • Anko Tijman
                  ... wrote: Your managers are thinking of simple processes, not complex processes. ... Traditional approach: thinking of a simple process,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 6, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ken Schwaber
                    <ken.schwaber@v...> wrote:
                    Your managers are thinking of simple processes, not complex processes.
                    > Ken

                    Traditional approach: thinking of a simple process, and developing
                    complex software

                    Agile approach: thinking of a complex process, and developing simple
                    software



                    What a contradiction....
                    ;-)


                    Anko Tijman
                  • David J. Anderson
                    Marc, It s always interesting to speculate on what works and doesn t work. In this case, I know that both approaches work with different teams. I have run more
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 6, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Marc,

                      It's always interesting to speculate on what works and
                      doesn't work.

                      In this case, I know that both approaches work with
                      different teams. I have run more than 15 projects in 4
                      Fortune 1000 companies (more than 10 of them at Sprint
                      and Motorola - both Fortune 100).

                      Hence, I just don't buy into the "one way works and
                      the other way doesn't" belief. I have the metrics and
                      the released systems to prove it.

                      You're suggested approach of "just fire them" is
                      seldom an option for a manager in a big company - nor
                      should it be. Getting people to change can be
                      difficult or impossible - changing a culture can be
                      harder.

                      Regards,

                      David

                      --- Marc Hamann <marc@...> wrote:

                      I think that baby-sitting the team into behaving like
                      professionals through
                      micro-measurements can only have deleterious effects
                      in the long run, and
                      will neutralize the benefits of using an agile
                      development methodology.

                      If on the other hand, the team IS meeting its
                      commitments, in spite of
                      procrastinating, let them procrastinate, I say. Maybe
                      that just works
                      better for them, and so be it.

                      Either way, you encourage the wrong adaptations by
                      instituting an
                      estimation improvement regime.

                      Marc



                      =====
                      David J Anderson
                      Author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
                      http://www.agilemanagement.net/

                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                      http://shopping.yahoo.com
                    • Marc Hamann
                      David, My claim is not that your approach doesn t work; there a innumerable systems that have been built using BDUF or even ad hoc methodologies. I m sure that
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 6, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David,

                        My claim is not that your approach doesn't work; there a innumerable
                        systems that have been built using BDUF or even ad hoc methodologies.
                        I'm sure that many of these conform to various sorts of acceptable metrics.

                        However, such practices are not Agile in general or Scrum in
                        particular. Moreover, they work against the goals and values that Agile
                        and Scrum promote, which is counter-productive if you are trying to combine
                        them with Agile practices.

                        My implication that the team should be fired was provocative, but "that
                        won't work here because of our culture/our programmers/our boss" is the
                        most common objection I hear to using Agile techniques. This seems
                        counter-intuitive to me, since I believe that the great virtue of Agile
                        techniques is that they can be used even in adverse circumstances.

                        You don't have to change the culture to start using the techniques; just do
                        your best to implement the practices, and avoid any practices which work
                        against the goals and values you are trying to promote.

                        It's not magic, it's not easy, but if you don't at least try the best you
                        can, you can't claim to be doing Scrum or Agile.

                        Regards,

                        Marc

                        At 01:12 PM 10/6/03, you wrote:
                        >Marc,
                        >
                        >It's always interesting to speculate on what works and
                        >doesn't work.
                        >
                        >In this case, I know that both approaches work with
                        >different teams. I have run more than 15 projects in 4
                        >Fortune 1000 companies (more than 10 of them at Sprint
                        >and Motorola - both Fortune 100).
                        >
                        >Hence, I just don't buy into the "one way works and
                        >the other way doesn't" belief. I have the metrics and
                        >the released systems to prove it.
                        >
                        >You're suggested approach of "just fire them" is
                        >seldom an option for a manager in a big company - nor
                        >should it be. Getting people to change can be
                        >difficult or impossible - changing a culture can be
                        >harder.
                        >
                        >Regards,
                        >
                        >David
                        >
                        >--- Marc Hamann <marc@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >I think that baby-sitting the team into behaving like
                        >professionals through
                        >micro-measurements can only have deleterious effects
                        >in the long run, and
                        >will neutralize the benefits of using an agile
                        >development methodology.
                        >
                        >If on the other hand, the team IS meeting its
                        >commitments, in spite of
                        >procrastinating, let them procrastinate, I say. Maybe
                        >that just works
                        >better for them, and so be it.
                        >
                        >Either way, you encourage the wrong adaptations by
                        >instituting an
                        >estimation improvement regime.
                        >
                        >Marc
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >=====
                        >David J Anderson
                        >Author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
                        >http://www.agilemanagement.net/
                        >
                        >__________________________________
                        >Do you Yahoo!?
                        >The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                        >http://shopping.yahoo.com
                        >
                        >
                        >To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                        >
                        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • David J. Anderson
                        Marc, I think there is a danger of doing agile for the sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by delivering more value faster to the end of value
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 6, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Marc,

                          I think there is a danger of "doing agile" for the
                          sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by
                          delivering more value faster to the end of value
                          chain. If agilists lose sight of this then agile will
                          be a fad rather than a genuine trend.

                          I would contest your observation that making the best
                          ROI or the most money is always best done using the
                          very pure agile techniques you describe.

                          For example, in the Boehm and Turner book they
                          describe a 3 year long XP project which using more
                          than 30 developers in a 50 person team produced around
                          500,000 SLOC. Compare this to the CLS project at UOB
                          in Singapore (the original FDD project) which was
                          performed using the fine-grained planned versus actual
                          which with slightly less people (47) but with only 23
                          developers produced 1,500,000 SLOC in only 18 months.

                          If SLOC is a reliable metric (and I don't believe it
                          is but given a lack of a function point assessment of
                          both projects it is all we have) then the first FDD
                          project seems to be up to 6 times more effective than
                          the textbook XP project reported by Boehm and Turner.

                          Not only was the CLS project a huge success but after
                          it was rolled live - the bank (UOB) was able to take
                          over its nearest competitor. This was achieved through
                          improved competitiveness and the lending system
                          delivered by the CLS project played a key part in
                          providing that competitiveness.

                          One of the big problems with agile successes is that
                          they get reported in a relative manner e.g. we
                          implemented (pick a method you like e.g. Scrum) and we
                          produced a four fold improvement. There are lots of
                          such anecdotes. Ken even includes one in the Scrum
                          book. However, none of these results are reported as
                          absolute figures in a normalized manner. The success
                          has a lot to do with the starting position. It's
                          always easy to improve a very poor organization.

                          So I fail to accept that you can assert that adhoc,
                          self-organizing processes can outperform lean
                          processes which still include aspects such as planned
                          versus actual dates. When you can show me the metrics
                          from real projects reported in a normalized fashion,
                          from projects performed in large businesses with large
                          value-added or revenue generation potential then I
                          might start to believe.

                          Cordially,
                          David
                          --
                          David J. Anderson
                          author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
                          http://www.agilemanagement.net/

                          --- Marc Hamann <marc@...> wrote:

                          David,

                          My claim is not that your approach doesn't work; there
                          a innumerable
                          systems that have been built using BDUF or even ad hoc
                          methodologies.
                          I'm sure that many of these conform to various sorts
                          of acceptable metrics.

                          However, such practices are not Agile in general or
                          Scrum in
                          particular. Moreover, they work against the goals and
                          values that Agile
                          and Scrum promote, which is counter-productive if you
                          are trying to combine
                          them with Agile practices.

                          My implication that the team should be fired was
                          provocative, but "that
                          won't work here because of our culture/our
                          programmers/our boss" is the
                          most common objection I hear to using Agile
                          techniques. This seems
                          counter-intuitive to me, since I believe that the
                          great virtue of Agile
                          techniques is that they can be used even in adverse
                          circumstances.

                          You don't have to change the culture to start using
                          the techniques; just do
                          your best to implement the practices, and avoid any
                          practices which work
                          against the goals and values you are trying to
                          promote.

                          It's not magic, it's not easy, but if you don't at
                          least try the best you
                          can, you can't claim to be doing Scrum or Agile.

                          Regards,

                          Marc



                          =====
                          David J Anderson
                          Author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
                          http://www.agilemanagement.net/

                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                          http://shopping.yahoo.com
                        • Marc Hamann
                          David, ... I agree that doing agile is not an end in and of itself. Providing return on investment and return on expectation is the real goal. We do this by
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 6, 2003
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David,

                            >I think there is a danger of "doing agile" for the
                            >sake of it. The real goal is to make more money by
                            >delivering more value faster to the end of value
                            >chain.

                            I agree that "doing agile" is not an end in and of itself. Providing
                            return on investment and return on expectation is the real goal.

                            We do this by producing working software that fulfills the needs of the
                            customer. I'm quite skeptical that we can do this by producing "metrics".

                            The only metric that counts is how many of the customer's requirements we
                            clear out of the backlog by delivering well-made, working software for a
                            given cost.
                            Any other metric may or may not be a helpful guideline to help you
                            accomplish that primary goal, but some metrics are blatantly
                            counter-productive because they encourage the wrong behaviour.

                            I'm glad you agree that SLOC is not a good metric; crappy code can eat up
                            WAY more lines than good code. ;-)

                            >One of the big problems with agile successes is that
                            >they get reported in a relative manner

                            I suppose part of our disagreement comes from our different concerns. You
                            want to bring a scientific study to the successes of particular cases.
                            Though I'm skeptical that you can ever factor out all the variables that go
                            into a large project and isolate with absolute objectivity that one method
                            is better than another, I can understand why you want to do this.

                            However, I'm in the trenches, and the only reason I give a fig about the
                            Agile methodologies is that they offer approaches and techniques that solve
                            my real day to day challenges in building good, reliable, low cost
                            software. What Chrysler did, or some offshore bank, though perhaps of
                            academic interest will not sway me one way or another as to whether those
                            techniques will work for me. If they work for me, I use them, if they
                            don't, I won't.

                            >So I fail to accept that you can assert that adhoc,
                            >self-organizing processes can outperform lean
                            >processes which still include aspects such as planned
                            >versus actual dates.

                            Well, since we are unlikely to find mutually satisfactory metrics for
                            determining performance, I don't think I would make that claim. ;-)

                            However, I do know that professionals who are too valuable to be fired are
                            smart enough to tell when they are being micro-managed or babied, and
                            neither of these brings out high morale, creativity and "can do" spirit.

                            Remember that people will focus their energies on whatever you measure to
                            evaluate them. If you measure their ability to estimate rather than their
                            ability to produce working software, you will encourage them to pace their
                            work to the plan, rather than doing the best they can always, to avoid
                            taking risks that might throw their estimations off, even if it would
                            improve the product.

                            I can't see how that will improve productivity. In fact, I wouldn't
                            believe it were so even if you showed me some metrics. ;-)

                            >When you can show me the metrics
                            >from real projects reported in a normalized fashion,
                            >from projects performed in large businesses with large
                            >value-added or revenue generation potential then I
                            >might start to believe.

                            When the Buddha was asked "Why should I believe what your saying?", he
                            replied "Don't believe it. Try it for yourself ."

                            I can't improve on that. ;-)

                            Marc
                          • Daniel Gackle
                            Thanks to everyone who replied on estimates vs. actuals. The best thing for me was seeing the diversity of opinion on it, which helped me realize we can just
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 10, 2003
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks to everyone who replied on estimates vs. actuals. The best thing for
                              me was seeing the diversity of opinion on it, which helped me realize we can
                              just be pragmatic. Both Jeff's and Ron's reply of "why not give them what
                              they want if it doesn't cost you anything" (my paraphrase) seems applicable
                              to our situation. For me this is part of learning to distinguish the
                              essential stuff from the secondary stuff (which can just flex).

                              I remain perplexed about exactly what people think they're going to get out
                              of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word "exactly". Maybe they just
                              have a fuzzy idea of what they think they'll get... something vague but
                              comforting, like "more control".

                              Daniel
                            • David J. Anderson
                              ... I remain perplexed about exactly what people think they re going to get out of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word exactly . Maybe they just have
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 11, 2003
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- Daniel Gackle <gackle@...> wrote:

                                I remain perplexed about exactly what people think
                                they're going to get out
                                of such numbers. Maybe my problem is that word
                                "exactly". Maybe they just
                                have a fuzzy idea of what they think they'll get...
                                something vague but
                                comforting, like "more control".

                                Daniel

                                -=-=-

                                Daniel,

                                There is a real danger that some mangers/directors
                                will try to use the data for staff evaluation and use
                                it to filter out targets for layoffs. I worked with a
                                director at Sprint who tried to do this. I (somewhat)
                                successfully turned this into athe more benign,
                                monitoring of our ability to estimate. This made it
                                more a metric measuring line managers like me, than a
                                metric measuring my staff. I saw that as part of my
                                job - taking the heat away from the workforce.

                                Hence, I think that you are right to be wary. I don't
                                think that anyone believes they have more control from
                                metrics like these - other than they believe that they
                                will get early warning of slippages.

                                People I work with who believe in short-time window
                                planned versus actual, i.e. only planned out up to two
                                weeks ahead, believe that it provides commitment and
                                focus when that can't be achieved through other means
                                such as daily standups.

                                I don't know anyone who genuinely believes that
                                fine-grained planned versus actual dates works beyond
                                that time period. Trying to make a full release plan
                                in advance is just inviting Gantt Chart hell and
                                providing busy work for project managers anxious to
                                keep their jobs and their PMI qualifications.
                                Sometimes, you should look to the personal motivation
                                and the extremely local optimum for an explanation of
                                why something is the way it is.

                                David



                                =====
                                David J Anderson
                                Author of "Agile Management for Software Engineering"
                                http://www.agilemanagement.net/

                                __________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                                http://shopping.yahoo.com
                              • Ken Schwaber
                                In some instances we re going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to figure out
                                Message 15 of 20 , Oct 12, 2003
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In some instances we're going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen
                                  pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to
                                  figure out how they are adding value, and relying on what they have used in
                                  the past to add that value. They have always tried to improve predictabity
                                  in the past, let's try to do it in the future.

                                  I've always tried to get management to do another job. I've tried to get
                                  them to see how well or badly a team does, what it can produce Sprint by
                                  Sprint. Then I ask them to actually do the job of management - figure out
                                  what to do based on what the team has been able to build. Should release
                                  dates be changed? Should the project be decommissioned? Should functionality
                                  be dropped from this release? Should the team's expertise be improved in
                                  some areas? To me, these are all reasonable areas of management expertise,
                                  not throwing the problem back on the team by saying, "improve your
                                  estimates."

                                  Ken

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                                  Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 9:57 AM
                                  To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
                                  actuals?


                                  I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add value commensurate with
                                  its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds no value" because
                                  comparing what you originally thought a task would take with what it did
                                  take can help make you a better estimator.

                                  But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals, especially for a full team
                                  where some on the team are probably already decent estimators.

                                  Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for monitoring whether all the
                                  work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment, daily burndown charts,
                                  daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same reliance on early and
                                  accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall approach does.

                                  So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or waterfall. The
                                  benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

                                  --Mike



                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
                                  > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:35 AM
                                  > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
                                  > actuals?
                                  >
                                  > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.
                                  > They
                                  > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
                                  > gave
                                  > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with
                                  > the
                                  > hours actually spent on that task.
                                  >
                                  > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
                                  > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
                                  > shoulder.
                                  > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
                                  >
                                  > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
                                  >
                                  > - Daniel
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
                                  > Subject: New Scrum Article Available
                                  >
                                  > No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
                                  > small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
                                  > chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution
                                  > of
                                  > the measurements.
                                  >
                                  > What this means for software development is that even though we can use
                                  > previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
                                  > have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
                                  > wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
                                  > process
                                  > model is very tightly defined.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
                                  > unsubscribe@...
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                  To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                  To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                  scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                • Steven Gordon
                                  I have worked on many projects in the past where the elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit, if not the greatest benefit of the resulting
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Oct 12, 2003
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I have worked on many projects in the past where the elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit, if not the greatest benefit of the resulting process and/or product.

                                    Why would the elimination of unnecessary management labor not be a benefit to a client? Maybe, the case needs to be made further up the food chain?


                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                                    Sent: Sun 10/12/2003 4:03 AM
                                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                    Cc:
                                    Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs. actuals?

                                    In some instances we're going to be stuck with tracking actuals. Mel Pullen
                                    pointed out that this may be a symptom of displaced management trying to
                                    figure out how they are adding value, and relying on what they have used in
                                    the past to add that value. They have always tried to improve predictabity
                                    in the past, let's try to do it in the future.

                                    I've always tried to get management to do another job. I've tried to get
                                    them to see how well or badly a team does, what it can produce Sprint by
                                    Sprint. Then I ask them to actually do the job of management - figure out
                                    what to do based on what the team has been able to build. Should release
                                    dates be changed? Should the project be decommissioned? Should functionality
                                    be dropped from this release? Should the team's expertise be improved in
                                    some areas? To me, these are all reasonable areas of management expertise,
                                    not throwing the problem back on the team by saying, "improve your
                                    estimates."

                                    Ken

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                                    Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 9:57 AM
                                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
                                    actuals?


                                    I'd say you shouldn't do it because it doesn't add value commensurate with
                                    its cost. Don't argue with your bosses that it "adds no value" because
                                    comparing what you originally thought a task would take with what it did
                                    take can help make you a better estimator.

                                    But, it can be time-consuming to track actuals, especially for a full team
                                    where some on the team are probably already decent estimators.

                                    Because Scrum already has solid mechanisms for monitoring whether all the
                                    work gets done in a sprint (high team commitment, daily burndown charts,
                                    daily scrum, and so on), Scrum does not have the same reliance on early and
                                    accurating estimating that a predictive or waterfall approach does.

                                    So--the cost to gather actuals is the same in Scrum or waterfall. The
                                    benefit in Scrum is greatly reduced.

                                    --Mike



                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
                                    > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:35 AM
                                    > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs.
                                    > actuals?
                                    >
                                    > At my company, some managers believe in tracking estimates vs. actuals.
                                    > They
                                    > like what my team is doing with Scrum, but they'd like it better if we
                                    > gave
                                    > them a spreadsheet every month matching the estimate for each task with
                                    > the
                                    > hours actually spent on that task.
                                    >
                                    > I feel bad about this and don't want to do it. It feels contrary to the
                                    > spirit of self-organizing teams, like someone is looking over our
                                    > shoulder.
                                    > Yet I can't fully articulate what's wrong with it.
                                    >
                                    > Can anyone help me get clearer on this?
                                    >
                                    > - Daniel
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: "Gamble, Ken" <ken.gamble@...>
                                    > Subject: New Scrum Article Available
                                    >
                                    > No matter how well someone measures past estimates against actuals even a
                                    > small change in the estimate can have a big effect on the outcome of a
                                    > chaotic/complex process no matter how good the model is or the resolution
                                    > of
                                    > the measurements.
                                    >
                                    > What this means for software development is that even though we can use
                                    > previous estimates as part of a process model for delivering software we
                                    > have to keep a sharp eye (Scrum management) on the process because it can
                                    > wonder off course simply because of these small values, even if the
                                    > process
                                    > model is very tightly defined.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-
                                    > unsubscribe@...
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    ADVERTISEMENT
                                    Click Here! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707209021:HM/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=124ukap9t/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595054>
                                    <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595054/rand=270339561>

                                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                  • Edmund Schweppe
                                    ... What will the client do with the managers whose unnecessary management labor will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected managers
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Oct 12, 2003
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Steven Gordon wrote:
                                      > I have worked on many projects in the past where the
                                      > elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit,
                                      > if not the greatest benefit of the resulting process and/or
                                      > product.
                                      >
                                      > Why would the elimination of unnecessary management labor not
                                      > be a benefit to a client? Maybe, the case needs to be made
                                      > further up the food chain?

                                      What will the client do with the managers whose "unnecessary management
                                      labor" will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected
                                      managers *think* the client will do with them?

                                      If the particular client has a history of dealing with "unnecessary"
                                      positions by firing the persons therein, the affected managers are going
                                      to be *very* strongly motivated to make sure *their* positions are seen
                                      as "necessary".

                                      --
                                      Edmund Schweppe -- schweppe@... -- http://schweppe.home.tiac.net
                                      The opinions expressed herein are at best coincidentally related to
                                      those of any past, present or future employer.
                                    • Steven Gordon
                                      The main difference is whose position is being eliminated. It bothers me that projects which reduce how much labor it takes to do production
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Oct 12, 2003
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The main difference is whose position is being eliminated.

                                        <Rant mode on>

                                        It bothers me that projects which reduce how much labor it takes to do production will lead to reductions in force, but projects that reduce how much management is required just leads to managers with time on their hands.

                                        And managers with time on their hands leads to micromanagement activities like tracking estimates vs. actuals in a process where the metric is not highly correlated to success. Next, they will try to weigh the process down with collecting even more metrics that are not success factors, and start applying 6-sigma optimizations on them. Will anybody notice that these measured metrics will improve, but actual productivity and true successes will decrease? Probably not, because they will define productivity and success in terms of the metrics they are collecting and analyzing.

                                        <Rant mode off>

                                        Sorry if I offended any managers here.

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Edmund Schweppe [mailto:schweppe@...]
                                        Sent: Sun 10/12/2003 10:21 AM
                                        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                        Cc:
                                        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] What's wrong with tracking estimates vs. actuals?

                                        Steven Gordon wrote:
                                        > I have worked on many projects in the past where the
                                        > elimination of labor was considered a significant benefit,
                                        > if not the greatest benefit of the resulting process and/or
                                        > product.
                                        >
                                        > Why would the elimination of unnecessary management labor not
                                        > be a benefit to a client? Maybe, the case needs to be made
                                        > further up the food chain?

                                        What will the client do with the managers whose "unnecessary management
                                        labor" will be eliminated? Or, more to the point, what do the affected
                                        managers *think* the client will do with them?

                                        If the particular client has a history of dealing with "unnecessary"
                                        positions by firing the persons therein, the affected managers are going
                                        to be *very* strongly motivated to make sure *their* positions are seen
                                        as "necessary".

                                        --
                                        Edmund Schweppe -- schweppe@... -- http://schweppe.home.tiac.net
                                        The opinions expressed herein are at best coincidentally related to
                                        those of any past, present or future employer.



                                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                        <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707209021:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674?=egroupweb&pos=HM>
                                        <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=240962557>

                                        To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                      • David J. Anderson
                                        Steve, You are defining what bad managers do - managers who don t know what management is and probably have never been trained as proper managers. For the
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Oct 12, 2003
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Steve,

                                          You are defining what bad managers do - managers who
                                          don't know what management "is" and probably have
                                          never been trained as proper managers.

                                          For the rest of us good managers - we just tune you
                                          out :-)

                                          David


                                          --- Steven Gordon <sagordon@...> wrote:

                                          The main difference is whose position is being
                                          eliminated.

                                          <Rant mode on>

                                          It bothers me that projects which reduce how much
                                          labor it takes to do production will lead to
                                          reductions in force, but projects that reduce how much
                                          management is required just leads to managers with
                                          time on their hands.

                                          And managers with time on their hands leads to
                                          micromanagement activities like tracking estimates vs.
                                          actuals in a process where the metric is not highly
                                          correlated to success. Next, they will try to weigh
                                          the process down with collecting even more metrics
                                          that are not success factors, and start applying
                                          6-sigma optimizations on them. Will anybody notice
                                          that these measured metrics will improve, but actual
                                          productivity and true successes will decrease?
                                          Probably not, because they will define productivity
                                          and success in terms of the metrics they are
                                          collecting and analyzing.

                                          <Rant mode off>

                                          Sorry if I offended any managers here.



                                          __________________________________
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                                          http://shopping.yahoo.com
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.