Kanban vs Scrum - less shootout more engagement needed!

David Anderson's book on Kanban provides a real insight into the practices and essentially the motivations for Kanban, particularly applied to process improvement. Since my reading happened to coincide with Ken Schwabers's dismissive posting about the method - saying that in contrast to the serious nature of Scrum it was a "nice distraction, for distracted people", it was helpful for me to look at all the examples, practices and theory in the book with as critical an eye as possible. I am a supporter of Scrum and believe it is the best starting point for team's starting out with a mandate to choose their process. However my recent clients have over 100 scrums working in parallel with a lot of other process surrounding them. They need methods for analyzing the waste in the processes and incrementally improving, based on sound metrics and evidence.

Kanban provides this kind of framework for improvement and I would strongly recommend such clients use it, as the basis for informed process development. As Henrik Kniberg points out in his companion volume to Anderson's, "Kanban and Scrum making the most of both", the methods are not incompatible. The fewer constraints that Kanban imposes on processes means that from a Scrum starting point, some of the constraints of scrum could be relaxed if benefit was deemed to flow from it. I presume this is why Schwaber objects to the method so strongly - if the starting point of the process is waterfall, one might end up with a slightly improved waterfall but not the major benefit that would flow from a true agile process. However if Kanban is followed effectively changes to a Scrum starting point would only be made if evidence was available for incremental improvements in the key business metrics. Yes there are risks involved in moving away from tried and tested agile processes. But that's where rewards lie too.

I'm not convinced by arguments between methods that focus on the character of those proposing them, when the substance of the methodologies are not examined. I expect more from the proponents in this case, more substance, evidence... and maybe a little more humility. Process improvement is not a one shot change from waterfall to agile. It requires insights from many different quarters to produce the best possible result for the business.

Cycle time and cashflow

Cycle time*, by which I mean the time to market for a feature, is not merely an academic concern. In times like these it may involve your job security, your project's viability and your company's future.

Clarke Ching amusingly points this out in his latest biztech parable "Rocks into Gold" with a tale of a back-from-the-brink project that found a simple way to justify its existence and solve the cashflow problem. It a quick read that's well worth the effort.

Graph's like the one above also bring home the message that even a small reduction in cycle time - specifically the time to external release of new features of a product - can result in major improvements in economic performance measured by return on investment (ROI), time to pay back, and profitability.

Agile processes - influenced for example by Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (TOC) - stress the need for rapid turn around and frequent releases, and the key drivers for this are the financial benefits from early release. The inhibitors to frequent and early release of new features are usually lack of automated testing and incomplete continuous integration. Using the financial arguments, particularly improving ROI, is the best way to justify and assess investment in this area. Automating acceptance tests in particular involves considerable effort and expense, but if it results in reduced cycle times and improved quality the financial justification is clear.

*Note: Unfortunately cycle time is an overloaded term that means different things to different people. I now trying to use a different term whenever I can. See "In search of unambiguous terminology for Flow systems" for further discussion of this issue.

Theory of Constraints and Agile Project Management

Recently on the LinkedIn forum PM Toolbox, Arash Sadati asked for comments about tool support for how Goldratt's Theory of Constraints (TOC) or Critical Chain Project Management can be integrated as part of the Agile Project Management. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

One thing all agile projects share is that - because of a conscious removal of dependencies between features wherever possible - they will be resource constrained rather than critical path constrained (a generalisation but broadly valid). Methods like Scrum-XP try to avoid specific role constraints (e.g. we can't make progress because we don't have a BA or a GUI expert or a middleware expert available) by specifying only 3 role types (Product Owner, Scrum Master, Team Member). So the team as a whole must to some extent be generalists (or at least prepared to learn / fill in specific roles) to reduce the risk of role constraints. In any real application of Scrum of course such role constraints may be real and teams will have to pay attention to them. The default condition though is worth understanding because it's a means to keep the effect of role constraints to a minimum.

FDD defines many more roles and I think as a result there is a greater risk of role constraints. Availability of specific class owners for example is a typical problem which Palmer and Felsing discuss in their book on FDD. Flexibility, especially in small teams, for people to wear multiple role "hats" is crucial. The really interesting observation in comparing agile to waterfall is the requirements process where detailed specification of features is ideally "just in time". David Anderson and others point out that it is a serious waste of precious resources to allow too much work to be done on future requirements when the critical constraint is the development team.

When we were specifying the xProcess product which is designed to support any priority-driven process (any agile process in other words), we did want to be able to give visibility to problems arising from role or resource constraints. Patterns of tasks can be defined in custom processes that require specific or general roles - or even allocation to specific team members - so that forecasting can take into account not only the total development effort available, but in the cases where specialised roles are required. It can therefore show the impact of limited availability of critical roles. Custom reports can be generated to show resource utilisation, and where these show less than 100% utilisation, the situation is likely to be one where specific roles are "critical", requiring other roles to wait for them.