Outsourcing for quality

Some people think that outsourcing is about minimizing the costs by moving work to wherever rates happen to be lowest at the time. The costs of distributing software teams can be high however and such a strategy may fail to reduce costs at all, and worst of all it can impact quality and agility.

There are good reasons to distribute teams however - for example to maximize quality by picking the best available expertise.
Ivis found such a partner in SwiftTeams who are based in St Petersburg. Their expertise in graphical editors for development tools is second to none, and the xProcess product has benefited enormously as a result.

How then do you overcome the difficulties of planning and coordinating teams that are geographically distributed? This is one of the key motivations of course for deploying xProcess. It provides the key visibility and communication layer and minimizes the negative impact of having a few thousand miles between the sponsors, planners and specifiers and the implementers. A number of key enhancements to xProcess in recent months have been motivated by improving our application of the Scrum process with SwiftTeams. We'll be looking for more in the coming months too.

Have you earned value today?

There are many ways to track progress on projects - see "Don't burn out - burndown" for example. Burndown is particularly useful in agile projects with timeboxes where the targets are set at quite short notice - month by month for example. Earned Value (EV) analysis on the other hand is a great technique for tracking progress against a stable plan (ultra-agile teams go and read that burndown article instead of this one - stable plans are a luxury you rarely see!).

With EV tracking the value of completing tasks is calculated from its originally planned cost. There are some disadvantages of this - not least that the whole method relies on having the well-estimated plan to start from - however its advantage is that efficiency of execution can be measured day by day on the project.There are two relevant measures of efficiency that EV analysis provide: cost efficiency (how much better or worse you are doing than the baseline plan with regards the cost of the tasks you have delivered so far); and schedule efficiency (how much more or less value you have delivered at this point in time compared to the baseline plan).


xProcess supports EV analysis in the Executive Dashboards client (see screenshot). The Executive Dashboards provide an overview of multiple projects (or just one project if you like) so it's an ideal place to look at these efficiency levels in different projects. We may revisit how to use the views provided in later blog entries so watch this space.

Great resources for estimating

There are two new books on estimating that I've been finding very useful recently, and one older one. The older one first; and here you understand I'm not referring to Larry Putnam Senior himself! It's his book, co-authored with Ware Myers, "Measures for Excelence: Reliable software on time on budget" that remains a classic, full of helpful advice and packed with actual measures from real projects. I met Larry in 1992 just after his book came out, when I was in Washington with Ed Yourdon presenting some research on software reuse from Japan. He kindly gave me a signed copy and it has been in frequent use since that time, and was a key source for my own book "Better Software Faster" published in 2002. Putnam and Myers' latest book "Five Core Metrics" is another excellent resource which highlights the essentials that all software projects should measure, with practical information about how to do it. In case you're wondering the five are:

• Time
• Effort
• Quality
• Productivity
• Size

While Putnam and Myers experience covers projects ranging from the small to the truly massive, using a wide range of methodologies and covering five decades of software projects, Mike Cohn's book "Agile Estimating and Planning" is focused very much on the agile development processes of more recent history. It is similarly an excellent read with a mass of very practical advice for project managers of agile projects. I particularly liked the "Planning Poker" variant of the Wideband Delphi approach (!) but there are many other practical suggestions and insights, including discussions of burndown charts, velocity and prioritisation.

The challenge for me, working as I am on the product direction of xProcess, is to ensure that the full range of techniques and processes represented in these books is well supported by the underlying model and user interface of the product. xProcess has always been about agility, and in particular bringing powerful techniques from established project management methods and making them available to managers and participants of agile projects in such a way that they remain agile. These books similarly contribute to that drive to achieve controlled, productive and agile software projects.

Hierachy Diagrams

Hierarchy diagrams in xProcess are a good way to see an overview of a project or of process patterns. The diagram on the left is a project that is following a Prince2 style project - actually using a process defined by the WPM Group, leading project management consultants and a company I've been doing some work with recently.

The Hierachy Diagram is a good way to show Work Breakdown Structures for projects, and they are also useful editor views, where you can expand/collapse regions of the hierarchy and edit tasks via their right-click menu.

One more thing to try with Hierachy Diagrams... turn on the constraints on the diagram via the filter button and (as in this example) you'll see all the dependencies between the various tasks. Very useful for understanding the constraints imposed on the ordering of tasks.

Estimating size and effort - Why are they different?

A common question I get asked about estimating in xProcess (after three-point estimating of course, which is another popular question!) is: "What's the difference between a task's estimate for size and its (three-point) estimate for effort... and why do I need both?".

There are several ways to answer this, but perhaps a starting point is to ask why we think they're the same. If I ask you the size of your swimming pool you're more like to give me an answer in feet or metres that to reply with the number of person days it took to build the pool. (Building swimming pools is an xProcess application by the way - but that's another story!) When we are discussing the planning of a project the first thing to consider is the size (in whatever units are appropriate) of the deliverables of that project. Then we need a function (based on previous experience) to map from size to the estimate of the effort and consumables required to provide those deliverables.

Because the size of the things we want to deliver are measured in many different units, all of which we want to map eventually to an estimate of effort, it is common for projects to estimate directly in effort units such as person-days, person-hours or person-years. However if we do this, we lose a very important measure of the effectiveness of the project. Questions of team velocity or productivity become somewhat meaningless (except as a correction factor on original estimates of effort, compared to actual effort expended).

So if we can agree size is an important metric for projects, the next question is what units should it be estimated in, and can we compare the estimates with actuals at the end of the project. Software projects in particular are notoriously difficult to find an appropriate measure for size. Lines of source code is commonly used (because they are easy to count) but they don't readily map either to effective functionality delivered nor to effort required to develop them. Function points is another option and more recently "story points" (for an XP user story) or simply "points" have gained popularity where these are arbitrary units that are comparable only within the single project where they are being used. Another useful measure is "ideal-days" - in other words the amount that can be produced by a typical team member in a completely uninterrupted day. We rarely get such days (if ever) so it will take most of us more than a day to implement an ideal-day's worth of size. Nevertheless it is an understandable and reasonably verifiable measure of size.

In xProcess the units of size are common to the whole Data Source (they can be set in Data Source Preferences) and the value is used in several important places. When creating tasks the size value is often used in process patterns to set initial values for three-point estimates. The size units are used in burndown charts and earned-value plots to show progress of a project towards creating its deliverables. And size is also used to calculate productivity measures such as team velocity and software productivity.

Project Challenge! On your bike...

The National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham was the setting for last week's Project Challenge exhibition. It was the first opprotunity to see the new Executive Dashboard for xProcess in action, as well as to hear yours truly speaking about process modeling as a route to improve project performance. Needless to say the Executive Dashboard was clearly the highlight!


Guy's interest in the dashboard in this photo is not merely a pose for the camera. The show was also the first opportunity for the sales team to see this feature, which was turning a lot of heads (not just ours!). The ability to create additional views of interesting project data "on-the-fly" is a particularly impressive aspect of the facility.

Don't burn out... Burn Down!

Following in the tradition of you heard it here first, here's another sneak preview of soon to be released functionality on xProcess. The burndown chart is a key visualisation that was developed in Scrum and now used with a number of agile methods. Currently you can use the reporting feature in xProcess to generate a burndown chart for your project or timebox. However there's a new feature in the wings that shows you the burndown instantly (history and forecast) on any project, parent task or folder. Here's an example:


This timebox (Timebox 01) runs for about 3 weeks and the scope of work targeted is forecast to complete right at the end of the timebox -- indeed a couple of the tasks are alread critical. (This diagram is looking forward, predicting when tasks will close, and thus when the work in each task will burn down). Look at the same time box a couple of days later.

Now -- perhaps because tasks have been re-estimated or resources changed -- we can see some tasks are forecast to finish beyound the end of the timebox. The chart is consequently shown as "red" status. Even at this early stage in the timebox we can predict that some deliverables are at risk and so take appropriate action. In this case some additional resources have been found and the some tasks excluded from the targets. Once the changes have been made, the effect can be seen and assessed immediately...

The timebox is "green" and all systems are go! Day by day as the timebox progresses we can monitor our progress and ensure the whole team stays on track!

When we visit the team half way through the timebox we can see from the burn down chart that they are still very much on track and confidence will be high that this team will deliver on its promises.