Posts tagged velocity
Product Owner takes Vacation?
May 12th
The role of a Product Owner with in Scrum teams or that of a Customer in XP teams is critical to the success of the product. What to do? – when they take vaction. What are your options? Say your product owner is going on a planned vacation for a couple of weeks, effectively unavailable to the team for an entire sprint. Based on my experience at coaching and working with Agile teams, I have found following options that do not work:
1. The business owner (PO’s boss) takes the solo role of the product owner over.
Pro: Business Owner is the single representative voice of customer. Business Owner has the authority and the responsibility to make product decisions.
Con: S/He is not available for much of the time, delaying decisions.
Con: Business Owner does not have detailed knowledge of the domain.
Your PO’s boss most often will not have time to spend with the team and lack of domain knowledge renders the business owner dangerous to provide direction for a sprint. Also, given his seniority he may have other important stuff to take care, like assuming non-PO responsibilities that your PO was fulfilling within the organization.
2. Hybrid: UX Questions go to Interaction Designer, Reporting Questions go to Business Intelligence Analyst, Strategic Product Questions go to the Business Owner. Scrum master is quarter back for these questions – ensuring they are routed to the right place. When there are unresolved questions, they are decided by Business Owner.
Pro: Balances workload among contributing experts
Con: More workload on the scrum master
Con: Communication may break down between different members
Con: Who accepts stories?
Too many people wearing the virtual PO hat with the real PO in vacation and the real-temporary PO behind the scenes. Too much confusion for anyone’s taste.
3. The product owner postpones vacation.
Pro: Team doesn’t loose their product owner
Con: Delay in vacation causes trip prices to climb in the summer
This option is really not sustainable, people ought to be able to take vacation and not penalized for doing a good job.
4. Get another analyst to come up to speed. Someone comes on the project two weeks earlier to understand the domain and serves as proxy during the sprint.
Pro: Keeps the single decision maker.
Pro: Availability of analysts is more realistic than Business Owner taking this over
Con: Unfamiliar with the domain.
Startup time/cost to get a proxy product owner ready means effort spent by current PO and other team members during prior sprint which may cause drop in delivery of valuable functionality that would have been delivered otherwise.
5. Product Owner answers emails from Europe with 1 day time lag
Pro: Single decision maker is kept
Con: Time delay for questions, reducing velocity
Then it is not a vacation and true product owners take vacations!
What can you do?
One of the team member assumes a dual role of Product Owner and Team member. Ensure that this is not the scrum master.
Sooner or later, the PO has to trust the team to make domain level/product level decisions. Hopefully during these previous sprints the team has had an insight into PO’s thinking process and gained insight into PO’s implicit knowledge about how the product should work and feel. There may be some Subject Matter Expertise, like biz rules, that they need from other Analysts and they can ask these SME’s for guidance however the responsibility of final product should not seep out of the Scrum team (SM + PO + Dev team). Also, having a team member play this dual role is better than
i. Training a new person to play proxy role. (option 4)
ii. Getting a less domain knowledge person make decisions (option 1)
iii. Causing identity crisis for the rest of organization (option 2) ;)
The worst that can happen is that the person who is playing the dual roles, blows-up a two week sprint. On the bad side, 2 – weeks’ worth time and effort is lost. However on the good side, the PO will know how well the development team has so far understood PO’s product vision and incremental steps so far (previous sprints) towards that vision. A great learning opportunity! (Above mentioned worst case can also happen with option 1, 2 and 4 however there can be tendency to cop out and blame the “outsider” rather than look inwards and see where a team can learn.)
There are two characteristics that I seek in my suggested solution:
1. Learning opportunity
2. Avoid diffusion/confusion of responsibility
Many thanks to Ed Kraay, my collegue and friend at SolutionsIQ, who recently helped one of our client product owner’s to fulfill his vacation commitment.
Recognizing Bottleneck's
Mar 24th
The term “bottleneck” refers to a point where after the flow or velocity perceptively reduces. It is metaphorically derived from flow of water through a narrow mouthed bottle where the flow of water is constrained by its neck. For drinking purposes it is a good thing as it regulates the flow of water through the bottle to the drinker, preventing wasteful spillage. Bottleneck’s though constraining can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on desirability from the system.
The scrum framework contains product backlog which is essentially a queue (stack ranked, one after the other) of product backlog items (PBI’s) that the scrum team has to complete. Queue’s/backlog’s don’t feel good. Think about the last time you were in a rush and had to go to a bank where you stood in a queue behind fifteen people before the teller addressed your needs. Or the time you had to stand in queue to board your daily commute bus – uncertain whether you will get a chance to board this bus before the driver declares “its full” and rides on. There is the frustration of waiting in a line and the uncertainty of whether you will make it. If PBI’s could feel, then I guess they would empathize with people stuck in queues.
IMO, inherent assumption within complex software product development efforts is that
the business will always have more concepts or requirements than the team’s capacity to transform these into potentially shippable product increments.
If this assumption holds true for you then your product backlog expresses the aggregate effect of bottlenecks that exists downstream in your system. In other words, if there were no bottlenecks or team had infinite capacity then the all the PBI’s will be transformed into potentially shippable product increments within a sprint. Velocity metric represents this constrained capacity of a scrum team. In scrum terms these bottlenecks and other blockers are commonly referred to as impediments. Impediments being a broad generic term, I’m focusing on bottlenecks – which are impediments that specifically cause reduction in flow at a systemic level over multiple sprints. (Nothing too revolutionary!)
Here are a few of such bottlenecks:
1. Ill-defined product backlog items
Top priority product backlog items are not well defined for the team to fill up at least their next sprint and start working.Too often this results in lengthy sprint planning meetings, and delay in terms of days before a scrum team makes sprint commitment and get going. In such cases the team spends the first few days of the sprint analyzing requirements, holding design sessions etc prior to making a sprint commitment. Sprints in this case go in fits and starts with a significant gap in software development efforts between the end of previous sprint and the start of new sprint. In this case the bottleneck is recognized as gaps between sprint end and start dates.
2. No product backlog items
In most cases, this situation is not an invalidation of the assumption that the business has more work than the team can do in a sprint. In fact too often the business has a pressing need to get many features out of the door. Flood of information, lack of agreement, “have to get it right the first time” has a paralyzing effect effectively boxing them in a state of limbo where PBI’s are not defined and the scrum team is left out to dry. Often the bottleneck in this case is upstream of the scrum development team causing either an abrupt end to sprint rhythm or a false start with frequently extended ‘sprint 0′.
3. Not-Done product backlog items within a sprint
It is common understanding that PBI’s within a sprint are either Done or Not-Done as measured against their definition of done. PBI’s that get Done are counted towards team’s sprint velocity and the rest don’t. Teams that end their sprints with some or many Not-Done PBI’s find that their ability to pull in new PBI’s next sprint is bottle-necked. Following the mechanics of good scrum practices these teams present Not-Done PBI’s to Product Owner and estimate remaining work for prioritization in Product Backlog. In my observations it is most likely occurrence that the Product Owner will ask for Not-Done PBI’s to be completed in following sprint. Effectively the team carries forward Not-Done PBI’s from last sprint into the next sprint. In cases like these, it may feel like that there is a smooth flow from concept to realization however it ain’t true. Look at the worst case scenario, no new PBI’s are pulled from product backlog and the team spends the next sprint finishing up not-done work from previous sprint. In this worst case example it is easy to call out such a bottleneck, in real teams there are variations along the continuum of getting all committed PBI’s Done to getting none of committed PBI’s Done. It takes an experienced scrum team and/or ScrumMaster to recognize this pattern while its happening for real.
4. Insufficient infrastructure
Lack of staging environments, insufficient QA infrastructure and/or production ready environments stops the flow of developed features at some point before these features can be deemed production ready or ‘potentially shippable’. All these features pile up and aggregate until a sprint or two prior to release date. Then the teams make a major ‘push’ to release all of the developed functionality out of the door.
These last sprints are often called as ‘stabilizing sprints’. And I have to say, I will start liking the term ‘Stabilizing sprint’ under the condition that all of the previous sprints are called destabilizing sprints. Each one of the previous sprints was destabilizing the product increment unpredictably. Sadly for me, most people interpret the term ‘Stabilizing Sprints’ as a good thing
.
Tricky thing with all the hard stuff, like performance testing, regression testing etc, that could not be done within regular sprints is that the hard stuff does not get simpler if its left for last sprint. It gets even more harder. Causing a snowball effect. Take regression testing for example, if regression testing was not done in previous sprints then in the last stabelizing sprint potentially a lot of regression bugs can show up. If these bugs cannot be fixed in the last stabelizing sprint, these will then ideally fuel addition of PBI’s in product backlog. Leading to either lower quality product release or a delayed release date. In either case, there in lack of objective perception regarding both quality and predictable release date. This bottleneck is obvious to everyone, for there are features piling up every sprint waiting to be production ready however the exponential negative impact is still underappreciated.
Velocity
Nov 24th
Def: Velocity is the amount of product backlog that a team can fully implement through product owner acceptance with in a given sprint.
Velocity is often mis-used to express team productivity. There are two common ways of mis-using velocity to express productivity
- MisUse 1. Velocity used to comparatively express productivity of one team over that of another team. This is when Team A is deemed more productive than Team B since Team A velocity in story points is greater than that of Team B.
- MisUse 2. Velocity from previous sprints is used to express relative gains in productivity. In other words if teams velocity in sprint 1 was 10 and then in sprint 4 it is 20 then it is incorrect to state that team doubled its productivity in Sprint 4. Let me share an example of a real team. This team had a consistent velocity in the range of 70-80 story points. In one of their sprints the team created an automation script that effectively made testing data inconsistencies a breeze. Stories that were initially estimated at 8 were now being estimated at 2. The level of effort involved with these stories decreased dramatically and so did their relative estimates. Their total velocity however remained at 70-80 story points. Now you will agree with me that the automation script did improve team productivity however it didnot change overall velocity. This is one example of why velocity is a bad measure of productivity. For an excellent article on productivity; see Martin Fowler’s article here.