Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2013-03-18:
- CRM 2011 OData, REST and the QueryString
- CRM 2011 – Quick way to find a guid using a CRM form
- Agile Retrospective Resource Wiki
I am Synesthesia
Notes on stuff
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2013-03-18:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2013-03-15:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2013-03-11:
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2013-02-22:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-10-08:
agile product_development product_management productowner portfolio
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2012-10-04 to 2012-10-05:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2012-10-02 to 2012-10-03:
none
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2012-07-19 to 2012-07-20:
requirements userstories agile productowner product vision user centric design design user benefits
productowner agile requirements userstories product vision user centric design design
none
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-07-19:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-07-18:
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-03-12:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-02-03:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-02-01:
knowledge mapping knowledgemanagement augmentation learning tools exchange conceptmapping mindmapping cohere openuniversity compendium
compendium exchange tools learning conceptmapping mindmapping knowledgemanagement augmentation visualisation
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-01-31:
e-learning collaboration web2.0 education socialnetworking microblogging edmodo teaching
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2012-01-24:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-11-21:
Business Model Canvas enterprise_architecture business_architecture
Business Model Canvas enterprise_architecture business model
EA enterprise_architecture business model Business Model Canvas
EA enterprise_architecture TOGAF LouVarveris DaveHarrison Telelogic
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-11-07:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-10-07:
sandbox tools testing code development web-based css webdesign webdevelopment
agile CutterIT israelgatt technical debt backlog management portfolio
via:ifttt Agile productmanagement software agile The Agile Executive israelgatt
via:ifttt @retag Cloud Security Alliance Blog Zenobia Godschalk
via:ifttt @retag Cloud Security Alliance Blog Zenobia Godschalk
via:ifttt @retag Cloud Security Alliance Blog Zenobia Godschalk
via:ifttt @retag Cloud Security Alliance Blog Zenobia Godschalk
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-07-28:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-07-18:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-07-15:
A3 A3process kaizen lean system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
none
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-07-12:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-07-11:
agile requirements requirements_management userstories cards
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-06-24:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-06-23:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-06-22:
product_management productowner portfolio cost-of-delay backlog agile lean kanban
lean agile backlog cost-of-delay product_management productowner portfolio
lean product_management productowner portfolio_management agile
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-05-13:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-03-24:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-03-08:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2011-03-02:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2011-02-02 to 2011-02-08:
none
agile requirements enterprise_architecture portfolio_management DeanLeffingwell
modeling risk security infosecurity tools EA system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
infosecurity security risk modeling system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-11-02:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2010-09-27 to 2010-09-30:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-09-17:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2010-09-12 to 2010-09-13:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-07-21:
requirements use_cases system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-06-13:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-06-09:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-05-20:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-05-18:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-05-10:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-05-08:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-05-01:
epic kanban agile architecture ea productowner product_development portfolio
features estimating agile product_development product productowner portfolio
agile productowner product_development portfolio backlog ROI cost-of-delay
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-04-17:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-19:
thoughtworks agile maturity-models system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
thoughtworks agile maturity-models SDLC system:filetype:pdf system:media:document
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-18:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-15:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-12:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-08:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-06:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-04:
rssbus rss enterprise_architecture application_integration @read
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-02:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-03-01:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-02-18:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-02-14:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared for 2010-02-11 to 2010-02-12:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-02-01:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-01-29:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2010-01-26:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2009-12-24:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2009-12-16:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2009-12-15:
I am Synesthesia
Bookmarks I’ve shared on 2009-12-14:
XBRL UK is UK arm of XBRL International, consortium driving take-up of XBRL
xbrl companies HMRC
I am Synesthesia
How can visual models improve the flow of work during programme shaping?
This is the sixth post in a series about applying the lessons of lean (especially lean software development) to the shaping phase of programme management.
In previous posts I have talked about amplifying learning, the application of the ideas of flow and a value stream to programme shaping, and touched on sources of “waste” in the typical programme environment.
In this post I want to talk a bit about (visual) models.
I’ve found two sorts of model useful when pulling together a programme – models of the shaping process itself, and models of the programme design.
Modelling the Programme Shaping Process

In previous posts I’ve talked about looking for flow in the programme shaping process. Every organisation, and to some extent every programme, will have a different flow for the shaping process.
For most this will involve some number of iterations of capturing and designing information, creating programme artifacts, and seeking approval from various stakeholders. I have talked about keeping work-in-progress to a minimum, and the classic tool for managing that is a kanban board.
Modelling the Programme Design

The other area where models are vital is in describing how the programme will work and what it will deliver – in other words, the design of the programme itself. Programme documentation has always been a way of sharing a model of how things will work and what will be achieved, but I think there are lessons we can learn from other disciplines to make the documentation more useful.
Many traditional programme documents are heavy on words and light on diagrams. Words are vital for providing detail, but they are not the best choice for communicating the relationships between concepts, nor for illustrating causal chains (for example from enabling projects to capabilities to benefits to outcomes).
I’m suggesting that as programme managers we can usefully make more use of visual models to augment our programme documentation, and to model the relationships between different parts of the documentation.
There are specialist tools (e.g. ChangeDirector) which make extensive use of graphical techniques, however not every organisation will have access to these. I have had some success in using general purpose UML modelling tools to support programme shaping work, and it’s an area I am actively exploring further. One background project that I hope to blog more on later is the creation of a UML Profile for Programme Management
I’d like to hear from other programme managers about their experience with visual modelling.
Picture credit: David Larabee

This is the fifth post in a series of thought experiments on applying Lean/Agile principles to the early shaping stages of a programme.
In previous posts I have talked about the application of the ideas of flow and a value stream to programme shaping, and touched on sources of “waste” in the typical programme environment.
Again borrowing heavily from the Poppendiecks for my conceptual structure, I want to think about learning in our context, and how we can make it work better.
Programme Shaping as a Learning Process
What are we learning about during programme shaping? A few thoughts:
As we learn more about these areas we progressively build and refine our product – the design of the programme as a system.
This sort of learning process can be likened to the Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (PDCA).

So our question becomes “how do we iterate the learning cycle faster during programme shaping?”. Drawing on the agile software approach, I suggest the following themes:
Iterating Faster
If we are going to learn faster about what shape of programme is most likely to be acceptable and successful, we need to increase the speed with which we plan, develop and review our growing programme design. Translating good practice from the agile and lean engineering movements we get the following points:
Build Shared Understanding
A central challenge to effective consensus building comes from the intangible nature of the concepts under discussion and the relationships between those concepts. Approaches that offer visual modelling to support rapid understanding of conceptual relationships, supported by the right blend of numerical and textual “backing information” to support deeper understanding and analysis are helpful here.
In my experience a visual meta-model of the programme shaping artifacts is also a useful tool to clarify the dependencies between different outputs.
Simplify Programme Documentation
Published methodologies such as MSP are often (or are often interpreted as) document heavy. The work to synchronise work products expands exponentially with the number of separate but inter-dependent documents. Following the lead of others (sorry no references to hand) I find it helpful to think of different programme documents as merely different views into the programme model.
In the ideal case this will be literally true, with the model held in a central computerised repository that can create the necessary views. However many programmes will not have that luxury, and are faced with maintaining a set of separate documents. In that situation I have found the following ideas useful:
Synchronise Work Frequently
In the initial stages of programme shaping there may only be one or two people involved, so keeping the work in sync is often “just” the problem of keeping the document set consistent. Once more than a couple of people are working on the idea then it becomes increasingly possible for the work to diverge, increasing the risk of re-work being needed. Until someone invents automated integration tests for programme documents
we are faced with using the design of our shaping process to keep the work on track.
I’d be interested in dialogue to sharpen these ideas, do please comment below!
(Image credit: Karn G. Bulsuk)
This is the fourth post in a series of thought experiments on applying Lean/Agile principles to the early shaping stages of a programme.
In the last two posts I started to explore how we could find the value stream in the “messy” stages of early programme shaping. In this post I will turn to the concept of “waste” in our context.
In the classic Toyota Production System, seven types of waste are identified:
Leaning heavily on the work the Poppendiecks did to translate these concepts to software engineering, I suggest the seven types of waste for programme shaping are:
I’m sure that each reader will be able to add their own examples. In later posts I’ll look at possible solutions.
Next – how do we design the programme shaping process to amplify learning?
This is the third post in a series of thought experiments on applying Lean/Agile principles to the early shaping stages of a programme.
In the previous post I started to explore how we could find the value stream in the “messy” stages of early programme shaping. Before I go on to explore the concept of “waste” in our context, I want to say a bit more about the value stream.
The key outcome of the programme shaping process is a clear understanding of the “Why”, “What”, “How”, “When” and “Who” of the programme. Different methodologies have different names for products that address these questions, and sometimes different names for the products at different stages of their development.
For example in MSP 2007, in the pre-programme and Initiating a Programme stages, most of the key questions are addressed (in outline form) in the Programme Mandate and Programme Brief, but during Programme Definition these expand into products such as the Blueprint, Benefits Maps, Benefits Realisation Plan, Project Dossier, Programme Plan, Programme Definition and Business Case, not to mention the planning and documentation around programme governance.
Regardless of the particular nomenclature, the process is one of iterative discovery and design. What we are doing through this time is architecting the “programme as management system” – the system goals, the programme “engine” and the feedback/control mechanisms.
So the challenge to find a Lean approach to programme shaping is the challenge to find a Lean approach to designing a management system.
In the next post I will explore the concept of “waste” in our context.
This is the second post in a series of thought experiments on applying Lean/Agile principles to the early shaping stages of a programme.
Here I am using “programme” in the widest sense – to borrow a definition from MSP2007 “a temporary, flexible, organisation created to coordinate, direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the organisation’s strategic objectives”.
The core of all lean approaches is to identify the value stream – what activities take place to generate value from the process. For example, in software development, what sequence of activities has to happen to create production applications which deliver benefit to the customer? So how do we map that to the early, often “messy” stages of a programme?
Standing back from the detail of a programme, we can see that it is (like any business activity) an investment of time and money to move the organisation closer to its goals. I think you can structure the problem as a series of steps from the strategic to the specific:
Many commentators would suggest that (1) is the province of strategy development and that (2) is the realm of Portfolio Management, but for the moment I’m going to elide them together – I’m trying to find the flow of value rather than establish discipline boundaries. Having said that, most of us who get involved in programmes can usually only monitor (1), so I think there is a fairly natural (albeit fuzzy) line between (1) and (2).
In terms of the programme shaping flow, we can start to see a series of intermediate products at increasing levels of detail, requiring increasing investments of time, money and resources, and which eventually (should) generate benefits that flow back up the tree. Before we can identify the value chain associated with all this activity, we need to determine how the organisation will assess value. It seems to me that the clue is in the definition of what a programme delivers – “outcomes and benefits” – and the key to evaluating those is benefits realisation management. It won’t surprise anyone when I say that in my opinion benefits mapping and related analysis is at the heart of an effective portfolio and programme process.
So the second clue about finding the value stream is to focus on benefits at each stage.
The third element is to decide how we recognise “good” quality at each stage – i.e. something that delivers value to the stake-holder. Sadly, we have no equivalent of the software world’s automated unit, integration and user tests for programme artifacts, so we need to turn instead to guidance such as MSP 2007 Appendix D “Programme Health Checks”, OGC Gateway reviews, or any other audit and evaluation approach used within an organisation. To optimise our value stream we have to optimise the flow of our work products through those constraints.
In the next article I’ll start to explore the concept of waste in our context.
This is the first of a number of exploratory posts to express and refine my thinking on the subject. I want to pull together a selection of experiences with programme shaping by looking at them through the filter of lean/agile theory.
Traditionally programme management, especially in public sector, is heavily influenced by stage gates. Having said that, the authors of more recent methodologies (e.g. MSP 2007) recognise the need for iteration and conceived a “transformational flow” of work that delivers benefits over time.
The area that I am particularly interested in exploring is the shaping stage of a programme – the early part of the process when the stakeholders come together to agree the benefits to be achieved, the shape of the organisation after the change, the set of initiatives that will be needed, and the business case.
I see strong parallels between programme shaping and the world of software development – both are dealing with the development of concepts, and the progressive discovery of knowledge about the area of concern. So I freely acknowledge that my thinking is heavily influenced by pioneers in the field of software development such as the Poppendiecks and David J. Anderson. Of course the challenge in drawing lessons from a different field is not just to find the translation, but to recognise where the concepts differ, so I would expect that my views will move around as I develop the thoughts.
The areas that I think need to be explored are:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-07-15:
Or “Simplifying an ‘architecture framework’ for agile strategy”
How often have you faced the situation where you need to get something done, and you know there’s all sorts of advice and guidance available, but you only have a limited time to implement something?
My current challenge is to relatively rapidly put together some strategic roadmaps for the systems in a business area.
In the past I’ve spent a very small amount of time studying TOGAF, just enough to appreciate the coverage of the model and to feel overwhelmed by the amount of material and unfamiliar language.
My current feeling is that it could serve as a guide for the piece of work I need to do, but I need to find a lightweight way through it.
Apologies in advance to all the experts out there, but I think the gist of what it says is:
Seems logical, I’ll see how it goes – and if this is something you specialise in let me know if I’m missing something!
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-26:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-25:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-22:
I’ve spent the last two days Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value, and feel I’ve learnt a lot. Here are my initial reflections on the conference.
Firstly, there are a lot of very smart people thinking about these issues – it was thoroughly enjoyable to have to take on so many ideas in such a period of time.
The second thing that stood out was that most of the people at the conference were involved with the development / supplier side of the IT equation. Hardly surprising, but it does mean that some of what was covered was of particular relevance for the “supply side”. However pretty much every topic had things which can be of use from the customer perspective.
Thirdly, a number of people are applying thought to the problems in getting the benefits of Agile in multi-party environments, and how to support the process with appropriate contracts.
It’s in everyone’s interest that there should be consensus on how to reliably deliver software projects, and how to assess the risk of such delivery (and I don’t mean CMMI) – if we can get to that, then there is more opportunity to deploy financial engineering (e.g. Graham Oake’s idea of completion bonds) to facilitate business improvements through software.
There are clear lessons about the importance of getting a common view of risk between project participants.
DSDM/Atern doesn’t seem to have much visibility yet outside the IT world, but looks worthy of further investigation.
Last but not least, Agile is not just for software (nice to see other people have spotted this to!).
Topics for Further Research and/or reflection
Agile Contracts, and the work of Cem Kaner
How could we use a Acceptance-Test-Driven approach from the customer side?
I need to reflect on, document and develop the work we have been doing on using agile approaches for such things as business analysis / programme shaping etc.
Finally, thanks for thought-provoking conversations to Rachel Davies, Graham Oakes and Antony Marcano.
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Acceptance Test Driven Development
Summary
Notes
Whilst working at EasyNet, David modified their normal XP iteration cycle to insert a phase where, for each story, acceptance test criteria were agreed and documented. Alongside this their testing harnesses were adapted to provide autoamted testing of acceptance tests wherever possible.
A key enabler was to separate out test case definition (which depends on the business requirement) from test scripting (which is dependent on, and coupled with, the system under test).
The technique adopted was to build test fixtures which interfaced between the (HTML) test cases and the system under test. This way the test cases can stay unchanged whilst the system changes. If the system changes in a way that breaks the test fixture that shows up as broken acceptance tests.
The tool is released as Concordion. Good write up on that site.
Update: See this post from Keith Braithwaite
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
DSDM Atern: The next step in agile!
Keith Richards, Keith Richards Consulting, on behalf of DSDM Consortium
Summary
DSDM Atern (login required) “The Agile Project Delivery Framework”
Latest iteration of DSDM – much more aimed at being a generic project management method rather than IT-specific.
Often used as a wrapper around Scrum and XP to scale them.
Philosophy / Principles / Process / People / Products / Practices
Presentation was a run through material that can be found on the website…
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
When XP Met Outsourcing
Angela Martin, Martin IT Consulting Ltd
Outsourcing is common for software development, and is the context for many projects using agile development processes. This paper presents two case studies concentrating on the customer role in projects using outsourcing and extreme programming (XP).
The studies follow an interpretive approach based on in-depth interviews, and suggest some tensions between some contractual arrangements in outsourcing, and the XP process.
In particular, one suggests XP worked well in the context of their particular outsourcing arrangements, and the other study suggests difficulty in aligning XP with a different set of outsourcing arrangements.
Notes
(to be) Published as a paper on MartinIT website
Method – two interpretative in-depth case studies. Multiple perspectives via semi-structured interviews. Validated data and interpretation with each interviewee.
Two Case studies
Case Study 1 (T&M)
KiwiCorp (customer), DevCorp (outsourcing/software house), BureauCorp(facilities management and infrastructure). 15 months, 11 people. Seen as a success.
Customer saw benefit from the XP process. DevCorp project manager recognised that on fixed price would have had to be harder on the client.
Lots of vendor issues because of differences between DevCorp and BureauCorp.
Case study 2
Project Pinta. Custom-build, fixed price. FalconCorp (US developer), RetailCorp(UK retailer), ManageCorp (big consulting organisation who hired FalconCorp to do the job). FalconCorp to take the cusotm build and sell as a project.
Everyone thought it was doomed… 6 month deadline. In 2 weeks ramped up to 60 people over four XP labs. Weekly iterations. So within a month knew it wouldn’t fly.
FalconCorp felt that as fixed price very little room to move, so moved more to waterfall… Stopped asking questions, to make sure they could just get signoff and the cheque. Kicked the customer rep (ManageCorp) out of the lab – seen as being a “spy”.
Is this because of the process, the contract, or Winner’s Curse? (over-bid)
Got to 6 month demo – and custoemr accepted it! (the demo didn’t show the broken bits…).
FalconCorp went into bug-fix mode and laid off 2/3 the staff. Then new management came in and found that actually the product was full of holes. Treated it as a throwaway prototype, and went into a fixed-price waterfal project to re-engineer as a saleable product.
Questions (and for Duncan too)
Q: How do you sell Agile to your client?
A: Don’t – until you are sure you can deliver in an agile way
Q: What are the client drivers for fixed price?
A: Need someone to blame “not the client’s problem”
Q: Which has pects of Agile do you keep/drop when customer insists on fixed price:
A: All of them (internally) as a delivery engine.
Q: Why does the industry encourage under-bidding?
A: (Keith) We have allowed purchasers of IT to think it is a fungible commodity so competition is on price. Look for shared-risk, shared-reward…
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
A Square Peg in a Round Hole: Agile and fixed-price contracts
Duncan Pierce, Amarinda Consulting Ltd
Summary
Luckily you don’t have to hit agile particularly hard to make it fit, while being internally agile gives the fixed-price supplier some interesting options.
In this presentation we’ll explore the value of those options and what has to change for agile to work in a fixed-price world.
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Can IT Projects be Insured?
Graham Oakes, Graham Oakes Ltd
Summary
In the movie industry, the people financing new productions can buy “Completion Bonds” – effectively insurance policies that repay their investment if the film isn’t completed on time and in line with the original proposal. Such bonds cost perhaps 2-6% of the total production budget. Could we do the same for IT projects?
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Fit for the Future: The future of Agile Acceptance Test Tools
Antony Marcano, testingReflections.com
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Examples, Exemplars, Requirements, Tests
Keith Braithwaite, Zuhlke (but speaking on behalf of SPA)
Summary
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Using Agile: the QA perspective
Chris Ambler – QA Director Electronic Arts
Not a developer, never have been, never will be.
Not a techie! But have worked in testing (of various sorts) for 28 years.
Focus is product, and quality.
What does quality really mean? How does it affect the business? How can we measure it?
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Scaling Scrum
Rachel Davies, Agile Experience Ltd.
Summary
Scrum is the simplest possible agile method so it’s easy to get started with a small team of software developers. What happens when you try to apply Scrum to large projects? This talk shares experiences of working with large projects with multiple scrum teams and distributed scrum teams. Come to this talk to explore how to scale Scrum without losing the essence.
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Leading Agile Teams
Summary
One school of thought is that good leaders make a big difference to the successful outcome of any initiative. On the other hand, some agilists want to eliminate leaders and go with situational leadership and self-organising teams. There is also a large contingent in the agile community with the view that the right approach is to change the style of leadership, not to eliminate leaders.
This interactive workshop will explore the workings of an agile team and attempt to identify the issues and approaches to leadership styles that support an agile environment. This will be fun, informative – and there may even be prizes!
Notes
Workshop format…
Will have to think about how to transcribe this!
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Agile – Why Should Your Business Care?
Bill Birnie, Senior Manager, IS Development Solutions, Standard Life Employee Services Limited, Ollie LaFontan, Exoftware
Summary
Standard Life’s award-winning use of Agile techniques is helping it achieve remarkable levels of productivity from its application development spend, and is supporting the positioning of technology provision at the heart of its business proposition.
This session will cover the importance of linking your Agile enablement strategy to the needs of your business, and the challenges created by trying to change processes and beliefs that have been in place for many years.
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
National Packaging Waste Database – a DSDM Case Study
Steve Watkins, Head of IT Portfolio Office, Environment Agency and Jeremy Renwick, Kubernetes Ltd
Summary
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
Agile Analysis: A Proposition Assessment Case Study
Luke Barrett, Senior Business Analyst, Thoughtworks
Summary
While the benefits of taking an Agile approach to the heart of the software development cycle are becoming increasingly recognised, this people-centric, communication-oriented, test-driven way of working is also powerful in helping teams and organisations early in the evolution of a idea or proposition.
In this case study we look at applying an Agile way of working to the analysis of a new business idea at its inception – this includes the creation and iteration of key deliverables (financial model, project roadmap, core processes and usage scenarios) to allow a go / no-go decision.
Note
What is role of business analyst in an agile organisation?
Agile values of simplicity, openness, communication, courage…
Apply agile software approach to evaluating business propositions.
Project – a new business idea which the owner wants to get funding for…
New business idea – challenge to validate within limited time and funds. e.g. what could be done in a week?
Objective – Prepare a Pitch, based on a clearer definition of the proposition, e.g.: financial model, key processes and goals, capacity model, customer scenarios, development roadmap for the business.
Small team – two consultants plus client.
1 week – each day based on two Action-Reflection cycles – 2 hr workshop, consolidate, 2 hr workshop, consolidation.
Keep it self-documenting
Models: traditionally use lots words of words to drive out ambiguity – but words are slippery! Important to facilitate a feedback-driven iteration towards consensus of the stakeholders. Use lots of visual models.
Put client in position to pitch to prospective investors and customers with supporting information, and brought to life with the scenarios.
The output had a positive reception!
Co-location of the team was vital – and if you aren’t, you can’t have a virtual beer together! (relationships vital).
Importance of dedicated time, dedicated effort / resources. “the heartbeat of feedback”
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
The Ten Golden Rules for Successful Agile Projects
Keith Richards, Keith Richards Consulting
Summary
Speaker
Keith Richards – process/method consultant, specialising in Agile projects. Author of “Agile Project Management” (TSO). Led team for DSDM Atern.
The Golden Rules
No survey – just first hand experience…
If you can’t understand the rationale for doing a project you shouldn’t be doing it! Expect to spend half a day writing the <10 words.
Good people above good process – in fact good people more important than that they have the skills. Test: ask “Can I ask a favour?”
How much design up front (DUF) is enough? Answer: Enough! But try and avoid grabbing early at solutions. Test: “Is it safe to move on?”
ALWAYS have project reviews! Kaizen is vital.
Embrace change… How do you feel when the customer changes their mind? Should be happy! Change to get a closer fit to the business need (depth change) is good – change in breadth might be a problem… (signals possible issue with project objective)
Facilitation and influencing skills are core competencies for Agile projects – especially for the project manager. Try the 10 second silence when getting a progress update!
Measuring actuals – start now, start simple, start using to calibrate your estimates…
Communication – go visual, use workshops, never write when you can talk…
Continuously manage external risks – be “a bit of a worrier” – actively manage your risk log!
Time focus is your greatest weapon. Force the issue – timeboxes, not milestones. If you are going to fail, fail early. Never extend deadlines.
I’m blogging the conference Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value
The stated goals are to provide:
Sessions:
Day 1
Day 2
Update – my initial learning reflections on the conference.
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-11:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-10:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-09:
I’m planning to attend Agile Approaches for Delivering Business Value next week.
It looks like an interesting set of sessions, and although I doubt I’ll be liveblogging, I aim to post some notes here as soon afterwards as I can.
I’m particularly interested in two of the talks on the second day:
“A Square Peg in a Round Hole: Agile and fixed-price contracts” by Duncan Pierce;
“When XP Met Outsourcing” by Angela Martin.
In my current environment almost all our systems development is carried out by suppliers in various contractual models, and I’ve hit some frustrations in getting acceptance of Agile methods. I’m keen to learn how others may have constructed a “win-win” in this sort of situation.
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-05:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2008-02-04:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2007-09-06
Keywords: personalproductivity, personaldevelopment
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2007-04-19
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2007-03-28
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2007-01-03
Keywords: Agile, Lean, ConcurrentEngineering
Keywords: Mythology, JosephCampbell
Keywords: MySQL
Keywords: Podcast, Psychiatry
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2006-10-16
Via Brad Appleton‘s excellent post of links to Agile Programme Management resources, a paper on Combining Agile Methods with Stage-Gate Project Management.
Based on studies in three engineering companies, the conclusion is that are benefits from both the management and engineering perspective.
Good things:
Things to watch out for:
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2006-09-22
Shared bookmarks for del.icio.us user Synesthesia on 2006-02-06