Its high time that we stop using Velocity

Velocity in an Agile environment is the most misused-used and misinterpreted word/metric.  The key issue is, teams and stakeholders interpret Velocity as a productivity measurement rather than capacity of the team.

I don’t blame the team or the managers. But the “word” itself. If we look at the synonyms for Velocity(see the screenshot below), all of them point to quickness, momentum, acceleration, which naturally encourages people to connect this with “productivity”.  

 

Google for Acceleration or Velocity and one would find following images… These images push people to think more of a competition, race and winning rather than a team work or a capacity.

I think we should stop using the word velocity and start using the word that creates some mental image to show the “team’s capacity”.

Do you think this is a fair call ?

Coaching intervention during a team conflict

Every team goes through some stages of conflict before they stabilize. Leaders need to be conscious of intervening during such conflicts.  The knee-jerk reaction of a typical leader observing a conflict is to jump immediately to “fix” the problem. It is highly recommended that they avoid it and take a step back to monitor the situation first.

The leaders need to find the appropriate time and context to intervene for coaching. Here are some examples and contexts.

1. Self-organizing teams are in the process of learning. They are trying to check the boundaries and positioning themselves in the team. Conflicts in such situations are imminent. The leader or a coach assigned to the team should avoid intervening in such contexts. 

These teams are like butterflies emerging from pupa. Yes, there is a bit of process, pain and time involved to emerge out of pupa, and one needs a bit of patience. Trying to expedite the process could actually kill the butterfly. 

2. Research suggests that creative and innovative work actually needs healthy debate and conflict. Intervention is needed to help the in understanding the differences. There are many times a person or a small group within a large group might be thinking tangentially. This could lead to conflicts and it does not mean that there is anything wrong here. In fact, such conflicts avoid groupthink.

For example, an engineer embedded in a marketing team obviously think differently. The engineer could be considered as a trouble maker as he/she is different than the rest of the marketing team. In contexts like this, the leadership or coach intervention is essential to assist the group.

As a leader one needs to drill down a little bit, get rid of the noise and study the type of work before intervening. The diversity of the team needs to be taken into account while dealing with a creative team as well.

3. If the team is working on a routine and repetitive kind of work, coaching intervention trying to facilitate discussions could backfire. Instead, a root-cause analysis with a management intervention is critical for smooth functioning.  

To conclude, if you see or hear a conflict, don’t jump to fix the problem. Try to understand the context first. Many a times, the conflict is actually good for the team, and the organization in the long run.

Overcoming the Obstacles to Achieving Agility and Delivering Business Value

I am  excited to say latest version of  Cutter IT Journal  has published my article “Overcoming the obstacles to achieving agility and delivering business value” .  I  authored this article exclusively for Cutter. 

In this article, I have articulated various issues that hinders agility in the organization. I am proposing the Systems thinking approach to solving the organizational and agile challenges.In order to achieve true agility, it is not sufficient to blindly follow the agile practices but to think beyond Agile. One should look at fixing the organization structure, focus on uplifting the relationship between business and IT and last but not least, fix the funding model.

I have shared some practical tips and solutions to achieve true agility beyond practicing Agile. The article is exclusively available for Cutter IT members and could be downloaded from here.

Here is the abstract of the article:

This months issue covers the following topics, including mine (highlighted)

IN THIS ISSUE

Vince Ryan and David Putman open the issue by exploring several common difficulties experienced by groups moving to an Agile approach. These range from cargo cult behavior -- blind adherence to the what of Agile without knowing the why -- to the technical abilities of people to work in an Agile environment. The authors delve into key issues such as empowering people to actually make the changes required to support Agile, as well as ensuring that they have the proper skills to be able to thrive. The authors explore such areas as training, the recruitment of new people, and offshoring/outsourcing with respect to the changes that may be needed for an organization to truly reap the promised rewards of an Agile approach.

Our second article, by Cutter Senior Consultant Lynn Winterboer, examines one of the less traveled paths of Agile -- the implementation of Agile approaches in the DW/BI space. Winterboer addresses the challenges of breaking this type of work down into small slices, when it has traditionally been an "all or nothing" deal. She describes what is perceived as technical inefficiency in the small slice approach and how that is balanced by the business efficiency. Winterboer shows not only the advantages gained by earlier delivery of value, but also the effort required and "instability" incurred during the transition. In the end, both organizations in her case studies found ways to deliver smaller aspects of the total solution, providing more value sooner to their stakeholders.

In "Overcoming the Obstacles to Achieving Agility and Delivering Business Value" Venkatesh Krishnamurthy dispels the myth that "Agile is a tool" that can be discarded when you're "done,"much as a hammer is put away once a construction project is completed. He asserts, correctly in my opinion, that simply following Agile practices does not make an organization Agile. The use of systems thinking to view the transition in the context of the whole organization shows how the organizational structure, funding models, and business/IT relationship must change in order to support true business agility.

Finally, Alan Shalloway speaks of how Agile and Lean have "lost their shine" as the result of misapplication. My experience certainly supports this assertion. Shalloway proposes the use of a Lean-Agile hybrid approach that leverages both the organization-wide strengths of Lean and the team-level strengths of Agile. Like Krishnamurthy, he recommends the use of systems thinking in order to take a more holistic view of the context in which the Lean-Agile transition is taking place. Shalloway describes this ecosystem and the unexpected effects that can result when you don't consider groups outside of the development teams.

Read more about this issue here

Do you have an Agile Testing mindset ?

Here is my recent guest post for Zephyr…

Performing Testing in Agile projects is not termed as Agile testing. Agile testing involves whole different mindset.  Then, how do you know your team has Agile testing mindset?  As a coach, I start this by asking testers the following few questions:

- Do have to wait until the development is done to start testing?

- Do testers feel there is a lack of time at the end of Sprint?

- Are testers blamed when defects are identified?

If testers answer “Yes” to some or all the questions above, then the team still has “Waterfall” mindset in guise of Agile. 

Another litmus test to try is to check the team’s wall which is popularly called “Kanban” wall. If you see a wall like the one below, where the “Test” ing is a separate column, then this is a smell.

Read the rest of the article on Zephyr