For the want of a whiteboard….

For the want of a whiteboard the vision was lost,

For the want of a new vision the release was lost,

For the want of a new release the product was lost,

For the want of a new product the customer was lost,

For the want of a new customer the company was lost,

And all for the want of a whiteboard.

With a nod to Benjamin Franklin.

Should You Govern Agile Teams Via a Traditional Strategy?

The quick answer is no, that’s an incredibly bad idea.

We ran a study in February 2017, the 2017 Agile Governance survey, to explore the issues around governance of agile teams. This study found that the majority of agile teams were in fact being governed in some way, that some agile teams were being governed in an agile or lightweight manner and some agile teams in a traditional manner.  See the blog Are Agile Teams Being Governed? for a summary of those results.

The study also examined the effect of governance on agile teams, exploring the perceived effect of the organization’s governance strategy on team productivity, on the quality delivered, on IT investment, and on team morale.  It also explored how heavy the governance strategy was perceived to be and how well it was focused on the delivery of business value. The following figure summarizes the results of these questions.

Governance Effectiveness with Agile Teams

Here are our conclusions given these results:

  1. Agile governance helps agile teams. There is a clear co-relation between an agile approach to governing agile teams and positive results such as improving productivity, increasing quality, spending your investment in IT wisely, and improved team morale. This is what we believe the goal to be, to help the people being governed to be more effective and successful.
  2. Traditional governance hinders agile teams.  There is a clear co-relation between traditional approaches to governing agile teams and reduced team productivity, reduced quality of output, wasting IT investment, and decreased team morale.  We believe that these results are the exact opposite of what you hope to achieve with your governance strategy.
  3. Agile teams should be governed in an agile manner.  This follows directly from the previous two conclusions.  It should come as no surprise that your governance strategy should be well-aligned with what it is being governed.
  4. Traditional governance strategies likely hinders traditional teams too.  We didn’t look into this issue directly, but our experience has been that traditional governance tends to be more of a hindrance than a help to traditional teams as well.

When we work with organizations to help them to adopt agile ways of working, we often find that they are running into several common challenges when it comes to IT governance:

  1. They have both agile teams and traditional software teams.  This is because it’s a multi-modal world: You will have some teams taking a traditional approach, some an agile approach, some take a lean approach, and some are even skilled enough for continuous delivery.  Each team will follow the lifecycle that makes the most sense for them, and as a result each team should be governed by the approach that best suits the way that they are working.  To do anything different would be to hinder the teams, and that isn’t what good governance should be about.
  2. There is a desire for a single approach to governing software teams. This makes sense on the surface because it would simplify your overall governance strategy, thereby making things easier for the people doing the governing.  But, as we’ve learned, this results in negative effects in practice.  Your governance strategy must be flexible enough to support the range of teams being governed.
  3. The governance team is struggling to understand agile.  Your executives and middle management need education and coaching in agile and lean just like the people on your software team do.  It is naive to expect your governance people to devise a governance strategy for agile when they don’t really understand the implications of agile to begin with.

For agile to succeed in your organization the way that you approach IT must evolve to enable and support it, and this includes your governance strategy.  Reach out to us if you would like some help in addressing this important issue.

Related Reading


Are Agile Teams Being Governed?

For the major of teams the answer is yes.  We ran a survey in February 2017, the 2017 Agile Governance survey, to explore the issues around governance of agile teams.  As you can see in the following diagram, 78% of respondents indicated that yes, their agile teams were in fact being governed in some manner.

Agile governance rates

We also asked people about the approach to governing agile teams that their organization followed.  As you can see in the following diagram, a bit more than a third of respondents indicated that the governance strategy was lightweight or agile in nature.  Roughly the same indicated that their agile teams had a more traditional approach to governance applied to them, and one quarter said their governance approach was neither helping nor hindering their teams.

How are agile teams being governed?

Governance tends to be a swear word for many agilists and they will tell you that governance is nothing than useless bureaucracy.  Sadly in many organizations this seems to be the case.    In the next blog in this series we will compare the effectiveness of agile and traditional strategies for governing agile teams.

Related Reading

Agile Metrics: Questions and Answers


On March 21 2017 we ran a webinar entitled Measuring Agile: A Discipline Agile Approach to Metrics.  We unfortunately didn’t have enough time to answer all of the great questions that we received so we said that we’d write a blog with the answers.  This is it.

We’ve organized the blog into the following sections:


Convincing Management

First and foremost, please read our blog entitled 7 “Easy” Steps to Convince Management to Support a Hard Change.  This blog has a lot of great advice for getting support from senior management for the changes asked about below.


Q: What is the message to deliver to the board of directors of a company and/or sponsors of projects when it comes to metrics?

The principles section of the webcast made this pretty clear I think.  The principles we discussed are:

  • There is no easy answer
  • Every metric has strengths and weaknesses
  • Compete against yourself
  • Measure to improve
  • You get what you measure
  • Measure outcomes at the team level
  • Each team needs a unique set of metrics
  • Team use metrics to self organize
  • Trust but verify
  • Adopt common metrics categories across teams
  • Don’t manage to the metrics
  • Automate wherever possible
  • Prefer trends over scalars
  • Prefer leading over trailing metrics
  • Prefer pull over push

If I had to pick a key message, it’s that you need to be flexible and enable teams to take a context sensitive approach.

Q: How do you address the resistance to ranged estimates?  We see a lot of resistence to this with leaders!

Sadly this is all too common.  There is a desire for an “exact number” for the cost/schedule for an IT project, the belief being that such precision leads to lower financial risk. This never seems to work out, and in practice it tends to increase overall financial risk.  Worse yet it motivates some very ethically questionable management practices such as padding the budget (lying about the cost to get the fixed estimate as close to the upper end of the range as possible), dropping scope late in the lifecycle (lying about what will be delivered and wasting money working on stuff you had no hope of delivering in the first place), or asking for more money when it’s clear you’re not going to deliver it (this is arguably extortion).  In the article Estimating on Agile Projects I go into further detail about the need for ranged estimates.

As we discuss in the 7 Easy Steps blog, you need to educate management on the trade-offs involved with their current approach and help the to see that it isn’t working out well for them in practice.

Q: My management definitely wants to know if they are on time and on budget… how should I handle this problem?

This is also another common problem in more traditional organizations, and is sadly a mindset that is often promoted by project management canon.  The first thing to do is ask them why “on time and on budget” is important to them, and to continue to explore their goals via an evolutionary “5 why” strategy until you get to the heart of the matter.  Usually the real issue is that they want to reduce schedule risk and financial risk but they only know to ask for on time and on budget respectively.  Help them to recognize that they can do better than that.  For example, a more effective question to ask instead of “Are we on budget?” would be “Are we spending the money wisely?”, the latter question requiring competent governance to truly answer.  Similarly, a more effective question to ask that “Are we on schedule?” would be “Are we going to deliver when the functionality is actually needed?”, also a question requiring better governance than many organizations seem to have today.

Q: Executives and senior management wants common metrics period… can you talk to this – how should a change agent (me) handle this?

Sadly another very common problem.  This proves to be selfishly motivated in most cases – they want a common set of metrics to make it easy for them to monitor teams (they have less thinking to do when all the dashboards look the same).  As we discussed in the webinar, this isn’t realistic because every team is unique, they face a unique situation, and they have a unique set of priorities.  Yes, there are commonalities between teams but also differences.  For example, it makes sense for teams to measure quality.  BUT, surely it’s obvious that a data warehousing team will measure quality different than a mobile app team, which in turn measures quality differently than a team sustaining a mainframe-based system.  This is why I promoted the idea of asking teams to address common categories (such as Quality, Stakeholder Satisfaction, Finance, and so on) but to do so in a manner that makes sense for them.


Transformation Metrics

Q: In a transformation is the ‘stakeholder vision’ milestone something that you see ‘could’ be used as a way to guage adoption of the framework across an Enterprise?

Stakeholder vision is a milestone that marks the end of the Inception phase.  I’m not sure how it could be used to gauge adoption.  It could be used to gauge readiness to move forward with the transformation though.

Q: Is there more thoughts you have on transformation metrics?

Context counts.  In general, take a context-sensitive approach where you measure what is important to you.  I worked through a lightweight approach to Goal-Quality-Metric (GQM) during the webinar and the OKR approach is also good.  There is no one single answer.

Q: How do start-up agile projects best survive in a really non-agile organization?

Sadly, they generally don’t.  If you go poking around on the web you’ll find that there’s a lot of advice around this sort of issue, and a large portion of it advising you to jump to another organization.


Specific Metrics

Q: Please throw some light on Accelaration metric. I’d like to implement that in my org.

We have a detailed blog about acceleration.

Q: Velocity, used to calculate acceleration, can only be calculated if velocy is based on the same point system… I don’t agree acceleration factors out the points, the points have different meaning potentially by project – can you talk to this some more?

You’re wrong,  Here’s a quick answer:

  • Team 1 has a velocity this iteration of 20 and a velocity 5 iterations ago of 15.  Velocity is measured in Atari points on this team.  Acceleration = (20 Ataris – 15 Ataris)/15 Ataris = 33% over 5 iterations.
  • Team 2 has a velocity this iteration of 30 and a velocity 5 iterations ago of 20.  Velocity for this team is measured in Nintendo points by this team.  Acceleration = (30 Nintendos – 20 Nintendos)/20 Nintendos = 50% over 5 iterations.
  • When I divided Atari points by other Atari points the unit of measure, Atari points, disappeared.  Similar thing happened to Nintendo points.  Hence acceleration is comparable as long as it’s calculated over a similar time period (if not, adjust so that you are dealing with a similar time period).
  • Read the Acceleration blog for details.

Q: Is value is only monetary value is $?

No, it doesn’t have to be but often is.  You should measure value in units that are important to your stakeholders.  Perhaps value may be measured in market share by them, for example.



Q: Excecutive leaders want to measure “team health” using metrics and compare teams – maybe reward or punish based on these metrics – please talk to this.

This is generally recognized as bad practice because as soon as teams realized that they are being judged by management they’re motivated to game the metrics as best they can.  In the case of automated metrics that are difficult to game, then perhaps its possible to compare against that (code quality metrics come to mind).  But, management will get what they measure.  For example, if they judge teams based on how many defects they fix, chances are pretty good that the team will start identifying relatively trivial defects and then “fix” them to make their metrics looks good.  However, if they judge teams based on code quality trends (i.e. Is code quality improving?) they will likely get higher quality code in the long run.

As I said in the webinar, the primary usage of metrics should be to provide insights to teams to help them to improve.  Monitoring teams, part of your overall governance strategy, should be an important but secondary concern.

Q: What if the teams don’t agree with the metrics established by management?

My advice is for teams to identify the metrics that make sense for the situation that they face via a lightweight GQM approach (or something similar such as OKR).  Management may want to guide teams, perhaps by insisting on certain categories of metrics, see the earlier discussion, or even by suggesting metrics being collected by other teams.

If it’s a situation where management is trying to inflict a common metrics strategy across all teams, which is a relatively bad idea as I discussed earlier, then I think that the team should justify why they don’t agree with the metrics prescribed by management.  I also hope that they would suggest a more appropriate strategy and that management would listen to them.

Q: What are some of your favorite tools for metrics?

I typically don’t like recommending tools because the answer to this question is context dependent.  Tool choice will be driven by:

  • What you are hoping to measure
  • Your existing platform(s)
  • Your organizational preferences around tooling (are you a Microsoft shop, are you willing to pay for commercial tools, are you willing to adopt open source tools, …)
  • Your previous experiences around such tooling, if any

So, identify what you situation is then do a bit of research to identify the tools that are right for you.

Q: Is it realistic at scale to have multiple dashboards? +900 teams.

I’ll turn this one around.  Is it reasonable to ask teams not to have dashboards simply because your organization is big?  Is it reasonable to give up on monitoring teams because your organization is big?  Is it reasonable to give up on automation because your organization is big? You see where I’m going with this.


7 “Easy” Steps For Convincing Senior Management to Support a Hard Change

Puzzled manager

We’re often asked how do you convince senior management to accept new agile ideas and strategies.  Examples of such ideas include:

Why is This Important?

There are three reasons why it’s important for agile coaches, and Team Leads/ScrumMasters for that matter, to know how to convince senior management to support new ways of working:

  1. You need their support.  There are many aspects of an agile transformation that an agile coach doesn’t have the authority nor the resources to change.  As a result you need to collaborate with others and very often earn the support of the people who do have the authority and resources.
  2. Agile transformations are complex.  Agile transformations are about more than just transforming software development teams.  The 2016 Agility at Scale study found that 96% of agile teams need to collaborate with other teams external to them to get their job done.  The implication is that these other teams that they are collaborating with – including your business stakeholders, governance team, data management, internal audit, security group, and many others – need to at least be able to interact with your agile teams in a reasonably flexible manner if not work agilely themselves.
  3. Agile transformations are fragile.  If you want to transform your IT department, and more importantly your organization, then you’ll need to transform all aspects of the department/organization.  All it takes is one or more groups to refuse to work in an agile manner and suddenly your transformation is at risk.  The implication is that you need to get good at convincing others to support your efforts if not change themselves.

Why is This So Hard?

There are many reasons why senior management may be reticent to consider this change that you believe to be very important:

  • They have other priorities that you may not be aware of.
  • They have many other issues to deal with, this is just one of them.
  • They may be very happy with the status quo and don’t recognize the problem.
  • There are other people advising the exact opposite.
  • There are people who are entrenched in the existing way of working, and that may include senior management.
  • They will need to convince their peers regarding the benefits of the change and they may not know enough to be able to do so, or may not have the political capital to effect the change.
  • Change can be disruptive and it may jeopardize their existing commitments which incidentally might be tied to their compensation plan.
  • The manager realizes that this change has greater ramifications than you may believe.

The Seven “Easy” Steps For Convincing Someone to Support Change

Here is an approach that we’ve had work in practice for us.  You will very likely need to work through all of these steps, pretty much in order, to be successful.  These steps are:

  1. Pick your battles wisely.  Ask yourself whether this issue is the most important thing that you need help with from this person.  There will be only so much willingness to invest time and effort in supporting the changes that you believe to be made, and not all requests are going to be supported.  As Rod Bray, CDAC, likes to say: “Choose the hill that you’re willing to die on.”
  2. Know the topic and the language around it.  Chances are that you will need to be able to explain whatever it is that you’re asking for help on, what the trade-offs are, why its better than the current approach, and what the impact of the change will be.  To do this you will need to understand the trade-offs are of the current approach and understand the issues and language of the topic.  For example, if you’re asking for help to change the way that IT projects are funded, are you able to speak intelligently about the existing annual-based budgeting process, project-based funding, and perhaps even the implications of CAPEX/OPEX?  Or, if you’re asking to improve the current approach to IT governance, do you understand the existing governance process, what it’s trade-offs are, and what the potential impacts of applying traditional governance to agile teams may be?  If you don’t have this fundamental understanding of the topic then you will very quickly sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about, so why would management want to support you?
  3. Plan the conversation.  Although you very likely have some very great ideas, if you spring them on others they will very likely be threatened by them at first (human beings are psychologically wired to treat surprises as threats).  A better approach is to first ask permission to discuss a new idea that you have, and even share an overview of the idea beforehand so that they can think about it a bit, before you get together to seek their support.
  4. Explore their concerns.  Once you’ve pitched your idea to them they will very likely want to discuss the trade-offs with you, in particular the impact on other groups and the time and effort required to support your change.  The implication is that part of your preparation before you make your pitch should be to think about what concerns they may have with your suggested approach so that you have arguments to counteract any concerns.
  5. Ask them to share their actual experiences.  It is very common for people to become attached to ineffective ways of working.  This sounds strange on the surface, but people are like this.  Whenever we run into someone who believes in a strategy that we know to be ineffective – fixed price funding, documentation-based governance, detailed up-front modeling, significant amounts of manual testing to name a few – we ask them how well it’s working for them in practice.  Very often they’ll tell you about the positives, but if you know the topic (and better yet the history of that strategy within your organization) then you can start exploring the negative aspects with them too.  It’s particularly useful to be able to bring up several past projects where that strategy was applied yet it didn’t work out so well in practice. The point is to help them to recognize that their favored strategy isn’t working as well as they’d like, and that there is a need to rethink your current approach.
  6. Educate them.  Walk them through the trade-offs, both good and bad, of your suggested approach.  Be prepared to discuss the trade-offs of the current strategy, and in particular relate those trade-offs back to the experiences that they just told you about.  You may often discover that they didn’t realize that there are other options available to them and that they’ve been ignoring the problems with their existing approach.  Help them to understand that they have a better choice available to them.
  7. Convince them to run a small experiment.  Making a large, whole-scale change is scary.  If the new approach doesn’t work out then you’ve got a serious problem to deal with and the manager who sponsored the change may be punished for it.  But, running a small, contained experiment to see if the new strategy works in your environment isn’t very threatening and better yet is a fundamental risk management strategy.  So start small, get a visible win, learn from the experiment, and the roll out the change more widely.  It is important that you “negotiate” the changes as they will be more likely to try it if you let them know that the change is an experiment and they will have the opportunity to revert back if the expected benefits do not materialize.  Note that some organizations are leery of running “experiments” but are very willing to run “proof of concepts (PoCs)” – go with the terminology that works in your organization.

We wish that we could tell you that we’ve had a 100% success rate with this strategy.  Sadly we haven’t.  We have done very well with this, but sometimes it doesn’t always work out the first time.  Or the second time, and sadly sometimes not even the third time.  Your goal should be to get them thinking about new ways of working and to give them the time that they need to decide to support you.

Do Agile Teams Pay Down Technical Debt in Practice?

Technical debt is “a concept in programming that reflects the extra development work that arises when code that is easy to implement in the short run is used instead of applying the best overall solution”. Technical debt can be compared to monetary debt in that if it is  not repaid, it can accumulate ‘interest’, making it harder to implement changes later on.  Important questions to ask are “How common is it for agile teams to run into technical debt in practice?” and “When they do run into technical debt, are they paying it down?”

The following diagram summarizes responses to our question from our 2016 Agility at Scale study around technical complexity.  As you can see 84% of agile teams are working with legacy functionality and 51% with legacy data sources (so yes, the vast majority of teams are working in environments that are likely to have some form of technical debt).  More importantly, 38% of teams are actively paying down functional technical debt and 32% are paying down data technical debt (48% are paying down one or the other).

Technical Debt in Practice


Related Posts



Can You Outsource and Still Be Agile?

We often hear that agile software development is fine for small co-located teams, but that you couldn’t possibly take an outsourcing approach with agile.  The customer organizations would love to do agile but are convinced that vendors are unable to do so, and the vendor organizations typically say they’d love to be agile but that the customers don’t ask them to work that way.  It’s a fair question to ask if agile and outsourcing are being combined in practice, so we decided to look into this issue.

The following diagram summarizes the responses to our question from our 2016 Agility at Scale study around whether agile teams were organizationally distributed (one of the tactical scaling factors potentially faced by agile teams).  As you can see, over half of agile teams are organizationally distributed in some way, with 58% of agile teams including contractors, consultants, or outsourcers in some way.  Interestingly, about one agile team in six includes outsourcing.

Agile and outsourcers, contractors, and consultants

Answering the question of how to be successful at agile and outsourcing is worthy of a detailed article in its own right, something we’ll do in the near future.  Until then, here are some initial thoughts based on our observations at multiple organizations around the world:

  1. It starts with procurement.  If you want a service provider to provide a team that is capable of working in an agile manner then that is what you need to procure.  A traditional procurement process that is looking for a team to work from a detailed requirements specification up front, that is expected to focus on development and then hand off their work for another team to perform “final testing”, is pretty much hobbled from the very beginning.  It is very possible, and highly desirable, to have a procurement process that is capable of procuring agile software development services.  In fact, there is a wealth of knowledge out there about agile contracting if you choose to look into it.
  2. The customer must work in an agile manner.  There are several key strategies to support this:
    • Negotiate how you will work together up front.
    • Take a light-weight, evolutionary approach to requirements.
    • Provide a technical roadmap.
    • Fly a few key people to the service provider.
    • Consider co-locating your Product Owner with the service provider.
    • Provide your development guidelines to the service provider.
    • Actively govern the team.
    • Respect the service provider.
  3. The service provider must work in a disciplined agile manner.  There are several key strategies to support this:
    • Be trustworthy.
    • Be truly transparent.
    • Have one-week iterations/sprints.
    • Include code analysis tools in your builds.
    • Provide the customer access to your team’s automated dashboard.
    • Align your culture to that of the customer.

We will write a more detailed article that expands on these points in the near future.  Stay tuned!

Related Posts

Do Agile Teams Take on Hard Problems?

We often hear that agile software development is fine when you face a simple problem, but that agile isn’t sufficient for more difficult problems.  Of course this falsehood is promoted by people who have little or no agile experience, or who have been involved with a failed “agile adoption” (usually these teams adopted ad hoc strategies thinking they were agile).  Anyway, we decided to look into whether agile teams are taking on hard domain problems in practice.

The following diagram summarizes the responses to our question around agile teams and compliance from our 2016 Agility at Scale study.  As you can see, 40% of respondents indicated that their agile team faced either complex or very complex problems, and that a further 38% faced medium complexity.  Interestingly, only one in eight respondents said that their team faced a straight forward problem.

Agile and Domain Complexity

The bottom line is that agile strategies, and in particular disciplined agile strategies, are in fact applicable for taking on complex problems.  More importantly, this is happening in practice around the world on a regular basis.

Related Posts

Do Agile Teams Face Regulatory Compliance?

We often hear that agile is great for simple situations but as soon as you face compliancy issues that it doesn’t work.  Is it possible to be agile when you face regulatory compliance, such as PCI and FDA compliancy?  Is it possible to be agile when you face organizational compliance, such as working in a CMMI regime?  Important questions that we decided to look into.

The following diagram summarizes the responses to our question around agile teams and compliance from our 2016 Agility at Scale study.  As you can see, 62% of respondents indicated that their agile team faced some form of regulatory compliance, 20% some form of organizational compliance, and 15% said both.  In fact, two-thirds of agile teams operate under one or more compliancy requirements.

Agile Regulatory Compliance

For further reading about compliancy, please read our detailed blog posting Agile and Regulatory Compliance.

Related Posts

How “Whole” Are Agile Teams in Practice?

We are often told that agile teams should be whole, that they should have sufficient people, funding, and skills to fulfill their mission.  The idea is that this reduces the dependencies that your team has on others, enabling them to make decisions and to collaborate more effectively.  But, is this actually happening in practice?  Are agile teams truly whole, or do they still need to collaborate with other teams (hopefully productively) to get the job done?  Being strong believers in empiricism over rhetoric we decided to look into this issue.

In November of 2016 we ran the 2016 Agility at Scale survey.  It was targeted at people who were currently working on agile teams, or who had recently worked on agile teams, and we asked them straightforward questions around the size of the team, how distributed it was, what complexities they faced, an so on.  The following infographic summarizes the findings from the question that explored whether agile delivery teams need to work with external teams or groups to get their work done – in other words, are agile teams truly whole or do they rely on others?  As you can see, 96% of respondents indicated that in practice their team had to work with one or more other teams, leading to the conclusion that very few agile teams appear to be truly whole.

Agile Teams Need to be Enterprise Aware

One of the fundamental principles underlying the Disciplined Agile framework is that disciplined agilists should be enterprise aware – they should recognize that they need to collaborate with others outside of their team, that they should work towards a common organizational vision, and that they should strive to do what is best for the organization and not just what is convenient for them.  Given that agile teams are collaborating with others in practice, it is clear that this philosophy of being enterprise aware is important.

The following diagram presents the results from the survey question in greater detail.  You can obtain the source data, a copy of the original questions, and a slide deck key diagrams at the 2016 Agility at Scale survey page.

Enterprise Awareness

Related Posts: