anderson 1820 sepg2009
Post on 10-Apr-2018
237 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
1/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
2/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
3/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
4/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
5/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
6/64
Recipe for Success
Focus on QualityReduce (or limit) Work-in-ProgressBalance Demand against ThroughputPrioritize
And for advanced credit
Reduce variability in the process and its flow
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
7/64
Map the value streamMeasure flow of valued work
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
8/64
Example: Corbis Sustaining Eng
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
9/64
Backlog Dev Queue
Dev
New
Approved
StartedOnHold
Test Queue
Test
Started OnHold
Resolved
Failed
UAT Queue
UAT
Started
Failed,Scope Changed
Passed
SOX
Production Queue
Complete
Passed
ClosedReleased
Transferred to Proj TeamPending Future Project
By DesignDuplicateWont Fix
No Repro
New
Analysis
More Info
InfoReceived
Abandoned
XIT Change Request
Resolved(needs
exception)
Re-opened
Example:MicrosoftXIT
Virtual Kanban limitinitially8 = WIP + 7 daysbuffer
Virtual Kanban limitinitially8 = WIP + 7 daysbuffer
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
10/64
And chart the throughput throughthe value stream
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
11/64
Manage quantitatively and objectivelyusing only a few simple metrics
QualityWIP (work-in-progress)Lead timeWaste / Efficiency
Throughput
Across those five:Trend
Variation
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
12/64
Hold a monthly Operations Reviewand present all the data, invite
anyone who wants to come
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
13/64
Educate the work force torecognize process problems that
affect performance
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
14/64
Bottlenecks
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
15/64
WasteIdentification
and Elimination
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
16/64
Variability inprocesses and
flow of work
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
17/64
Map the value stream and track workon a white board
Hold a standup meeting every day in
front of the board
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
18/64
and track it electronically
Queries and Reports forspecific projects in this casesustaining engineering - can berun from within MS Outlook with a
single click
Results of Query 610 Dev Shows work items currently insoftware development plus anydefects associated with work-in-progress. Defects are not countedagainst kanban limit
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
19/64
or create an application thatlooks like a whiteboard but
provides the archival advantage ofan electronic system
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
20/64
Kanban limits create a pull system andwhite board provides visualization of flow
through to delivery
Pull
Flow from EngineeringReady to Release Ready
Kanban Limit regulates WIP at eachstage in the process
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
21/64
Kanban tickets hold a lot of informationthat enable decentralized control and localdecision making when deciding priority of
items to pull through the system
Electronic ID number
Date Accepted clockstarts on SLA
Signifies item that has exceededSLA indicates that item should beprioritized if possible
Hard delivery date for regulatory, legal, orstrategic reasons
Issue attached tochange request indicates managementattention required
Assigned engineer
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
22/64
Colors are used to designateclasses of service for work items
Change Requests andProduction Bugs Customervalued and prioritized bygoverning board
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
23/64
Quantity of blue tickets on the board is animmediate indicator of development
quality that is impeding flow of customervalued work and reducing throughput
Engineering Defects directindicator of quality impact onproductivity, linked to yellowsticky, not counted againstkanban limit
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
24/64
Non-customer valued but essential work istracked as a different class of work
IT Maintenance Work Technology department reservingcapacity for its own maintenance
difficult to prioritize withbusiness count against kanbanlimits
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
25/64
Expediting the Silver Bullet
Process allows for a single Silver
Bullet expedite requestSilver bullet is hand carried throughthe system
Personal attention from projectmanager
Automatically jumps queuesRequired specialist resources dropother work in preference to workingthe s ilver bullet
Release dates may be adjusted to
accommodate required delivery date
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
26/64
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
27/64
Extra Bug Special class of
production bug, worked by slack developer resources andspecially selected not to impactsolutions analysis. Tested bydevelopers not testers. Allowsmaximum exploitation forimproved throughput
Temporary classes of work may beintroduced tactically to maximize
exploitation of the system
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
28/64
Kanban delivers iterationless development
Releases were agreed and planned for every2nd WednesdayPrioritization Board meetings were held everyMondayRelease content is bound and published only5 days priorPrioritization meetings are required only toanswer the question, Which items from thebacklog do we want to select this week to fillany empty slots in the input queue?Prioritization holds change request selectionuntil the last responsible moment It keeps (real) options open
b l l d l
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
29/64
Kanban innovates on typical agile/iterative developmentby introducing a late binding release commitment
Kanban system breaks constraint of typicalagile/iterative 2-4 week cycleRequests can take up to 100 days toprocess but releases still made every 14daysAverage item takes 14 days of engineeringInput and sizing is decoupled from cadenceof releasesDecision on content of release made 5 daysprior to release
No estimation is done on individual itemsEffort to estimate is turned back toproductivity (analysis, coding, testing)
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
30/64
Kanban uses a daily standup meeting as acentral enabler of a Kaizen culture
In this example more than 40 peopleattend a standup for a large project
with 6 concurrent developmentteams. The meeting is usually
completed in approximately 10
minutes. Never more than 15.
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
31/64
Look how the board has changed by March!Empirically adjusted Kanban limits reacting to
industrial engineering issues. Much neaterpresentation pride in the process is forming
n aga n n pr more c anges o
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
32/64
n aga n n pr , more c anges oKanban limits and forward extension of
the process to business analysis
W bi l i d d b
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
33/64
Waste bin spontaneously introduced by team tovisually communicate rejected CRs that wasted
energy and sucked productivity
A d d il j d
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
34/64
A report was created to detail rejected orcanceled work items
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
35/64
Spontaneous Quality Circles started forming
Kanban board gives visibility into processissues ragged flow, transaction costs ofreleases or transfers through stages inprocess, bottlenecksDaily standup provides forum for
spontaneous association to attack processissues affecting productivity and lead timeFor example, 3 day freeze on testenvironment was a transaction cost onrelease that caused a bottleneck at buildstate. This was reduced to 24 hours after a3 person quality circle formed to investigatethe policies behind the freeze. Result wasimproved smooth flow resulting in higherthroughput and shorter lead time
O h li i l
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
36/64
Other spontaneous quality circlekaizen events
Empirically adjusted kanban limits several timesE.g. test kanban too small, causing ragged flow
UAT state addedPrompted by test who were experiencing slack time
Expanded kanban limit on Build Ready state, addedTest Ready state
Introduced to smooth flow post release due toenvironment outage transaction cost
Introduced kanban board, daily standup, colored post-itnotes for different classes of service, notations on thepost-itsPoor requirements causing downstream waste resultedin an upstream inspection to eliminate issues withpoorly specified requests
S t b 2007 B i A l i d
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
37/64
September 2007 Business Analysis andSystems Analysis merged eliminating 25% of
lead time consumed as queuing waste
A d h h i i b i i d d
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
38/64
And the technique is being introduced tomajor projects with much longer time
horizons. This example has a monthlyintegration event rather than a releaseevery two weeks
5 h l i ifi h
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
39/64
5 months later significant changes areevident
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
40/64
Major project with two-tiered kanban board
M j P j t ith t ti d k b
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
41/64
Major Project with two-tiered kanbanboard using swim lanes for feature sets
L t j j t i t bl
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
42/64
Less mature major project in troubleadopts kanban to bring a focus to daily
routine and visibility to work-in-progress toteam and management
N t D T i t i g i kl
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
43/64
Next Day Team is maturing quicklyand has refactored the board withswim lanes for functional areas
Bargaining Democracy & Collaboration
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
44/64
Bargaining, Democracy & CollaborationFirst 8 weeks prioritization board wouldbargain against the available slots and WIPlimit
Ive got two small requests can you treat them asone?
People started to lobby each other and build
business cases to get items selectedFamiliarity with the system led to theconsensus decision to adopt a democraticprocess
3 months later it was evident that democracydidnt always select the best candidateAnd it was replaced with a collaborativeprocess based on strategic and current
tactical marketing objectives
The process has shown remarkable
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
45/64
The process has shown remarkablerobustness to gaming from the business
Prioritization board consists of VPs from 6business unitsUnderstanding that expediting coststhroughput and lead time has resulted in anexpectation that only critical items qualify for
Silver Bullet statusAttempts to game prioritization by setting adelivery date are tightly scrutinized by theboardAs a result the process is self-regulating withthe prioritization board enforcing the anti-gaming rulesAs a result the Silver Bullet and delivery dateoptions are seldom used
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
46/64
Achievinghigh
maturity requires ashift in
culture andmindset
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
47/64
The Agilecommunity hasbeen slow to
embraceobjective,
quantitativetechniques that
drive for
predictableresults(CMMI Level 4)
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
48/64
Predictability requires a focuson reducing variability
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
49/64
Predictability can be used todrive competitive advantagethrough shorter lead times
h ll
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
50/64
High Maturity allows a team tobe more agile to respond to
change faster
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
51/64
Measures used in Kanban tofacilitate quantitative
measurement and predictability
Cumulative Flow
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
52/64
Cumulative Flow
CR Only CR, Bugs and PDUs
WIP growth due to additionalresource allocation (good) and somesloppy management of kanban limits(bad)
Businessencouraged tore-triage backlog
Issue Management Cumulative Flow
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
53/64
g
Executive Dashboard
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
54/64
Revisiting Cumulative Flow
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
55/64
g
CR Only
53 Days73 Days
35 Days38 Days
Lead Times are lengtheningagain due to environmentrebuild and business requesteddelay waiting for expediterequest
43 Days
Mean Lead Time Trend
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
56/64
Mean Lead Time Trend
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
D a y s CRs
BugsCombo
SLA
Due Date Performance Detail
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
57/64
Lead Time Distribution
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 6 1 1
1 6
2 1
2 6
3 1
3 6
4 1
4 6
5 1
5 6
6 1
6 6
7 1
7 6
8 1
8 6
9 1
9 6
1 0 1
1 0 6
Days
# C R s
MARCH
Lead Time Distribution
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 8 1 5 2 2 2 9 3 6 4 3 5 0 5 7 6 4 7 1 7 8 8 5 9 2 9 9 1 0 6
1 1 3
1 2 0
1 2 7
1 3 4
1 4 1
1 4 8
Days
C R s
& B u g
APRIL
Outliers
Majority of CRs range 30 -> 55
Kanban summary
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
58/64
Kanban summaryCulture Change
Trust, empowerment, objective data measurement,collaborative team working and focus on quality
Policy ChangesLate-binding release scope, no estimating, late-bindingprioritization
Regular delivery cadenceCross-functional collaborationPreviously unheard of VP level selfless collaboration onbusiness priority
Self-regulating process robust to
gaming and abuseContinuous ImprovementIncreased throughput, high quality, process continuallyevolving, kanban limits empirically adjusted
K b i i
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
59/64
Kanban is emerging as amethod to achieve agilityand high maturity
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
60/64
Kanban creates the desiredcultural shift to an objective,
consensus-based, empoweredkaizen culture
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
61/64
Kanban hasenabled agileteams to breakthrough toCMMI Level 4behaviors
Learn More about kanban
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
62/64
Learn More about kanban
Join the Kanbandev Yahoo! GroupLeading thinkers
Corey LadasKarl ScotlandAaron Sanders
Eric WillekeEric LandesKenji HiranabeAlisson Vale
Kanban Collected Knowledgehttp://availagility.wordpress.com/kanban/
Agile Management Bloghttp://www.agilemanagement.net/Articles/Weblog/blog.html
http://availagility.wordpress.com/kanban/http://www.agilemanagement.net/Articles/Weblog/blog.htmlhttp://www.agilemanagement.net/Articles/Weblog/blog.htmlhttp://availagility.wordpress.com/kanban/ -
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
63/64
About
-
8/8/2019 Anderson 1820 SEPG2009
64/64
AboutDavid Anderson is a thought leader inmanaging effective software teams. He leadsa consulting firm dedicated to improving
economic performance of knowledge workerbusinesses improving agility, reducingcycle times, improving productivity andefficiency in technology development.
He has 25+ years experience in the softwareindustry starting with computer games in theearly 1980s. He has led software teams
delivering superior productivity and quality usinginnovative agile methods. He developed MSF for CMMI Process Improvement for Microsoft.He is a co-author of the SEI Technical Note,CMMI and Agile: Why not embrace both!
Davids book , Agile Management for SoftwareEngineering Applying the Theory of Constraints for Business Results , introducedmany ideas from Lean and Theory ofConstraints into software engineering.
David was a founder of the APLN , a not forprofit dedicated to promoting better standards ofleadership and management in knowledgeworker industries. Emaildja@agilemanagement net
top related