Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics

2,825

Published on

Laimonas Lileika …

Laimonas Lileika
Managing project performance: alignment of Agile and traditional metrics

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,825
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • WITHOUT FEELING I AM IN A JOB INTERVIEW
  • Our good old friend – waterfallHow many of you are using this methodology at your daily work?WHO AGREES THAT MANAGING PROJECT PERFORMANCE IS NOT AN EASY THING TO DO?HOW MANY PROJECT MANAGERS WE HAVE IN AUDIENCE?HOW MANY SCRUM MASTERS?HOW MANY PRODUCT OWNERS?
  • But it is not about having numbers, it is about making good use of numbers
  • I am not going to dive into measuring the quality of the project. We are purely going to focus pocus on the project performance.
  • I am not going to dive into measuring the quality of the project. We are purely going to focus pocus on the project performance.
  • SO THIS IS THE MOST INTERESTING PART FOR THE AGILE PEOPLE LOL
  • SO WHEN WE HAVE THESE 3 MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE, WE, AS PROJECT MANAGERS, CAN DO AMAZING THINGS
  • SO WHEN WE HAVE THESE 3 MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE, WE, AS PROJECT MANAGERS, CAN DO AMAZING THINGS
  • SO WHEN WE HAVE THESE 3 MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE, WE, AS PROJECT MANAGERS, CAN DO AMAZING THINGS
  • The Earned Value will be measured in hours – this means we will focus on value, expressed in hours instead of currency
  • Let me ask you, who goes ahead using this simple approach to manage performance with Scrum?Ok, but have you any idea how many hours your people have actually spent to deliver what was initially planned?Of course, you may not, asyou just don’t care you don’t pay people overtime or in hourly rateWell if you do pay hourly rate to your resources you probably will want to add the actual effort here.
  • WE CREATED SOME STUFF WHICH CAN BE EVALUATED IN 27 HOURS, BUT WE ACTUALLY USED 48 HOURS TO CREATE THAT VALUE
  • OVERTIME HAS STARTED IN ORDER TO CATCH UPPAY ATTENTION TO THE ‘REQUIRED BURN’ METRIC
  • EVALUATES THE REQUIRED VALUE FOR THE NEXT SPRINTEAC IS RAISING AND GIVES US A REALLY BAD TREND
  • SO LET US MOVE COUPLE OF STAND UPS FURTHER TO THE TIME WHERE THE TEAM GETS BACK ON TRACK
  • THE OVERTIME STOPPED AND THE AC ALMOST ARE EQUAL TO VALUE WHICH WAS CREATED
  • SO WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?IT’S A ZORO SIGN!!!
  • So if we just zoom a little the top of the picture you can notice – the initial plan was to use 240 hours and we ended up with 265
  • Let us take a closer look:Yes, we burned all 240 hours in 10 days, so we delivered what we’ve been committed to However, we planned to ‘spend’ 240 hours on it, but we actually spent 265: assumption  team has underestimated
  • AND THIS IS THE KEY MESSAGEWe planed to deliver something which had the value of 240 hours – PV – this is our approved budget assigned to the iterationWe tracked actual effort – just the same as used in traditional wayTotal amount of hours burnt gives us the Earned Value.So let us run the same iteration with the same progress, using the same input, just with traditional metrics
  • Total work effort I renamed into the AC
  • Waterfall people tend to earn things, not to burn
  • CV = EV – ACSV = EV - PV
  • YOU TELL ME THE HOURS YOU BURNED, AND THE ACTUAL EFFORT, I GIVE YOU ALL PERFORMANCE METRICS IN ONE TABLE
  • Transcript

    • 1. MANAGING PROJECT PERFORMANCE:Agile and Traditional Metrics Laimonas Lileika Project Manager October 11th, 2012
    • 2. ABOUT MYSELFLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 2
    • 3. PROBLEM STATEMENT Organization that has been committed to a Earned Value Management traditional project (EVM) serves as the basis for management for over management and project 50 years reporting in CSC Is it possible to map Agile metrics with traditional? In other words: is it possible to run the project using Agile methodology, and still report the project in accordance to the corporate CSC standards?Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 3
    • 4. WTFLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 4
    • 5. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 5
    • 6. AGENDA I. The role and types of metrics II. Traditional metrics overview III. Demonstration and Interpretation IV. Sum upLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 6
    • 7. DISCLAIMER This is my personal interpretation based on experience, however not validated by… any… opinion leader. You might disagree with what you will hear/read, and that’s totally fine – I will wait for you to present next year your own findings.Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 7
    • 8. THE RUTHLESS WORL OF METRICSLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 8
    • 9. WHY DO WE USE METRICS ANYWAY?• Because we have to – Make business-decisions; – Provide meaningful information about important things; – Consider to change what/how we currently do; – Recognize the result and judge it; – To estimate the future;Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 9
    • 10. GREAT VARIETY OF METRICS ACROSS BOTHMETHODOLOGIESAGILE METRICS TRADITIONAL METRICS• Story point burndown • Earned Value• Sprint burndown • Planned Value• Release burndown • Actual Costs• Velocity • Cost Variance• Story points completed • Schedule Variance• Running Tested Features (RTF) • Estimate at Completion• Business Value completed • Estimate to Complete• Work in progress • Performance Indexes: CPI; SPI• …….. • ……..Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 10
    • 11. TYPES OF METRICS Productivity / Value Performance Predictability QualityLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 11
    • 12. TYPES OF METRICS Productivity / Value Performance Predictability QualityLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 12
    • 13. THE TRADITIONAL METRICSLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 13
    • 14. EARNED VALUE MEASUREMENT• Creates an objective assessment of project status and likely outcome by measuring and reporting work accomplished.Message  I AM MEASURING WORK ACCOMPLISHED• EVM is about measuring project performance, comparing budgets to actuals in scope, schedule, and resourceMessage  I AM COMPARING BUDGETS TO ACTUALS• In the end, it’s not about value as “business value” – it’s value as in “actually done” – and the other nice word used for this is “earned”Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 14
    • 15. 3 MAIN MEASUREMENTS Measurement Explanation Planned Value (PV) the amount of work planned to be accomplished Earned Value (EV) the value which is earned by the time the work is completed Actual Cost (AC) actual cost of work performed (money/hours)Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 15
    • 16. COST VARIANCE FORMULA Explanation CV = EV - AC Tells me how many hours team is running behind or ahead the planned/budgeted hoursSHEDULE VARIANCE FORMULA Explanation SV = EV - PV Tells how many hours we are running behind or ahead the scheduleLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 16
    • 17. PERFORMANCE INDEX NO. 1: CPI FORMULA Explanation CPI = EV / AC answers the question “are we spending more than we are creating”PERFORMANCE INDEX NO. 2: SPI FORMULA Explanation SPI = EV / PV answers the question “are we creating the value at the speed we expected?”Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 17
    • 18. DEMONSTRATIONLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 18
    • 19. PREREQUISITES FOR DEMONSTRATION• Earned Value will be measured at the very basic level – hours.• Scrum methodologyLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 19
    • 20. 6 HOURS / DAY = 24 HOURS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 20
    • 21. Hours HoursDay Remaining Burnt 0 240 0 1 228 12 2 213 15 3 194 19 4 166 28 5 130 36 6 98 32 7 60 38 8 38 22 9 20 18 10 0 20Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 21
    • 22. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effortLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 22
    • 23. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 23
    • 24. HOURS BURNED 4 HOURS TASK 1 6 ESTIMATED HOURS 2 REMAINING Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam tempus ACTUAL 6 WORK EFFORTLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 24
    • 25. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 TASK 1 6 TASK 2 12 TASK 3 6 2 6 4 Lorem ipsum dolor sit Lorem ipsum dolor sit Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur amet, consectetur amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. adipiscing elit. adipiscing elit. Aliquam tempus Aliquam tempus Aliquam tempus 6 2x6 6Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 25
    • 26. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 26
    • 27. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 2 213 15 24 48 261 36Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 27
    • 28. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 28
    • 29. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 2 213 15 24 48 261 36 3 194 19 26 74 268 45Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 29
    • 30. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 30
    • 31. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 31
    • 32. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 32
    • 33. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 33
    • 34. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 34
    • 35. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 35
    • 36. Actual Total Hours Hours Required Day Work Work EAC Remaining Burnt Burn Effort effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 2 213 15 24 48 261 36 3 194 19 26 74 268 45 4 166 28 27 101 267 50 5 130 36 32 133 263 46 6 98 32 36 169 267 34 7 60 38 24 193 253 26 8 38 22 24 217 255 12Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 36
    • 37. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 37
    • 38. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 38
    • 39. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 39
    • 40. Actual Hours Hours Total Work Required Day Work EAC Remaining Burnt effort Burn Effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 2 213 15 24 48 261 36 3 194 19 26 74 268 45 4 166 28 27 101 267 50 5 130 36 32 133 263 46 6 98 32 36 169 267 34 7 60 38 24 193 253 26 8 38 22 24 217 255 12 9 20 18 24 241 261 14 10 0 20 24 265 265 20Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 40
    • 41. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 41
    • 42. TIME TO MAP AGILE WITH TRADITIONAL Measurement Agile explanation Value Planned Value Team’s capacity 240 hours (PV) Earned Value It is something be burn ∑Hours burnt (EV) Actual Cost (AC) Actual effort It is just the same!Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 42
    • 43. Hours Actual Hours Day Remaini Work AC EAC PV EV CV SV CPI SPI Burnt ng = ETC Effort 0 240 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 1 228 12 24 24 252 24 12 -12 -12 0,50 0,50 2 213 15 24 48 261 48 27 -21 -21 0,56 0,56 3 194 19 26 74 268 72 46 -28 -26 0,62 0,64 4 166 28 27 101 267 96 74 -27 -22 0,73 0,77 5 130 36 32 133 263 120 110 -23 -10 0,83 0,92 6 98 32 36 169 267 144 142 -27 -2 0,84 0,99 7 60 38 24 193 253 168 180 -13 12 0,93 1,07 8 38 22 24 217 255 192 202 -15 10 0,93 1,05 9 20 18 24 241 261 216 220 -21 4 0,91 1,02 10 0 20 24 265 265 240 240 -25 0 0,91 1,00Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 43
    • 44. EARNED VALUE 4 PLANNED TASK 1 6 VALUE ESTIMATE TO 2 COMPLETE Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam tempus ACTUAL 6 WORK EFFORTLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 44
    • 45. HOURS BURNED 4 HOURS TASK 1 6 ESTIMATED HOURS 2 REMAINING Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam tempus ACTUAL 6 WORK EFFORTLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 45
    • 46. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 46
    • 47. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 47
    • 48. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 48
    • 49. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 49
    • 50. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 50
    • 51. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 51
    • 52. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 52
    • 53. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 53
    • 54. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 54
    • 55. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 55
    • 56. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 56
    • 57. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 57
    • 58. Total Hours Actual Hours WorkRemaining Work EAC PV EV CV SV CPI SPI Burnt effort = = ETC Effort AC 240 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 228 12 24 24 252 24 12 -12 -12 0,50 0,50 213 15 24 48 261 48 27 -21 -21 0,56 0,56 194 19 26 74 268 72 46 -28 -26 0,62 0,64 166 28 27 101 267 96 74 -27 -22 0,73 0,77 130 36 32 133 263 120 110 -23 -10 0,83 0,92 98 32 36 169 267 144 142 -27 -2 0,84 0,99 60 38 24 193 253 168 180 -13 12 0,93 1,07 38 22 24 217 255 192 202 -15 10 0,93 1,05 20 18 24 241 261 216 220 -21 4 0,91 1,02 0 20 24 265 265 240 240 -25 0 0,91 1,00Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 58
    • 59. SPI < 1 means behind schedule (EV < PV) CPI < 1 means over budget (EV < AC)SPI = 1 means on schedule (EV = PC) CPI = 1 means on budget (EV = AC)SPI > 1 means ahead of schedule (EV > PV) CPI > 1 means below budget (EV > AC) Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 59
    • 60. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 60
    • 61. TRADITIONAL AND AGILE PERFORMANCE METRICS Ideal Ideal Hours Actual Total Requir Hours daily HoursDay Remaini Work Work EAC ed PV EV CV SV CPI SPI Burnd hours Burnt ng Effort effort Burn own burn 0 240 240 240 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 1 216 24 228 12 24 24 252 24 24 12 -12 -12 0,500,50 2 192 24 213 15 24 48 261 36 48 27 -21 -21 0,560,56 3 168 24 194 19 26 74 268 45 72 46 -28 -26 0,620,64 4 144 24 166 28 27 101 267 50 96 74 -27 -22 0,730,77 5 120 24 130 36 32 133 263 46 120 110 -23 -10 0,830,92 6 96 24 98 32 36 169 267 34 144 142 -27 -2 0,840,99 7 72 24 60 38 24 193 253 26 168 180 -13 12 0,931,07 8 48 24 38 22 24 217 255 12 192 202 -15 10 0,931,05 9 24 24 20 18 24 241 261 14 216 220 -21 4 0,911,02 10 0 24 0 20 24 265 265 20 240 240 -25 0 0,911,00Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 61
    • 62. SO IN THE END…Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 62
    • 63. TO SUM UP – IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAP! TRADITIONAL AGILE Teams tend to earn things Teams tend to burn things Planned value (PV) Team’s capacity (TC) Earned value (EV) Burned value (BV) Actual cost (AC) Actual cost (AC) Estimate to Complete (ETC) Remaining Hours Estimate at Completion = AC + ETC EAC = AC + Remaining HoursLaimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 63
    • 64. THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER• Why not measure the value using story points instead of hours? Story points have much more to do with value than hours;• How do we report the whole project and not the iteration?• What about Earned Value Management and Business Value Management?Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 64
    • 65. Thank You October 15, 2012 65
    • 66. Laimonas Lileika | Agile Tour Vilnius 2012 October 15, 2012 66

    ×