Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
A KANBAN/SCRUM
MASHUP TO DELIVER FP
PROJECTS
Sudipta Lahiri06-06-15
Sudipta Lahiri (Sudi)
slahiri@digite.com, lahiri.sudipta@gmail.com
• Senior Vice President, Digité
• Agile/Lean practition...
Fixed Price projects – almost always
associated with Fixed Scope and Fixed
Timeline projects
FP Projects
06-06-15
Understanding the problem...
 Large number of companies execute FP projects in India
 Strong perception that Agile is no...
Understanding the problem...
Part II
 Large number of teams DO NOT have stable
teams
 A sample of my current project...
...
Understanding the problem... Part
III
06-06-15
 Fixed Price projects need strong budget
control
 Need to keep an eye on ...
Yet, teams want to adopt
Agile/Lean: Selectively... Slowly...
Steadily
Lean thinking
• Value
• Value Stream
• Flow
• Pull
...
What we will talk about today?
 Different ways to handle these problem
statements
 These are executed/WIP projects
 Bot...
Size: 150+ man years, with 60-70 team size
Enterprise Implementation
7 parallel tracks
4 functional; 1 Integration; 1
migr...
Project Initiation: Kickoff
Meeting
06-06-15
 The standard stuff... with a “twist”
 Mandatory demos in the value stream:...
Project Planning: The approach
 Our DNA is Lean thinking
 We needed to commit to a
timeline...
 In a Fixed Scope projec...
Project Planning: Building the
baseline
06-06-15
Inputs:
• Requirement
Documents
• Resource
Availability
• Timeline
commit...
Sample artefacts...
06-06-15
Team Sprint Dev
Wk
Dev
Wk
Start
Date
End Date # Des
Res
# Dev
Res
Des
Cap
Dev
Cap
Des
Alloc
D...
Sprint Plan/Baseline Schedule
 Overall effort: 0.5%
06-06-15
mid-Jan mid-Feb mid-Mar mid-Apr
BR Mini Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sp...
Project Execution: Kanban
Method
06-06-15
Project Execution: Tracking
Burndown
06-06-15
Spillover work from one Sprint would be created as “Spillover” card in the n...
06-06-15
Project Execution:
Early feedback with Demos before
FT
Changes are welcome
Don’t compromise the solution quality ...
Project Monitoring: Quick and
simple
06-06-15
One possible solution: AgileEVM
This is good... but what happens when your team size
is dynamic at the individual team lev...
An adaptation of EVM to Agile
06-06-15
 Define by Tamara Sulaiman and 2 others
 http://www.solutionsiq.com/Portals/93486...
Here is what we do...
Define a
resource
plan for the
MMF scope
Use this as
the basis
for EVM
Track
velocity/
throughput
in...
Original budget 48.57 MM 1020 MD
Original timeline 10
Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10
Productivity 100% ...
Project Planning:
Make it a little more practical...
 Positive/negative factors on
productivity:
 Resource ramp-up, skil...
Project Monitoring: Tracking EV
21-06-2015
24
 Most Kanban tools dump their Board data to an
Excel
 Gives card wise, sta...
Project Monitoring: PV vs EV
tracking
21-06-2015
25
20 40
95
149
204
258
313
418
523
628
733
919
1104
1290
1475
1546
1616
...
Accepting change is “key” to Agile thinking
Challenge:
In fixed projects, how done one handle timeline and
budget?
Impacti...
The Approach...
 CFD Shows the project end date for revised
scope @ current throughput
 Reallocate capacity to match req...
Let us understand this with an
example...
 Consider the following Board....
28 21-06-2015
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XX...
Current throughput
 Assume that the team is performing at the
Required Burn-up rate
29 21-06-2015
Now, evaluate Scope change...
 120md of work has been added and updated
in the Backlog (highligted in red)
30 21-06-2015
...
Project the CFD again...
 Required Throughput increases from 16.13/day to 18.09/day to
meet the same timeline
 An increa...
An iterative process with
stakeholders to evaluate options
and converge
 Option I:
 Increase capacity by 12-15% to reach...
Step 3: Adjust PV for revised
plan
 For small changes in
resource availability/scope,
Planned Value need not
change
 Sma...
A quick re-cap
21-06-2015
34
 Agile/Lean “thinking” can be applied to FP
projects
 Don’t copy the practices, templates.....
Thank you for your time today...
 For any questions or
clarifications, you can
reach me at:
 @sudiptal
 slahiri@digite....
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A kanban scrum mashup to deliver fp projects

424 views

Published on

Session presented at Regional Scrum Gathering South Asia 2015

Published in: Leadership & Management
  • Be the first to comment

A kanban scrum mashup to deliver fp projects

  1. 1. A KANBAN/SCRUM MASHUP TO DELIVER FP PROJECTS Sudipta Lahiri06-06-15
  2. 2. Sudipta Lahiri (Sudi) slahiri@digite.com, lahiri.sudipta@gmail.com • Senior Vice President, Digité • Agile/Lean practitioner (75%) • Lean Transformation of our own team • Developed SwiftKanban (www.swiftkanban.com), SwiftALM (www.digite.com) • Licensed user base of over 300,000 • Agile Coach (25%) • Train and coach teams/organizations in Lean/Agile • Run the LimitedWIP Societies in India My Background 06-06-15
  3. 3. Fixed Price projects – almost always associated with Fixed Scope and Fixed Timeline projects FP Projects 06-06-15
  4. 4. Understanding the problem...  Large number of companies execute FP projects in India  Strong perception that Agile is not suitable for this. Traditional software development Scope Time Cost (resources) Scope Time Cost (resources) Agile software development (Target business goals & outcomes) 06-06-15
  5. 5. Understanding the problem... Part II  Large number of teams DO NOT have stable teams  A sample of my current project... 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Sep/14 Oct/14 Nov/14 Dec/14 Jan/15 Feb/15 Mar/15 Apr/15 May/15 Jun/15 Jul/15 Aug/15 Sep/15 Oct/15 Nov/15 Dec/15 Jan/16 Team Size  Velocity/throughput based projections are based on stable teams  A simple extrapolation is grossly inaccurate! 06-06-15
  6. 6. Understanding the problem... Part III 06-06-15  Fixed Price projects need strong budget control  Need to keep an eye on your budget closely...  Scope creep needs to be controlled  Anti-pattern to Agile thinking  They often have “large” teams  A few days of “unnoticed” delay causes a loss of multiple person months
  7. 7. Yet, teams want to adopt Agile/Lean: Selectively... Slowly... Steadily Lean thinking • Value • Value Stream • Flow • Pull • Continuous Improvement • Respect for people Kanban Thinking • Lean principles • Visualize Value Stream • Limit WIP • Make process policies explicit SCRUM thinking • Cadences • Artefacts • Ceremonies • Standups • Retrospectives • Roles 06-06-15
  8. 8. What we will talk about today?  Different ways to handle these problem statements  These are executed/WIP projects  Bottomline, don’t jump to the conclusion: “Agile/Lean is not for you”  Understand the thinking behind and see how you can apply!  There is rarely anything that Agile/Lean cannot be applied to, if you focus on applying the “thinking” 06-06-15
  9. 9. Size: 150+ man years, with 60-70 team size Enterprise Implementation 7 parallel tracks 4 functional; 1 Integration; 1 migration; 1 Customization; 1 Test Automation 3 distributed locations Executing the mashup... 06-06-15
  10. 10. Project Initiation: Kickoff Meeting 06-06-15  The standard stuff... with a “twist”  Mandatory demos in the value stream: pre-FT  Welcome feedback and change!  Requirements: a starting point + a basis for Acceptance Criteria  Take its commercial impact in Change Control track  Define an initial approach; keep changing with retrospectives
  11. 11. Project Planning: The approach  Our DNA is Lean thinking  We needed to commit to a timeline...  In a Fixed Scope project, customer demands a schedule  Schedule must meet business/contractual commitments  Further, we needed something for close tracking of milestones/deadlines  Our solution: The Kanban Method + Iteration Planning + Burndown Charts  Why not SCRUMBAN?  “Scope” Boards vs “Task” Boards  Change Management Issues  Customer is applying Agile/Lean for the first time  HR and structural issues  No existing throughput data  Half the team is from the customer 06-06-15
  12. 12. Project Planning: Building the baseline 06-06-15 Inputs: • Requirement Documents • Resource Availability • Timeline commitments from business Tasks: • CSF: Scope decomposition as per INVEST => EPICS (Functional Units) • Product Fit Analysis: • CSF: Identify Customizations • Quick “Gut Feel” Estimation • Allocation and Prioritization of Epics into Sprints, taking Customization timelines into account • Subsequent Sprints get 10% less allocation • Plan for Contingency: • Additional Sprints Planned with no allocated cards • Iterate this process! Output: • Sprint Plan • Schedule for Customer • Resource Plan We called this Sprint 0!
  13. 13. Sample artefacts... 06-06-15 Team Sprint Dev Wk Dev Wk Start Date End Date # Des Res # Dev Res Des Cap Dev Cap Des Alloc Dev Alloc Des Rem Cap Dev Rem Cap Des % Rem Cap Dev % Rem Cap Team X Mini 1 2 17-Nov 07-Dec 3 4 105 280 59 258 46 22 43% 8% Team X Sprint 1 4 6 24-Nov 18-Jan 1 3 140 630 122 583 18 47 13% 7% Team X Sprint 2 4 4 22-Dec 15-Feb 1 3 140 420 80 361 60 59 43% 14% Team X Sprint 3 4 4 19-Jan 15-Mar 1 3 140 420 68 309 72 111 52% 26% Team X Sprint 4 4 4 16-Feb 12-Apr 1 3 140 420 140 420 100% 100% Team Y Mini 1 2 17-Nov 07-Dec 1 2 35 140 30 130 5 10 14% 7% Team Y Sprint 1 4 6 24-Nov 18-Jan 1 2 140 420 78 349 62 71 44% 17% Team Y Sprint 2 4 4 22-Dec 15-Feb 1 2 140 280 44 190 96 90 69% 32% Team Y Sprint 3 4 4 19-Jan 15-Mar 1 2 140 280 15 91 125 189 89% 68% Team Y Sprint 4 4 4 16-Feb 12-Apr 1 2 140 280 140 280 100% 100%
  14. 14. Sprint Plan/Baseline Schedule  Overall effort: 0.5% 06-06-15 mid-Jan mid-Feb mid-Mar mid-Apr BR Mini Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 4 EPICS Allocated EPICS Total EPICS Unallocated 1 4 20 1 0 0 25 27 2 2 0 1 8 0 0 9 9 0 3 3 1 14 0 0 18 19 1 4 0 0 10 0 0 10 11 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 6 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 7 4 7 1 0 0 12 14 2 8 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 9 0 5 1 1 0 7 7 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 0 12 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 13 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 14 1 3 0 1 0 5 5 0 15 2 0 5 3 0 10 11 1 16 0 0 6 1 0 7 9 2 17 0 0 12 0 0 12 90 78 18 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 19 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 0 20 2 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 21 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 23 0 0 0 3 0 3 8 5 24 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 0 21 54 58 11 0 144 254 91 Contingency
  15. 15. Project Execution: Kanban Method 06-06-15
  16. 16. Project Execution: Tracking Burndown 06-06-15 Spillover work from one Sprint would be created as “Spillover” card in the next Sprin
  17. 17. 06-06-15 Project Execution: Early feedback with Demos before FT Changes are welcome Don’t compromise the solution quality because of budget/cost considerations Take Commercial considerations under Change Control
  18. 18. Project Monitoring: Quick and simple 06-06-15
  19. 19. One possible solution: AgileEVM This is good... but what happens when your team size is dynamic at the individual team level? 06-06-15
  20. 20. An adaptation of EVM to Agile 06-06-15  Define by Tamara Sulaiman and 2 others  http://www.solutionsiq.com/Portals/93486/docs/earned-value-analysis-in-scrum-projects- wp.pdf  Key difference: "Work" is given credit when it is completes testing/deployment  Aligns with the Agile’s value on "Working Software“Traditional EVM Approach Agile Analytics Expanded Agile Analytics
  21. 21. Here is what we do... Define a resource plan for the MMF scope Use this as the basis for EVM Track velocity/ throughput information Re-calibrate capacity to delivery date Allow for scope changes to happen 21 21-06-2015 Planning Phase Activities Execution Phase Activities
  22. 22. Original budget 48.57 MM 1020 MD Original timeline 10 Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Productivity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 16.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Technical Requirement 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 MMF 1 User Story 1.1 2 2 4 1 1 User Story 1.2 2 2 2 2 2 User Story 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 ST Resources 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 MMF2 User Story 2.1 2 2 2 1 1 User Story 2.2 2 2 2 2 2 User Story 2.3 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 ST Resources 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 MMF3 User Story 3.1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ST Resources 1 1 1 1 MMF4 User Story 4.1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6 User Story 4.2 2 2 2 2 2 User Story 4.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 ST Resources 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 MMF5 User Story 5.1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6 User Story 5.2 2 2 2 2 2 User Story 5.3 1 1 1 1 1 ST Resources 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 Total (Current) 17 17 21.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 Planned value 85 85 107.5 107.5 97.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 Cumm. Original Plan Value 85 170 278 385 483 590 698 805 913 1020 Weeks Project Planning: Capacity vs Timeline 22 Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 16.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total (Current) 17 17 21.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 Cumm. Original Plan Value 85 170 278 385 483 590 698 805 913 1020 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ManDays Planned Value Detailed resource timeline level planning at the Story Level, time consuming and full of assumptions...
  23. 23. Project Planning: Make it a little more practical...  Positive/negative factors on productivity:  Resource ramp-up, skill training, domain training, etc.  Team decides how to calibrate productivity across time  Benefits:  PV: Planned Value  PV reflects reality  S-curve in PV 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ManDays Planned Value Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Productivity 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 125% 125% 125% 112% 112% Development Res. 14 14 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 ST res. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total (Current) 4.25 8.5 16.13 21.5 26.88 26.88 26.88 26.88 24.08 24.08 Cumm. Original Plan Value 21 64 144 252 386 521 655 789 910 1030 23 21-06-2015
  24. 24. Project Monitoring: Tracking EV 21-06-2015 24  Most Kanban tools dump their Board data to an Excel  Gives card wise, stage wise breakup  Two alternatives:  Give a certain % completion to each stage of the value stream completed on their estimated size  For example: Requirement done is 20% value earned, Design completed is 15% value earned.... OR  Stick to Agile emphasis on “working software” and give 100% value earned when a card is archived  Aggregate across the Board weekly and you will get the EV trend  To track Actual Cost:  Get a weekly resource allocation OR  Get your TimeSheet data
  25. 25. Project Monitoring: PV vs EV tracking 21-06-2015 25 20 40 95 149 204 258 313 418 523 628 733 919 1104 1290 1475 1546 1616 1686 1757 1827 0 0 0 50 80 100 150 200 308 350 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 wk20wk21wk22wk23wk24wk25wk26wk27wk28wk29wk30wk31wk32wk33wk34wk35wk36wk37wk38wk39 Planned Value Earned Value Actual Cost Schedule Variance Cost Variance
  26. 26. Accepting change is “key” to Agile thinking Challenge: In fixed projects, how done one handle timeline and budget? Impacting Scope Change26 21-06-2015
  27. 27. The Approach...  CFD Shows the project end date for revised scope @ current throughput  Reallocate capacity to match required throughput 27 21-06-2015
  28. 28. Let us understand this with an example...  Consider the following Board.... 28 21-06-2015 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
  29. 29. Current throughput  Assume that the team is performing at the Required Burn-up rate 29 21-06-2015
  30. 30. Now, evaluate Scope change...  120md of work has been added and updated in the Backlog (highligted in red) 30 21-06-2015 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  31. 31. Project the CFD again...  Required Throughput increases from 16.13/day to 18.09/day to meet the same timeline  An increase of 12% in addition 31 21-06-2015
  32. 32. An iterative process with stakeholders to evaluate options and converge  Option I:  Increase capacity by 12-15% to reach desired throughput  Factor in an increase in overhead as team size increases  Option II:  Keep the same capacity but push back the timeline by 12-15%  Option III  Reprioritize scope to keep the total scope largely unchanged but deliver to the revised timeline  Option IV  A combination of all of above for overall stakeholder agreement  Partial capacity increase + partial extension in timeline + reprioritizing scope  For each option, use CFD projection to evaluate the final result 32 21-06-2015
  33. 33. Step 3: Adjust PV for revised plan  For small changes in resource availability/scope, Planned Value need not change  Small: < 10% estimate variation  For significant changes, rework Planned Value as for modified Resource Plan 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Cumm. Original Plan Value Cumm. Revised Plan Value 33 Revised Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Wk11 Wk12 Productivity 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 125% 125% 125% 112% 112% 112% 112% Development Res. 14 14 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 12 12 12 ST res. 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Total (Current) 4.25 8.5 13.5 18 23.75 27.5 27.5 27.5 24.64 17.92 17.92 17.92 Scope Addition (in mm) 5 Cumm. Revised Plan Value 21.3 63.8 131.3 221.3 340 477.5 615 752.5 875.7 965.3 1054.9 1144.5 21-06-2015
  34. 34. A quick re-cap 21-06-2015 34  Agile/Lean “thinking” can be applied to FP projects  Don’t copy the practices, templates... Adapt!  Quite simple if you have stable teams; a little more tricky if you do not have stable teams  Use Throughput/Velocity to track if the team is delivering at the desired pace  When scope changes, evaluate multiple options using the Throughput and iterate with stakeholders
  35. 35. Thank you for your time today...  For any questions or clarifications, you can reach me at:  @sudiptal  slahiri@digite.com  I share my experiences at:  http://www.swiftkanban.com/blog/sudipt a-lahiri  http://sudi-thoughts.blogspot.in/  Join Limited WIP Society NCR, Bangalore, Pune and Chennai Chapters 21-06-2015 35

×