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.

Double K: Kanban and Kata

1,375 views

Published on

Building mutual trust between internal IT teams and the Business is not easy. Inadequate transparency, insufficient collaboration, and unmanaged expectations are some of the reasons for the lack of trust. IT teams in this situation often find it difficult to successfully deliver software that meets Business expectations. More so, these teams find themselves preoccupied with fire fighting and delivery only, with no time left to look into improvements.

In this session, I will talk about the journey of two IT teams to continuous improvement using Kanban and Kata. I will share how they utilized Kanban practices to gain the trust of the Business and establish a true partnership. I will also discuss how the teams used the Improvement and Coaching Kata framework to plan, execute and validate data-driven improvements utilizing short experimentation cycles.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Double K: Kanban and Kata

  1. 1. Double K: Kanban and Kata The continuous improvement journey of two IT teams using Kanban and the Toyota Kata Bernadette Dario Twitter: @BernadetteDario bernadettedario@gmail.com
  2. 2. CSM ACP Bernadette Dario
  3. 3. IT Group SERVICE LINES PROJECTS 220+ people Project A Project B Project C Agile/Kanban/Lean Coaches Other Support Groups
  4. 4. Project C PROJECT “CONNECT”
  5. 5. Challenges
  6. 6. Change Canvas http://canvanizer.com/canvas/yrT8bQ39xW4
  7. 7. K for Kanban RISKS, ISSUES, BLOCKERS
  8. 8. --- May 2012 --- July 2012 --- Sept 2012 --- Nov 2012 --- Dec 2012
  9. 9. Improvements Observations Improvement Features stuck in Requirements Validation Policy Change – Developers can pull even without “sign off” Same blocker on 3rd party service provider always comes up (environment setup and moving stuff through the environments) New Policy Established – Inform service provider of requests 2 weeks before Initiate – Root cause analysis Features stuck in development for our 3rd party developer New process - Setup a cadence of biweekly releases Outcome Improvement in the flow of work
  10. 10. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Develop team’s capability to problem-solve
  11. 11. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Utilize feedback loops as kaizen events DAILY STANDUPS = mini KAIZEN • How can we improve the flow of the work? Bottlenecks Issues/blockers Recurring issues Internal and External Dependencies – Stalled work – Work in inactive states – Vacant states – – – – RETROSPECTIVES
  12. 12. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Improvement as a work type
  13. 13. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Recognize people who initiate improvements
  14. 14. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Push ownership of the processes to the team
  15. 15. Power-Up for Kaizen! • Do not settle for workarounds. Dig deep when necessary.
  16. 16. Results • • • • Improvement in delivery Better collaboration within the team Enhanced relationship with Business Team members who care about improving
  17. 17. Project Team Feedback Kanban was very effective for team collaboration and daily touch point Kanban enabled team to be mindful of work in progress Issue resolution was faster by making issues visible on the Kanban board. Team swarmed on every issue! Kanban allowed for volume and flow of work to be visible to the Business
  18. 18. Business Feedback Great, open communication between IT and Business Prioritization with the Business during weekly stand ups Collaboration within team brought out great ideas Liked the visibility and transparency of work on Kanban Board Kanban allowed for early identification of issues/discuss solutions and resolve
  19. 19. Challenges of Kanban • Keeping electronic board synchronized with the physical board • Collecting metrics manually • Keeping to WIP limits
  20. 20. K for Kata KATA = “form” Routine that is practiced so it becomes second nature
  21. 21. K for Kata Routines that enable continuous improvement
  22. 22. Roles Go! 2 3 1 COACH 2nd COACH LEARNER MANAGER LEAN COACH PROJECT TEAM
  23. 23. Improvement Kata
  24. 24. Coaching Kata The Five Questions Go! 1. What is the Target Condition? 2. What is the Actual Condition now? - What was your last step? - What did you expect? - What actually happened? - What did you learn? 3. What Obstacles do you think are preventing you from reaching the target condition? Which one are you addressing now? 4. What is your Next Step? What do you expect? 5. When can we go and see what we Have Learned from taking that step?
  25. 25. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations
  26. 26. Improvement Focus: Quality
  27. 27. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63%
  28. 28. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20%
  29. 29. Probing
  30. 30. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% Incomplete test cases Requirements not clear to Testers Testers not part of collaboration sessions
  31. 31. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20%
  32. 32. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% By involving the Testers during requirements walkthroughs, they will be able to capture critical scenarios in their test cases resulting to less defects escaped to BAT/Prod.
  33. 33. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% Inconsistent participation by testers during requirements walkthroughs
  34. 34. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% By having the BAs go through the test cases, validation as to the completeness of the scenarios will be made resulting to less defects escaped to BAT/Prod.
  35. 35. Defect Density = .61
  36. 36. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% MMF 4,5,9 Escaped defect density – .61 Requirements %Dist – 50%
  37. 37. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% It was a challenge for BAs to go through the test cases; not their language
  38. 38. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% By co-locating the team and pairing BAs and Testers during Testing, more requirements related defects will be identified during functional testing resulting in less defects escaped to BAT/Prod.
  39. 39. Defect Density = .1
  40. 40. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% MMF6,10,3,7 Escaped defect density - .1 Requirements %Dist - 0
  41. 41. Deliver the best product possible; Zero defects that interfere with/disrupt business operations Escaped Defect Density – .50 Requirements % Dist – 63% Escaped Defect Density – decrease by 20% Requirements % Dist – decrease by 20% Co-location is a must! Pairing during testing works to ensure all scenarios are tested!
  42. 42. Challenges of Kata • Need more opportunities to practice the desired behavior • Inconsistent participation of managers as Coaches • Long PDCA cycles
  43. 43. IT Group SERVICE LINES PROJECTS 220+ people Project A Project B Project C Agile/Kanban/Lean Coaches Other Support Groups
  44. 44. SERVICE LINE “WELLNESS”
  45. 45. Features SLM Service Requests Incidents Prioritized queue for Service Line (mixed work types)
  46. 46. K for Kanban
  47. 47. Classes of Service
  48. 48. --- July 2012 --- Aug 2012 --- Sept 2012 --- Dec 2012 --- March 2013
  49. 49. Results • Improvement in customer satisfaction
  50. 50. Customer Satisfaction Survey Oct 2012 Fair Jan 2013 Good V.Good Excellent Use of new techniques to bring about collaboration 2.4 Communicate progress of work on a timely basis 3.0 2.8 Openness/responsiveness to your requirements or to changes in requirements 3.2 3.0 Deliver on time 3.2 Quality of output 3.0 Enable understanding of incremental delivery and Kanban Team’s understanding of business needs Leadership of Team 3.2 2.75 2.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.6 3.0 3.4
  51. 51. Net Promoter Score How likely is it that you would recommend the team to deliver IT solutions for a colleague? 1-20% 3-60% Oct 2012: NPS = 20% - 20% = 0 1-20%
  52. 52. Net Promoter Score How likely is it that you would recommend the team to deliver IT solutions for a colleague? 1-20% 2-40% Jan 2013: NPS = 40% - 20% = 20 2-40%
  53. 53. Results • Improvement in customer satisfaction • Fully engaged Business stakeholders
  54. 54. What worked well Business IT Team+Bus working very well together We are more in tune with Kanban process now Business willing to adapt to changes with the team and support new ideas Open Communication Good working relationship (professional, friendly, responsive) IT Team Working with Business to gather requirements Cooperation between IT & Business
  55. 55. Additional Challenges of Kanban • Unstable team • Getting Business to correctly classify work according to cost of delay
  56. 56. Improvement Focus: Lead time
  57. 57. Improvement Focus: Quality (3rd party)
  58. 58. High performing team capable of delivering QUALITY and VALUE to Business
  59. 59. 3rd party Feature Lead time Avg = 76 days 3rd party generated high/serious escaped defects > 0
  60. 60. Reduce Feature lead time by 10% 3rd party generated high/serious escaped defects = 0
  61. 61. Requirements not clear to testers 3rd party engagement model not followed People not 100% allocated
  62. 62. By getting the agreement from the Business on the 3rd party engagement model, requirements will be better understood by the Testers and will result to reduced lead time & escaped defects
  63. 63. Business has agreed to model Business now going through team
  64. 64. By having BDD collaboration sessions, a common understanding of the requirements will be achieved and will result to less requirements churn/decrease in lead time & escaped defects
  65. 65. Business was receptive to BDDs during training
  66. 66. Improvement Focus: Lead time
  67. 67. Lead time = 39 days 3rd party generated high/serious defects = 0
  68. 68. Gaining an understanding of req before passing it on to 3rd party is essential
  69. 69. BDDs helped in gaining common understanding of requirements
  70. 70. Key Points Kanban is a framework that enables continuous improvement. The deeper your Kanban adoption, the more you can utilize the system to bring about kaizen. Supplementing Kanban with Kata (routines) enables kaizen through data-driven improvements executed via short experimentation cycles.

×