Agile in the Bathtub


Published on

slides form my talk at Agile2012, Dallas and LeanKanbanCentralEurope LKCE12 in Vienna

Published in: Technology, Business

Agile in the Bathtub

  1. 1. Agile in the Bathtub Gaetano Mazzanti @mgaewsj Agile42 Gama-Tech
  2. 2. “too many things to do” “we are too slow” “poor quality”sounds familiar?
  3. 3. 18 months ago “I would like to coach Agile & Lean in an non- software context”
  4. 4. on May 2011 I got a call“we need help”
  5. 5. May 2011 “we are too slow” “poor quality” “too many things to do”“engineers! those lazy ineffective slackers”
  6. 6. products: luxury hydromassage bathtubsand showers, italian market leaderorg & process: traditional top-down org,phase-gate process, rigidly definedproceduresfocus: cutting costs, downsizing, outsourcing
  7. 7. the challengeAgile & Lean coaching in an non-software context “let’s try it!”
  8. 8. step Iwho, what, how... ... and why :)
  9. 9. assessment interviews +Draw Your Process +pre-mortem retro
  10. 10. interviews outcome
  11. 11. draw your process
  12. 12. dot voting critical steps
  13. 13. draw your process most critical stepsfeasibility (especially determining costs and schedule)late product modificationsproduct concept phase (too long, vague inputs)
  14. 14. pre-mortem retro
  15. 15. pre-mortem outcomeoptimistic planningdelays in approvalscontinuous changes in prioritiespeople moved to different projectsprojects ‘forgotten’ in a dormant statespecs change, even late in the projectproduction costs higher than expected
  16. 16. summing it upmost operational issues somewhat knownsome dismissed as irrelevant, some simply notaddressed for the time beingdispirited employeesmanagement caught completely off-guard byreported lack of transparency and communicationand by employee’s demotivation
  17. 17. step IIbeginning the transition
  18. 18. timeline !
  19. 19. active learning “we want prescriptions not principles” Agile & Lean Values interactions, communication, self-organization queues, WIP limits initial misunderstandings and annoyance by people “multitasking is a used to being told justnatural and effective what to doapproach to address overload” (!)
  20. 20. forced managers to read this book
  21. 21. mixed feelingsenthusiasm for the possible upcoming (r)evolutionskepticism about the chances to really changeanything
  22. 22. step IIIAgile & Lean for Product Development
  23. 23. single project vs project portfolio
  24. 24. initial goalsmap the real process visualize all ongoing activitiesexpose dysfunctions measure and analyze data
  25. 25. a perfect recipe for failure Development/ Concept Production Prototyping CKP CKP CKP CKP CKP I II III IV V DRW DRW DRW I II IIIfeatures, cost and shipment date set here Involved Depts: Engineering, Operations, Quality Control, Test Lab
  26. 26. work-item type analysis project typical average size duration delay (months) (months) small 6-9 2-3 medium 9-12 3-6 large 12-18 6-9 small modifications / /each project leader is in charge of multiple projects
  27. 27. slip chart 4#Mayexpected completion date 3#Apr 3#Mar 1#Feb 1#Jan 1#Dec 31#Oct 30#Sep 30#Aug 30#Jul 1#Jul 1#Aug 1#Sep 1#Oct 1#Nov 1#Dec
  28. 28. demand analysisnew product conceptsrecurring events (e.g. exhibitions)sales opportunities difficult to predict, typically take priority over any other project
  29. 29. time for a board!
  30. 30. our first try color = size S M L
  31. 31. the magic of visualizing capacity demand waiting forCKPIII approval initial design, planning, outsourcing, mold design, etc.
  32. 32. immediate action/winsprojects reviewed in terms of business priority,cost of delay, risk and complexitysome projects stopped; others accelerated andmoved quickly to CKP III
  33. 33. one week later
  34. 34. we used this board for three weeks tounderstand which kind of information we couldget from itwe started tracking time information to collect(partial) cycle time data
  35. 35. some issues with our boardoverloading and queues exposed but only partiallypreventedpriorities still ‘suggested’ by managementwith no objective selection criteriaproject ownership changes during the project life,this was not visible on the board
  36. 36. time for daily standups andweekly retrospectives
  37. 37. standups & retrosinitially, engineers found these activities useless andboringstandups were too long and repetitious as they wereused just to report status to a managerso we changed approach and started focusing only onhighlighting problems and collaboratively decide whatto do
  38. 38. the path to a new boardassign value and priorities to projects based on businessvalue, cost of delay, due dates, etc.define and set WIP limits (“wow!”)pull approach to select and move forward projectspolicies to rule transitions from one state to anotherdefine relevant data to represent on cards to help intaking decisions and defining further policies
  39. 39. a new board color = project leader
  40. 40. !
  41. 41. flow
  42. 42. reached WIP limit!
  43. 43. WIP limitseach project leader is in charge of multiple projects at a given timeinitially assigned WIP = 1 to each project but this was not very usefulproject characteristics including size, cardinality and parameters like machining orforming complexity were then used to weigh WIP (defined by engineers...)this resulted in each project inducing 0,2 to 2 in terms of WIPspecific WIP limits have been set for resources (mostly hardware and used also forstandard production) like molding machines, test lab and final prototypingsome of these limits are not constant but may vary in time as they have to lookahead to take into account standard production needs and to anticipate the loadinduced by projects in progresswhenever WIP limits are reached, a project is tagged with a blue square symbol andput on hold until resources are available (waiting time is measured)
  44. 44. WIP limits
  45. 45. WIP limits ][ ] ][
  46. 46. too many columns? we tried multiple simpler boards it did not work (people rejected it)reality is complex, better to see it clearly
  47. 47. metrics used(sub)cycle timeactive vs. idle timecumulated WIP by project leader per projectphase (to check perceived vs measuredoverburden)
  48. 48. decreased (sub)cycle time Development/ Concept Production PrototypingCKP CKP CKP CKP CKP I II III IV V DRW DRW DRW I II III -50% -30% -20% -25%
  49. 49. sm M 0.50$ 1.00$ 1.50$ 2.00$ 2.50$ 3.00$ ay 0.50$ 1.00$ 1.50$ 2.00$ 2.50$ 3.00$ +1 Jul+10$Aug+10$ Ju $ n+ Ju $ 10 l+1 0 0 al lpSep+10$ Au $ g+Oct+10$ 10 Se $ ro p+Nov+10$ j 10 Oc $Dec+10$ t+1 No 0$ ecJan+11$ v+ 1 De 0$Feb+11$ c+ 10 tsMar+11$ Ja $ n+ 11 DRW$I$Apr+11$ Fe $ DRW$III$ b+ 1May+11$ M 1$ ar +1 1Jun+11$ Ap $ r+1 Jul+11$ M 1$ ay +1Aug+11$ 1$ LCL$ avg$ UCL$ LCL$ avg$ UCL$ DRW$III$ DRW$I$ 0.40$ 0.60$ 0.80$ 1.00$ 1.20$ 1.40$ 1.60$ 1.80$ 1.00$ 1.20$ 1.40$ 1.60$ 1.80$ 2.00$ Sep,10$ Jun,10$ Oct,10$ Jul,10$ Nov,10$ Aug,10$ Dec,10$ Sep,10$ before... Jan,11$ Feb,11$ Oct,10$ Mar,11$ Nov,10$ Apr,11$ Dec,10$ May,11$ Jun,11$ Jan,11$ Jul,11$ Feb,11$ CKP$IV$ DRW$II$ Aug,11$ Mar,11$ Sep,11$ Apr,11$ Oct,11$ May,11$ Nov,11$ Dec,11$ Jun,11$ LCL$ avg$ LCL$ avg$ UCL$ UCL$ CKP$IV$ DRW$II$
  50. 50. ec ts rojsm al lp ...after DRW$I$ DRW$II$ 3.00$ 2.00$ 1.80$ 2.50$ avg$ 1.60$ avg$ 2.00$ 1.40$ LCL$ LCL$ 1.50$ 1.20$ UCL$ UCL$ 1.00$ 1.00$ pre$avg$ pre$avg$ 0.80$ DRW$I$ DRW$II$ 0.50$ 0.60$ $ $ 1$ $ $ 2$ $ $ 1$ $ $ $ $ 2$ $ 2$ 2$ 2$ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 t+1 +1 t,1 +1 ,1 r+1 r,1 g+ p+ v+ c+ g, p, v, c, n, b+ b, n ar ar Oc Oc Ap Ap De De No No Au Au Se Ja Se Ja Fe Fe M M DRW$III$ CKP$IV$ 3.00$ 1.60$ 2.50$ 1.40$ avg$ avg$ 1.20$ 2.00$ LCL$ LCL$ 1.00$ UCL$ 1.50$ UCL$ 0.80$ pre$avg$ pre$avg$ 1.00$ 0.60$ CKP$IV$ DRW$III$ 0.50$ 0.40$ Oct,11$ Nov,11$ Dec,11$ Jan,12$ Feb,12$ Mar,12$ Apr,12$ $ 1$ $ $ $ $ 2$ 2$ 11 11 11 12 12 t+1 +1 r+1 p+ v+ c+ n+ b+ ar Oc Ap De No Se Ja Fe M previous range
  51. 51. extending Agile/Lean to other departmentsthey asked for it :), but obviously they wantedjust to “copy” the practicesin marketing: iteration-based approach toprepare a product-launch (4 weeks)in sales: kanban board to visualize and optimizeflow of sales activitiesretrospectives rocked again
  52. 52. achievements ings you do, how m any th eate” “it ’s not value you cr t how much bubetter predictability for Small andMedium projects; reduced cycle timesvalue + cost of delay based selectionreduced overburdenengineers are more engaged and efficien cies ismotivated delays and in g fast” “rem oving han ju st goin impo rtant t more
  53. 53. differences with sw teamsno pursuing of technical excellenceengineers feeling and acting as individuals.they did not feel they were part of a team.they had their own independent goals and were focusedjust on themnote: standups and retrospectives helped a lot in providing ateam-forming glueno “works on my machine” syndrome
  54. 54. open challengespeople are inclined to rest on their laurels andto stop pursuing continuous improvementlead time (concept to cash) is still too longeconomy in Italy has worsened, the companyhas a new Managing Director, still not clearwhat’s going to happen
  55. 55. in closingAgile+Lean in non-software context yes!
  56. 56. on December 2011 I got another call “we need help”I am doing it again: currently working with a Power Transmission company “look ma, no software!” to be continued...
  57. 57. Gaetano Mazzanti @mgaewsj Agile42 Gama-Tech