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.

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. CSM
ACP
Bernadette
Dario

3. IT Group
SERVICE LINES
PROJECTS
220+
people
Project A
Project B
Project C
Agile/Kanban/Lean Coaches
Other Support Groups

4. Project C
PROJECT “CONNECT”

5. Challenges

6. Change Canvas
http://canvanizer.com/canvas/yrT8bQ39xW4

7. K for Kanban
RISKS, ISSUES, BLOCKERS

8. --- May 2012
--- July 2012
--- Sept 2012
--- Nov 2012
--- Dec 2012

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. Power-Up for Kaizen!
• Develop team’s capability to problem-solve

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. Power-Up for Kaizen!
• Improvement as a work type

13. Power-Up for Kaizen!
• Recognize people who initiate improvements

14. Power-Up for Kaizen!
• Push ownership of the processes to the
team

15. Power-Up for Kaizen!
• Do not settle for workarounds. Dig deep
when necessary.

16. Results
•
•
•
•
Improvement in delivery
Better collaboration within the team
Enhanced relationship with Business
Team members who care about improving

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. 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. Challenges of Kanban
• Keeping electronic board synchronized with the
physical board
• Collecting metrics manually
• Keeping to WIP limits

20. K for Kata
KATA = “form”
Routine that is practiced so it becomes
second nature

21. K for Kata
Routines that enable continuous
improvement

22. Roles
Go!
2
3
1
COACH
2nd COACH
LEARNER
MANAGER
LEAN COACH
PROJECT TEAM

23. Improvement Kata

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?

26. Deliver the best
product possible;
Zero defects that
interfere with/disrupt
business operations

27. Improvement Focus: Quality

29. Deliver the best
product possible;
Zero defects that
interfere
with/disrupt
business
operations
Escaped Defect
Density – .50
Requirements %
Dist – 63%

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%

31. Probing

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%
Incomplete test cases
Requirements not clear
to Testers
Testers not part of
collaboration sessions

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%

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 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.

35. 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

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%
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.

37. Defect Density = .61

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%
MMF 4,5,9 Escaped
defect density – .61
Requirements %Dist –
50%

39. 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

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%
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.

41. Defect Density = .1

42. 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

43. 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!

45. Challenges of Kata
• Need more opportunities to practice the
desired behavior
• Inconsistent participation of managers as
Coaches
• Long PDCA cycles

46. IT Group
SERVICE LINES
PROJECTS
220+
people
Project A
Project B
Project C
Agile/Kanban/Lean Coaches
Other Support Groups

47. SERVICE LINE “WELLNESS”

48. Features
SLM
Service
Requests
Incidents
Prioritized
queue for
Service Line
(mixed work types)

49. K for Kanban

50. Classes of Service

51. --- July 2012
--- Aug 2012
--- Sept 2012
--- Dec 2012
--- March 2013

52. Results
• Improvement in customer satisfaction

53. 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

54. 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%

55. 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%

56. Results
• Improvement in customer satisfaction
• Fully engaged Business stakeholders

57. 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

58. Additional Challenges of Kanban
• Unstable team
• Getting Business to correctly classify work
according to cost of delay

59. Improvement Focus: Lead time

60. Improvement Focus: Quality (3rd party)

61. High performing team
capable of delivering
QUALITY and VALUE
to Business

62. 3rd party Feature Lead
time Avg = 76 days
3rd party generated
high/serious escaped
defects > 0

63. Reduce Feature lead
time by 10%
3rd party generated
high/serious escaped
defects = 0

64. Requirements not clear
to testers
3rd party engagement
model not followed
People not 100%
allocated

66. 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

67. Business has agreed
to model
Business now going
through team

69. 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

70. Business was receptive
to BDDs during training

71. Improvement Focus: Lead time

73. Lead time = 39 days
3rd party generated
high/serious defects = 0

74. Gaining an
understanding of
req before passing
it on to 3rd party is
essential

75. BDDs helped in gaining
common understanding
of requirements

76. 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.