From the Blogosphere
Struggling to Scale Agile? | @DevOpsSummit #DevOps #Agile #DigitalTransformation
Ensuring better adoption and sustenance
May. 24, 2016 09:15 AM
From slow and rigid to fast and flexible. That was the promise of Agile to IT. What it meant was that ideas coming from business would be converted into working software rapidly. It meant that IT will be more responsive to what business wants and needs and will not spend an eternity analysing the requirements, writing detailed specifications and then sending them back to business to review. Some of that has happened. Product backlogs are more informal and easier to maintain and update than formal specifications. IT pushes business to prioritize and tries to break the requirements down so that they are both manageable and valuable and can be delivered in short sprints of 2~3 weeks. So far so good. However, what happens after that is a bit complicated.
In the recent past, as I observe agile projects in organization after organization, sometimes as a consultant, sometimes as a Scrum Master and sometimes just as an invisible fly on the wall, I notice organizations struggling to scale. There is a high degree of awareness and obsession with the mechanics of agile but without an equivalent grounding on the fundamentals. Yes, there is SAFE, LeSS, etc., but frameworks are good when you know how to apply them in your context. Otherwise, you get drowned under new rules and terminology. Here is a summary of my recommendations for organizations trying to scale Agile:
Agile discourages grand upfront design. Recommendation is to do a design which is sufficient for the prioritized user stories and then iteratively improve it so that it is able to accommodate newer stories. The overall architecture thus evolves and emerges. This approach is fine when you have a single scrum team working on a set of stories. The moment more scrum teams come into the picture, the concept of emergent design becomes a bit fuzzy. Two or more scrum teams working on a set of user stories without a bare minimum architectural skeleton as a reference will pose huge integration and collaboration challenges. In these scenarios, it is wise to invest some upfront effort in creating an architectural framework which all the teams agree to and will collectively evolve as the software grows. I see this explicit guideline / practice missing in many instances.
2. Work Allocation
One of the basic premise of agile was to break functional silos and align people to what the customer wants. By advocating the practice of having cross functional scrum teams, agile has solved this problem. But in many organizations I've seen functional silos giving way to scope silos - individual scrum teams too focussed only on their features or themes or scope of work at the cost of the overall system. Scrum masters need to be wary of this. This goes back to how work is allocated or pulled by individual scrum teams. If scrum teams pull items from the product backlog strictly by features assigned to them, risks of scope silos are higher. There are no easy answers. There is a dependency on the overall architecture of the product (if there is one and in a multi scrum team scenario there should be atleast a skeletal version) and the extent to which there are dependencies and modularity. In my view, to the extent possible, teams should have the freedom to pull items from the entire product backlog and not restricted to selected features or themes / epics.
The Product Owner owns the system and is responsible that the right product is built. In my view, he/she owns the behaviour of the system and controls its destiny. But who owns the architecture, design and other internals of the system? You can alter the internals and yet get the same behaviour - who controls what can be changed and what cannot be?. In a multi scrum team structure it is very important to fix that ownership clearly. Related to the issue of work allocation explained above, there has to be a team who is responsible for the overall system internals and not just a set of themes or features. Projects in real life have a finite end date and products have a future state, post which only incremental changes are made to it. This means development effort over the life of the product will peak and then plateau. Extra capacity has to be released for other productive work and hence fixing system ownership early on is very important.
4. Communication and Noise
Agile gives importance to individuals and the interactions between them. Popular literature recommends an optimal team size of 7 and so does Scrum. At the same time multi scrum teams are a reality because they can provide higher throughput. To be effective a team should be shielded from external interference and be allowed to focus on the job at hand. I've seen instances where 2 scrum teams have so many dependencies between them, they are constantly talking to each other. In a way, they are then actually not separate teams. The benefit of higher throughput should be weighed against the cost of higher interference and communication overhead between multiple teams. In my view, while interactions within the team should be encouraged, that between the teams should be controlled lest it leads to chaos.
5. Nurturing Excellence
Today, the word 'waterfall' has almost taken on evil connotations. We're so paranoid about the term 'functional silos' that we assume than any 'functional' team is necessarily a 'silo'. That is far from true. Technical excellence is necessary to live upto the promise of Agile. How do you nurture that? Smart developers learn from smart developers and challenge each other to reach higher levels of expertise. Same is true for architects, testers and other members of a product team. Organizations should provide forums or structures where professionals practising the same craft can learn and interact with each other. It is perfectly normal for a developer to have strong affiliations towards his / her scrum team as well as the developer community inside or outside organizations. Organizations should provide the opportunity to maintain and nourish these multiple identities. They strengthen our collaborative capabilities in a cross functional forum, not diminish them.
This is one of the basic best practices which is not adhered to very consistently. In a multi scrum team scenario continuous (preferably automated and daily) integration needs to happen not just within but between scrum teams. Many organizations have this concept of an integration sprint at the end of 2~3 sprints which is basically a recipe for disaster and very watefallish in approach as it is delaying the discovery of the inevitable bugs and thereby the cost of resolving them. It is better that everybody stops working and resolve any integration problem when it happens rather than keeping them in a backlog and allowing technical debt to accumulate. I agree that in some context there would be technical limitations to integration but let those not be by design. Multiple teams feeding from a single gold version and collectively merging their versions might seem messy but if done regularly and with discipline, makes integration a non-event.