agile governance

Agile Governance

Charlie RuddSollutionsIQ

Copyright © 2011 SolutionsIQ. All rights reserved.

Speaker Introduction: Charlie Rudd

CEO of SolutionsIQ, an Agile company that provides Agile services including consulting, training, software development and recruiting throughout the world


Agile governance: what could this mean?

1. Governance is evil and is Agile is good2. Governance is a necessary evil 3. Agile provides a lighter-weight means to

achieve corporate governance aims4. Agile is a superior governance framework


What is this governance thing?

• Internal – Clarity of corporate purpose – Viable strategy & plan – Necessary resources & environment

• External – Government & industry regulation – Legality – Shareholder expectations – Public relations

• Risk management

Corporate Stewardship


Intended outcomes of governance

• Proper investment decisions are made• Investments perform as expected • Work is authorized • Demonstrable progress is made • Quality objectives are achieved

Do the right work Do the work right

Investment decision

Investment performance

Work competency

Quality standards

Risk management


Successful portfolio management


How is governance applied?

• Articulate Intentions – Policies & practices

• Verification (or enforcement) – External reporting– Oversight (Approvals & supervision) – Documentation (proof) – Audit (inspection)


Which part is evil (maybe)?

• Corporate stewardship?• Successful portfolio management? • That leaves how its applied

– Policies and practices – Verification procedures – A mismatch between the two

Board

Fina

nce

Lega

l

Fina

nce

IT

HR

Business unit 1


Corporate

Business unit 2

Business unit 3

Governance by function

Government & industry regulation

Board

Fina

nce

Lega

l

Fina

nce

IT

HR

Business unit 1


Corporate

Business unit 2

Business unit 3

Governance stakeholders

shareholders

regulators


IT

Technology infrastructure

Production operations

Business solutions

Quality Assurance

Development practices

Project management

IT or Local Governance

• Shareholders

• Regulators

• Corporate functions

• Business units

• IT functions Copyright © 2011 SolutionsIQ. All rights reserved.

Lots of diverse stakeholders


Governance success criteria

1. The diverse interests of many stakeholders must be satisfied

appl

icat

oin

Intended Outcome

+ No worriesIntegrated governance

+-

-

ChaoticNo governance

Wrong governance

Hidden governance


Governance fit



1. If the diverse interests of many stakeholders are to be satisfied they must…



1. If the diverse interests of many stakeholders are to be satisfied they must...

Be aligned (somehow)


Mis-alignment breeds conflict

• Frustration• Anger • Fear • Discontentment • Anxiety


Alignment produces harmony

• Satisfaction• Confidence• Contentment• Happiness

appl

icat

oin

Intended Outcome

+ High alignment

+-

-

No alignment

Misalignment

Misalignment


Good governance requires high alignment


Forces working against alignment



Functional diversity• Different objectives• Different backgrounds



Operational diversity• Different priorities • Different time horizons



Globalization • Different time zones • Spatial separation • Different languages



Complicated mechanisms • Overloaded controls• Governance “debt” • Lots of moving parts


IT



Business solutions

Quality Assurance


Project managementBusiness units

Quality gates

Corp functions

When good governance goes bad



Corporate culture clashes • Different management principles • Different values and assumptions• Different views on people


Different management cultures

If you believe there is zero sum tradeoff between scope, schedule & resources it may seem counter-intuitive that:

By reducing resources you sometimes can speed things up and improve quality

Schedule Resources

Scope



Dynamic business conditions• Rate of technology change • Increasing uncertainty • Competitive pressures


Root causes of misalignment

Forces Functional diversity Operational diversity Globalization ComplicatednessCorporate culture clash

Lack of shared

objectives

Communication Barriers


Increasing rate of alignment decay

Forces Functional diversity Operational diversity Globalization ComplicatednessCorporate culture clash

Lack of shared

objectives


Dynamics business conditions


Getting aligned

• Establish shared objectives

• Break down communication barriers

How do you do that?

Lack of shared

objectives



Where you wont find the answer

• Governance controls– Designed as fixed constraints – not to auto-align

• Technology• Institutional governance

– Operate in different jurisdictions – First mission often enforcement


• Part of the solution for sure, but also part of the problem

• The trick is knowing how to tell one from the other & get stakeholders to agree!

Architecture & Standards

PMO

IT governance authorities


IT Governance frameworks

• Institutional – PMO – Architecture & standards

• Technology • Industry

– CMMI– PMI – Gartner


IT Maturity models (my apologies to Gartner)

Our focus is business solutions

Maturity theme: “Business alignment”

IT



Business solutions

Quality Assurance


Project management

Purpose Function Role Solution Maturity

Cost center Order taker

Contractor

Point Solutions LOW

Profit center Solution architect

Partner Colleague

Commercial Product,

Integrated architecture

HI


Low & high IT maturity (apologies to Gartner)


Forces moving IT to solution partner role

Public internet platform• Consumer experience sets standard for

business apps• Mash-ups with 3rd party commercial

products raises expectations • Easy to compare competitive offering (low

barriers to exit)• More high profile IT solutions • Release cycle time needs to be fast



Contractor

Point Solutions LOW


Partner Colleague

Commercial Product,


HI


Different IT roles suggest different governance styles

3 - Production

Facts

Facts

2 – Centralized planning

1 - Centralized evaluation

Best Solution

Do it right the first time

Optimize AlgorithmicExternal constraints

Traditional business principles

3 – Follow orders

Facts

Facts


1 - Business case

decision

Project charter

Big bang release

Detailed spec & plan

Traditional governance

Optimize AlgorithmicExternal constraints

3 – Follow orders

Facts


1 - Business case

decision

Project charter

Big bang release



X

1. Identify a potential opportunity2. Gather facts, make assumptions, run scenarios 3. Stop before business case is proved4. What’s riskier? Doing nothing or something?

II I

I

?

?? ?Business case shaky because instability of key variables

When good governance goes bad

.5 years 2 years1.5 years1 year

$1.5 m$1.5 m$6 m $1.5 m $1.5 m

Shaky business case leads to:• Incomplete, flawed specification• Flawed implementation plan

I I

I

?

?? ?

?

Questionable governance controls

1. Spec and plan insufficient as compliance controls2. No good way to modify spec or plan or respond to

emerging conditions3. No easy way to revise contracts and agreements

Yet all the money is spent $0.0 m

2 years.5 year 1.5 years1 year

$1.5 m$1.5 m $1.5 m $1.5 m

2 years.5 year 1.5 years1 year

Traditional governance makes things worse

1. Out of time and out of money

2. Key features missing

3. Delivered features not desired (waste built in)

4. Desired technical quality not delivered

Why Agilists find governance is evil



Contractor

Point Solutions LOW


Partner Colleague

Commercial Product,


?


If not the traditional, then what?


IT Governance frameworks

• Institutional • Technology • Industry• Agile frameworks


Why Agile governance frameworks may be superior

• They have built-in alignment features– Establish shared objectives – Break down communication barriers

• They auto re-align

• Iterative progress

• Feedback-driven adaption

• Share information

• Empower knowledge workers

• Self-organization & collaboration

• Deliver early and frequently

Built-in alignment features

3 – Follow orders

Facts


1 - Business case

decision

Project charter

Big bang release



X

X X

XX

Production

planning

Evaluation

Agile governance principles

Production

planning

Evaluation

Innovative HeuristicInternal constraints

Agile governance principles

Production increment

Solution prototype

(vision)

Early & frequent delivery

Iterative progress

feedback



Contractor

Point Solutions LOW


Partner Colleague

Commercial Product,


HI


Agile governance style good fit for the partner role

Maturity Objective Strategy Impact onGovernance

1 Grass roots Sponsorship Do no harm

none

2 Co-existence Legitimacy Show value

New procedure

3 Strategic Full partner Skin in the game

Newgoals


Agile scope of influence

Maturity

influ

ence

Alignment


Agile governance maturity


Strategy to gain influence

• Treat stakeholders like customers – Break down communication barriers: Invite, share success, take initiative to determine needs and requirements

• Convert to partners – Establish shared objective (customer)

• Repeat

Corporate

Business unit

IT

Team


Strategy to gain influence


Grass roots: Governance is a necessary evil

• Objective: Formal sponsorship • Requirements

– Ability to work fulltime on a project – Agile knowledge – Ability to assign work as a team (self-organize)– Ability to comply with governance policies– Build control

• Span of shared objective – The development team


Grass roots: Governance is a necessary evil

• What you can accomplish– Develop agile skills– Start to Improve technical quality – Begin building a case for broader use

• What you cant accomplish– Change or replace governance policy – Exploit agile dynamic scope management

• What the org expects– you don’t exist


Grassroots: governance is a necessary evil

• Breaking down communication barriers– Make progress visible– Do demos (even without a stakeholder),

invite people – Reach out to PMO, architects, key analysts– Confer with project managers – Don’t over-reach

• Do simulations


Grassroots: governance is a necessary evil

The simulated Product Owner


Co-existence: Agile provides a lighter weight governance alternative • Objective:

– Full legitimacy – Agile established as a recognized alternative to meet

governance objectives

• Requirements– Formal sponsorship – History of success in terms of delivery & meeting

governance requirements – Support from multiple stakeholders

• Span of influence – Development organization


• What you can do – Introduce alternative governance verification

mechanisms – Establish systemic quality and delivery improvement – Sustain persistent teams

• What you cant do – Apply agile portfolio management– Change governance policies

• What the org expects– That there is an agile alternative equivalent to

traditional practice

Co-existence: Agile provides a lighter weight governance alternative


• Breaking down communication barriers– Quantify success and improvement – Establish common objectives with IT

stakeholders (Architecture, QA, PMO) – Establish common objectives with business

stakeholders – Turn remote stakeholders into new

customers



The value stream analysis

The proof of code analytics



Strategic: Agile is a superior governance framework • Objective:

– New governance objectives – Broad collaboration with business including strategy

and solution development – Highlighted at a Gartner conference

• Requirements– Solid trust basis with key business sponsors as

outcome of successful collaboration – Full engagement of business in Agile methods – IT org wide adoption of agile


• Span of influence – Business unit via active collaborative partnership

• What you can do – Become profit center – Develop strategy – Change IT governance policies – Influence corporate governance policies

• What the org expects– That IT and rest of business are collaborating

partners

Strategic: Agile is a superior governance framework


Strategic: Agile is a superior governance framework

The collaborating auditor

Courtesy of Dan Greening [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

• Exploit PM knowledge to break the code of hidden governance• Worry about side effects• Promise what’s already in the bag• Set the right expectations for yourself and your stakeholders• Begin what will be a long conversation • Begin building a case (gather evidence, line up supporters) • Identify & court allies (business, PMO, architects)• Extend invitations (sprint reviews) (don't force what you don’t have

the authority to enforce) • Choose total victory on small, low risk “wins” rather than partial or

doubtful victory on high stakes gambles • Simulate new roles (proxy product owner, internal scrum master)


DOs

• Don’t beat up customer with Agile values• Don’t assume that a governance policy that is no use to you is of no use

to anyone• Don’t invite failure by committing beyond your span of control • don’t change governance strategy unilaterally• Don’t provide more information than is asked for (do encourage the

request for more information) • Don’t upset the applecart • Don’t create more work for governance authority• Don’t talk about improving until you can demonstrate compliance with

status quo• Don’t assume that executive sponsorship eliminates governance

conflicts



Don’ts

[email protected]



Questions

mailto:[email protected]

agile governance

Technology

alignment copyright

good governance

governance thing

corporate governance

functions copyright

governance success criteria1

alignment corporate

assumptions different