productivity 3 - entwicklertag · el cygnax acceleration innovation delivery agility contact:...

CygnAX Acceleration ◊ Innovation ◊ Delivery ◊ Agility contact: email: [email protected], tel. +49-152-5408 9132© 2

014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Productivity 3.0 –Managing the Four Letter Words of

Business (Time, Cash, Risk) the Agile Way

Dr. Boris Oliver Kneisel

Andrena Objects Entwicklertag @ Frankfurt/Main 2014-Feb-19

2. März 2014 1


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Silent Open Assessment: SCRUM vs. MURCS ‚Highway-to-Hell‘ vs. ‚Path-to-Agility‘ – OPTIONS [risks]: DOING NOTHING [ensures erosion] – DOING WRONG [produces ‚fake Agile‘ / „ScrumBut,…“] – DOING RIGHT [no cook-book, just guided steps for EFFECTIVE change towards an envisioned target-state]

2. März 2014 2

Mgmt-by-Order‚Command & Control‘

Un-informed Teamunaware, info-hiding, game-play

Rivalry in Teams / X-teamscompetition instead of cooperation

Customized (Pseudo)-Scrum„Magic mirror on the wall, who runs the nicest SCRUM of all…“

Screwed-up

…takes a while, but a very safe bet…

Member-drivenself-organizing teams

Unifying visionleading by shaping a desirable

world that others want to belong to

Reliable flowsteady delivery of usable &

integrated product increments

CollaborativeReal-cooperation inside teams

& across team-boundaries

Structuredin high uncertainty context, structure (ceremonies/meetings) brings safety


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Managt man unterschiedliche Vorhaben eigentlich alle gleich (‚standardisiert‘)?

Welche Mgmt-Methode sollte wann/wo (Kontext) angewendet werden?

Wo liegen (Haupt-)Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Methoden & Techniken?

2. März 2014 3


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Projekt-Kontext bestimmt Methodik (auch Kombination) –Pragmatismus ohne Framework-Prinzipien zu verletzen (Don‘t customize your Scrum…)

2. März 2014 4

simple(plan-driven)

complicated(customer-demanded)

chaos

complex(experience-led)

complicated(technology-aligned)

Far-from-CertaintyClose-to-Certainty

Clo

se-t

o-A

gree

men

tFa

r-fr

om

-Agr

eem

ent

Mat

uri

ty o

f U

ser

Re

qu

ire

me

nts

Maturity-state of enabling Technology

DesignThkng

pure

water-fall

A g i l e

A g

i l

e


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Wenn agile Verfahren nach R. Stacey überwiegend in komplexer Umgebung (z.B. F&E) empfohlen werden…

Worin liegen Unterschiede zwischen ‚encapsulated Scrum‘ und ‚Scaled Agile‘?

2. März 2014 5


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

2. März 2014 6

Far from

CERTAIN

Close to

CERTAIN

Fa

r f

rom

AG

RE

ED

Clo

se

to

AG

RE

ED

Cu

st.

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Technology Maturity

Simple

Chaos

Complicated

Complicated

Complex

WATER-

FALL

Design

Thinking

Core

TeamSingle

Scrum

Team

SOURCE: B.O.Kneisel & A.Presse, Produktivität 3.0 – Agilität als Fortentwicklung tayloristischer Industrialisierung, interPM 2012.

Agiles Projekt, Programm, Produkt & Portfolio Mgmt:Agiles Skalieren – Bau & Betrieb komplexer Produkte (nicht nur SW!) –Ausbau ‚Scaling‘ (=Investment!) nur bei reduziertem Fehlschlag-Risiko


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Welche Facetten weisen KOMPLEXEVorhaben regelmässig auf?

2. März 2014 7


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

EXTERNAL FACETTES(foresight-challenge)

• Desirability (user-needs) • Derived target-groups &

addressable market-potential• Estim. market-demand• Racing-speed (rate of market-

doption (‚Meet vs. Miss‘ a window-of-opportunity)

INTERNAL FACETTES (complexity-challenge)

• Technology (feasible/mature)• Business-case (viable opportunity

vs. disastrous ‚white elephant‘)• Effort : opportunity-size:

(MVP vs. Cost-of-Quality)

Nachhaltiger Erfolg balanciert 3+3 Vorhaben-Facetten – temporäres Übergewichten ist allgegenwärtige Herausforderung an ProductOwner

2. März 2014 8

RISK(FAIL = SUNK COST)

VALUE(push top-line SALES)

TIME (=‚SPEED‘)(minimize TtM, CoD)

GRADE (QUALITY)(BUG = COST-driver)

CASH / COST(fix bottom-line EBIT)

SCOPE(Usage vs. Feat.Creep)

product-market-fit


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Was unterscheidet Productivity 3.0 von klass. Methoden bzgl. Sichtweise & Vorgehen?(die Themen an sich sind nicht neu, sondern seit langem Betrachtungs-Gegenstand im klassischen Projektmgmt)

2. März 2014 9


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Productivity 3.0: Definition

Definition:Simultanes Ausbalancieren mehrerer Facetten etablierter und standardisierter Management-Praxis mit agilen Verfahren unter

• Empowerment der F&E-Basis (‚ScrumTeam‘)

• verkürzten Kommunikationswegen,

• beschleunigter Entscheidungsfindung,

• verringertem Overhead-Aufwand

• Auflösung von Engpässen

2. März 2014 10


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Fokus für hier und heute – ‚TIME-COST-RISK‘Was bedeutet das?

2. März 2014 11

RISK(FAIL = SUNK COST)

VALUE(push top-line SALES)

TIME (=‚SPEED‘)(minimize TtM, CoD)

GRADE (QUALITY)(BUG = COST-driver)

CASH / COST(fix bottom-line EBIT)

SCOPE(Usage vs. Feat.Creep)

product-market-fit


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

TIME-COST-RISK: Old vs. Agile perspective, techniques & counter-measures

OLD SCHOOL-of-thought(and negative highway-to-hell side-effects)

• TIMEFix delivery DEAD-LINE straight (2nd-step after scope-freeze). Define mile-stones, EV-progress-reports, and toll-gates.Q: How do you check ‚real progress‘ and confirm on-time delivery? Mere reports checked in toll-gate meetings surefire lead to late surprises…

• COSTDerive ressources from frozen-scope + dead-lines. Factor-in BUFFER for scope-changes, set-up change-req. procedures. Q: How much buffer is accepted, until Sr.Mgmt gets nervous, calls it ‚PADDING‘ (removes it) – you owe to be ‚committed‘, aren‘t you? Will customers accept ‚scalping for changes‘?

• RISKHave independent risk-audits (e.g. controlling dept). Run regular risk-registry update (R&D-team buy-in ensured, since controlling dept collects quantitative data from R&D).Q: Ever thought of R&D-ressources wasted by funny XLS to be filled-in with ridiculous, random, figures serving ‚pseudo-quantification‘ and CYA-tactics of content-free overhead-roles? What impact to expect of mere no., they don‘t fix any risks in a ‚risk-matrix‘ (another XLS ), but represent a waste-of-over-engineering…

AGILE School-of-thought(and positive path-to-agility side-opportunities)

• TIMEDefine TIME-boxes, align TAKT-cadence. Align frequency to expected amount of change within quarterly horizon (keep takt fixed for 90days to help calm-down the system).H: By developing InCadence with continuous integration, the option to deliver OnDemand is opened-up.

• COSTEarly-stage R&D is dominated by HR-payroll (ongoing for pure SW; for HW/hybrids take costly decisions only after thorough analysis). HR-cost derival: people in teams are treated as ‚given‘ (with all skills & talents); teams have 100% assigned dedicated ressources (no multi-assignment in parallel) – now do the math.H: Typical R&D teams (10 FTE) run at ca.100kEUR/month; HR-cost are treated constant (short-term!). Scope-changes are welcome and extra-cost for change-reqs do not occur (Agile is much cheaper than classic in this respect).

• RISKEstablish transparency & exchange-platforms (sync, visualized artefact, review). In Agile-mode risks are ROAMed (= resolved, owned, accepted, mitigated) & spiked-out early (there is no room for over-processed overhead-driven risk-mgmt functions)H: Well-fitted an Agile approach delivers up to 95% RoI already in the project-kick-off month – this increases up to factor 4x (= 400% the productivity of non-agile work-mode), while standard approaches show only overall 90% write-off risk.

2. März 2014 12


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Manage TIME-CASH-RISK – take an Economic View

2. März 2014 13


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Welche Dimensionen addressiert man beim Skalieren agiler Verfahren?

2. März 2014 14


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Effektivität & Effizienz werden durch kombinierte Methoden gemeinsam & synchronisiert addressiert

2. März 2014 15

Ultimate (UX) –more than new UI

Aligned De-central Ctrl

NEE

DS

UN

KN

OW

NR

EQs

AG

REE

D

EFFE

CTI

VEN

ESS

=

stra

tegi

c d

ire

ctio

n –

colle

ctiv

e e

nvi

sio

nin

g

START

EFFICIENCY = operational excellence – proven ability to execute

HIGHLOW

Stai

rway

-to

-Use

rExp

erie

nce

: fo

cus

use

r-n

eed

s /

ho

listi

cally

ca

ptu

re r

eq

s(t

ry m

eth

od

s lik

e D

T, L

S, U

SM,

QFD

,TR

IZ)

SPRINT

GR

OO

M

SPRINT

GR

OO

M

SPRINT

GR

OO

M

SPRINT

GR

OO

M

SPRINT

GR

OO

M

SPRINT

GR

OO

MCanvas Modelling & UserStoryMaps(USM)

BackLo

g-Estimatio

n&

Release

-Plan

nin

g

Path-to-Agility & Lean:

transparency-inspection-adaptation (Scrum…)

GOAL

SPRINT


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Die vielen Abkürzungen mal aufgelöst, was macht man denn nun wirklich um Productivity 3.0-Potentiale zu heben beim Balanced Agile UX Verfahren?

2. März 2014 16


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

DesignThinking, Canvas-Modelle (Business Model C. / Product C.) & Lean StartUp erzeugen nicht nur ‚next-level‘ User-Erlebnis (UX), sie sind hervorragende Tools zum Frühphasen-Risiko-Mgmt.

2. März 2014 17


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Agiles Portfolio & Plattform Management:Entscheidungs-Kaskade – Treiber der Backlog-Priorisierung

2. März 2014 18

Hig

hL

ow

Low High

Est. value-add to

supplier (‘platform’)

Est.

va

lue

-ad

d t

o c

on

su

me

r

What SHALL be done?

Su

itab

leT

oo

big

Later Soon Now

Selected BackLogLater = Next Release (or even later)

Soon = Future sprints of current Rel.

Now = Next 1-2 sprints of current Rel.B

acklo

g-i

tem

‘re

ad

iness’ (s

ize)

What WILL be done?

Lo

wH

igh

High Low

Est. complexity-to-implement

Es

t. r

isk

-of-

failu

re

What CAN be done?

La

rge

Sm

all

Slow Fast

Est. time-to-market

of competitors

Es

t. m

ark

et

op

po

rtu

nit

y What MUST be done?

What

HAS BEEN

done.

SOURCE: B.O.Kneisel & L.Karg, Paradigma »Agilität« – Lean-Arbeitsmodelle für industrialisierte, projektbasierte Wertschöpfung, interPM 2010.


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Agile UX FLOW-framework (still to be christianized…)

2. März 2014 19

Deliverable Artifacts (iterate inside this box):

START (‚Get & Set‘):• Get DT-CoreTeam, get TeamSpace, set DT-Challenge, set Project-Charter (format e.g. GamePlan)

UNDERSTAND:• Condense desktop-research findings (PESTLE+P5F). Create 1st-draft BusinessModel-Canvas upfront to customer visits. Draft SWOT after customer visit.

DEFINE-PoV:• Visualize observations, derive findings (KJ-diagram + Holtzblatt-

scheme). Draw multi-PoV=User+Need+Insight.

Deliverable Artifacts (iterate inside this box):

IDEATE:• Apply creativity-techn. (PoV-focussed)

CREATE:• Idea-darwinizing (select vital few off trivial many), 2nd-

draft BizModel-Canvas (TOWS-based)

PROTOTYPE:• 5-7-stage prototyping: D-space-explore / critical function visionary dark-horse funkyfunctional XisFinished final demo

TEST:• Iterative flow of FORMATIVE usability-tests; flow

of continuous adaption to user-needs over time

Deliverable Artifacts:

PLAN:• Co-create USM with sizedEPICS & USER-STORIES (ca. 90%-coverage, leave 10% open for changing market-dynamics)

• Agree 3 tidelines (best/real/MVP-case on paper-based USM; no XLS); map USM onto cross-resource NET-CAPA-SUM of Teams = feasibility-check)

• Loop8 = F2F-Rel-Plng

Deliverable Artifacts:

BUILD:• Deliver a usable product-piece each

sprint to combine into a potentially shippable increment (‚PSI‘) after 8 weeks.

• 2 HIP-sprints provide buffer for final feature round-off (bug-fixing = exception-mode, only!); HIP is to achieve market-readiness.

• ScrumTeam enables e.g. field roles in HIP-sprints and pre-pares for the next Release-wave.

Handover to XXL Agile UX Scaling(SAFe, LeSS etc.)

Permanent ‚360°-radar-scan‘: UNDERSTAND CONTEXT (5% ≈ 2h/wk)

DT-loop-1

START:CoreTeamBuilding

(2,5d)

DT-loop-2

DEFINE: UserNeedDistilling

(2,5d)

DT-loop-3

FOCUS:Define

PointOfView

(2,5d)

DT-loop-4

IDEATE:Creation &Selection

(2,5d)

Ongoing ‚deep-sonar-scan‘: (10% ≈ 4h/wk ≈ 2d/8wks, i.e. 1-2 visits per TeamMember per qrtr) early-stage: OBSERVE / late-stage: USABILITY-TEST-mode

DT-loop-5

DARWINIZE:

Idea-shape & Refining

(2,5d)

DT-loop-6

REVIEW:Prio Reqs &

integrate prototypes

(2,5d)

DT-loop-7

SHAPE BL:USM, sizing,E2E-pivots, define MVP

(2,5d)

DT-loop-8

PLAN-REL:2d-WrkShp sync 50-125

Developers

(2,5d)

BUILD + DELIVER

Rel. (N-1)8 weeks

START (2,5d)

DEFINE (2,5d)

IDEATE& CREATE

PROTOTYPE & CRAFT

(productive-capa: 30+10d ≈67%)

BUILDDEV-sprints

(6x1wk sprint)

DELIVERHIP-sprints

(2x1wk)

Re

l. (

N+1

)

Rel.N: DT-loops initiate Quarterly-Release (DT gross-duration 4 wks ≈ 33% capa)

Re-Cap+PRIO

(2,5d)PLAN Release

(2,5d)

(block 10d = 2 wk)

Problem-space exploration, User-need finding, Focus definition

Solution-Prototyping & Back-Log Structuring

Continuous Time-stream


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

APPENDIX – bekannte Agile Scaling frameworks, die mit Productivity 3.0 kombinierbar sind (offene Positiv-Liste)

2. März 2014 20


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Scaled Agile Framework ‚SAFe‘ (D.Leffingwell)

2. März 2014 21


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Large Scale Scrum ‚LeSS‘ (C.Larman)

2. März 2014 22


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Agility Path (K.Schwaber)

2. März 2014 23


014

Dr.

B.O

.Kn

eise

l

Kontakt für Services zu Consulting, Training, Mentoring & Coaching

2. März 2014 24

Thanks for listening…

Dr. rer. nat. Boris Oliver Kneisel, MBAUsability (UX/IX) & Requirements Engineer

CPRE/CPUX, CSP (CSM/CSPO), PMP®/PRINCE2®-P

Consulting – Training – Mentoring – Coachingprofile, skills & interests: www.Boris-Kneisel.de

contacts: [email protected] / +49-(0)152-5408 9132

http://www.boris-kneisel.de/

mailto:[email protected]

productivity 3 - entwicklertag · el cygnax acceleration innovation delivery agility contact:...

Documents