Take a chance on a different approach in agile.
The world of technology feels like a shaken ant farm. It is an exceptionally profitable industry, with Apple and Microsoft making up over 14% of the Standard and Poor 500 index. At the same time, these industries are experiencing layoffs at a level not seen since the dot-com bubble of the early twenty-first century. I am just as disorientated and confused as the next technology worker. Amidst this uncertainty, a technology worker can only improve their craft. A colleague, Alan Dayley, pointed out that work not completed in a sprint is not the product of insufficient time and not enough attention paid to the work. Today, we are going to talk about it on the blog.
Alan and I go back a long way. We met online on the defunct social network Google+ and maintained contact over the years. During the week, he pointed out on LinkedIn that, as agile professionals, we are often too dogmatic in interpreting the scrum guide and many agile principles. The most central to agility is the notion of a time box. A time box is a fixed period between two weeks and six deadlines to accomplish work. The time box then folds into a release; if everything goes well, it goes into production. Anyone who has ever worked in technology understands that nothing goes according to plan.
Incomplete work is called a 'rollover' because the work rolls over from one sprint to the next. It happens with such regularity that experienced scrum masters, and product owners take it for granted. I have blogged about the topic myself. Developers often complain that a time box is too arbitrary a period to do work. They could get the work done if they had a little more time. Incomplete work becomes a problem for the development team and larger organization. Do they extend the time box and finish the work, thus making deadlines meaningless, or is the work still ongoing?
Daily proposes a unique solution instead of lengthening the sprint or rolling over work. He proposes putting giving them less time to do the work. What I initially thought was madness, after further reflection, felt like a unique solution to a particular problem.
Why would you do this? Two reasons come to mind. First, work gets missed on the team because more people should focus on solving the problem or work. Shortening the sprint and limiting the work provide the necessary focus and incentive for the team to work together. The second reason is that work often lingers because of a dependency or constraint on the team. They are taking this action to attract the attention of executives who want to understand the fuss and attempt to solve the problem.
The time box in Agile is a tool to focus the team, not an immutable boundary; instead, it squashes and stretches depending on the situation. So that you know, I'm paying particular attention to the context and nuances of a problem. In less mature environments, adjusting time boxes and deadlines will not work. Also, messing with deadlines and changing work configurations will upset the routine of teams and executives, so you do not want to make it a regular habit.
Like most things in Agile, how you fix a problem depends on the situation's unique factors. The textbook answer might work in one situation and be ineffective in another. Human beings are messy and behave differently depending on the circumstances. So, if basic approaches to a problem need to be fixed, try something different and see what happens. It is the most agile approach.
Until next time.
Jake Lerch
Comments ()