The organisation that I am part of introduced an overlaying Product Management department only fairly recently, less than a year ago. Early in the time it was exciting to see this role dedicated to market and customer perspective, but it raised questions over how this was different from Product Ownership from day one.
Over the course of the past year many discussions have been led and lot’s of articles have been led. This week Anthony Murphy shared his perspective and experiences on the Product Coalition. While my own experiences with this separated role have been predominantly positive, I tend to see the necessity to split responsibilities for larger organisations. The article is reflecting on why the Agile movement created the Product Owner in the way it did and how it was meant to abolish the Product Manager to start with.
Das Pentagon hat sich vom Defense Innovation Boards ein Papier erarbeiten lassen, wie Agile BS zu erkennen ist. Die ein oder andere Frage wird dem geneigten Leser aus der Softwarebranche sicher bekannt vorkommen.
Mein Team führt schon seit geraumer Zeit eine Diskussion darüber, wie man den Prozess verbessern kann. Und das ist auch gut, denn ständige Verbesserung ist ein zentraler Bestandteil jeden agilen Handelns.
Allerdings liegt die Antwort auf die Frage nie in Werkzeugen und deren Möglichkeiten. Um das Problem zu lösen muss dessen Ursache verstanden werden. Jira bietet sicher viele Möglichkeiten, noch ein Feld einzuführen. Wenn die Diskussion sich darum dreht, welches Feld am besten ergänzt wird und wie ein Zustandsübergang abzubilden ist, ist das agile vollkommen aus den Augen verloren.
Eine unmittelbare Konsequenz von Werkzeugen ist, dass sie es Teammitgliedern erlaubt, Verantwortung abzugeben. Der Zustand wird möglicherweise richtig abgebildet, das Feld richtig gefüllt. Nun ist es an jemand anderem das technische Problem zu identifizieren, die Person weiss möglicherweise nicht einmal über den Zustand Bescheid.
Agil soll heissen, das Vertrauen aller Mitglieder im Team soweit herzustellen, dass notwendige Arbeit in Standup Meetings oder spätestens im Review transparent gemacht wird. Dabei kann kein Tool helfen.
Yesterday, a software engineer, also new to the organization, roughly told me the following. The way the organisation plans projects is so different to what he is used to as a software engineer. Planning projects with a horizon of 12 or even 24 months is something he says he just cannot wrap his head around.
While this is very common and necessary in the hardware industry, it is indeed something terribly alienating software people. Software is typically treated as a living product, that takes tiny changes at a time, it is more governed towards a direction to take than having the one exact goal it has to hit by a specific date.
These very fundamental goals both mindsets follow make it difficult for change to happen. While the software engineer above obviously has a point to make, he cannot reach the people he needs to reach, because both sides are just too far apart.
At the same time, I don’t yet have an answer to the problem, but the problem itself became so obvious when this colleague told me he just doesn’t know what to say. The digital world does not yet have a common language, not to mention a common way to think about approaching problems, and unless this hurdle is taken, change will only happen slowly.
Linux, the open source operating system that virtually powers all of webservers, billions of Android phones as it’s kernel just as well as the majority of home routers and IoT devices, turns 25 years this year. IEEE Spectrum runs an article on the history and why the open kernel became so successful.
Timing, cost, and the right license made all the difference.
Also, Linus Torvalds has an approach that would be called agile these days. Bringing a feature in place is more important than having the 100% solution, and Linus explains this approach in the accompanying Q&A session:
I’d rather make a decision that turns out to be wrong later than waffle about possible alternatives for too long.
One question that somebody asked me a few days back keeps me thinking for a while now. Mostly, because it should not have a clear answer. Have you ever had to ask yourself, what to do when your heart-project is at risk to come to an end? A project that just dies, has had some serious problems. A dead-end, that leaves no next steps, along a final decision. In a way that no project goal materialized and no other milestone is reachable? If that is looming to happen, one should consider to check the project plan and answer a couple of questions about the failure. How did all the tasks and work packages depend on each other, that they made an entire project fail? Were some assumptions to optimistic? Was budget too tight? Was the project to ambitious?
The show must go on
Depending on size, no project is barely ever dead. Typically, a project consists of multiple components. Milestones, Tasks, Work-Packages, are just common terms for break downs structures of a project. Such fragments, re-used or re-arranged, can help achieving a modified goal. There are reasons, one or another milestone had difficulties. There are hard facts, like budgets, technical dependencies or necessities, required skills, availability of material or combinations of anything. And there are soft facts, like project team engagement, stakeholder opinion, even hubris may result in milestones not being reached.
A roadblock, identified early enough, allows to realign a project plan, to cope with any trouble, endangering tasks and milestones. In an iterative project approach, the project lead can change a goal, aligning with changing requirements. This way, the project may not reach it’s initially intended goal, but it will not fail in its totality. When a project dies, it will leave bad feelings with the budget owner, with stakeholder and the team. A goal that the team reached, maybe through a more creative approach, will still be a goal reached.