A KANBAN/SCRUM MASHUP TO DELIVER FP PROJECTS

Sudipta Lahiri06-06-15

Sudipta Lahiri (Sudi)slahiri@digite.com, lahiri.sudipta@gmail.com

• Senior Vice President, Digité

• Agile/Lean practitioner (75%)

• Lean Transformation of our own team

• Developed SwiftKanban (www.swiftkanban.com), SwiftALM (www.digite.com)

• Licensed user base of over 300,000

• Agile Coach (25%)

• Train and coach teams/organizations in Lean/Agile

• Run the LimitedWIP Societies in India

My Background

06-06-15

Fixed Price projects – almost always associated with Fixed Scope and Fixed Timeline projects

FP Projects

06-06-15

Understanding the problem... Large number of companies execute FP projects

in India Strong perception that Agile is not suitable for

this.

Traditional software

development

Scope

Time Cost(resources)

Scope

TimeCost

(resources)

Agile software development

(Target business goals & outcomes)

06-06-15

Understanding the problem... Part II Large number of teams DO NOT have

stable teams A sample of my current project...

Sep/

14

Oct/1

4

Nov/1

4

Dec/1

4

Jan/

15

Feb/

15

Mar/1

5

Apr/1

5

May/1

5

Jun/

15

Jul/1

5

Aug/1

5

Sep/

15

Oct/1

5

Nov/1

5

Dec/1

5

Jan/

160

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Team Size Velocity/throughput

based projections are based on stable teams

A simple extrapolation is grossly inaccurate!

06-06-15

Understanding the problem... Part III

06-06-15

Fixed Price projects need strong budget control Need to keep an eye on your budget

closely... Scope creep needs to be controlled

Anti-pattern to Agile thinking They often have “large” teams

A few days of “unnoticed” delay causes a loss of multiple person months

Yet, teams want to adopt Agile/Lean: Selectively... Slowly... Steadily

Lean thinking

• Value• Value

Stream• Flow• Pull• Continuous

Improvement

• Respect for people

Kanban Thinking

• Lean principles

• Visualize Value Stream

• Limit WIP• Make

process policies explicit

SCRUM thinking

• Cadences• Artefacts• Ceremonies

• Standups• Retrospecti

ves• Roles

06-06-15

What we will talk about today? Different ways to handle these problem statements

These are executed/WIP projects

Bottomline, don’t jump to the conclusion: “Agile/Lean is not for you” Understand the thinking behind and see how you can

apply! There is rarely anything that Agile/Lean cannot be

applied to, if you focus on applying the “thinking”

06-06-15

Size: 150+ man years, with 60-70 team sizeEnterprise Implementation7 parallel tracks

4 functional; 1 Integration; 1 migration; 1 Customization; 1 Test Automation

3 distributed locations

Executing the mashup...

06-06-15

Project Initiation: Kickoff Meeting

06-06-15

The standard stuff... with a “twist” Mandatory demos in the value stream: pre-

FT Welcome feedback and change! Requirements: a starting point + a basis for

Acceptance Criteria Take its commercial impact in Change Control

track Define an initial approach; keep changing

with retrospectives

Project Planning: The approach

Our DNA is Lean thinking We needed to commit to a

timeline... In a Fixed Scope project,

customer demands a schedule

Schedule must meet business/contractual commitments

Further, we needed something for close tracking of milestones/deadlines

Our solution: The Kanban Method + Iteration Planning + Burndown Charts

Why not SCRUMBAN? “Scope” Boards vs

“Task” Boards Change Management

Issues Customer is applying

Agile/Lean for the first time

HR and structural issues

No existing throughput data Half the team is from

the customer

06-06-15

Project Planning: Building the baseline

06-06-15

Inputs:• Requirement

Documents• Resource

Availability• Timeline

commitments from business

Tasks:• CSF: Scope decomposition as

per INVEST => EPICS (Functional Units)

• Product Fit Analysis:• CSF: Identify Customizations

• Quick “Gut Feel” Estimation• Allocation and Prioritization of

Epics into Sprints, taking Customization timelines into account

• Subsequent Sprints get 10% less allocation

• Plan for Contingency:• Additional Sprints Planned

with no allocated cards• Iterate this process!

Output:• Sprint Plan• Schedule for

Customer• Resource Plan

We called this Sprint 0!

Sample artefacts...

06-06-15

Team Sprint Dev Wk

Dev Wk

Start Date

End Date # Des Res

# Dev Res

Des Cap

Dev Cap

Des Alloc

Dev Alloc

Des Rem Cap

Dev Rem Cap

Des % Rem Cap

Dev % Rem Cap

Team X Mini 1 2 17-Nov 07-Dec 3 4 105 280 59 258 46 22 43% 8%Team X Sprint 1 4 6 24-Nov 18-Jan 1 3 140 630 122 583 18 47 13% 7%Team X Sprint 2 4 4 22-Dec 15-Feb 1 3 140 420 80 361 60 59 43% 14%Team X Sprint 3 4 4 19-Jan 15-Mar 1 3 140 420 68 309 72 111 52% 26%Team X Sprint 4 4 4 16-Feb 12-Apr 1 3 140 420 140 420 100% 100%Team Y Mini 1 2 17-Nov 07-Dec 1 2 35 140 30 130 5 10 14% 7%Team Y Sprint 1 4 6 24-Nov 18-Jan 1 2 140 420 78 349 62 71 44% 17%Team Y Sprint 2 4 4 22-Dec 15-Feb 1 2 140 280 44 190 96 90 69% 32%Team Y Sprint 3 4 4 19-Jan 15-Mar 1 2 140 280 15 91 125 189 89% 68%Team Y Sprint 4 4 4 16-Feb 12-Apr 1 2 140 280 140 280 100% 100%

Sprint Plan/Baseline Schedule

Overall effort: 0.5%

06-06-15

mid-Jan mid-Feb mid-Mar mid-Apr

BR Mini Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 4EPICS Allocated

EPICS Total

EPICS Unallocated

1 4 20 1 0 0 25 27 22 0 1 8 0 0 9 9 03 3 1 14 0 0 18 19 14 0 0 10 0 0 10 11 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 16 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 07 4 7 1 0 0 12 14 28 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 09 0 5 1 1 0 7 7 0

10 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 011 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 012 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 013 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 214 1 3 0 1 0 5 5 015 2 0 5 3 0 10 11 116 0 0 6 1 0 7 9 217 0 0 12 0 0 12 90 7818 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 019 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 020 2 1 0 0 0 3 3 021 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 323 0 0 0 3 0 3 8 524 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 0

21 54 58 11 0 144 254 91

Contingency

Project Execution: Kanban Method

06-06-15

Project Execution: Tracking Burndown

06-06-15

Spillover work from one Sprint would be created as “Spillover” card in the next Sprint

06-06-15

Project Execution: Early feedback with Demos before FT

Changes are welcomeDon’t compromise the solution quality because of budget/cost considerations

Take Commercial considerations under Change Control

Project Monitoring: Quick and simple

06-06-15

One possible solution: AgileEVM

This is good... but what happens when your team size is dynamic at the individual team level?

06-06-15

An adaptation of EVM to Agile

06-06-15

Define by Tamara Sulaiman and 2 others http://www.solutionsiq.com/Portals/93486/docs/earned-value-analysis-in-scrum-

projects-wp.pdf

Key difference: "Work" is given credit when it is completes testing/deployment

Aligns with the Agile’s value on "Working Software“Traditional

EVMApproach

AgileAnalytics

ExpandedAgile

Analytics

15/04/2023

21

Here is what we do...

Define a resource

plan for the MMF scope

Use this as the basis for EVM

Track velocity/

throughput information

Re-calibrate capacity to

delivery date

Allow for scope

changes to happen

Planning Phase

Activities

Execution Phase

Activities

22Original budget 48.57 MM 1020 MDOriginal timeline 10Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10Productivity 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 16.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Technical Requirement 1 2 2 4 4 2 2MMF 1

User Story 1.1 2 2 4 1 1User Story 1.2 2 2 2 2 2User Story 1.3 1 1 1 1 1ST Resources 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1

MMF2User Story 2.1 2 2 2 1 1User Story 2.2 2 2 2 2 2User Story 2.3 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5ST Resources 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1

MMF3User Story 3.1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2ST Resources 1 1 1 1

MMF4User Story 4.1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6User Story 4.2 2 2 2 2 2User Story 4.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5ST Resources 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5

MMF5User Story 5.1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6User Story 5.2 2 2 2 2 2User Story 5.3 1 1 1 1 1ST Resources 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5

Total (Current) 17 17 21.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Planned value 85 85 107.5 107.5 97.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 107.5Cumm. Original Plan Value 85 170 278 385 483 590 698 805 913 1020

Weeks

Project Planning: Capacity vs Timeline

Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10

Overall Development Resources 14 14 18.5 18.5 16.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5Overall ST Resources 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total (Current) 17 17 21.5 21.5 19.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5

Cumm. Original Plan Value 85 170 278 385 483 590 698 805 913 1020

Wk1

Wk2

Wk3

Wk4

Wk5

Wk6

Wk7

Wk8

Wk9

Wk1

00

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Planned Value

Man D

ays

Detailed resource timeline level

planning at the Story Level, time

consuming and full of assumptions...

15/04/2023

Project Planning:Make it a little more practical...

Positive/negative factors on productivity: Resource ramp-up, skill

training, domain training, etc.

Team decides how to calibrate productivity across time

Benefits: PV: Planned Value PV reflects reality S-curve in PV

Wk0

Wk1

Wk2

Wk3

Wk4

Wk5

Wk6

Wk7

Wk8

Wk9

Wk1

00

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Planned Value

Man D

ays

Original Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10Productivity 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 125% 125% 125% 112% 112%Development Res. 14 14 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5ST res. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Total (Current) 4.25 8.5 16.13 21.5 26.88 26.88 26.88 26.88 24.08 24.08Cumm. Original Plan Value 21 64 144 252 386 521 655 789 910 1030

23

15/04/2023

24

Project Monitoring: Tracking EV Most Kanban tools dump their Board data to an Excel

Gives card wise, stage wise breakup Two alternatives:

Give a certain % completion to each stage of the value stream completed on their estimated size

For example: Requirement done is 20% value earned, Design completed is 15% value earned.... OR

Stick to Agile emphasis on “working software” and give 100% value earned when a card is archived

Aggregate across the Board weekly and you will get the EV trend

To track Actual Cost: Get a weekly resource allocation OR Get your TimeSheet data

15/04/2023

25

Project Monitoring: PV vs EV tracking

wk20wk2

1wk2

2wk2

3wk2

4wk2

5wk2

6wk2

7wk2

8wk2

9wk3

0wk3

1wk3

2wk3

3wk3

4wk3

5wk3

6wk3

7wk3

8wk3

90

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Planned Value

Earned Value

Actual CostScheduleVariance

CostVariance

15/04/2023

26

Accepting change is “key” to Agile thinking

Challenge:In fixed projects, how done one handle timeline and budget?

Impacting Scope Change

15/04/2023

27

The Approach...

CFD Shows the project end date for revised scope @ current throughput

Reallocate capacity to match required throughput

15/04/2023

28

Let us understand this with an example...

Consider the following Board....XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

15/04/2023

29

Current throughput

Assume that the team is performing at the Required Burn-up rate

15/04/2023

Now, evaluate Scope change... 120md of work has been added and

updated in the Backlog (highligted in red)

30

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

15/04/2023

31

Project the CFD again...

Required Throughput increases from 16.13/day to 18.09/day to meet the same timeline An increase of 12% in addition

15/04/2023

32

An iterative process with stakeholders to evaluate options and converge

Option I: Increase capacity by 12-15% to reach desired throughput

Factor in an increase in overhead as team size increases

Option II: Keep the same capacity but push back the timeline by 12-15%

Option III Reprioritize scope to keep the total scope largely unchanged

but deliver to the revised timeline Option IV

A combination of all of above for overall stakeholder agreement

Partial capacity increase + partial extension in timeline + reprioritizing scope

For each option, use CFD projection to evaluate the final result

15/04/2023

Step 3: Adjust PV for revised plan

For small changes in resource availability/scope, Planned Value need not change Small: < 10% estimate

variation For significant changes,

rework Planned Value as for modified Resource Plan

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Cumm. Origi-nal Plan Value

33

Revised Wk1 Wk2 Wk3 Wk4 Wk5 Wk6 Wk7 Wk8 Wk9 Wk10 Wk11 Wk12Productivity 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 125% 125% 125% 112% 112% 112% 112%Development Res. 14 14 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 12 12 12ST res. 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Total (Current) 4.25 8.5 13.5 18 23.75 27.5 27.5 27.5 24.64 17.92 17.92 17.92Scope Addition (in mm) 5 Cumm. Revised Plan Value 21.3 63.8 131.3 221.3 340 477.5 615 752.5 875.7 965.3 1054.9 1144.5

15/04/2023

34

A quick re-cap

Agile/Lean “thinking” can be applied to FP projects Don’t copy the practices, templates... Adapt!

Quite simple if you have stable teams; a little more tricky if you do not have stable teams

Use Throughput/Velocity to track if the team is delivering at the desired pace

When scope changes, evaluate multiple options using the Throughput and iterate with stakeholders

15/04/2023

35

Thank you for your time today...

For any questions or clarifications, you can reach me at: @sudiptal slahiri@digite.com

I share my experiences at: http://www.swiftkanban.com/

blog/sudipta-lahiri http://sudi-thoughts.blogspot.in/

Join Limited WIP Society NCR, Bangalore, Pune and Chennai Chapters