Agile Governance from the Top Down James Yoxall Webinar 22 August, 2012
The Problem Senior management do not feel in control of Agile projects They need to achieve a level of confidence to fulfil their accountabilities What tools or mechanisms are available to achieve confidence? The evidence from our experience: Organisations running larger Agile projects are engaging us to help to understand the true state of the project Many projects which are believed to be green actually have significant underlying issues Many organisations use Agile, but only for non-critical projects
Why is it Hard? Scope is variable The final solution is intentionally fluid There is generally no agreed commitment Because traditionally the commitment is to the defined solution Uncertainty is intentionally left unresolved Planning, forecasting and reporting are constrained by the defined Agile processes Standard PM tools such as cost and risk management are not included Attempts to increase confidence often lead to unintended behaviour changes e.g. Demands for more accurate estimates Agile is believed to provide inherent governance Agile naturally provides greater insight The product owner is in control You just need to observe us in action
Three Key Concepts These are not the same: Governance of the detail Governance of the big picture These are not the same: Customer-supplier boundary Governance boundary Governance is required where there is an explicit act of delegation. This is may not be the case when a project Is business-as-usual Has the Sponsor embedded in the team
Implications Where is the boundary between big picture and detail? Steering Group and Delivery Team What is the process and required skillset for translating between the two? Baseline management Forecasting Risk management Who is responsible for doing the translation? Project Manager, Product Manager, Scrum Master?
Key Elements of Effective Governance A structured initiation phase A definite commitment A complete plan A formal solution baseline Baseline management and change control Sprint reporting is only an input to governance reporting Forecasting - impact of actuals on commitment Comprehensive tracking - avoiding surprises Defined governance review points (to replace traditional gates)
Additional Techniques are Required Functional milestones Can be used to define commitment Uncertainty management planning Actively address risk of intentionally unresolved uncertainty Provide checkpoints for review Velocity forecasting Planned variability Impact of partially complete work Per-story change control Defined tolerance levels Fast, risk-based decisions Change tracking rather than change management
Comprehensive Tracking Rate of progress Velocity Value Forecast solution impact on value objectives Rate of additional work generation New stories Increasing estimates Technical debt Other debt Sustainability Exceptional circumstances Staff morale Costs Gotchas (outstanding uncertainties)
Conclusion Agile projects are governable Existing Agile process do not provide all the techniques necessary to achieve this Governance requirements depend upon the type and size of delegation There are challenges in merging the top-down and bottom-up mindsets Agile delivery teams need to understand and accommodate the accountabilities and big-picture role of senior management Senior management need to understand how and why Agile is different at the big picture level
Thank You www.indigoblue.co.uk