- The “Big Four” cost of delay profiles (a.k.a. archetypes) — Expedite, Fixed-Date, Standard Urgency, Intangible — are usually sufficient.
- In my personal kanban, I have seen a new archetype emerge, one that has aspects of both Intangible and Fixed-Date, which I’m calling “Intangible-Fixed-Date.”
- This profile is less for the purpose of selection and more for scheduling.
- So far, the main application of “Intangible-Fixed-Date” for me is for buying airfare, whose cost-of-delay curve fits none of the “Big Four” curves.
- I use a couple of features in Kanbanize to deal with this new profile slightly differently from the other profiles, namely by creating a separate swim lane and using two dates (rather than one).
- Takeaway: “Listen” to your data, patterns and behavior of work items and be flexible enough to adapt and create new profiles when they emerge.
I routinely use cost-of-delay to assist in scheduling, selecting and sequencing work, both in professional settings and in my own personal life. The “Big Four” cost-of-delay profiles (aka archetypes) promoted in the Kanban community — Expedite, Fixed-Date, Standard Urgency, Intangible — are usually sufficient for the work that organizations, teams and I personally need to handle. However, lately in my personal kanban, I have seen a new archetype emerge, one that has aspects of both Intangible and Fixed-Date, which I’m calling “Intangible Fixed-Date.”
If I want to really be disciplined, I can then set a service-delivery expectation that sets the bar for how well I handle these (e.g., 90% of Intangible Fixed-Date items will be completed within five days), and analyze my performance at my personal service-delivery review. But now I fear I’m exposing just how geeky I am (if that wasn’t clear already)!
So what’s the takeaway? Well, you might find value in this “new” cost-of-delay profile (if you need to book airfare, or to plan birthdays or anniversaries, which follow a similar curve). But abstracting out a bit, the idea is that it’s helpful to pay attention to — “listen” to — your data, patterns and behavior of work items and be flexible enough to adapt and create new profiles when they emerge. Pursuing incremental, evolutionary change is one of the underlying principles of kanban method; improve using models and experiments is one of its core practices.
Special thanks to Prateek Singh, Josh Arnold and Mike Burrows for their early feedback in the Lean Agile and Beyond Slack community.
What’s the problem?
A Possible Solution
Usually a weekly (but not always) focused discussion between a superior and a subordinate about demand, observed system capability and fitness for purpose Comparison of capability against fitness criteria metrics and target conditions, such as lead time SLA with 60 day, 85% on-time target Discussion & agreement on actions to be taken to improve capability
A regular (usually weekly) quantitatively-oriented discussion between a customer and delivery team about the fitness for purpose of its service delivery.
- Delivery times (aka Cycle/Lead/Time-In-Process) of recently completed work and tail length in delivery-time distribution
- Blocker-clustering results and possible remediations
- Risks and mitigations
- Aging of work-in-progress
- Work-type mix/distribution (e.g., % allocation to work types)
- Service-level expectations of each work item type
- Value demand ratio (ratio of value-added work to failure-demand work)
- Flow efficiency trend
Service-delivery reviews are relatively easy to do, and in my experience provide a high return on time invested. The prerequisites to having them are to:
- Know your services
- Discover or establish service-delivery expectations
Janice Linden-Reed very helpfully outlined in her Kanban Cadences presentation the practical aspects of the meeting, including participants, questions to ask and inputs and outputs, which is a fine place to start with the practice.
Afterward #2: Andy Carmichael encourages organizations to measure agility by fitness for purpose, among other things, rather than practice adoption. The service-delivery review is a feedback loop that explicitly looks at this, and one that I’ve found is filling a gap in what teams and their customers need.
Afterward #3: I should note that you don’t have to be in the business of software delivery to use a service-delivery review. If you, your team, your group or your organization provides a service of any kind (see Kanban Lens and Service-Orientation), you probably want a way to learn about how well you’re delivering that service. I find that the Service-Delivery Review is a useful feedback loop for that purpose.
Service Delivery Review: This meeting provides regular opportunities to step back from the delivery process and evaluate it thoroughly from multiple perspectives, typically:
• The customer – directly, via user research, customer support, and so on
• The organisation – via a departmental manager, say
• The product – from the product manager, for example
• The technical platform – eg from technical support
• The delivery process – eg from the technical lead and/or delivery manager
• The delivery pipeline – eg from the product manager and/or delivery manager
I include more qualitative stuff than you seem to do, reporting on conversations with the helpdesk, summarising user research, etc
I’ve been play-testing a new simulation game that I developed, which I’m calling the NoEstimates Game. Thanks to my friends and colleagues at Universal Music Group, Asynchrony and the Lean-Kanban community (Kanban Leadership Retreat, FTW!), I’ve gotten it to a state in which I feel comfortable releasing it for others to play and hopefully improve.
The objective is to learn through experimentation what and how much different factors influence delivery time.
[Jan. 3, 2017 update: Game materials are now available on GitHub]
Download these materials in order to play:
If you’d like to modify the original game elements, here they are:
I’m releasing it under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, so please feel free to share and modify it, and if possible, let me know how I can improve it.
Here are a few things I have observed about kanban that I didn’t know when I started:
- Although kanban roughly translates to “signal card,” the cards on a team wall are not the signals. The empty spaces are the signals (that you have capacity). The fixed capacity is represented by the spaces/slots, and not the cards themselves.
- It’s okay to distinguish cards in a queue as being “done” and not done. Only in a perfect cadence will you not need the concept of (and corresponding way to identify) some items in a queue being “done” and some not.
- Many value-stream maps show the customer need at the beginning of the cycle, but it’s useful to visualize the customer need at the end (perhaps as a circle) in order to show how demand is pulled through the system and not pushed.
- Cumulative-flow diagrams and run charts (showing cycle time for each story) are the most powerful and helpful metrics to use, and you can implement them by hand as big visible charts. They don’t need to be created in electronic tools.
- Be sure you visualize the entire value stream (“concept to cash,” including deployment) somewhere or you will simply optimize on your development cycle.
- To visualize a minimal marketable feature moving, create an MMF horizontal lane above the normal story cards or simply make a temporary horizontal lane for that feature.
- You don’t have to be “advanced” in agile or any other philosophy/methodology to do kanban. I used to believe this, but David Anderson (et al) have been helpful in conveying the idea that you start by modeling and making visible what you already do and improving from there.
If you’re using kanban in your environment, you probably use a cumulative-flow diagram. It’s a handy tool to track kanban metrics like cycle time and to quickly see bottlenecks. In addition to all the kanban goodness it gives you, it can also double as a timeline that you can use in your retrospectives.
Whether you use a physical version posted on your kanban board (like my current team does) or an electronic one, you can annotate dates with important events, such as when:
- A team member joins or leaves
- An unexpected technical problem surfaces, like a major refactoring or bug
- The team decides to change something about its kanban, like increase a WIP limit
- The team makes a positive change, like switching pairs more often
It’s pretty easy to do, especially if you have a physical chart that you update during your standup meeting.
Then, when you have a retrospective, bring the diagram along to help you remember what happened during the period over which you’re retrospecting. If you’re anything like the teams I’ve been on and like me, you have a hard time remembering what happened beyond yesterday, so it’s handy to have a reference. Having this time-based information will help you make more objective decisions about how to improve, since you won’t be guessing so much as to why your cycle time lengthened over the last week, or why you decided to decrease a WIP limit a month ago.
Alan Shalloway is very helpfully documenting some Myths of Kanban. One myth that caught my eye in particular was “Kanban suggests linear work and requires too many handoffs.” I’ll be talking about this aspect of Kanban in my presentation on whole-team approach at the Agile and Beyond conference, so I liked what Alan wrote — as an aside, what he calls linear, I call sequential (contrasted with simultaneous):
Lean manufacturing may assume linear work, but not Lean software development (nor Kanban). Kanban boards may often appear to be linear but Kanban boards reflect the way people are doing the work. Hence, if people are working linearly, the board will reflect that. However, Kanban boards can also reflect non-linear work. One must also recognize that a Kanban board does not reflect the people doing the work but rather reflects the flow of the work being done. Hence if a board looks like:
Backlog — Analysis — Design — Code — Test — Done
it is not suggesting that the work be done by different people and hand things off. It just shows the states the work progresses through. In this case, it’s on the backlog, in analysis, being designed, coded, tested or completed. It could very well be the same person doing the work. The second misconception is that the board tells you to break things down into these steps. Actually, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t). The board should be a reflection of the work being done. So different columns on the board should reflect the different steps the team is doing. If the team swarms on multiple steps, then the Kanban board should only have one column for that. Essentially the Kanban board has one column for each type of work the team is doing. The explicit policy for how it gets to that step and out of that step also needs to be stated, but is not necessarily written on the board. Bottom line – if you don’t like the process that you see on the board, change it (and then update the board). The board is there merely to reflect on your work so you can better change how you work.
I think Alan is right when he says, essentially, that the board is “identity-neutral” as to who is doing the work. The problem that I have seen is breaking out the queues in such a way as to encourage non-simultaneous work behavior (e.g., separating code and test). This is why I still prefer fewer queues to many.
Some acronyms are actually useful for remembering models or concepts. Lately, it seems that teams could use some help remembering some of the core principles of Kanban, so I’ll offer up my own acronym to help myself as much as anyone else: FLAVE.
The software-development world needs another acronym like it needs another methodology. Yet, if you’re anything like me — someone who loathes acronyms, by the way — you find that some acronyms are actually useful for remembering models or concepts (for instance, it’s easy to recall all of the elements of Bill Wake’s INVEST when creating stories).
Lately, it seems that teams could use some help remembering some of the core principles of Kanban, so I’ll offer up my own acronym to help myself as much as anyone else (definitions taken from David Anderson):
F | Measure and manage Flow: Track work items to see if they are proceeding at a steady, even pace.
L | Limit work-in-progress: Set agreed-upon limits to how many work items are in progress at a time.
A | Adapt the process: Adapt the process using ideas from Systems Thinking, W.E. Deming, etc.
V | Visualize the workflow: Represent the work items and the workflow on a card wall or electronic board.
E | Make process policies Explicit: Agree upon and post policies about how work will be handled.