Author: Andrey Mihailenko

  • Elevating Agile With Financial Discipline

    Elevating Agile With Financial Discipline

    A corporate axiom is changing, shifting from “Big eats small” to “Fast eats slow.” But change doesn’t happen overnight.

    While Agile and lean methods continue to chip away at the status quo, making gains and increasingly moving beyond pockets of teams to the portfolio and then enterprise-wide adoption levels, waterfall approaches to delivery persist.

    Rumors of waterfall’s demise, it seems, have been somewhat exaggerated. A survey conducted by the Scrum Alliance (2017) of Scrum practitioners revealed that 78% of respondents said they used Agile-Scrum practices in parallel with waterfall practices. Mixed waterfall/Agile environments are complex. For many large companies, this is the norm. This is when the cohabitation challenges of agile and traditional workstyles become more glaring.

    Importantly, as IT finance management (ITFM) leaders know, becoming “more agile” doesn’t give you a pass when it comes to financial discipline and oversight. Agile organizations are still responsible for their ROI and saying you’ve adopted lean methods doesn’t automatically make you lean. Or fiscally responsible. Or well-governed. Or profitable.

    ITFM Leaders are Under Pressure

    Technical organizations are in the midst of evolving from being project-centered to product-oriented solution delivery and scaling Agile from the team level up to the portfolio/enterprise. In these evolving, hybrid working environments, faced with larger and more vocal agile communities, ITFM managers are facing increasing process dissonance between traditional and agile methods, wreaking havoc with their reporting, planning, budgeting and oversight.

    In a blended traditional/agile financial portfolio, understanding the true cost of projects, portfolios, value streams and OKRs helps companies make better use of their financial resources to drive profitable outcomes.

    And with interest in the value of IT spreading beyond the CIO to the rest of the C-suite, integrated reporting and decision-making that combine Agile work with traditional IT projects, the ITFM role itself is even more essential.

    Technology Business Management: Accurately Measuring the Cost of IT

    For many ITFM leaders, a focus on the discipline of technology business management (TBM) has improved their ability to better understand IT costs and influence governance and behavior through targeted analysis of real-time reporting (and chargeback) for IT resources. TBM provides a decision-making framework to help leaders understand the true costs involved in the delivery of products and services to customers. That has worked well, particularly in industries where project-centric, traditional waterfall projects are the norm. As it turns out, it works very well for supporting Agile, too.

    As agile gains momentum, finance is where it collides with P&L statements, budget dollars and fiscal quarters. With the seemingly irreconcilable Agile release trains and program increments, story points and cycle times, it can be difficult to see an integrated path forward. Fortunately, for teams that have embraced it, TBM provides a well-tested, proven framework that is easily extended to support enterprise Agile transformation.

    Agile transformation and scaling initiatives occur as teams of teams seek to reap the rewards of end-to-end enterprise agility.

    And, as enterprise agility expands, ITFM leaders will likely encounter process improvement initiatives that are key to an Agile transformation and that directly influence IT finance. Central among them are lean portfolio management (LPM) and value stream management (VSM). Due to their direct influence on ITFM and their intertwined agile characteristics, these two especially deserve early focus. And, while there are certainly more dimensions to enterprise agility, this is a good place to start.

  • Common Hidden Dependencies and How to Uncover Them

    Common Hidden Dependencies and How to Uncover Them

    It’s no secret that a truly Agile approach minimizes the risk organizations assume with waterfall or other traditional project management methods, by letting teams iterate and inspect and adapt as they go. But many companies lack clear visibility into real-time dependencies at the team level—even with daily standups, iteration and release planning, and a regular cadence of cross-team check-ins. This lack of visibility impacts organizational agility and can erase the value of an investment in agile.

    As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” When it comes to planning within an enterprise, being aware of the biggest risks of hidden dependencies will help you keep a proactive approach and drive value from strategic objectives to tactical execution. Here are some of the risks of the most common dependencies and how to uncover them:

    1. Teams that are distributed (or use multiple Agile platforms) do not have the flexibility to work across teams as easily as their co-located counterparts. This slows down response time, which in turn slows down releases. Teams must make dependencies transparent at the highest level to stress their importance. Make sure your team has an advocate, such as a Scrum Master, to raise red flags when dependencies or risks emerge.
    2. Medium- and large-scale organizations may run multiple release planning sessions for one product. Running them at the same time, or in a sequence but in different locations, increases the risk that teams will overlap work and not plan for dependencies.
    3. Many organizations and teams try to plan for dependencies by adding more time to their estimates as a buffer. While this seems like a good idea, it hides a problem by burying wait time and masking the real blocker. Organizations and teams should ensure that estimates are only based on complexity and effort and do not reflect “waste” such as wait time. Doing so helps reveal impediments for what they are.
    4. In larger organizational structures, infrastructures are complex and teams tend to be highly dependent on one another delivering work, with a chain effect of one team’s work beginning only after another finishes. As they look to adopt and scale Agile, organizations should closely examine their structure to ensure it is optimized. This will reduce risks and dependencies, rather than exaggerate them.
    5. Team members often allow “blockers” and “dependencies” to get in the way of completing work while still committing to a sprint or release goal. If team members foresee a dependency or blocker with key features, user stories, etc., they should not commit to the work. It is the responsibility of each individual to refrain from committing to work that they know they cannot complete.

    Visualization is Key

    Organizations can adequately manage dependencies and risks if they can plan for them. One helpful technique is to create a road map for releases. When consistently updated throughout at the end of each sprint, a road map helps teams identify risks and evaluate dependencies continuously. Selecting a platform that allows real-time visualization into dependencies is another way to prevent time-wasting while giving insight into the right details at the right time.

    — Andrey Mihailenko