Revisiting Normalized Story Points

It has been just over 18 months since I published my most popular blog post to-date: "Normalized Story Points". As of this writing, it has received over 5,400 page views, thanks primarily to the reference it has from Dean Leffingwell's blog post from ScaledAgileFramework.com entitled "More on Normalizing Story Point Estimating".

As an Agile Coach who takes continuous improvement seriously, I have learned much and grown much over the last year and a half. Here are a few of the things I've learned regarding Normalized Story Points.

Know Why You Want Them

I've become a HUGE fan of David Hussman's "Dude's Law". Before you do anything, you need to know WHY you're doing it, not just HOW to do it.

The purpose of Normalized Story Pointing is to enable high-level estimation of work for a SAFe Release Train comprised of closely aligned teams, any one of which may pull a Feature off the Program Backlog for implementation. Normalized Story Points should not be used for:

1. Comparing teams against each other
2. Forcing teams to use the same story point size (so that "1 Story Point" means exactly the same thing to everyone forever and ever amen)
3. Defining "Story Point" to mean "Ideal Man-Day"
4. Any punitive purpose

If you don't know why you're using Normalized Story Points, don't use them. If your intended use of Normalized Story Points violates the mindset established by the Agile Manifesto, don't use them (although, if this is the case then you probably won't realize it unless someone points it out to you).

Beware the Ideal Man-Day

The 4-step process for getting started with Normalized Story Points involves using time as a reference. This works well because you're using a very small story, one with very little complexity, which means the primary factor for determining "bigness" is lapsed time. That being said, I've found that teams that start with this approach have a very, very difficult time recovering from the mindset of "1 point == 1 ideal man-day". This is bad for reasons.

This also leads to teams always using days of availability to forecast velocity rather than taking a rolling average velocity or "yesterday's weather" as an indicator of what they're likely to deliver. Data trumps theory; the approach to get started is based on theory, while average velocity is data.

Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools

Processes and tools exist to enhance and enable interactions between individuals, not replace them. As I've explained in a previous post, the process of Agile estimation is beneficial primarily because of the conversation that it fosters. It's a well-formed game that drives a shared mental model of the work for the entire team.

I've found that teams that use Normalized Story Points may skimp on the conversation, especially if one team ends up with work that another team has already estimated (after all, we all share the same definition of story point, right?). This was never the intent behind Normalized Story Points, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Beware the Recipe Trap

David Hussman explained that he uses "Dude's Law" to help teams avoid what he calls the "Recipe Trap" - doing something because that's what the recipe says to do, without understanding what the intended benefits are. When it comes to Normalized Story Points, the recipe trap is very real and very dangerous. If you use it, be very careful about how you explain and implement it with your teams. If your teams can't all pull from a common backlog; if you're going to use them to run punitive metrics; if you want to streamline your process by reducing meaningful conversation; or if you're looking to use it because that's what SAFe says to do, I plead with you to reconsider.

TL;DR: Normalized Story Points can be a useful tool for your organization, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. 

A(nother) Response to SAFe Criticisms: Part 1

Full Disclosure: I am a certified Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) Program Consultant (SPC).

Before you continue reading this somewhat lengthy, multi-part blog post, let me lay out the prerequisites. Well, really just the one. If you are not already at least somewhat familiar with Dean Leffingwell’s Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) then this post is not going to be as meaningful to you. The official website for SAFe is http://scaledagileframework.com, although there are others out there (Andrew Blain, for example) who have done a good job of explaining what SAFe is.

Last year Dean Leffingwell (and SAFe in general) had a significant presence at Agile2013. In response, Ken Schwaber wrote a provocative blog post entitled “unSAFe at any speed”. What Ken failed to accomplish was to produce criticism that was any more founded than your run-of-the-mill angsty hearsay. He did, however, manage to set off a civil war within the Agile community over whether or not SAFe should be allowed in the Agile club or beaten until silenced or killed. I have been rather surprised at how many “Agilists” have chosen the latter.

Agile has always appealed to my inclusive nature. The goal is outlined in the Agile Manifesto and its 12 Principles. Anything that strives to deliver within the paradigm of the Manifesto and its Principles can be considered Agile. All approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and all approaches focus more on some aspects than others. In the end, though, all approaches are well-intentioned efforts to elevate teams to their potential. I think that’s beautiful, I really do.

A roadblock that has existed for years is that of large organizations who are not already Agile. Getting these behemoths to shift the way they work, much less the way they think, is no easy task. Many have taken the “All or Nothing” approach – either adopt an existing Agile approach in its purest form, wholesale, with no alterations, or surrender yourself to your competition, wither away, and die. Neither of these options is particularly appealing to most of these organizations, so they ignore Agile and continue their status quo.

Along comes Dean Leffingwell and SAFe and, all of the sudden, you have an Agile approach that the organization can use to become Agile. Of course it looks different from the other options currently available, but that’s kind of the point. It aims to establish Agile Principles and Lean Thinking in larger enterprises in increments that are actually realistic. Just as every Scrum team is different, every organization that adopts SAFe does so in its own way. And, just like Scrum, a lot of the implementation details cannot be neatly outlined in a guide or abstract for anyone to pick up and repeat without putting in any of the effort.

The reality of the situation makes the Purists out there really uncomfortable. A lot of criticism has been published. I am going to attempt to address some of this criticism. My intent here is not to get everyone out there to use SAFe. Heck, I don’t even intend for everyone to like it. My intent is to clarify a few misconceptions, first and foremost the one that SAFe is not Agile.

I’ll be publishing my response in multiple parts in order to accomplish this intent. The number of parts depends, at least partially, on you. I want to know what criticisms or misunderstandings of SAFe you would like me to respond to. I would further ask that you communicate with me as a respectful professional (and I’ll do the same). I’ve seen this topic get out of control without ever getting to root cause. Not that I have delusions of grandeur or anything, but I’d like to think that I can help find and address the root cause of these criticisms without it turning into a shouting match. I guess we’ll find out.

Series Posts:
Part 2: 25% Scrum Master
Part 3: HIP Sprints