Tell Me Why, not How

If you're familiar with the concept of User Stories then you've likely been exposed to the concept of a User Story "script". One of the most common scripts goes something like:

As a <who> I want <what> So that <why>

Looks simple enough, right? The problem is that most people who grew up in a non-Agile environment are not used to articulating the "why" in their requirements. They are used to capturing what it is that needs to built and how. Consequently, that's what usually end up making it into our stories, causing them to look like:

As a <who> I want <how> So that <what>

What's the difference? Let's look at an example.

Old Habits Die Hard

It's not uncommon to see a story that reads like, "As an administrator I want unique group IDs for tickets so that I can easily group tickets." On the surface it looks like a good user story. What's the "what"? The author would argue that it's "unique group IDs for tickets", but that's not the need. The need is to "easily group tickets". The author is trying to dictate how to meet that need in the user story. Those familiar with the INVEST model for user stories will recognize that this violates the "N" - Negotiable.

So we need to move the "what" into its place and establish a proper "why", which means we need to have a conversation. What valuable outcome is enabled by being able to group tickets together? Do you want static or dynamic grouping? Are the groups established by pre-established rules, or is the intent for users to group tickets however they like? Once we have our answers, we may end up with a better user story, something like, "As an administrator I want to easily group tickets so that I can sort and filter to easily find tickets of interest for a given task".

Why? Why?! WHY?!?

What have we gained by phrasing the story this way? A couple of things (at least). First, we have context for the story that will enable the team of professional problem-solvers to create the best solution for the problem within the bounds of the NFRs (Non-Functional Requirements) and FSRA (Future State Reference Architecture).

The second benefit is that we can better decompose the story. With the original wording, we would likely decompose the work into the layers of the system - creating a grouping cross-reference table structure first, then the business logic and virtual object code to associate tickets to groups, and finally the user interface layer for the administrator to actually use this functionality.

With the revised wording, we can leverage the advice from Agile Learning Labs at SmallerStories.com and split our story into smaller stories that are vertical slices through the entire system. This enables us to deliver value sooner and test our architecture as it's being built instead of all at the end.

Living in Reality

This is the most common anti-pattern that I've seen in the real world of user stories. What anti-patterns have you seen? What advice do you have for overcoming user story anti-patterns? Is this even really an anti-pattern?

Agile2014 Proposal Accepted

Today is a big day for me; today I accepted an invitation to speak at a conference for the first time! Todd Kromann and I will be co-facilitating a workshop I've put together on value-driven prioritization, based on the concepts of Hussman's "Dude's Law" and WSJF. I've copied my abstract below. If you're going to be at Agile2014, let me know! I'd love to meet you in Orlando this summer!

Practical Application of Dude's Law: Come Play the Value Estimation Game!

Abstract:

You know how you determine the "bigness" of your work and establishing commitments, but how do your customers ensure you're committing to the right thing?

Come experience relative estimation to determine value. We'll use David Hussman's "Dude's Law" (Value = Why? / How?) to prioritize the work.

We will share techniques for determining the "Why?" so that you can generate a Value Index. What many people will be surprised to learn is that they already have tools for sizing that can be used for determining value and prioritization.

Information for Review Team:
The break-out of the 75 minutes would include:
3 minutes: Introduction to Dude's Law and the Value-Driven Heuristic
10 minutes: Explain and model the first exercise (Team Estimation Game for relative sizing)
10 minutes: Have round-table teams execute first exercise with a set of 10 features
5 minutes: Explain and model the second exercise (Team Estimation Game for relative benefit - same mechanism, so it takes less time to explain and model)
10 minutes: Have the round-table teams execute second exercise with the same set of 10 features
10 minutes: Have each team determine the Value Index of each card by applying Dude's Law
15 minutes: Have teams share their outcomes, insights
12 minutes (or less, if previous sections have run over): Q&A *

* In the case that there are not enough questions to fill the remaining time, I will explain the flexibility of Dude's Law (you can use Planning Poker or whatever technique works best for you) and introduce them to concepts such as Weighted Shortest Job First and Value Dial weighting.

Prerequisite Knowledge:

The concept of Relative Sizing (Story Points, T-shirt sizing, etc.)

Learning Outcomes:

• Experience and learn how to apply a practical, proven game for prioritizing your work based on value
• Understand that using a heuristic for valuation is better than both gut-feel and over-engineering
• Understand that, as with estimating size/cost, the real value comes from the conversation

Presentation History:

I've done the Team Estimation Game dozens of times before with as many teams and have done the exercise including benefit to determine a Value Index with at least one of those teams. I also have led Program Management teams through a very similar prioritization matrix model that leverages the concept of Weighted Shortest Job First.

Comment:
My presentation is a reflection of my own beliefs and experiences. None of the material I present should be interpreted as an endorsement by my employer. I have received express written permission from David Hussman to reference Dude's Law, and I am a Certified SAFe Program Consultant (SPC), which qualifies me to speak on their Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) Framework.

The Best Lesson I Learned the Hard Way

Let me preface this by saying I do not recommend learning lessons the hard way. There's a wealth of human experience out there to learn from before you go off and make the same bone-headed mistakes. However, bone-headed mistakes will be made regardless of how cautious you are. In those cases, please go into it with a Fail-Fast, Kaizen mindset so that the mistake becomes a short-lived learning experience.

The Almighty PM

I've made a lot of mistakes in life, which means I've learned a lot of lessons “the hard way”. The one such lesson that has had the most impact on my current work life took place my senior year of college. I was in a capstone class where we were to organize ourselves into a real software team to develop a real-life application on top of a new API that we had Beta access to. We were given a little guidance, including how previous classes and many companies organize themselves, but told we could do whatever we wanted. We ended up with a very “traditional” model of a few Dev teams, a few Testing teams, an Architect, and the one Project Manager to rule them all.

I was eager to prove myself, so I went for the PM position (oddly enough, I didn't really have any competition from my obviously more self-aware classmates). The problem is Computer Science majors in their fourth (okay sixth) year of study haven't usually had any PM classes or experience. My architect laid out the architecture, lots of open source Java, wikis, subversion, etc, and the class was excited to get started. However, I was concerned about how to manage the work, as well as expectations. I started demanding individual Gantt charts up-front for the duration of the semester. I was asking each team lead to compile the Gantt for their team and report that to me so I could put it all together.

The Blind Leading the Competent

Basically, I was trying to command-and-control manage a team of part-time team members, all of whom were taking at least 12 hours that semester and had limited time to spend on this class. Of that limited time, I was asking an unreasonable amount of time on administrative work. My architect was an excellent “Yes Man”, which made it difficult for me to see what I was doing wrong. The tipping point came when we weren't getting the information we were asking for from the teams and we were way behind where we expected to be on the application. Our professor was pulled away for a class and gave me the option of keeping the class time or giving everyone the day off. My architect decided, with my blessing, to use that time to express our mutual disappointment with the team and shame them into getting their act together.

I knew it was all over when the architect started his oratory with something to the effect of “By the time I finish talking you should all be mad at me, and that's okay because I'm mad at you.” It was a horrible hour and ended with our organization in shambles. I was a broken, broken man who was certain I was going to fail the class.

A Lesson in Servant Leadership

Then one of the testing team leads asked if he could meet with me to talk through things. He kindly and patiently explained why what we did was so stupid and counter-productive. He told me that the teams needed a cheerleader, not a dictator. He asked me to spend time with the individuals on the teams. He wanted me to spend more time in face-to-face conversations instead of mass emails. He wanted me to understand how hard the class was working to accomplish a common goal so that I would stop wasting their time with unnecessary busy work. He wanted me to focus on listening and removing roadblocks. He is now, unsurprisingly, a manager at Amazon, and someone I still hold in high regard.

I didn't fail the class because the objective of the class wasn't to develop a fixed scope within fixed time and budget. My wise professor wanted us to experience real-world project work as best we could in an academic setting and learn from it. He saw me try to turn things around at the end and knew that I had seen the error of my ways. He knew that I had learned my lesson, albeit the hard way.

Lesson Learned

So what lesson did I learn? To be honest, I initially thought that the lesson I was supposed to learn was that I suck at Project Management. I could not be trusted with leading a project to completion. I could code well and kinda sorta test, but the realm of Project Management was beyond my grasp.

This lesson was reinforced when I entered the workforce a few months later and saw command-and-control PMs leading projects “correctly”. These were professionals who did not go on rants against their developers and testers. They were not perfect, but they did their best to make things work in alignment with the command-and-control, iron triangle, Waterfall-driven style they were trained to use. Despite their best efforts, I found myself in War Rooms quite frequently, and my wife learned to not expect to see me in the months surrounding a Production install. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was living through the hell that I had just put my classmates through.

Of course, that wasn't the PM's fault. As I said, they were doing the best they could, and we were doing the best we could. The problems were much deeper than any one individual. We had to change the way we work, starting by not only recognizing but emphasizing the human element of software development.

The real lesson is that command-and-control Project Management doesn't work. Had I taken the time to understand Lean/Agile development processes and practices, I could have done a decent job as a Scrum Master or Agile Servant Leader in my capstone class. I might have even done some coding and testing alongside my cross-functional Agile development team(s). Even before I learned that lesson, I learned the importance of being a cheerleader. I have always striven to let the teams I've worked with know what a great job they're doing and how much I appreciate them. I haven't always succeeded, but that pep talk I received my final year of college never left me.

Once I realized that what I was experiencing in corporate life was essentially the same as that capstone class, I vowed to change things. I delved into the world of Lean and Agile and brought the things I learned back to my area. To many people it looks like I've picked it up extremely quickly; in reality, I've been learning this lesson for at least six years. If anything, I'm ashamed it took this long to finally “click”.

Muscle Memory vs. Muscle Confusion

The most popular Agile methodology in practice today is Scrum, which relies heavily on ceremonies. Any decent Agile coach working with a new Scrum team will drill these ceremonies into them in an effort to get the most out of the framework. They drive cadence, alignment, continuous improvement, transparency, etc. One of the big benefits of doing this is that it becomes a part of their routine. They no longer have to figure out how they're going to align on a daily basis; plan their work; communicate with their customer; inspect and adapt; etc. All of those things are "baked in" to the framework. Because there's so little prescribed, it's easy to pick up and repeat forever. By making those things rote, you develop a sort of Agile "muscle memory".

Wax on, wax off, stand up for 15 minutes

Muscle memory is a condition where a task is repeated so frequently that it can be performed unconsciously. Just think of Mr. Miagi and Daniel-san in The Karate Kid. Mr. Miagi had a lot of landscaping work to be done, and Daniel wanted to learn Karate. As luck would have it, the motions required of a Karate black belt are the same as sanding decks, staining fences, and washing cars - who knew? Right as Daniel is ready to throw in the towel, Mr. Miagi attacks him Daniel's muscle memory kicks in to save himself from being pounded by a Karate master. Likewise, those Scrum ceremonies become reflexive and help new Agile practitioners focus on the hard task of developing new software instead of thinking about how they're going to go about "Being Agile".

However, too much of a good thing can be bad. Once that muscle memory kicks in, it makes it harder for our Agile "muscles" to grow. The body has optimized how to do the repetitive thing, and doing it more doesn't really result in any added strength. This is a problem that strength trainers and body builders are familiar with. Your workout routine can't be too routine or you'll plateau. You have to introduce what's called "muscle confusion".

Muscle confusion is the concept of varying the types of exercises you do, as well as the number of sets and reps of those exercises, to avoid muscle memory and keep building muscle by tearing it and letting it repair stronger. If muscle memory kicks in then it becomes harder to tear the muscles. You see this concept manifest in workout regimens such as P90X and Cross Fit. One of the difficult things to get right, though, is the right amount of muscle confusion. Switching 100% of your exercises 100% of the time won't get you optimal performance.

I liken muscle confusion to a Kaizen mindset in Agile. You have to have an urgency about change, but it has to be small, incremental change in order to be effective. Change too little and muscle memory sets in - boring scrums, useless retros, tedious planning, etc. Change too much and the disruption causes everything to start falling apart.

P90X and Cross Fit are not for everyone. You will have to determine as a team how much change you can handle on a sprint by sprint basis. Some will change almost daily, others will be lucky to successfully adapt on one thing per sprint. As long as you're being honest with yourselves, that's fine. Just beware of muscle memory and muscle confusion. Optimize the change, and there are no limits to how much you can grow your Agile strength.

Normalized Story Points

UPDATE: 18 months later, I've reflected back on this topic in my post "Revisiting Normalized Story Points".

I was recently involved in a discussion on LinkedIn on the topic of Normalized Story Points and whether or not it was a good idea. What I noticed was that, despite what I think is a very clear explanation by the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), many people misunderstand both the process for normalizing Story Points and the intended benefit to be gleaned from this practice. If you have not yet, I encourage you to read the explanation in the “Iterations” abstract on the Scaled Agile Framework before reading on (the section entitled “Relative Estimating, Velocity and Normalizing Story Point Estimating”). That will provide the proper context for my thoughts, as a Certified SAFe Program Consultant and active Release Train Engineer, on what this means (and what it doesn’t).

First, how do we normalize Story Points? The gist of the process is this:

“1. For every developer tester on the team, give the team eight points (adjust for part timers)
2. Subtract one point for every team member vacation day and holiday
3. Find a small story that would take a about a half-day to code and a half-day to test and validate. Call it a 1.
4. Estimate every other story relative to that one.”

That’s basically it. The primary problem that teams run into is that they ignore step #4, along with the advice that follows these steps: “There is no need to recalibrate team estimating or velocities after that point.” This is a tool that has very specific benefits; it is intended for one-time use that allows for long-term benefit.

This means that teams within a SAFe organization are using a common practice to determine a baseline from which to begin relative estimation and, as such, will have Story Points that are roughly the same size. This will enable “just good enough” Story Point estimation of cross-team Features and Epics, which allows for more precise road-mapping and budgeting than we would otherwise have.

This does not mean that teams are estimating using Ideal Man-Days. They should still do relative estimation using the modified Fibonacci sequence. This also does not mean that roadmaps will be 100% precise; they will simply be more precise than what’s been available before. Budgeting will be precise in the sense that we float scope, not cost; however, the Epic Owner should only expect the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and not necessarily every requested feature when the Epic has been initially estimated and not yet broken-down.

This means that teams establish how “big” a Story Point is early and don’t have to spend as much time figuring that out as a team. When I first became a Scrum Master, my team ended up having to re-baseline several times as they learned how to better write and slice User Stories. The alternative would have been either User Stories that were smaller than one point or multiple one-point Stories that were considerably variable in the amount of effort they actually required.

This does not mean that all teams will have exactly the same Story Point “size” or estimate exactly the same way. Every team is still unique and has their own dynamic that works for them. You will find, however, that the “size” of each team’s Story Point is close enough to allow for Program and Portfolio level estimating and planning.

This is not intended to take the place of established Agile practices for planning, splitting, and estimating the work that teams deliver. It is intended to get teams started in such a way that planning, splitting, and estimating can be done more simply and effectively across multiple teams. Once you establish your baseline, throw Ideal Man-Days out the window – it then becomes only a part of the criteria for relative estimation, along with complexity and uncertainty. Once you establish your initial velocity, throw the 8 Story Points per person per Sprint out the window – instead, use “yesterday’s weather”, current circumstances, and team growth to determine the number of points the team will commit to each Sprint.

Just like any other tool, metric, practice, meeting, or role that we use in Agile, the practices used for Normalizing Story Points have a stated benefit. We do not do things for the sake of doing them. Normalizing Story Points can have a tremendous positive impact on an organization practicing Agile at scale; a misunderstanding of Normalized Story Points can have a significant negative impact on that same organization.