Refactor Your PMP: Communications Management

As promised… next up we're talking about Communications Management.

According to PMI, Project Communications Management employs the processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection, distribution, storage, retrieval, and ultimate disposition of project information. This knowledge area provides the critical links between people and information that are necessary for successful project communications.

There is a neat little book by Andy Crowe called "Alpha Project Managers: What the Top 2% Know That Everyone Else Does Not". This book surveyed over 5000 project managers to find out what the best project managers are doing differently. One of Andy's conclusions is that top project managers spend significantly more time communicating than their less successful brethren.

In some cases these top project managers spent up to 90% of their time communicating in one form or another. I have to say, that is certainly consistent with my personal experience. If something is going wrong on one of my projects, it is usually because people are not talking to each other.

But maybe I am taking a naïve view of what it means to communicate on a project? It seems to me that the PMI definition of Communications Management is a little broader than just making sure the team is talking to each other. Communications management deals with documents and plans and stakeholders. Communications management is really about managing the flow of information.

Since it's common knowledge that Agile teams don't do documents, I am guessing we have some work ahead of us to reconciling these points of view.

Okay… I was kidding with the Agile documentation comment. That said, there is clearly a difference in how these two project management perspectives treat the issue of documentation, reporting, and even interpersonal communication.

Both PMI and Agile have quite a bit to say about how to manage project communications so let's get started.

Communications Planning

PMI Definition: Determining the information and communication needs of the projects stakeholders

When Agile teams talk about communications, they are usually talking about communications within the team. Agile puts a great deal of emphasis on the free flow of information between team members, between team members and the product owner, and even between the team and the direct customer. In some ways, the Agile community has really abstracted the entire stakeholder community behind the role of Product Owner.

Communication between team members, and between the team and its customers, is essential but it is not the only component of communication that must be planned. Sometimes there are other stakeholders that we must take into consideration.

At the team level, we usually deal with team member communication through collocation, whiteboards, wikis, and other rich and collaborative workspaces. Agile teams trade a great deal of written documentation for these more osmotic forms of information exchange. On a small team with a single customer, it might be sufficient to suggest that customers get all the information they need from attending planning meetings, daily stand-ups, and iteration reviews.

When there is more than one stakeholder, or possibly a hierarchy of stakeholders , sometimes it is not sufficient to suggest that these stakeholders come down to the team room and check out the team's progress on the Kanban board. Sometimes we need to do some roll-up reporting across a portfolio of projects or even programs. Sometimes we need to report status at a much higher level of abstraction for a more senior audience.

The key to planning communications on an Agile project is to follow the principle of simplicity. Don't write documentation for the sake of documentation. Find out what your stakeholders really need and provide it as quickly and as simply as possible. Make use of natural information sources that the team is already producing (task boards, burndown charts, architectural representations) and create documentation that enables your business to make decisions.

Keep things light, go for face to face whenever possible, and when your stakeholders require more; make things as simple, clear, and accurate as possible.

Information Distribution

PMI Definition: Making needed information available to project stakeholders in a timely manner

At the team level, information distribution focuses on those rich channels of communication I mentioned in the last section. Agile teams keep their status up to date using large, visible information radiators that everyone in the team room has access to and can update themselves. These repositories of information are there for the team to know where it is at all times and so they can manage their work. The side effect of these radiators for the Project Manager is that you have instant access to real time information about the health of the project, release, or iteration.

Often, design and architecture will be worked out on whiteboards and then minimally documented on a Wiki or Sharepoint so they can be easily changed as we learn more about the evolving system. Agile teams lean toward lightweight artifacts and central, universally accessible document repositories. Agile teams recognize that the only truly accurate representation of the product is the code itself ; therefore documentation is kept light and at a pretty high level.

Sometimes a customer has a need for more detailed documentation to manage an external dependency or possibly an audit requirement. In these cases, that increased level of documentation is built into the estimate for the feature. Documentation is not free and it will slow down the creation of working software.

The key once again is to figure out what is the minimum amount of documentation needed to satisfy the requirement. Document systems at the highest level of abstraction you can get away with. Make sure you understand the information needs of the external stakeholder, make sure that work is represented in the backlog, and that it is prioritized to meet the needs of the organization.

Use the same collaborative techniques you would use to build features to create the documentation required by the business.

Performance Reporting

PMI Definition: Collecting and distributing performance information. This includes status reporting, progress measurement, and forecasting

Okay… so we've already talked about things like burndown charts and Kanban boards. These are tools that a team will use to organically manage their work and make sure they are on track. As an Agile project manager is your responsibility to help the team and encourage that these tools are kept up to date. For the most part, these are the only tools you will need to understand the health of your project, and you largely get them for free.

Performance on Agile projects is pretty simple. You know how big your backlog is and you know how much you are able to complete each iteration. Based on these two variables you are able to predict how many features you will be able to complete before the end of the project, release, or iteration. I personally like to keep a high level project roadmap that helps me understand where the project is expected to be at certain points as it progresses to completion. This is also useful for managing external dependencies.

These simple tools help you understand what progress you are making against expectations and if you'll need to extend the release, adjust scope, or request additional funding. Since you are an agile team, you'll more than likely be communicating how early you'll be, how much more you'll be able to do, and how much more value you've delivered to the organization.

Either way, you have a tremendous amount of information at your disposal to communicate project to the project stakeholders. Think EVM based on delivery of working product.

Manage Stakeholders

PMI Definition: Managing communications to satisfy the requirements and resolve issues with project stakeholders.

Managing stakeholders is really about managing the issues that come up during the life of the project. A significant benefit of Agile is that nothing is hidden. This level of visibility gives the project manager the information they need to resolve problems and remove impediments.

Issues can arise during iteration planning, execution, closedown, or just in the course of day to day work. Just like on any project, these need to get tracked and dealt with as soon as possible. Issues are reviewed during the daily stand-up meetings and retrospectives.

There are always going to be some issues that cannot be dealt with by the team. I typically hold a weekly or bi-weekly meeting with senior stakeholders where they get a distillation of significant impediments and what I need them to do to help me resolve the issue.

It is my opinion that stakeholders need to be managed and issues resolved no matter what your software development methodology.

I think that does it for this installment. That was much longer than I had expected. I figured communications management would be one of the easier topics to discuss. Maybe I just need to go home for the day.

Let see… next up… Quality Management.

Subscribe to this blog

Refactor Your PMP: Scope Management

Okay… let's get back to our discussion on how to look at the PMI knowledge areas from a more Agile point of view. Last time we tackled Cost Management, this post let's look at Scope Management

According to the third edition of the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Scope Management includes the processes required to ensure that the project includes all the work required, and only the work required, to complete the project successfully. PMI states that project scope management is primarily concerned with defining and controlling what is and is not included in the project.

I find it a little entertaining how these statements seem to be universally interpreted as "define everything you are going to do up front and make sure you deliver what was originally defined". While that may have been the intent of the PMBOK Guide, some projects don't lend themselves to that kind of up front planning. Some projects must allow for discovery. Some projects must adapt to changing markets, or at the very least, adapt based on the teams understanding of the emerging product.

For some of us working in more dynamic problem domains, ensuring that "the project includes all the work required", is a process of discovery. Controlling what is included, and what is not included, is an ongoing concern rather than something done once for the entire project. We need a project management framework that embraces this uncertainty rather than wishing it away or pretending it doesn't exist.

I am becoming convinced that Project Managers default to this static point of view because we have never been taught another way of managing projects. We just don't have the tools to deliver projects any other way. So… that said, let's take a moment to look at the PMI Scope Management processes from a more Agile point of view. I bet we find another way of approaching Scope Management that does not involve defining everything up front and then locking it down for the duration of the project.

Scope Planning

PMI Definition: Creating a project scope management plan that documents how the scope will be defined, verified, controlled, and how the Work Breakdown Structure will be created and defined

Agile project management practices are really the embodiment of a scope planning approach. As a project manager, especially a traditional project manager making the switch to Agile, I have no problem documenting this for my organization. An Agile Scope Management Plan is going to address things like creating the backlog, characteristics of a good backlog item, how we are going to establish velocity or throughput, how we are going to measure burndown against the backlog, and how we are going to deal with changes to the backlog.

Scope Definition

PMI Definition: Developing a detailed project scope statement as the basis for future project discussions

Scope on an Agile project is defined in the product backlog. The backlog is a listing of the features that your product owner would like to have included in their project. One of the most important considerations to keep in mind is that every item in the backlog should be independent of each other. This is the secret sauce that makes it possible to reprioritize and make changes on the fly. Bill Wake has a great explanation of what makes a good backlog item on his website: http://xp123.com/xplor/xp0308/index.shtml.

Rather than looking at the product backlog as a static indicator of what WILL be built, look at it as the baseline for further adaptation. It is expected to change as we learn more about the emerging product.

Create WBS

PMI Definition: Subdividing the major project deliverables and project work into smaller, more manageable components

This is one of the toughest things for traditional project managers to get their heads around. There is no WBS on an Agile project, at least not one in the traditional sense. From the Scope Definition section, we learned that our backlog represents the scope of the project and that each of the backlog items should be independent of each other. Independence is key because it allows us to do just in time scheduling.

Agile projects are broken down into smaller projects called releases. Project releases are broken down into smaller time-boxes called iterations. Content is pulled into a release just prior to its start, and only as the previous release is winding down. Likewise, content is only pulled into the upcoming iteration as the previous iteration is coming to a close. The idea here is that we are going to review what the team was able to complete and make decisions about the next increment based on what we learned from delivering the previous increment.

As an Agile Project Manager, I am generally comfortable laying out a high level plan to understand where I expect to be at certain points in the project. I am also comfortable keeping a chart of external and internal dependencies to help manage commitments. The key is to use these as guidance for decision making and indicators of progress. Problems arise when these tools restrict our ability to learn and adapt to the realities of our projects.

Scope Verification

PMI Definition: Formalizing acceptance of the completed project deliverables

Each iteration we will decide the next best increment to build and then review the outcome once we are complete. The stakeholders either accept or reject the outcome of the iteration and work with the team to decide the next best set of features to build.

Because we want to maintain the ability to adjust the product as we learn more about the emerging solution, we focus on making and meeting commitments in smaller increments. Scope verification is done based on the outcome of these small increments of product and how they align with the product vision and the goals of the release.

Scope Control

PMI Definition: Controlling changes to project scope

Agile teams take a value driven approach to delivery rather than an activity based, or even deliverables based, approach to delivering projects. The product owner can change the scope of the product at will, but is always focused on delivering the most value possible given the available times and resources.

Agile teams give the product owner a tremendous amount of discretion over how the system is constructed and even accommodate changes even late into the life of the project. It is understood by Agile teams that changing scope involves tradeoffs. The product owner is substituting features that add greater value for those that provide less. To add one thing, something often has to be taken away.

Next Up… Communications Management

Subscribe to this blog

Refactor Your PMP: Cost Management

Next up is cost management. According to PMI, cost management includes the processes involved in planning, estimating, budgeting, and controlling costs so that the project can be completed within the approved budget. This knowledge area only includes three process, but as you might expect, we are going to put a little different spin on them and see what we can do to make them more agile.

Cost Estimating

PMI Definition: Developing an approximation of the costs of the resources needed to complete the project activities

We discussed in the last post that agile projects typically start with time and cost as the primary constraints and float scope through the life of the project. While this is true, there should always be some sort of assessment at the beginning of the project to determine what value the customer might expect at what level of investment.

The product owner might approach the team with a high level backlog of features that need to make the next release. The team would then estimate the backlog and calculate how many iterations they expect the work to take. There would be a negotiation of scope, team composition, and release duration as everyone comes to consensus around what is possible.

The cost of the project is then established as the product of team size and project duration.

Cost Budgeting

PMI Definition: Aggregating the estimated costs of individual activities or work packages to establish a cost baseline

Agile teams assess the relative size of each item in the backlog. Some teams also put a numeric value on the expected ROI of each feature in the backlog. In aggregate, the size of the backlog determines how many features can be delivered and thus the overall value of the release. Because costs are assumed to be a constraint, cost budgeting on an agile team is much more a statement of how much value can be delivered, over the life the project, for the approved budget.

The budgeted amount of value for the project is represented in the release backlog.

Cost Control

PMI Definition: Influencing the factors that create cost variances and controlling changes to the project budget

With the cost of the project now established as a project constraint, agile project are not nearly as concerned with controlling the costs and variances of individual work items. Agile teams are most concerned with how quickly the project begins delivering value and at what rate. We need to monitor how well we are delivering the anticipated features and if we have deviated from the rate we had originally expected.

If the project is not progressing as well as we might have hoped, we may need to remove less important features from the backlog. This will decrease the value to the customer and implicitly increase the cost per feature. If the product owner chooses to extend the duration of the project, to realize all of the anticipated value, this would increase the real costs to the project.

Delivered value is tracked primarily by measuring project burndown. Here we assess the total value of the release, what value the team had expected to deliver at the end of every iteration, and compare the actual value delivered against the ideal.

By monitoring project burndown the team can assess and control the cost impact to the overall project.

Next up... Scope Management

Subscribe to this blog

Refactor Your PMP: Time Management

The first knowledge area we are going to tackle is Time Management. According to PMI, time management involves those processes that contribute to the on-time completion of the project. This knowledge area includes six project management processes designed to accomplish this goal. We'll explore all six and see how we can adapt these processes to make them a little more Agile.

Activity Definition

PMI Definition: Identifying the specific schedule activities that need to be performed to produce the various project deliverables.

To make this process more agile, you first need to think in terms of defining the features of the system, not the activities. Up front we want to know how the system is going to behave. These feature specifications need to be small and independent of each other. Agile teams usually call these features a user story or a backlog item. Collectively the list of product features is called the product backlog. The backlog represents the scope of an agile project.

Activity Sequencing

PMI Definition: Identifying and documenting dependencies among schedule activities

While discussing activity definition, we stated that the backlog items need to be independent of each other. The reason they need to be independent is because we want to have the ability to change requirements as our understanding of the evolving system changes. By definition we are seeking to minimize the dependencies between the work items on our project. Sequencing on an agile project is based less on dependencies and more on risk and business value. We want to focus on sequencing based on which features are going to reduce the most risk and deliver the most value as early in the project as possible.

Activity Resource Estimating

PMI Definition: Estimating the type and quantities of resources required to perform each schedule activity.

In traditional project management approaches, we are usually trying to determine the type and quantities of resources when we know the least about what it is we are going to build. Spending time and money to get a better understanding of these variables is not going to yield a substantial return. Agile approaches use a technique of estimating that relies on the collective understanding of the team to determine a relative size estimate of the feature, often measured in units such as story points or ideal engineering hours. These units only asses the size of the feature relative to the other features in the backlog.

Activity Duration Estimating

PMI Definition: Estimating the number of work periods that will be needed to complete individual schedule activities

We've discussed that each feature in the backlog needs to be small. Our goal is to have every backlog item small enough that it can be delivered within a single iteration. Agile teams build in this constraint and then measure how many features they are able to complete in a given iteration. By measuring how many story points, or ideal hours, they are able to complete each iteration, the team can predict how many iterations it will take to complete the backlog.

Schedule Development

PMI Definition: Analyzing activity sequences, durations, resource requirements, and schedule constraints to create the project schedule

Typical agile projects begin with a time constraint, iterations are fixed periods of time and release schedules are usually established at some fixed interval. Each of these are set by the team and the product owner, but once set do not change. That language might sound a little strong but agile is about building trust with your customer. Good agile teams can always make their date, it is the scope that will vary.

Schedule Control

PMI Definition: Controlling changes to the project schedule

Because the iteration and release timeframes are fixed, it all comes down to a discussion around scope. These discussions are a constant collaborative effort between the product owner and the team. The product owner always has the option of adding additional iterations to include more features. Because the features are discrete, and the team is always working on the highest priority features first, the product owner also has the option of calling the project complete at the end of any iteration.

As always, if you think there is anything I left out, or should have dealt with in more detail, please let me know via response to this post. I speak on this subject quite a bit so anything you have to contribute to make this brief explanation more understandable would be really appreciated.

Next up we'll deal with cost management processes.

Here is a link to my post on Agile Chronicles:
http://blog.versionone.net/blog/2008/06/refactor-your-p.html

Subscribe to this blog

Refactor Your PMP

In software engineering, refactoring a module of code means that you change its internal workings while leaving its external interfaces intact. A developer might do this to make the internal workings of their software simpler, more efficient, or easier to understand. The key is that refactored code maintains it's contract with the surrounding system. Everyone can still get what they need from the refactored system component in exactly the way they have always gotten it.

There is something here we can draw from as project managers. As we make the switch to agile project management, we must stay plugged in with the language of the organization. We need to maintain the contract the business has come to expect. Over time we may be able to influence how our organizations think about project management best practice. At some point we may even be able to renegotiate the contract.

For now, we need to take what we know about adaptive and traditional project management and establish a framework for delivering in the language of the business. The PMI process groups and knowledge areas provide a well thought out and disciplined foundation on which to build. Our challenge is to approach the discipline of project management with an agile mindset. To figure out how to leverage agile practices within the constructs of the accepted project management best practices.

Over my next few posts we'll break down the PMI process groups, knowledge areas, and processes to explore how we can build an effective agile framework using the established contracts. If you are interested in a little pre-reading, check out the following posts from my blog and a few others:

Assumptions are Made to be Validated - Mike Cottmeyer

Inverting the Iron Triangle - Mike Cottmeyer

Calgary APLN Meeting Slides - Mike Griffiths

PMBOK 4, This Time It's Agile - Mike Griffiths

Herding Project Managers - Mike Cottmeyer

The Role of the Project Manager - Glen Alleman

Subscribe to this blog

Straw Men and Red Herrings

Whenever I get into a discussion on Agile Project Management, I inevitably find myself contrasting Agile methods with "Traditional Project Management". I use the phrase "Traditional Project Management" as a label for that style of project management advocated by the PMI, documented in the PMBOK, and certified through the PMP. It's the kind of project management we often characterize as big up front planning followed by a blind adherence to the plan.

Setting up the conversation this way gives me an easy way to establish contrast and teach about Agile methods. The problem with this approach is that reality is never quite so simple.

A well run "Traditional" project does adapt and respond to its environment. A good "Traditional" Project Manager does lead and empower their teams. While good "Agile" teams are structured and disciplined, many are unstructured and chaotic. Establishing an us vs. them mentality isn't going to lead us any closer toward developing more adaptive project managers or more adaptive project management practices.

We will always be able to find examples of misapplied process no matter what management or leadership philosophy we happen to hold.

Rather than setting up the "Traditional" crowd to take the fall for all our project management problems, we should acknowledge that there is a time and place where it does make sense to apply a more "Traditional" approach. Let's focus on making the Project Management community aware of those domains where it doesn't. If we can clearly communicate what makes some software projects different, in a language the "Traditional" crowd understands, we will be better positioned to open minds.

Agile is pretty risky for people that have been immersed in 30-40 years of conventional project management wisdom. As Agile becomes more mainstream, we are going to need to deal with people that are not ready to drink the Kool-Aid. If we want the PMOs out there to see Agile as a viable project management approach, we need to meet people where they are and guide them gently into this new way of thinking.

So here is my new formula for having a discussion on agile project management

1. Validate the traditional project management processes
2. Explain why these processes break down in certain problem domain
3. Listen for objections and understand their point of view
4. Explain how agile project management solves some of these problems.

What do you think?

Subscribe to this blog

The Message or the Messenger?

Sometimes we need to separate the message from the messenger. Whether we are talking about religion and politics or project management, there is often a disconnect between the message of the organization and the practice of the people in the organization.

Somehow when people get involved, the purity of the message is subordinated to getting stuff done.

We certainly see this in the Agile community. As people try to implement the principles, values, and practices they are forced to make compromises that sometimes don't feel very Agile. People on the outside will often even claim that Agile doesn't work because their particular implementation of Agile did not work. Was that failure because of Agile or because of the myriad of compromises we made along the way?

In all fairness, I think traditional methods suffer from this same disconnect between the message and the messenger. I can't find anywhere in the PMBOK where it says you have to do all the planning up front, but in practice, that is what often happens. Likewise, there is nowhere in that document that says you should not respond to change or adapt your plan, but again, that is how traditional methods are often implemented.

Is that the message or the messenger? It is inarguable that traditional methods lean more toward predictive project control and Agile methods lean more toward adaptation. In practice though, should we hold PMI accountable for advocating rigid up-front project planning? If so, we need to hold Agile responsible for advocating no project control and ad-hoc coding practices. We need to separate the message from the messenger.

Here is my take… you can run a software project using traditional methods. You can even run a highly uncertain project using traditional methods. You could use rolling wave planning and progressive elaboration. You could do most of the design up front and create a nice big Gantt chart for your project stakeholders. As we begin to build and learn more about the product, just document your changes, assess the impact to the triple constraints, and get stakeholder sign-off.

Send the team off to update their design documentation, recode the application, and retest anything that was impacted. Clearly if the change was approved, you have the additional time and budget to do all the work necessary to accommodate the change. If you dig deep enough into the PMBOK, you will find that everything you need is right there. You could even make the case that if you are not adapting your project and managing change, you are not responsibly managing your project.

So if the traditional processes have everything we need to support a highly adaptive project, why do we want to do so much planning up front? Why do we become so resistant to change?

Cost and time to market.

Traditional project management processes are heavy and slow. They make our products more expensive and take longer to build. Most of us are not willing to invest in the full adaptive capability of these methodologies, therefore, we try to take shortcuts. We believe that if we do our planning up front, and work to eliminate change, we can keep these costs in check. The root of this problem isn't that PMI processes don't accommodate change, they don't give us an INEXPENSIVE way to accommodate change.

As companies, we need to decide if we really have a strong enough business driver to use these heavyweight methodologies. What does your company value more: process control or cost and time to market? If you NEED this much structure and control, and I am sure that some of you do, by all means, leverage the full capability of the PMI planning processes and adapt through change management.

If you need to get product to market quick and inexpensively, because you know if you don't, your competitors will, you need something else. Agile methods are that something else. Don't pay the price of methodology unless it is absolutely necessary. Ignorance of another way is no excuse.

Subscribe to this blog

Herding Project Managers

Last week Glen Alleman published a post called "The Role of Project Management". Glen has been exploring some of the concerns people have with the PMI and the PMP certification. He is challenging us to tell him what process groups and knowledge areas we should leave out. What should we NOT be doing that the PMI prescribes? If we think that the PMI has it wrong, what should we be doing differently?

It dawned on me after reading his post that most Agile Practitioners I talk with don't really have much first hand knowledge of the PMI, the PMP, or the PMBOK. They know of these things through the people that they have worked with over the years. Quite a few folks I meet have had pretty bad experiences with PMP certified project managers and therefore think that it must be the PMI or the PMP that is making them bad.

For the sake of helping everyone rise to Glen's challenge, I have attached the PMI Process Groups, the Knowledge Areas, and as an added bonus, the Project Management Processes. My guess is that the Process Groups and Knowledge Areas are going to make the cut. What about the PM processes? Any low hanging fruit? Activity sequencing maybe? What about activity resource estimating? How about managing the team?

This is looking to be a pretty tough assignment.

PMI Process Groups
(these are the high level components of the process)
Initiating
Planning
Executing
Monitoring and Controlling
Closing

PMI Knowledge Areas
(these are the areas we are managing within the process groups)
Integration
Scope
Time
Cost
Quality
Human Resources
Communications
Risk
Procurement

PMI Project Management Processes
(these are the actual process prescribed in the PMBOK)
Develop project charter
Develop preliminary project scope statement
Develop project management plan
Scope planning
Scope definition
Create WBS
Activity definition
Activity sequencing
Activity resource estimating
Activity duration estimating
Schedule development
Cost estimating
Cost budgeting
Quality planning
Human resource planning
Communications planning
Risk management planning
Risk identification
Qualitative risk analysis
Quantitative risk analysis
Risk response planning
Plan purchases and acquisitions
Plan contracting
Direct and manage project execution
Perform quality assurance
Acquire project team
Develop project team
Information distribution
Request seller responses
Select sellers
Monitor and control project work
Integrated change control
Scope verification
Scope control
Schedule control
Cost control
Perform quality control
Manage project team
Performance reporting
Manage stakeholders
Risk monitoring and control
Contract administration
Close project
Contract closure

Check out this link just for fun: http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200210/df20021001.jpg

 Subscribe to this blog