Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
how_do_small_changes_lead_to_big_improvements [2020/04/15 11:44]
Hans Samios Edited for readability
how_do_small_changes_lead_to_big_improvements [2020/04/23 09:34] (current)
Hans Samios
Line 22: Line 22:
 One interesting side effect of this is the natural concern when people start an Agile transformation that they “lose capacity” as a result of identifying dedicated Scrum Master (SM) and Product Owner (PO) roles. Because of the compounding improvements this is not a concern. Lets say we have typical Team of 7 people, one of which is SM, another is PO. With this improvement model, after a year with 2 week iterations, the Team is functioning at the level of 6.45 people (5 x 1.29 as a %). The 1 week iterations would produce a Team operating 8.35 people. ​ One interesting side effect of this is the natural concern when people start an Agile transformation that they “lose capacity” as a result of identifying dedicated Scrum Master (SM) and Product Owner (PO) roles. Because of the compounding improvements this is not a concern. Lets say we have typical Team of 7 people, one of which is SM, another is PO. With this improvement model, after a year with 2 week iterations, the Team is functioning at the level of 6.45 people (5 x 1.29 as a %). The 1 week iterations would produce a Team operating 8.35 people. ​
  
-I realize that 6.45 is still less than the 7 people we started with but the reality is that 1% improvement every couple of weeks is a very low hurdle. Most Teams are able to identify far larger improvements. Newly formed Teams can expect to see significant improvement percentages. Simple tools such as Value Stream Mapping, improvements in collaboration and communication,​ reduction in impediments required to deliver value and so on are usually easy to find and offer large improvements. All it requires is the capacity and discipline to act on findings.+I realize that 6.45 is still less than the 7 people we started with but the reality is that 1% improvement every couple of weeks is a very low hurdle. Most Teams are able to identify far larger improvements. Newly formed Teams can expect to see significant improvement percentages. Simple tools such as Value Stream Mapping, improvements in collaboration and communication,​ reduction in impediments required to deliver value and so on are usually easy to find and offer large improvements. All it requires is the capacity and discipline to act on findings. ​The chart below shows an doubling of capacity if we do a 5% improvement for 16 iterations:​ 
 + 
 +{{ :​2x_improvement_after_16_iterations.png?​600 |}}
  
 Perhaps the Team can end up somewhere in the realm of 1% improvement per (work) day over a year. The improvement for this team is 1342% (1.01 ^ 261 days)! This is not a typo. That is a 13X improvement in throughput, or a Team operating like it is a 67 people. Fanciful? Probably. But kind of interesting. My personal experience showed a Team with 9X improvement after the first year. Perhaps the Team can end up somewhere in the realm of 1% improvement per (work) day over a year. The improvement for this team is 1342% (1.01 ^ 261 days)! This is not a typo. That is a 13X improvement in throughput, or a Team operating like it is a 67 people. Fanciful? Probably. But kind of interesting. My personal experience showed a Team with 9X improvement after the first year.
  • /home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/pages/how_do_small_changes_lead_to_big_improvements.txt
  • Last modified: 2020/04/23 09:34
  • by Hans Samios