Hans Samios' Personal Lean-Agile Knowledge Base

... absolutely #noabsolutes ...

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
what_question_are_we_voting_on_when_we_do_a_confidence_vote_in_pi_planning

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
what_question_are_we_voting_on_when_we_do_a_confidence_vote_in_pi_planning [2016/10/12 07:21] – created hpsamioswhat_question_are_we_voting_on_when_we_do_a_confidence_vote_in_pi_planning [2020/06/02 14:21] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 3: Line 3:
 ====== Premise ====== ====== Premise ======
  
-At the end of the PI Planning event, after we have seen what each of the teams can do, we have a confidence vote which is aimed at understanding how we are feeling in an overall sense about the plan we have seen and commit to that work. Since it is phrased as a "confidence vote", and the implication is that the question is "how likely is it that we will meet all our objectives" the more analytical among the group will say "well there is probably no chance". This is true, based on probabilities alone. But most not do a 1 vote often because they do not feel it is not safe to do so, or because they do not feel this provides any additional input.+At the end of the PI Planning event, after we have seen what each of the teams can do, we have a confidence vote which is aimed at understanding how we are feeling in an overall sense about the plan we have seen and commit to that work. Since it is phrased as a "confidence vote", and the implication is that the question is "how likely is it that we will meet all our objectives" the more analytical among the group will say "well there is probably no chance". This is true, based on probabilities alone. But most do not vote a 1 often because they do not feel it is not safe to do so, or because they do not feel this provides any additional input.
  
 We want to understand remaining issues and we want a commitment to the work. How should we talk about the vote to make this clear to the people involved? We want to understand remaining issues and we want a commitment to the work. How should we talk about the vote to make this clear to the people involved?
Line 9: Line 9:
 ====== How To Think About the Confidence Vote? ====== ====== How To Think About the Confidence Vote? ======
  
-The teams vote on their confidence in meeting their Program PI objectives. At this stage the teams have:+At the end of the Program Increment Planning Event the train participants (teams, Product Managers, Business Owners, Leadership, etc) participate in a train-wide confidence vote on meeting the Program PI objectives.  
  
 +Strictly speaking a confidence vote is not the same as a commitment, but we treat it as the same thing. 
 +
 +At this stage the train participants have:
 + 
   * Spent 1.5 days planning together and 1+ hours hearing about others' plans and risks   * Spent 1.5 days planning together and 1+ hours hearing about others' plans and risks
   * Heard the teams’ agreed Committed and Stretch PI Objectives   * Heard the teams’ agreed Committed and Stretch PI Objectives
   * Heard the team’s confidence vote, usually in the 3-5 range   * Heard the team’s confidence vote, usually in the 3-5 range
-  * History of working together (previous PIs now) and so have a basis in what has been possible in the past +  * History of working together (previous PIs) and so have a basis in what has been possible in the past 
-  * An understanding of the scope margin in place identified through the stretch objectives+  * An understanding of the scope margin in place identified through the stretch objectives to mitigate some level of uncertainty
  
-And so they should have a sense of whether they (the Train) will complete the work and so should be able to commit to getting the work done – we want the aggregate view.+So there should be a sense of whether the teams can complete the committed objectives – hence the train confidence vote creates an aggregate view.
  
-Strictly speaking a confidence vote is not the same as a commitment, but we treat it as the same thing. +The agile approach dictates that commitment must come from the teams doing the work. In addition, a SAFe commitment comes in two parts:
- +
-The agile approach is that commitment must come from the teams doing the work. In addition a SAFe commitment comes in two parts:+
  
   * Teams agree to do everything in their power to meet the agreed-to objectives   * Teams agree to do everything in their power to meet the agreed-to objectives
-  * In the event that fact something happens so this is simply not achievable, teams agree to escalate immediately so that adjustments to effected business plans can be made.+  * If, during the course of the PI, facts dictate that some objectives are simply not achievable, then the teams agree to escalate immediately so that corrective action can be taken
  
-The confidence vote is in response to the question "How confident are you that the Train will hit (ALL) the committed objectives?":+The confidence vote is a response to the question "How confident are you that the Train will complete the committed objectives?":
  
   - No confidence, we will absolutely not meet our objectives   - No confidence, we will absolutely not meet our objectives
Line 34: Line 36:
   - Very high confidence, I have no reservations with the plan and think that the train will meet its objectives   - Very high confidence, I have no reservations with the plan and think that the train will meet its objectives
  
-At the end of PI Planning, there should be good confidence based on what people know and have seen and heard from others. If someone feels that there are risks, or doesn't think there is sufficient capacity / scope buffer, or that we’ve all missed “the elephant in the room” ... they should raise it. It is up to leadership to determine what, if anything to do about the concern. Since we are at the end of the event, the issue might simply be accepted. In addition, if we do not have high confidence, this is probably a subject for a retrospective aimed at seeing what we can do to improve our level of confidence in the future.+At the end of PI Planning, there should be good confidence based on what people know and have seen and heard from others. 
  
 As a result of this act, the stakeholders will know that either: As a result of this act, the stakeholders will know that either:
Line 41: Line 43:
   * They will be informed as soon as anything changes so that adjustments can be made.   * They will be informed as soon as anything changes so that adjustments can be made.
  
-{{tag>Consultant Tools PIPlanning Program ConfidenceVote Planning Ceremony SAFe FAQ}}+If someone feels that there are risks, or doesn't think there is sufficient capacity / scope buffer, or that we’ve all missed “the elephant in the room” ... they should raise it.  
 + 
 +It is up to leadership to determine what, if anything, to do about the concern. Since we are at the end of the event, the issue might simply be accepted or it could become a subject for the train PI planning retrospective aimed at seeing what we can do to improve our level of confidence in the future.
  
 +To expect that completion is not possible indicates a larger issue that should be discussed and remedied prior to the next planning event. 
  
-~~LINKBACK~~ +{{tag>Consultant Tools PIPlanning Program ConfidenceVote Planning Ceremony PIObjectives SAFe FAQ}}
-~~DISCUSSION~~+
/home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/attic/what_question_are_we_voting_on_when_we_do_a_confidence_vote_in_pi_planning.1476282068.txt.gz · Last modified: 2020/06/02 14:31 (external edit)