how_much_productivity_will_we_lose_as_we_transform_to_agile
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| how_much_productivity_will_we_lose_as_we_transform_to_agile [2020/07/20 10:52] – Added feedback hans | how_much_productivity_will_we_lose_as_we_transform_to_agile [2020/09/09 08:14] (current) – Added "well implemented " hans | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Now don’t get me wrong, there is often a small dip in productivity, | Now don’t get me wrong, there is often a small dip in productivity, | ||
| - | It got me wondering why this is so. After all it seems logical that with such a significant disruption, there would be a significant impact in your ability to deliver. | + | It got me wondering why this is so. After all it seems logical that with such a significant disruption, there would be a significant impact in your ability to deliver. However, based on my direct observation the reality is quite the opposite. The biggest contributors to this are the immediate benefits we get from visualizing our work and limiting our work in progress. |
| Firstly, Agile Teams start to manage work-in-progress (WIP). No matter what method of Agile you use they work to proactively to limit work-in-progress. When organizations embark on Agile, their people are typically over-utilized. Many organizations pride themselves on high utilization rates. The irony is that high utilization typically means things take longer to do (i.e. cycle time increases) and the effect is not linear. Take a look at the graph below: | Firstly, Agile Teams start to manage work-in-progress (WIP). No matter what method of Agile you use they work to proactively to limit work-in-progress. When organizations embark on Agile, their people are typically over-utilized. Many organizations pride themselves on high utilization rates. The irony is that high utilization typically means things take longer to do (i.e. cycle time increases) and the effect is not linear. Take a look at the graph below: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| Source: [[what_is_wrong_with_100_utilization_thinking|What Is Wrong With 100% Utilization Thinking?]] | Source: [[what_is_wrong_with_100_utilization_thinking|What Is Wrong With 100% Utilization Thinking?]] | ||
| - | What this says is “as we approach 100% utilization the time it takes to process something becomes exponentially large.” If you’ve ever wondered why, when you get past a traffic jam, there doesn’t seem to have been anything that caused it, then you have seen over-utilization in action - just that one or two extra cars was the cause. As teams limit their work-in-progress, | + | What this says is “as we approach 100% utilization the time it takes to process something becomes exponentially large.” If you’ve ever wondered why, when you get past a traffic jam, there doesn’t seem to have been anything that caused it, then you have seen over-utilization in action - just that one or two extra cars was the cause. As teams limit their work-in-progress, |
| The second reason productivity is not lost is that Agile Teams visualize their work. Agile methods proactively work to understand and control what work comes to the Team. This means that work can be better planned and scheduled. Prior to the Agile Transformation work typically comes to people from multiple directions without any real context. To the person who does the work, all work looks like an interruption. | The second reason productivity is not lost is that Agile Teams visualize their work. Agile methods proactively work to understand and control what work comes to the Team. This means that work can be better planned and scheduled. Prior to the Agile Transformation work typically comes to people from multiple directions without any real context. To the person who does the work, all work looks like an interruption. | ||
| - | As Teams get control of their intake system they find that more work is planable than they thought. For example, in one shop I worked in, work arrived in the form of tickets. For these people there was a natural feeling that nothing was planable. As the Team got control of their work intake system, they discovered that in fact 65% of the work was planable. This allowed the Team to plan out how to get things done, to reduce context switching, to figure out how to help each other out when there were problems, and so on. The result? The Agile Transformation shows immediate improvements in value delivery. | + | As Teams get control of their intake system they find that more work is planable than they thought. For example, in one shop I worked in, work arrived in the form of tickets. For these people there was a natural feeling that nothing was planable. As the Team got control of their work intake system, they discovered that in fact 65% of the work was planable. This allowed the Team to plan out how to get things done, to reduce context switching, to figure out how to help each other out when there were problems, and so on. The result? The well implemented |
| Beyond controlling work-in-progress and improving the ability to plan and Agile Transformation will have other practices that help improve the ability to deliver value. But both these forces are very powerful and increase a Team’s ability to deliver almost immediately. | Beyond controlling work-in-progress and improving the ability to plan and Agile Transformation will have other practices that help improve the ability to deliver value. But both these forces are very powerful and increase a Team’s ability to deliver almost immediately. | ||
/home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/pages/how_much_productivity_will_we_lose_as_we_transform_to_agile.txt · Last modified: 2020/09/09 08:14 by hans