Scrum In the Waterfall

© David Prior, 2010

Scrum in the Waterfall Dave Prior, PMP, CST, MBA

© Dave Prior, 2009

Once upon a time in the far off land of Oklahoma...

© Dave Prior, 2009

There was a really big little company that had some very

old software...

© Dave Prior, 2009

That took two years in requirements, and four years

to build... ten years ago

© Dave Prior, 2009

that they needed rebuilt in eight months, using .Net...

© Dave Prior, 2009

and they had no documented requirements...

© Dave Prior, 2009

and they wanted to switch to Scrum... at least, some of

them did.


“You can use ‘scum’ or whatever you want. Just give me a Gantt chart, tell me what day you will be done all the

work and how much it will cost.”


Here’s the rub... !  Dir. of IT/Product Owner wants a fresh start,

embracing change and believes deeply in the benefits of Scrum��

!  Senior Mgmt./Project Sponsor wants results, but is not interested in changing how the company looks at work��

!  We needed to find a way to keep both sides happy so we could get the work done.


the not helping part... Sr. Sponsor: When will it be done?

Product Owner: When you stop asking for

more stuff.

Sr. Sponsor: What will you have ready for me on Date X?

Product Owner - Whatever we’ve got

completed at that time

© Dave Prior, 2009

How we solved it...

!   Both the Tech Lead and PM assigned were CSMs

!   1 CSM to lead development

!   1 CSM to manage communication and relationship with senior management

!   Tailoring of the output of the Scrum Process for an audience looking for more traditional PM reporting


Project Leadership !   Product Owner - storehouse of knowledge of what the

application is supposed to do and how it was done before��

!   Scrum Master - traditional CSM role...leads scrum efforts, manages technical team’s efforts��

!   PM/Scrum Master - acts as the “anti-corruption layer” between senior sponsor and product owner, translates sprint reporting into something palatable by senior management


Why do they want what they want?

!  There is the “thing” being demanded��

!  There is the reason it is being demanded

!   If you can’t meet the demand, meet the motivation��

!  Uncovering why they need what they are asking for can create options for meeting their true need instead of their demand


Want - Need !   They want a Gantt chart with milestones, cost estimates,

staffing requirements��

!   They need to be able to demonstrate to the organization that the project is on track and moving in a positive manner towards completion��

!   A lack of visibility can appear as chaos to those who are already worried. This drives fear, which drives stress��

!   Stress is way bad��

!   Scrum offered a level of transparency that was ideally suited to this situation... except for one thing


The one thing... !   Senior Management did not have the bandwidth to

attend the daily stand-ups or visit the war room or get involved with the project at a participant level��

!   Senior Management just needed information that they could trust and they needed it provided with minimal effort required of them


Care and feeding... !   While Senior Management was asking for traditional

reporting, what they really wanted was a clear picture, week to week, of how the work was progressing and some reassurance that we could meet the deadline�� !  Option 1: Develop a best guess Gantt Chart that would

be based only on the initial estimates provided by the Product Owner and hope we’d be able to keep pace with it.��

!  Option 2: Use the output of the Scrum process to build a story, sprint by sprint, that earned trust repeatedly by showing concrete examples of output and progress


Getting Started with Option 2 !  We began the project with a backlog of all

functionality to be provided in the deliverable. ��

!   The product owner provided the team with complexity estimates on each item to be delivered and had converted those into time estimates as well. ��

!   The product owner assumed no reusability for the components to be produced, working under the assumption that this would provide some padding in the schedule.

© Dave Prior, 2009

Working Time

While there were some staffing fluctuations across the life of the project, we began with the assumption that we could expect to see an average of six hours of productivity, per day for each resource working on the project. We also assumed that each of them would work five days per week.

© Dave Prior, 2009

Planning the Sprint

!   During Sprint planning meetings, we worked with our ideal hour of labor for that sprint and added items, based on prioritization. Each item would be estimated for both complexity and labor required to complete.

!   We added only enough work to fill the number of available hours per sprint

!   Because work on the use cases was just beginning at the start of the project, the team had to rely on the product owner to understand the requirements for each deliverable item

© Dave Prior, 2009

Watching the Variance !   At the start of each sprint we had a set list of tasks

for the team to work on.

!   We had complexity estimates and labor estimates for each task provided by both the Product Owner and the Development Team.

!   We began tracking the variance, sprint to sprint between available hours and actuals and between planned hours and actuals

!   We also began tracking the variance between the original estimates and team estimates for both complexity and labor required to complete.

© Dave Prior, 2009

The slightly educated guess

!   By tracking the variance in Fibonacci estimation across sprints, we determined that the original estimates for complexity were, on average, 155% of what the team estimated for the same work.

!   By tracking the variance in labor estimation across sprints, we determined that the original estimates for labor were 125% of what the team estimated for the same work.

© Dave Prior, 2009

The slightly educated guess

In order to get closer to an understanding of when the project was likely to actually end, based on what we knew about the deliverables we had to provide, we applied the 3 Point Pert Estimation formula:

Optimistic + Most Likely + Pessimistic�� 3��

© Dave Prior, 2009

3 Point Pert Application While not an entirely proper use of the formula, it provided a more likely estimate than just using one of the three:

Pessimistic: Original Labor Estimate

Most Likely: Original Labor Estimate/Fibonacci Estimation Variance

Optimistic: Original Labor Estimate/Labor Estimation Variance

© Dave Prior, 2009

3 Point Pert Application

Example:

Pessimistic=Orig. labor estimate = 1,000 hours

Most Likely = 1,000 / 125% = 800

Optimistic = 1,000 / 155% = 645

(1,000 + 800 + 645) / 3 = 815 hours

© Dave Prior, 2009

Working with the educated estimate

With an established labor capacity (# of team members * 6 hours/day * 5 days/week) and a revised estimate on how many hours of labor we expect to actually have to complete, we can determine how long it will take to get through the backlog.

4 team members * 6 hours/day * 5 hours/week = ideal work capacity of 120 hours per week

© Dave Prior, 2009

Applying capacity to the Pert Estimate

!  With an ideal capacity of 120 hours of labor per week

!  And an estimated 815 hours of labor to burn down

!  The project should take 6.8 weeks to complete

© Dave Prior, 2009

Tracking Performance

!   By tracking the team’s actuals against their planned work, we were able to determine, on average, how effective they were at reaching their goal each week. ��

!   If we know the team is planning for 120 hours of work per week, but, on average, they only complete 90% of that work, we can make adjustments to how we report on the burndown.

© Dave Prior, 2009


!   120 hours/wk * 90% = 108 actual performed hours realized per week

!   If we are three weeks into our 815 hour project, we will have realized 324 hours of work instead of our expected 360 hours of work

!   This leaves us with 491 hours of work remaining after week three

© Dave Prior, 2009


!   Given that we are realizing only 108 hours/week, we have to adjust expectations with the client because the remaining 491 hours will now take longer than originally expected

!   491/108 = 4.5 weeks will be required to complete the remaining work as opposed to the 4 weeks it would take if we were performing at 120 hours as planned

© Dave Prior, 2009


!   At the end of each sprint, adjustments were made to all of the previous calculations based on new performance data, as well as any new items added to the backlog.

!   These adjustments to the estimates keep the reporting as near to real time as possible and it goes a long way with respect to demonstrating the value provided of this type of reporting over the originally request Gantt chart.


Sprint Start Date

Targeted Hours of

Work

Planned Hours to

Work

Working Hours

Available (6

Resources at 6

Hours/Day

Actual Hours

Worked

Actual / Available

(Goal = 75%)

Hours Remaining at Start of

Sprint (Based on

original estimate)

Hours Remaining at End of

Sprint (Based on

original estimate)

Accuracy Planned to

Actual

Accuracy Planned to

Target

Sprint 1 9/17/07 50 42 150 40 27% 5265 5225 95% 80%

Sprint 2 9/24/07 100 35 150 56 37% 5225 5169 160% 56%

Sprint 3 10/1/07 100 39 180 44 24% 5169 5125 113% 44%

Sprint 4 10/8/07 125 11 144 47 33% 5125 5078 427% 38%

Sprint 5 10/15/07 150 91 180 103 57% 5078 4975 113% 69%

Sprint 6 10/22/07 160 89 180 58 32% 4975 4917 65% 36%

Sprint 7 10/29/07 170 124 180 132 73% 4917 4785 106% 78%

Sprint 8 11/5/07 180 72 180 132 73% 4785 4723 94% 73%

Sprint 9 11/12/07 190 69 180 128 71% 4723 4595 186% 67%

Sprint 10 11/19/07 120 50 108 54 50% 4595 4541 108% 45%

Sprint 11 11/26/07 200 116 180 91 51% 4541 4450 78% 46%

Sprint 28 3/24/08 250 4450 4450

Sprint 29 3/31/08 250 4450 4450

Totals 5905 885 48% 141% 57%

Performance Tracking


Keeping It Real !   You need to re-evaluate the variances and update the

forecasting based on revised averages which include the new performance data at the end of each sprint and report on this, showing how it trends as the work progresses��

!   This not only helps you re-evaluate the total work remaining each Sprint it build a story for Sr. Management that can show positive or negative trends��

!   The story that is created through this type of reporting is what “sells” the value to Sr. Management

© Dave Prior, 2009

Wrapping it up for the folks upstairs...

No matter how much information you have on work performed, or work remaining, it is only as good as your ability to communicate it to the parties who need to be able to digest it.

© Dave Prior, 2009

One Report to Bind It All

The weekly report to management !   Summary Page of Issues/Accomplishments

!   Summary Table of Performance Data

!   Trend and Completion Information

!   Breakdown of recorded man hours worked and cost of those hours

(if these can be tracked against an original set budget, even better)

© Dave Prior, 2009

Highlights of Progress as of 6/6/08   Team will spend this week cleaning up bugs and stabilizing

what is in place.��

  Benefits Exceptions is the only part of Timecards that has not yet been developed. Once this is complete and ready for testing, the team will have finished development on the most complex part of the system. ��

  Tracking information has all been updated, all team members on on site. ��

  New planning will begin for the next Sprint.��

  Q4 Release planning meeting was held.


Summary Table of Performance Data Project Development Summary

Week Ending 7/25/08

Estimated Total Man Hours of Work Available 3118 Total of Actual Man Hours Worked To Date 1018 Percent of Total Man Hours Worked To Date 33% Hours of Work Completed in Sprint Ending (7/25/08) 87 Hours of Work Planned for Sprint Ending (7/25/08) 94 Percent of Work Completed to Work Planned 93% Percent of Work Completed to Work Planned Last Sprint 97% Velocity Change Since Last Week -4% Estimated Hours of Available Work Remaining (Hours) 1620

Development Work Not Yet Done Done (Estimated Hours) 2009 Average Estimation Accuracy (Original vs. Developer) for Open Development Work (Hours) 145% Adjusted Number of Development Hours Remaining 2922 Adjusted Remaining Development Work - Remaining Available Work 1302 Weeks off based on Variance (with 150 wk Man Hours) 8.68


Additional Data Points

We also track the following on a Sprint to Sprint basis:�� !  Targeted (ideal) hours vs. Actual Hours

Achieved !  Hours Achieved vs. Hours Planned��

We report on these each week to show trends here as well


Trend Charts

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

80% 56% 44% 38%

69%

36%

78% 73% 67% 45% 46%

Percentage of Targeted Hours Achieved Hours Targeted vs. Actual Hours

AVG To Date = 57%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

95% 160% 113%

427%

113% 65% 106% 94% 186%

108% 78%

Percentage of Work Completed Work Planned vs Actual Work Completed

AVG to Date = 141%


What’s Missing

!  The Summary and Trend Analysis is a great starting place and provides excellent detail that you can use to measure progress, similar to earned value��

!  But there is an easier way...


The Most Important Point ��In This Presentation


Management Likes Pie!


The Detailed Pie We track each item in the product backlog by its status


A Simpler Pie

Break out remaining work by status and total hours


Management’s Favorite Pie


Management’s Favorite Pie

Break out all work by • Done • Done Done • Not Done

Not Done 70%

Done 27%

Done Done (includes

TBD) 3%

Not Done, Done, Done Done

Not Done, Done, Done Done Not Done 70% 5195 Done 27% 1974 Done Done (includes TBD) 4% 264 7433


Summary !   You can use Scrum in a Waterfall Environment, even if the

environment will not be converted

!   It may work best with a pair of scrum masters, one for the team and one for management

!   Understanding the needs of management, not just what they demand is the key to your success��

!   You need to tailor the information you provide them with to meet their needs. If Scrum does not give them what they want, take what Scrum give you and translate it into something they can digest

!   Management likes Pie


Questions?


Thank You!

Dave Prior, PMP, CST��Email: [email protected] Twitter: @mrsungo

Technology

Scrum In the Waterfall