Agile is in the PMBOK so it must be true

Yesterday, I was having coffee with Jesse Fewell and we discussed, among other topics, how the PMP® or Certified ScrumMaster (CSM) credentials legitimize many in the eyes of stakeholders. This is a sore spot for many, particularly for me.  Experience and project leadership trumps a certification any day of the week.  But, for those of us who believe we know what we're talking about, a credential is sometimes a necessary evil.  As I advise a Federal PMO on a multi-year project, I have grown to accept that progress can be slow and expensive. Things can be so slow and expensive, we rarely get to see actual value delivered.  Rather, successes are measured with earned value. Sometimes, I think it's just the nature of the beast. But, it doesn't have to be that way.

You can only imagine my excitement when a vendor proposed using Agile to deliver the next (year) software increment. The PMO I advise has many PMPs but only one CSM...me.  I'm not going to go into the details of the project.  But, how could the opportunity be seized to leverage Agile?  Rather than answer that directly, I'll ask a question.  If you believe in the Agile Manifesto, how would you convince people with no experience with Agile or Scrum (but lots of experience with the PMBOK and Waterfall) that you know what you're talking about and that Agile is a viable option? I would propose that you make sure you can communicate with stakeholders in a language they understand. If you start using terms like Sprint, ScrumMaster, and Burndowns, when they understand contract periods of performance, project managers, and EVM reports, you may lose that essential stakeholder buy-in.

One of the first things I would recommend you say is "Agile is actually in the PMBOK". If your stakeholders are PMPs and they believe the dogma of the PMBOK, you'll have their attention. It's not called Agile but it is there. In Chapter 2 (Project Life Cycle and Organization) of the PMBOK, you'll read about Project Phases, specifically phase-to-phase relationships, and then even more specifically the iterative relationship.

...only one phase is planned at any given time and the planning for the next is carried out as work progresses on the current phase and deliverables.  This approach is useful in largely undefined, uncertain, or rapidly changing environments such as research , but it can reduce the ability to provide long term planning.  The scope is then managed by continuously delivering increments of the product and prioritizing requirements to minimize project risks and maximize product business value.  It also can entail having all of the project team members (e.g. designers, developers, etc.) available throughout the project or, at a minimum, for two consecutive phases.

For the Agile pundits out there, does that sound a little familiar?  For those who believe the gospel of the PMBOK, is it reasonable to believe Agile is an approach that can be considered?  Agile is not a bunch of voodoo for the wild and undisciplined.  It's an excellent opportunity to deliver value.

April PMP Certification Numbers Are In

Every month I get a copy of PMI Today and I annotate 3 data points: New PMP® for the month, new PMPs year-to-date (YTD), and total number of active PMPs. The trend continues, with the new number of PMPs in April totaling 4,718. Year-To-Date total is 19,596. There are a total of 381,111 active PMPs. The current trend predicts PMI will hit 400,000 active PMP credential holders this year.

Though I'm still worried we're rapidly reaching a tipping point, I want to congratulate those 4,718 out there who passed the exam.  It's no cakewalk and I recognize your efforts and achievement.

Of those 4,718, I've been in contact with several who passed the exam with the aid of my new product PMPrepFlashcards.com.  Yes, I know, gratuitous plug.

	December (2009)	January	February	March	April
New PMPs (Monthly)	5,403	3,714	3,713	5,344	4,718
New PMPs (YTD)		3,714	7,429	12,779	19,596
Total Active PMPs	361,238	367,619	371,014	375,959	381,111

Team Building Techniques - 5 Stages

Ladder

When I think of team building techniques, the one place I didn't think to look was the PMBOK®. In chapter 9, specifically 9.3.2, the PMBOK details Tools and Techniques of Developing Project Teams. For those out there studying for the PMP®, this might be a good time to write this down or print the blog post. The PMBOK lists 5 stages of development that teams may go through, usually occurring in order.  What PMBOK lists is relatively academic.  It won't actually help you with team building.

Those stages, with the exception of the last are based on the Tuckman ladder[1].  Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing. It's a model of group development, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results.

Why PMI found it necessary to add the last one, I can't tell you.  But, in the event you think it may appear on the PMP exam, here is what PMI thinks you should know.

Forming. This phase is where the team meets and learns about the project and what their formal roles and responsibilities are. Team members tend to be independent and not open in this phase.

Storming. During this phase, the team begins to address the project work, technical decisions, and the project management approach.  If team members are not collaborative and open to differing ideas and perspectives the environment can be destructive.

Norming. In the norming phase, team members begin to work together and adjust work habits and behaviors that support the team. The team begins to trust each other.

Performing. Teams that reach the performing stage function as a well-organized unit.  They are interdependent and work through issues smoothly and effectively.

Adjourning. In the adjourning phase, the team completes the work and moves on from the project.

The PMBOK concludes by saying a Project Manager should have a good understanding of team dynamics in order to move their team members through all stages in an effective manner.

Two stages I think they missed include  Empowering and Supporting.  If PMI can insert Adjourning into this list, with the sounds of One of these things is not like the others in my head, I think I can add my two stages.  Still, if you want to pass the PMP, perhaps you should just stick to their list.

[1] Tuckman, Bruce, 1965. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin No. 63. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute.

Image source: Orange Country Register

See Dick See Dick the PM Run

dick_jane_sally

See Dick.See Dick run. Run Dick run.

See Jane. See Jane run. Run Jane run.

You get the idea.

When I was in the first grade, those were the first sentences I remember reading.  I remember being frustrated by this because this isn't really how we talk.  Well, actually, it isn't how I talk.

I suffer from a self-described affliction called over-descriptivitis.  I can't help but elaborate on any and every idea I'm trying to articulate.  I never thought it was a problem.  I merely communicate the greatest level of granular detail to my recipient and allowed them to filter out the extraneous information.  If my wife asks me what I did at work today, I will tell her everything in chronological order.  TMI?

My wife is very forgiving when it comes to me offering more than she asks for.  Sometimes she just puts her hand up and asks, "can I have the abridged version?"  My over-descriptivitis was even addressed in our wedding vows.

I promise I will tell you the time, not how the clock was built.

So,what's the point I'm trying to get across? It's about articulating requirements.  It doesn't matter if you're using shall statements or user stories.  You need to go into enough detail that the person reading it understands your need(s).  After you decide on your format, try to be consistent.

Formal shall statement format: The [activity] shall [desired outcome]

Standard user story format: As a [perspective], I want to [activity], so I can [desired outcome]

Though it may be my over-descriptivitis acting up, I prefer using user stories.  I like the fact that it paints a clearer picture.

How about you?  Do you prefer formal shall statements or user stories? Why?

Why You Should Use Common PM Language

I don't normally drink coffee from Starbucks but someone gave me a gift card.  I like black coffee, with no cream or sugar.  I like my coffee fresh so I order a small size.  So, why on Earth did the person behind the counter not listen to me? I ordered a small Caffè Americano. For those who do not drink coffee, that's nothing more than a small espresso and water.  My expectation was I would get a small cup of coffee.  When I looked at my receipt it said Tall.  I brought this to their attention and I was dismissed.  "Oh, it's the same thing."

Well, no, it's not.  Line up the cups and this is what you will see.  Extra-Small, Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large.  What does Starbucks call them? Tiny, Small, Tall, Grande, Venti. So, what I got was a medium.  I'm not going to split hairs here.  I'm trying to make a point.  There needs to be a common understanding between the vendor and the customer when you both define the same thing differently.  This is a financial transaction.  I want what I paid for.

How does this apply to Project Management?  From the customer's perspective, what is the definition of done.  From the vendor's perspective, what is the definition?  From every stakeholder perspective, do you all have the same definition of done?  You should!

It's important to note, it doesn't matter which approach you use.  Waterfall, RUP, Agile, or Kanban.  Everyone needs to understand and agree to what done means.

Help Me Understand What I am Seeing Here

Things seemed to get a little heated in the meeting yesterday.  Upon reviewing the vendor-supplied PowerPoint deck, we noticed graphs illustrating the quantity of issues found and when the vendor planned to fix them.  So, we flipped back a few slides and noticed a table detailing the quantity of requirements that passed or failed, during the last build.  What we didn't get was something that illustrated the relationship between the two.  Since it wasn't included in the packet, we wanted an explanation. Never ask a question in an accusatory manner.  Don't be condescending.  Make sure the other party hears what you say and understands.  I started with something like this

So help me understand what I'm seeing here. I see....  ...Is that what you see?

I'm looking for the relationship between the issues found and the work you were authorized to complete.  Can you help me with this?

What was missing here was a Requirements Traceability Matrix. It would have answered everything. During this build, only work pertaining to agreed upon requirements should have been done. Only work pertaining to agreed upon requirements should have been tested. Therefore, we should have known immediately which requirements had passed and which failed.  That didn't happen.

It doesn't matter if you're using user stories or requirements.  There are documented expectations that need to be met.  User acceptance criteria should be known.

Any questions?

Listen to your Customer on her Birthday

In celebration of my wife's birthday, I figured I would make her a homemade birthday cake.  I haven't done that since before we got married 5+ years ago.  This time, however, I actually asked her what she wanted.  That's right.  The first birthday cake that I made for her, I didn't even ask what she would like.  If you were the customer, wouldn't that kind of tick you off?  Thanks for the cake but... I don't like that kind. Getting input (and listening) to your customer goes a long way.

Sure, I could have ordered a cake from the local (and now famous) Charm City Cakes but she didn't ask for that.  She wanted a chocolate cake with butter cream frosting.  So, last night, our 4-year-old son and I made her a chocolate cake with butter cream frosting.  We even cleaned up the mess after!  But, it wasn't completely uneventful.  All I can say is I'm glad there were well documented instructions.

Me: Are we a pair of knuckleheads or what? My son:  I think we're a pair of clowns, Daddy.

Here is my Project Management Spin

1. Find out what your customer wants.
2. Deliver what your customer wants, not what you want.
3. You'll spend more money if you want a chef to bake and decorate your cake.
4. You'll save more time if you want a chef to bake and decorate your cake.
5. Even a pair of clowns can bake and decorate a cake (if instructions are good).
6. You should expect lower quality from a pair of clowns.

Product Delivery

• Both cake and frosting passed unit testing. (Mmmmmm)
• We did a little beta testing last night before the final build.
• The final build was successful.
• We delivered on time.
• We delivered below budget.
• The good news is, I'm pretty sure we'll pass user acceptance testing.

Happy Birthday to my beautiful and wonderful wife!

Process Improvement and Grilling Steak

What's a weekend without grilling steak?  I would say a weekend without a good blog post idea.  Some things in life are an art and some a science.  It doesn't matter if it's project management/leadership or grilling a steak. So, what is a geeky way to write about grilling the perfect steak?  I would say compare it to the Deming cycle, or PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle to illustrate the point.  PDCA is a continuous quality improvement model consisting of a logical sequence of four repetitive steps for continuous improvement.

• Plan what you intend to do. In this step assess where you are, where you need to be, why it is important, and plan how to close the gap. Identify some potential solutions.
• Do try out or test the solutions.
• Check to see if the changes you tried had the effect you hoped for, and make sure that there are no negative consequences associated with them. Assess if you have accomplished your objective.
• Act on what you have learned. If you have accomplished your objective, put controls into place so the issue never happens again. If you have not accomplished your objective, go through the cycle again, starting with the Plan step.

PDCA applies to entrepreneurial ideas, application development, and anything that happens to do with my grill.  Realistically, you can apply it to anything where unknowns exist.  There are just so many variables, you need to be prepared to act and pivot.  I have grilled countless steaks and have refined my process to the point that it finally meets my quality standards.  On occasion, I do check to see if my process holds true and all I do is mess up a good steak.  I won't go into specifics as to what my perfect grilled steak process is.  (Unless someone asks)  Rather, I'll say I documented it and saved it in Evernote.

Now if only I could do the same with a hamburger.