Its a lot easier for a customer to buy into the idea of a QuickStart. There are definitely elements that are great for both ThoughtWorks and the customer. For the customer, it lets them size ThoughtWorks' capabilities a little and participate in a highly collaborative environment where they get to figure out what they really want. Its small enough that they are not investing everything into the process and gives them a bunch of deliverables that they can then use. For ThoughtWorks, it allows us to start developing an understanding of what the project is all about before we provide an "estimate" of a timeframe and deliverables.
The "estimate" part is probably one of the most tricky bit of the QuickStart. Its usually really hard for the customer to understand that this estimate is probably a scale of magnitude estimate and not an extremely accurate one. Instead of the estimate, should we consider giving them a %age range as to what the chances of completion by a certain date are? How much more accurate will this be? How do we estimate the % range then? Either way, there definitely needs to be a strong focus on educating the customers to understand this fact about estimating. Another possible way (at the risk of sounding too simple) is to not call this an estimate but really a guesstimate at this point. That seems to get the idea across a little better that there is an element of guess built into these estimates and that they will get better during the course of the project. Following this, providing a better estimate after X weeks of starting the delivery of the project may be an acceptable option.
Sizing a QuickStart is another tricky affair that we need to be more conscious about. There isn't really a scale that I am aware of that one can use to measure what the length of the QuickStartdeliverables. The way these happen most of the time is that its worked upwards from a two week period. This works really well only if the customers understand Agile and are open to discussions about the scope and the deliverables from these two weeks. Otherwise two weeks isn't really enough time to deliver a master story list, lo-fi protoypes, technical feasibility etc.
In summary, I still think QuickStarts are a fantastic way to start a project. Having said that, I still think there is some learning to be implemented around the above points as we do more of these.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Candidate for transformation?
In any change process, being open to change and receptive of new ideas is more than half the battle !!!
From whatever organizations I have attemped to work on transformation gigs at, it seems like large organizations that are extremely big and slow to change are the ones that want the most dramatic changes and in the shortest possible timeframes.
Granted that in order for the transformation effort even to start it needs a strong push from someone at the executive level within the organization. This is definitely one of the strong requirements for any change effort to even start within an organization. This is something that I have seen the large organizations get right.
Now lets talk about the other side of the coin. That normal employee that has to bring about the change in their daily life and way of working. Does anyone stop to think as to what is it that will motivate an employee at such a company to change? The most common way for these large organizations to incentivise the learning is tying ones bonus to the 'effective change'. Then you get into the area of how to measure 'effective change'. Is tying an employee's bonus really the best way to motivate an employee? Shouldn't we be asking a more basic question? Does an employee need to be motivated to change or is it a more intrinsic affair?
We all know that the change has to be bought into at both the ground level and the executive level. The only way the organization will change is the people within the organization want to change. This in turn will only happen if they feel a strong sense of ownership to the change. And I am not talking only about the executive but every member of the team. Everyone has to have the motivation to go through the steps of understanding the values and practices, practicing it for an extended period, internalizing it and then changing it to fit their specific needs. For people to have the commitment to make such an investment in learning, they need to have a great degree of belief in bringing about this change.
Based on some of my learnings, here's what I think will make a good candidate for organizational transformation:
1. Small product organization of about 20 odd people in size.
2. Have control over processes and product decisions within the organization
3. Have control over technology decisions
4. Have felt some pain due to inefficiencies in the process and practices
5. Have enough money in the bank to eat up the slowing down due to learning and apply new practices
Such a company would have the right attitude in people, both at the ground level and the executive team, the money and the internal motivation to make things better.
From whatever organizations I have attemped to work on transformation gigs at, it seems like large organizations that are extremely big and slow to change are the ones that want the most dramatic changes and in the shortest possible timeframes.
Granted that in order for the transformation effort even to start it needs a strong push from someone at the executive level within the organization. This is definitely one of the strong requirements for any change effort to even start within an organization. This is something that I have seen the large organizations get right.
Now lets talk about the other side of the coin. That normal employee that has to bring about the change in their daily life and way of working. Does anyone stop to think as to what is it that will motivate an employee at such a company to change? The most common way for these large organizations to incentivise the learning is tying ones bonus to the 'effective change'. Then you get into the area of how to measure 'effective change'. Is tying an employee's bonus really the best way to motivate an employee? Shouldn't we be asking a more basic question? Does an employee need to be motivated to change or is it a more intrinsic affair?
We all know that the change has to be bought into at both the ground level and the executive level. The only way the organization will change is the people within the organization want to change. This in turn will only happen if they feel a strong sense of ownership to the change. And I am not talking only about the executive but every member of the team. Everyone has to have the motivation to go through the steps of understanding the values and practices, practicing it for an extended period, internalizing it and then changing it to fit their specific needs. For people to have the commitment to make such an investment in learning, they need to have a great degree of belief in bringing about this change.
Based on some of my learnings, here's what I think will make a good candidate for organizational transformation:
1. Small product organization of about 20 odd people in size.
2. Have control over processes and product decisions within the organization
3. Have control over technology decisions
4. Have felt some pain due to inefficiencies in the process and practices
5. Have enough money in the bank to eat up the slowing down due to learning and apply new practices
Such a company would have the right attitude in people, both at the ground level and the executive team, the money and the internal motivation to make things better.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Indians ready to board the flight to the US or the UK ?
not so...
Indian companies are finding it harder to get their more experienced people to travel to the US or the UK.
I guess one of the biggest contributors is the constantly improving standard of living for experienced software developers. Saving money used to be a big winner earlier but now these folks are paid extremely well in India itself and thats no longer a huge pull. Many of these folks have already travelled to either of the locations and have had the experience of travelling abroad. It is also an indication of the fact that the former Indian software yuppies are growing older and have families of their own which are now a higher priority.
Gone are the days when India software companies could just expect their employees to put their personal life on hold, pack their bags and head off in search of a better life. Gone are the days that travel used to be an incentive. Indian companies need to now incentivize travel.
I wonder what the long term impacts of this are going to be on an Indian economy so used to shipping out software professionals. Do Indian companies need to change their models to fit this new trend.
Indian companies are finding it harder to get their more experienced people to travel to the US or the UK.
I guess one of the biggest contributors is the constantly improving standard of living for experienced software developers. Saving money used to be a big winner earlier but now these folks are paid extremely well in India itself and thats no longer a huge pull. Many of these folks have already travelled to either of the locations and have had the experience of travelling abroad. It is also an indication of the fact that the former Indian software yuppies are growing older and have families of their own which are now a higher priority.
Gone are the days when India software companies could just expect their employees to put their personal life on hold, pack their bags and head off in search of a better life. Gone are the days that travel used to be an incentive. Indian companies need to now incentivize travel.
I wonder what the long term impacts of this are going to be on an Indian economy so used to shipping out software professionals. Do Indian companies need to change their models to fit this new trend.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
