After attending the very well-supported DSDM Agile Business Conference in London recently, it seems more and more organisations are now actively engaged in Agile programmes. As a result, the debate has moved on. Some of the naïve Agile evangelism is gone (or at least muted), and in its place, I am pleased to see that we are beginning to discuss the real business issues around software development.
I was particularly interested in the closing conference keynote from Dan North. I liked his description of a six-stage Agile journey, which went as follows, if I have remembered it correctly:
- First, the people break
- Second, the tools break
- Third, governance breaks
- Fourth, management breaks
- Fifth, finance breaks
- Finally, the organization breaks
What I understood him to mean by this is that everything has to be re-thought to fully exploit the benefits of Agile. And one of the hardest issues to overcome is governance. Once you get over that hurdle, management, finance and the organizational structure follow.
Governance is the point where we leave the realm of software development and start talking about the organization. Governance is about what the business expects from its investment in applications development and maintenance, not what the developers want from the business.
This is why I believe developer-centric Agile finds governance to be such a barrier – good governance means managing applications development and maintenance with the same discipline as every other business activity. It’s not about coding or “being creative,” but about delivering value for money. Developers should ask business managers to define what they mean by “value,” but they cannot expect a blank cheque on the promise of delivering it. The business will still want to know how long it will take and what it will cost. So, you still need good estimating practice – something that is still poorly done in many organisations, whether waterfall or Agile.
Earlier, on day two of the conference, a keynote from Dean Leffingwell on the Scaled Agile Framework married Agile techniques with Lean principles (as does DCG’s own Agile architecture). This seems to me a more mature way of looking at Agile. The principles of Agile arise from the activity of software development – sure, they can be more widely applied, but if the end-game is business value, it is better to go back to the underlying Lean principles of value flow and customer-focus. Agile may help you get better results, but without the Lean focus on value, they may come at a cost you can’t afford.
Getting value for money from IT is something many organisations have always struggled with, largely because measuring the value of software is not an easy thing to do (whereas measuring the cost is).
Nevertheless, if you want to deliver value from software, you need to manage the delivery of value. And if you need to manage it, you need to measure it, because I don’t know any other way of truly understanding what’s going on, let alone having any real control over it.
So, we end up with those two hardy perennials: measurement (or let’s call it “governance data”) and estimating. Maybe I look at these topics with a biased eye, but it seems to me the case for doing these things better has never been stronger.
DCG-SMS, Marketing Director