v0.2 – 28 apr 2007©copyright 2007 r. goatham 1 the pm coach patterns in the decision engine...

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007

©Copyright 2007 R. Goatham

1

The PM Coach

Patterns in the Decision Engine““Understanding the Power Plant of Progress”Understanding the Power Plant of Progress”

Robert Goatham, B.Sc. Eng, CQA, PMP

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Visit Clarrus.Com

• Following PPT is provided for individual use only. If you are interested in a lunch and learn or additional training please contact Robert at;

[email protected]

• The Decision Engine Assessment Tool is available at Clarrus.com

http://www.clarrus.com/services/Decisions_assessment.htm

• Follow up consulting and training are available through Clarrus.

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Who’s Here?

• Quality Control• Quality Assurance• Managers• Developers• Consultants• Trainers• Students• Other

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Pop Quiz

What is the productivity difference between the strongest teams and

the least effective?

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Performance Variance

0

1

2

3

4

5

Team productivity

Best performance

Worst performance

Sackman , Erikson & Grant 1968, Curtis 1981, Mills 1983, DeMarco & Lister 1985, Curtis et al 1986, Card 1987, Valette & Mc Garry 1989.

Weinberg & Schulman 1974, Boehem 1981, Mills 1983, Boehem, Gray & Seewaldt 1984, Basili 1995

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Group Question

What are the root causes behind such differences?

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


About the Talk

• Origins– Reflections on attempts to implement Software Process

Improvement– Observations of successful individuals and successful teams– Observations of failed projects and failed teams

• Theme– Not a talk about process– Not a talk about Quality Control– Not a talk about the latest tool– A perspective on where we go wrong

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Search for a Correlation

Approach used Observed Successful Projects

Observed Unsuccessful Projects

Ad-hoc approach

CMM type methods

Agile type methods

Re-organization

With significant training

Without significant training

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Candidate Correlation

“The value a project delivers is directly proportional to the

cumulative effectiveness of the millions of individual decisions

made during the project…”

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Project’s Atomic Structure

ProcessInputs Outputs

Process Process Process Process

Task Task Task Task

Tools

Techniques

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

D

D

D

When Decisions Go Bad

D

D

D

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


An Underlying Force?

“Hidden from view in the intellectual dimension lies a force that powers a project’s progress. It’s the force that

allows high performing teams to make effective decisions while hindering the

decision-making abilities of less effective teams…”

R. Goatham

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Group Question

What are the factors that affect a team’s decision making

capability?

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Factors in Decision Making

Decision

Contributing Factors

Clarity of the question,Experience,Business domain knowledge,Technical domain knowledge,Aptitude,Attitude,Training,Organizational culture,Personal bias,Emotions / Mood,

ImaginationAvailable timePerceived roles and responsibilitiesAuthoritiesStability of the environmentLeadershipCommitment to the projectEffectiveness of communicationsNumber of people involvedPerceived risk

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Marriage of Knowledge

Technical Knowledge& Skills

Subject MatterDomain Knowledge

“If you focus your attention on the movement of intelligence from people to bits as the central activity of software development, you'll have a valid point of view from which to lead the development of software”Jim McCarthy – Software Dynamics

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Path Forward

Leadership and Direction



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The People Factor


Engagement and Participation

Ownership and Commitment



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Sharing a Common Picture

Shared Understandings Leadership and Direction





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Decision Engine


Governance and Control

Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Decision Engine

• Effective Teams– Demonstrate strength in all elements– Work together effectively through

• Communications• Cooperation• A jigsaw that works

• Less Effective Teams– Have weakness in some or all elements– Fail to communicate effectively– Leave gaps in the jigsaw

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Jigsaw of Decision Making

Person 1 Person 2

Person 3

Person 4 Person 5

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Jigsaw of Decision Making

Person 1 Person 2

Person 4 Person 5

Person 3

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Blowing in the Wind

Shared Understandings


Integration



Blowing in the Wind1. Building the wrong product2. Wasted time and money3. Decisions made out of

sequence4. Ineffective coordination



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


A Broken Jigsaw





Disconnected Gears1. Work of different groups

mismatches2. Gaps and holes 3. Late breaking integration

problems



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Missing in Action



Integration


Missing in Action1. Delays waiting for answers2. Inaction3. Slow start followed by high

pressure ending4. Late breaking changes



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Working in the Dark



Integration



Working in the Dark1. Incorrect assumptions2. Missed opportunities3. Poor designs4. Missing scope5. Late breaking changes


V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Confusion Cocktail



Integration



The Confusion Cocktail1. Misunderstandings2. Wasted efforts3. Rounds of “clarifications”4. Conflicts5. Late breaking changes



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Tripped by the Tool



Integration



Tripped by the Tool1. Slow development2. Estimation challenges3. Missed opportunities4. Inefficient designs5. Late breaking changes


V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Tai Chee



Integration


Tai Chee1. Indecision eats up time

and budget2. “Not my job” syndrome3. Source of volatility



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Out of Control


Integration



Out of Control1. Constant rework2. Schedule slippages,

budget overruns3. Errors in the foundations



V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Familiar Patterns



Integration





Out of Control1. Constant rework2. Schedule slippages,

budget overruns3. Errors in the foundation

Tai Chee1. Indecision eats up time and

budget2. “Not my job” syndrome3. Source of volatility

Tripped by the Tool1. Slow development2. Estimation challenges3. Missed opportunities4. Inefficient designs5. Late breaking changes

The Confusion Cocktail1. Misunderstandings2. Wasted efforts3. Rounds of “clarifications”4. Conflicts5. Late breaking changes

Working in the Dark1. Incorrect assumptions2. Missed opportunities3. Poor designs4. Missing scope5. Late breaking changes

Missing in Action1. Delays waiting for answers2. Inaction3. Slow start followed by high

pressure ending4. Late breaking changes

Disconnected Gears1. Work of different groups

mismatches2. Gaps and holes 3. Late breaking integration

problems

Blowing in the Wind1. Building the wrong product2. Wasted time and money3. Decisions made out of

sequence4. Ineffective coordination

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Assessing Your Project



Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Assessment Tool

• Evaluate project on 32 key issues– Use a score of between 1 and 5

• Score 1 if the statement is completely untrue.• Score 5 if the statement is an full accurate

description of your project.

– For complexity rating questions use 1 for simple environment and 5 for highly complex environment.

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Minimum Target



Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Dot of Death



Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Typical Pattern



Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


The Decision Vacuum



Integration





V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Typical Pattern



Integration





• Some of the risk facing such a project;– Becoming a technology lead project,– The “Skipping Stone” start– Schedule slippages due to critical resources not being able to provide full attention– Losses due to confusion– Likely to suffer from significant number of change requests (or possible loss of scope control

due to lack of governance and control)– Integration problems

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Visit Clarrus.Com

• The Decision Engine Assessment Tool is available at Clarrus.com

http://www.clarrus.com/services/Decisions_assessment.htm

• Follow up consulting and training are available through Clarrus.

V0.2 – 28 Apr 2007


Technical Skills &

Knowledge

Shared Understandings

Leadershipand

Direction

Governanceand Control

Integration


Engagementand

Participation


Focus the Decision Making

Strive for Stability, Quash

Volatility

Strengthenthe Team

CreateClarity

Facilitate withForesight

IlluminateProgress

Build SharedUnderstandings

ManageCommitments

RiskReduction

v0.2 – 28 apr 2007©copyright 2007 r. goatham 1 the pm coach patterns in the decision engine...

Documents

technical domain knowledge

business domain knowledge

teams decision

effective decisions

decision engineunderstanding

people factorleadership

people involvedperceived

additional training