Remember the phrases from earlier in the article series? Here they are again.
- “We’re not moving the delivery date.”
- “We’ll just have to work harder.”
- “The team will have to put in more time until we’re caught up.”
- “We’ll need more people on the project.”
- “The team will have to work faster.”
- “We’re to the point of exhaustion.”
- “I’m losing track of all the pieces.”
- “There’s no time for training.”
- “Where did those errors come from?”
- “We’re waiting on another team.”
- “Another person quit the company?!?!”
- “I don’t care. I get done what I get done when I get it done.”
How much more meaningful these are to you now that you understand a little more about the system dynamics that drive projects. Choose just one of these and find where it’s reflected in the model. (Figure 1)1.
Now follow the impact and consequences around the various feedback loops. Reflect for a moment an ask yourself, “What can I do to help keep the system healthy and productive in light of what I now know may be happening?” There’s a lot to consider. We’ll cover several options in this article.
Moving from the outside in, the most visible nodes in the system are also influenced the least by direct intervention. These are Morale, Fatigue, and Experience. “The beatings will continue until morale improves” is, I hope, recognized as a cynical joke. While offering free coffee, Red Bull, and unlimited M&Ms may perk up employees in the short term, the long term health consequences are grim indeed. As for Experience, well, that just takes time and a great deal of effort to fully shape and mature.
Attempting to alter these nodes directly is likely to be wasted effort at best and more probably harmful. Even if some cursory improvement can be made, the underlying systemic influences – the true drivers – will still be present and will exert a far more powerful influence. It’s Conway’s Law, pure and simple. It’s better to thinking of Morale, Fatigue, and Experience as symptoms or indicators to be recognized and tracked rather than root causes to be treated. As indicators, they are incredibility powerful sources of information on whether or not changes made to other parts of the system are being successful. They are to be used, not abused.
We’ll begin by working backward from the disaster that was built up over the last several articles in the series. Let’s imagine we have a demoralized team (or teams) that are exhausted and burdened with an impossible delivery schedule. As it stands, it’s unfixable. A sprinter has a better chance of breaking the three minute mile than this team has in delivering their project by the stated delivery date.
Let’s also assume the choice is to continue the project. The two major actions for management at the is point are to move the Deadline and reduce the amount of Work to Do in the system. These aren’t choices, they’re actions that need to be engaged thoughtfully.
Simply moving the date to some point in the future that seems “doable” is yet another gamble. Neither will moving the date instantly resolve the other systemic issues. There is a considerable amount of recovery and rebuilding to be completed. It takes time to hire the people needed to rebuild the workforce. It takes time to rebuild trust and morale among the employees that remain. Moving the deadline out will begin to relieve pressure, but it will take time for the inflamed system to cool down and find an optimal working temperature.
The challenge for this first step is: How can you go about finding what is a reasonable date for the deadline? Answering this question is dependent on what is learned by looking to other parts of the system model for data.
- How depleted is the Workforce and how long will it take to build it back up?
- How much of the critical talent has remained with the organization (Experience)?
- Is any compensation (time or money) going to be offered to offset the Overtime put in on the project?
- How much time will it take to refactor and refine the product backlogs such that work streams can are brought into alignment and Overlap and Concurrence and Task Switching minimized?
- What tool and process changes need to be made to reduce the Congestion and Communication Difficulties?
- What’s the Total Known Remaining Work in the system?
Probably, the best thing to do is to declare that for some time boxed period, there will be no deadline date while these and many other questions are explored. This will have a side benefit of signaling to the development teams that management is serious about finding a realistic date. This will help to start rebuilding trust between management and the development teams.
One of the factors to consider in determining whether a new deadline can reliably be set is the Total Known Remaining Work in the system. As has been discussed previously, increasing the Total Known Remaining Work puts pressure on the completion date. Similarly, decreasing the
Total Known Remaining Work by some means will increase the likelihood that the completion date can be met. Actions to take that will allow management to regain control of the work flow include:
- Revisit the release schedule and take a phased approach with clearly defined minimum viable/valuable product deliverables.
- Complete a detailed review of the work done to date to get a clear picture of the amount of technical and dark debt in the system.
- Reassess the sales and marketing strategies so they are in clear alignment with the capabilities of the development and delivery system. What can be eliminated? What can be pushed to future releases? Eliminate “nice to have’s” from this list. Either the feature can be completed in a particular release or it can’t. Those that can’t are bumped to a future release.
It’s been shown that changes in one part of the system will affect other parts of the system, whether by design or not. In this article we’ve discussed how adjusting the Deadline and Total Known Remaining Work can affect each other and the entire system. When adjusted in a way that considers system-wide effects, they can help restore balance and predictability to the overall system.
Previous article in the series: Assessing and Tracking Team Performance – Part 7: “Abandon All Hope,…”
1The core of the model I use to assess team and organization health is based on the work of James Lyneis and David Ford: System Dynamics Applied to Project Management, System Dynamics Review Volume 23 Number 2/3 Summer/Fall 2007