Teaching Product Owners How To Fish

Product owners are responsible for defining WHAT the Agile team needs to create. The team is responsible for deciding HOW to build WHAT the product owner needs.

I don’t think any Agilist would fundamentally disagree with that statement. Where there is inevitably a great deal of discussion and disagreement is describing the boundary between “WHAT” and “HOW.” Is it thin or thick? How much overlap is there? Does this depend on the nature of the work or is there a fixed standard? Does it have to be determined for every story? These are often not easy questions to answer.

While reading some neuroscience material yesterday regarding how our brains construct “concepts,” the topic lead into the notion of “goal-based concepts.” Since I’m not a neuroscientist but an Agilist looking for ways neuroscience can be applied to the implementation of Agile principles and practices, the material had me thinking about how product owners might learn from the idea of “goal-based concepts.” How can I teach them about the “WHAT” such that they better understand the type and amount of detail the team needs in order to figure out the “HOW?”

I came up with a series of short dialogs:

Product Owner (to team): I need a fish.

Team: OK.

(Team goes off to work on “fish” and returns the next day with a catfish.)

PO: That’s not what I wanted! I need a fish!

(Team goes off to work on “fish” and returns the next day with a nurse shark.)

PO: That’s not what I wanted either!

What if the PO had been more clear about not just WHAT she wanted, but the goal for that WHAT. That is, a description of the problem that the WHAT was intended to solve.

PO: I’m opening a fish store. I need a fish.

(Team goes off to work on “fish for fish store” and returns the next day with a goldfish.)

PO: That’s good. But it’s not enough. I need more fish. Different kinds of fish.

(The team goes off to work on “variety of fish for fish store” and returns the next day with guppies, mollies, swordtails, and angelfish.)

PO: Cool!

Or version two:

PO: I’m opening a restaurant. I need a fish.

(Team goes off to work on “fish for restaurant” and returns the next day with Poached Salmon in Dill Sauce.)

PO: That’s good. But it’s not enough. I need more fish. Different kinds of fish.

(The team goes off to work on “variety of fish for restaurant” and returns the next day with Miso-Glazed Chilean Sea Bass, Mediterranean Stuffed Swordfish, and Pan Seared Lemon Tilapia.)

PO: Yum!

Providing a little of the “WHY” for the “WHAT” has helped the team do a better job of delivering WHAT the product owner wanted.

Of course, these are simplified examples. There are many additional details the product owner could have supplied that would have helped the team dial in on exactly WHAT she needed. In the first dialog, the team had to make guesses about what the product owner meant by the rather broad concept of “fish.” This unending loop is an expensive game of whack-a-mole. Except with fish. In the subsequent dialogs, the team at least had the benefit of the context that was of interest to the product owner. In these cases, the team had a better understanding of the goal the product owner had in mind.

In Agile-speak, this context or goal information would be provided in the “As a…” and “…so that…” part of the story. “As a restaurant owner I want fish so that patrons can enjoy a variety of menu options.”

The less clear the product owner is on these elements, the longer it’s going to take for the team to guess what she really wants.


Photo by Ben Wilkins on Unsplash

Parkinson’s Law of Triviality and Story Sizing

From  Wikipedia: Parkinson’s law of triviality

Law of triviality is C. Northcote Parkinson’s 1957 argument that people within an organization commonly or typically give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Parkinson provides the example of a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bike shed, while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more important and a far more difficult and complex task.

I see this phenomenon in play during team story sizing exercises in the following scenarios.

  1. In the context of the story being sized, the relative expertise of each of the team members is close to equal in terms of experience and depth of knowledge. The assumption is that if everyone on the team is equally qualified to estimate the effort and complexity of a particular story then the estimation process should move along quickly. With a skilled team, this does, indeed, occur. If it is a newly formed team or if the team is new to agile principles and practices, Parkinson’s Law of Triviality can come into play as the effort quickly gets lost in the weeds.
  2. In the context of the story being sized, the relative expertise of the team members is not near parity and yet each of the individual team members has a great deal of expertise in the context of their respective functional areas. What I’ve observed happening is that the team members least qualified to evaluate the particular story feel the need to assert their expertise and express an opinion. I recall an instance where a software developer estimated it would take 8 hours of coding work to place a “Print This” button on a particular screen. The credentialed learning strategist (who asked for the print button and has no coding experience) seemed incredulous that such an effort would require so much time. A lengthy and unproductive argument ensued.

To prevent this I focus my coaching efforts primarily on the product owner as they will be interacting with the team on this effort during product backlog refinement session more frequently than I. They need to watch for:

  1. Strong emotional response by team members when a size or time estimate is proposed.
  2. Conversations that drop further and further into design details.
  3. Conversations that begin to explore multiple “what if” scenarios.

The point isn’t to prevent each of these behaviors from occurring. Rather manage them. If there is a strong emotional response, quickly get to the “why” behind that response. Does the team member have a legitimate objection or does their response lack foundation?

Every team meeting is an opportunity to clarify the bigger picture for the team so a little bit of conversation around design and risks is a good thing. It’s important to time box those conversations and agree to take the conversation off-line from the backlog refinement session.

When coaching the team, I focus primarily on the skills needed to effectively size an effort. Within this context I can also address the issue of relative expertise and how to leverage and value the opinions expressed by team member who may not entirely understand the skill needed to complete a particular story.

(John Cook cites another interesting example of Parkinson’s Law of Triviality (a.k.a. the bike shed principle) from Michael Beirut’s book “How to” involving the design of several logos.)

 

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

That Isn’t What I Expected

Adverse surprises during a team driven project are about as welcome as whooping cough at a glassblowers convention. Minimizing the opportunity for surprises comes down to how well expectations are defined at the very beginning and how well they are managed during the course of the project. Unidentified expectations are like landmines in the project path. When they explode, it’s bad and the course of the project WILL change. Product owners can’t elucidate all the expectations a stakeholder may have, but with experience they can define the major ones. With practice and attention, experienced product owners can tease out all but the minor expectations that are often dependant on discovery within the project’s sprints.

Key to this skill is knowing the questions to ask at the beginning. In my experience, stakeholders rarely deliberately hold back their expectations. They just don’t know what they don’t know and it is the product owner’s responsibility to establish clarity around expectations. Intuitively obvious expectations rarely play out as such.

A few questions for stakeholders that I’ve found helpful:

  • What business problems do you intend to solve with this project?
  • What do you need to see to know the project is progressing?
  • What will you see when the project is done?
  • What is your availability commitment for the duration of the project?
  • How often to you expect to meet to review progress?
  • How long do YOU think it will take to complete the project?
  • To what extent are your functional groups integrated?
  • Describe your process from design to development to implementation?
  • Are there other stakeholders we need to know about and include?
  • What factors have helped and hurt success with past projects?

This is by no means an exhaustive list of questions. And they may even seem obvious. The answers, however, are almost never obvious.

I also find it effective to challenge stakeholders with scenarios.

  • What happens if we discover this project will take two months longer than expected?
  • What happens if we discover a desired solution is technically unfeasible?
  • How will you support us if we encounter significant delays from client deliverables?

Product owners need to keep pursuing clarity around expectations until they are satisfied they have a good understanding of how the people side of the project will unfold. This will go a long way to helping the development team handle the technical side of the project.

While stakeholders answer these questions, product owners need to pay attention not just the words stakeholders use, but how they answer as well. They need to be scanning for underlying assumptions that drive the answers. These often reflect relevant cultural drivers which can signal significant expectations seemingly unrelated to the project at hand.

For example, perhaps the product owner has established the expectation of a three business day turnaround for feedback from the stakeholder when asked to review periodic project deliverables. “We can complete our reviews within three business days and work to get them to you as fast as possible,” says the stakeholder somewhat hesitantly as he looks off into the distance. Where the pain begins is when the inattentive product owner discovers that, while the feedback may be ready, the client organization has a thick layer of compliance and the feedback is hung up in legal for an additional one to two weeks…every time. If the stakeholder’s responses reflect something less than 100% commitment, keep asking questions designed to surface underlying assumptions.

As each sprint concludes, and eventually the project as well, the savvy product owner knows their work with expectations isn’t complete. Retrospectives for each sprint, each release, and the project conclusion should make note of the expectations that were missed and consider questions that could have been asked that would have helped surface the surprise expectations sooner.

This is also an excellent time to consider if any of the existing expectations have changed or if it appears there may be new expectations emerging. Internal forces, such as changes in team composition, and external forces, such as shifting market demands, can significantly impact the set of expectations a product owner is tasked with managing.

If  you expected to read these kinds of things about surfacing stakeholder expectations, then you’re probably an experienced product owner.

 

Image by S K from Pixabay

Drive for Teams

I recently re-read Daniel Pink’s book, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.” I read it when it was first published and I was still managing technical teams. Super brief summary: The central idea of the book is that people are mostly driven by intrinsic motivation based on three aspects:

  • Autonomy — The desire to be self directed.
  • Mastery — The urge to improve skills.
  • Purpose — The desire to engage with work that has meaning and purpose.

I find this holds true for individuals. However, when applied to teams optimizing for these three aspects can be problematic. If an individual on a team seeks to maximize autonomy, they are likely to come into conflict with the objectives of the team. For example, a software team that is tasked with developing a component that is expected to interact with several other components developed by other teams. If a single developer, in the interests of maximizing their individual autonomy, has decided to develop the component according to standards, design principles, and tools that are different from those of teammates and other teams (essentially, a local optimization,) then the result is likely to be sub-optimal overall.

Some individual autonomy must necessarily be sacrificed in the interests of effective collaboration. It’s possible, even desirable, that individual pursuits of mastery and purpose can be maintained. However, it may be necessary for an individual to focus on mundane tasks and the objectives of the team for periods of time. Finding ways to maintain a healthy balance between the intrinsic motivators and the purpose of the team is no small task and, when found, requires constant attention to maintain.

Perhaps it is possible to attach the team’s or organization’s purpose to the interests of the individual. Or sort for hiring people who have a personal purpose that is in-line with the organization’s purpose.

Image by M. Maggs from Pixabay