As a PM, Is your team Optimised for Value?

Peter McCloy • Mar 20, 2019
As IT project managers we like our metrics that define how well our project is performing. But what are the metrics that really matter?

Our principle role is to ensure that a contract deliverable is delivered and signed off, that our commercials are in order and that we don’t end up in a legal quagmire with our now ex-client. Like many of you, I have experienced projects that went off the rails and needed a herculean effort to drag a result over the line, and often we celebrated what a great job we did to deliver a result. These type of projects are all too common and usually embraced within an organisation that “hero worships” their people. Never again - heroes are for the big screen, in real life we need consistent and measurable development processes that can be sustained for months or years.

I have been creating and running scrum based software teams for over 10 years now. Following true SCRUM processes, the results are awesome. What I have observed over that period are motivated developers who enjoy coming into work, software releases with few defects and good working software. What happens too often however is that when we transition from “project to BAU” we see good team processes breakdown and a subsequent decline quality and increase in ongoing maintenance and operational costs. How to do we prevent this, how do we preserve the processes that deliver good value engineering? My hypothesis is that we need to measure agile maturity and ensure that if we have to hand over process that we can identify the agile maturity level needed to match that of our project teams.

So, I set out to prove that an Agile Maturity assessment was what we needed to one, prove that we were doing high maturity agile and two, that our client’s internal agile maturity needed to lift to match that of the teams handing over process. I am right of course, I just can't back up my hypothesis with recent supporting research. However…

Where that research is leading is towards the Agile Fluency model. While it looks like a maturity model from a distance, once you look into the model it is very different model. There are key measures that we can use to guide teams to better fluency, for example how long it takes for a code change to move from developed to in production, how often software is released to production, how often a production software release is rolled back.

As an agile project manager, we need to discuss with our teams how to achieve shortening the path to production, releasing more often, and we need to facilitate the business defining the value gained through these measures. When we have a “C level” executive at a showcase confirming the value of work delivered, and discussing what feature enhancements are next in line for development, I know we are nailing it.

 

References:

Share This Post

Get In Touch

Recent Posts

By Joe Cooney 02 Apr, 2024
Red-team challenges have been a fun activity for PZ team members in the past, so we recently conducted a small challenge at our fortnightly brown-bag session, focusing on the burgeoning topic of prompt injection. Injection vulnerabilities all follow the same basic pattern – un-trusted input is inadvertently treated as executable code, causing the security of the system to be compromised. SQL injection (SQLi) and cross-site scripting (XSS) are probably two of the best-known variants, but other technologies are also susceptible. Does anyone remember XPath injection? As generative models get incorporated into more products, user input can be used to subvert the model. This can lead to the model revealing its system prompt or other trade secrets, reveal information about the model itself which may be commercially valuable, subvert or waste computation resources, perform unintended actions if the model is hooked up to APIs, or cause reputational damage to the company if the model can be coerced into doing amusing or inappropriate things. As an example, entrepreneur and technologist Chris Bakke was recently able to trick a Chevy dealership’s ChatGPT-powered bot into agreeing to sell him a Chevy Tahoe for $1 . Although the U.S. supreme court has yet to rule on the legal validity of a “no takesies backsies” contract (as an employee of X Chris is probably legally obligated to drive a Tesla anyway) it is not hard to imagine a future scenario with steeper financial consequences.
27 Feb, 2024
With the advent of ChatGPT, Bard/Gemini and Co-pilot, Generative AI, and Large Language Models (LLMs) have been thrust into the spotlight. AI is set to disrupt all industries, especially those that are predominately based on administrative support, legal, business, and financial operations, much like insurance and financial organisations.
By Joe Cooney 22 Feb, 2024
One of the features of life working at PZ is our brown bag lunch and learn sessions; presentations by staff on topics of interest – sometimes, but not always technical, and hopefully amusing-as-hell. Yesterday we took a break from discussing the book Accelerate and the DORA metrics to take a whirlwind tour of the current state of play running “open source” generative AI models locally. Although this talk had been ‘in the works’ for a while, one challenge was that it needed to constantly be revised as the state of AI and LLMs changed. For example, the Stable Video Diffusion examples looked kind of lame in comparison to OpenAI’s Sora videos (released less than a week ago) and Groq’s amazing 500 token-per-second hardware demo on Monday/Tuesday , and the massive context size available now in the Gemini 1.5 models (released a few hours before OpenAI announced Sora...coincidence? An effort by OpenAI to steal back the limelight! Surely NOT!). And now a day later, with the paint still drying on a highly amusing slide-deck for the talk, Google releases their “open-source" Gemma models! The day itself presented an excellent example of why having more control of your models might be a good thing. ChatGPT 4 users began reporting “crazy” and highly amusing responses to fairly normal questions . We became alerted to this when one of our own staff reported on our internal Slack about a crazy response she received to a question about the pros and cons of some API design choices. The response she got back started normally enough, but then began to seem to channel Shakespeare’s Macbeth and some other olde English phrases and finished thusly. "Choose the right charm from the box* dense or astray, it’ll call for the norm. Your batch is yours to halter or belt. When in fetch, marry the clue to the pintle, and for the after, the wood-wand’s twist'll warn it. A past to wend and a feathered rite to tend. May the gulch be bygones and the wrath eased. So set your content to the cast, with the seal, a string or trove, well-deep. A good script to set a good cast. Good health and steady wind!" The sample JSON payload was also in keeping with the rest of the answer. { "htmlContent": "

Your HTML here

", "metadata": { "modifiedBy": "witch-of-the-wood", "safety": "sanitized", "mood": "lunar" } } Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble. Although there were no reports of the GPT4 API being affected by this (only ChatGPT) it might have given people developing automated stock trading bots using GPT4 a reason to pause and contemplate what might have been if their stock portfolio now consisted of a massive long position on Griselda’s Cauldron Supplies. As ChatGPT would say, Good health and steady wind.
Bay McGovern Patient Zero
By Demelza Green 11 Feb, 2024
Bay didn’t start her career out in software development. At school, Bay excelled at maths and physics, but adored writing, English and drama; lost in a world of Romeo and Juliet and epic fantasy.
More Posts
Share by: