Power Models and Method Affinity

a.k.a. why are some people SAFe oriented, others DAD biased, yet others LeSS enthusiasts, and not forgetting the DSDM gang, the Nexus collective…and I’m running out of terms.

I’m sure there are a whole host of reasons, but during my time observing people, and knowing a bit about their past and what they’re like, it has led me to form an interesting (to me anyway) hypothesis. It’s to do with power.

A Brief History of Power

Without digging too far too much into Taylorism or others, there are a handful of basic power models that can theoretically exist in an organisation (heavily simplified for illustrative purposes, as real life is never this “simple”).

  • Power in the hierarchy, the higher up you go, the more power you have
  • Power in the middle management – sometimes disparagingly called the permafrost
  • Power on the edges – people on the ground in front of customers

These can manifest themselves onto a project context in a few ways (note for want of better options, I’m labelling these categories with overloaded terms)

  • Power lies with the “planners” – e.g. project managers, PMO
  • Power lies with the “architects” – EAs, Solution Architects
  • Power lies with the “developers” – developers, testers, BAs

Human nature is such that we flock towards things that are like us. Planners are more likely to favour other planners, and work using systems where the balance of power is in their direction. The same sort of thing is true for the Architects and the Developers.


And now we get to the Methods part of this blog. I’m going to focus on agile methods, and agile scaling frameworks. And in particular, how these methods and frameworks are perceived, at least initially. That bit is key. Most of this “natural affinity” stuff is emotional in nature, and not fundamentally driven by rational thinking (hint: there’s a lot of religion in this area). As there are lots of them out there, I’ll just pick the three major ones (based entirely on how often clients talk to me about agile at scale, and nothing remotely scientific).


The overall guidance is dominated by the navigable map. It has several terms that will be comforting and reassuring to hierarchical type organisations with traditional reporting lines and financial controls – Programme / Portfolio Management, Enterprise Architect, as well as some guidance on mixing waterfall and agile deliveries. This looks to be solidly planted in the middle of the “Planners” camp.

Based on the hypothesis, likely proponents and allies are to be found within PMO, Project Governance,Configuration Managers, hierarchical organisations with a centralised power model, and organisations that perceive themselves to be traditional with a rich history / heritage.


The first thing that strikes you when you first look at DAD is that it’s rammed to the rafters with choices. It has a risk-value lifecycle (but you can choose others), many options on how to achieve pretty much any delivery related goal that you may have – from big ticket items such as considering the future – how much architectural insight do you need, to very focussed options like the right level of modelling to use. And that’s just part of the “Identify Initial Technical Strategy” goal. This resonates well with those with an architectural bias – architecture is mostly about decision making and communication.

Likely proponents and allies are to be found in technical leadership – Architects, DBAs, and organisations with a strong technical bias.


The navigation map for LeSS in contrast to the previous two, looks relatively uncluttered. There are large concepts identified (such as Systems Thinking, Adoption) but these are all located around the periphery of the diagram. Slap bang in the middle is the engine, and those are feature teams. This puts the Developer at the centre of the universe (as it were).

Likely proponents and allies are to be found within teams and individuals using Scrum and XP on a regular / daily basis, and organisations that “have a small company vibe”, which may be startups on a growth spurt, or organisations in a highly fluid environment with significant localised decision making.

The Goldilocks Solution

As the heading suggests, I think the right mix for any given organisation is somewhere in the middle. Power isn’t solely contained within a single area (though granted, in many cases, the vast majority of the power is indeed concentrated that way), and any scaled agile adoption strategy will need to understand and accommodate that to increase the chances of tangible benefits being felt by the organisation.



As this is just a hypothesis I’ve got, I’d love to hear what you think, whether you’ve observed things that support this theory, disprove it entirely, or somewhere in between.

Learning about estimation when you don’t care about estimates

This post follows on from the previous one, linked here – Help! How do we start estimating?

The problem with running a training course on estimation, is that there’s a danger that poor assumptions are made about the things being estimated – i.e. you could end up “assuming the problem away”. If that happens, the exercise becomes too sanitised and relatively meaningless other than in a theoretical and abstract sense. And that’s often hard to relate to.

Using analogies – e.g. the “throwing the cat game” [http://tastycupcakes.org/2016/05/throw-the-cat-and-other-objects/] can help. They show you the dangers of assumptions etc., but in all the cases I’ve seen, the variability is low-ish. You’re doing the same thing to all items.

But what if you’re doing potentially fundamentally different things on different tickets? For example, if writing a validation method with some clever logic is a “5”, what is “patching a Docker template”? With the industry using the term “DevOps” like there’s no tomorrow, the variability of work a single team will perform will inevitably rise.

We, as humans, are generally far better at comparison based estimation than comparing to an absolute measure (especially an abstract one like distance or time). We’re also very good at spotting patterns. Of if real patterns don’t exist, then inventing them (one of the reasons why the saying “correlation does not imply causation” exists – we need to be reminded!)

That innate ability to see patterns, regardless of whether or not they exist, can lead people to try and find a relationship or common attribute across entirely disparate work items. Some teams make a virtue of this, using terms like “complexity” or “relative effort”, which make reasonable sense – irrespective of work, it can be categorised as complex/simple or quick/time consuming. That allows a single team to use a single “scale” to estimate everything that they could do.

That single scale, is one of the reasons that things can get a bit confusing. With radically different types of work, one thing that can happen is that natural clusters may form. Infrastructure management tasks may hover around the 1-5 mark, development work might be 2-8, something architecturally significant might be 5-13 and spikes might be as high as a 20(*).

If that’s happening, one of a few things could be the cause

  • It could be true
  • There could be the hidden view that “development stuff” is harder than “infrastructure management” (or something along those lines) and that bias is gaming the numbers
  • Anything else I’ve not thought of right now – depends on the room, dynamics etc.

Relative estimation works well within a logical domain – there are sufficient overlaps and related attributes for a meaningful comparison. A comparison across fundamentally different domains makes far less sense. There’s even an old simile on the subject – “as different as chalk and cheese”.

To combat this, I usually recommend having a lot more than just a reference story. I suggest having a catalogue of items, from as many of the affected domains as possible, making sure we’ve got examples of a few of the magic numbers in each domain. When attempting to size an item, the first question to answer is which catalogue item is the closest match, and then go up or down however many sizes as is appropriate from there. It can take an awful lot of stress and confusion out of estimation as you’re no longer trying to shoehorn a square peg into a round hole.

There is a price to pay for this additional freedom – your velocity figures become less relevant, as you can’t really compare sprint against sprint as simply as before, in case the “mix of work” is changing. Your burnup charts may still look like they work, but scope changes are harder to visualise – some of your “scope changes” are likely to be technical debt that you’ve discovered as you could be making platform changes with no change in business vision or scope. It also takes a lot longer to create a useful catalogue, when compared to “just picking an average looking story and calling it a 5”

Teams that go through a learning process like this, usually end up realising that there isn’t a simple textbook answer, and their only viable option to cope is to be alert and have an open mind.


(*) All using the scale 0,0.5,1,2,3,5,8,13,20,40,100 for illustrative purposes only

Help! How do we start estimating?

…came the plea from the team.

Context: Here’s a team that’s primarily a support oriented team. As in, their stated purpose is “to keep the lights on while delivering improvements”. Recent history (as in several months) has had them in a firefighting mode where they just “did stuff”. Planning was iffy at best and they had lots of difficulty in gauging what was reasonable in a two-week sprint.

Hence the ask.

The first question to ask (like everywhere else IMHO) is “Why”. Why do you want to estimate?

Most of the answers I hear generally fall into a few areas:

  • We can use the points to work out our velocity
  • We can build information radiators with burndown charts etc.
  • We can tell if a story will fit into the sprint
  • We can have more credible estimates using relative sizing with points than if we had absolute estimates using hours or days
  • We can plan our releases – especially dates

Very occasionally, someone pipes up with something like:

  • We can work out if we’ve all understood the story well enough to deliver it in a sprint


For me, that last one’s easily the best reason. By coming up with a “magic number” estimate during the planning game, each person’s number represents all of the assumptions they’re making about the work. And during the process of playing the planning game, the most extreme sets of assumptions are surfaced and it gives the team as a whole the ability to learn more about the work from each other and gain some consensus. That shared understanding is the real prize. The number is just a side effect.

There’s a growing interest in “No Estimates” (#noestimates on Twitter). A highly simplified explanation is that estimation is a wasteful event, and you’re better off breaking your work down into small pieces and just work on them one at a time, while maintaining a smooth flow of work. For me the most interesting thing about this movement, is not the “inflammatory” stance on estimation, but about what a team gets by breaking down the work into small pieces and just working on them one at a time. They get work that naturally has very few assumptions inherent in it (smaller work = fewer places for assumptions to hide). And they also get very quick learning about the different assumptions that everyone in the team has about the work, because they’re working on one thing at a time. For me, that’s a similar sort of outcome to only using estimation as a means of flushing out the assumptions and gaining a shared understanding, and frankly, ignoring the magic number side effect. Breaking the work up into smaller pieces is just generally a good idea.


So, with all of that “intro stuff” out of the way, just how do we help a team learn how to get the benefits of estimation? Like most other attempts at teaching/learning, we need to find something that the team actually cares about, and help them learn how to solve the problem / make things better. In this case, we had to get to the root of what the team wanted to get out of an estimation-based process. That’s assuming that an estimation based process was in fact the right thing to adopt. We’d have to examine that too.

It looked like there were two main things that the team needed. The management elements of the team wanted to keep track of progress, detect when things were slowing down, and report upwards.

The rest of the team didn’t seem to care about that. They just wanted to make sure that they weren’t being overloaded with unmanageable levels of work. The reactive nature of a lot of their work was such that there was very little that could be predicted about a sizeable portion of their workload. They needed a mechanism that would let them work on enough planned work, while keeping sufficient capacity to cope with the unexpected.


I’ll write up how we ran the estimation training and practice/guided sessions later on.

The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” relationship with Tools and Automation

Context: This all started with a request to make the tool a team was using (JIRA) prevent a developer from moving a task that was “in progress” back to “not started”. The manager’s rationale was to forcibly highlight when the team started to work on too much stuff. The developer’s rationale was to fix an incorrectly started task.

It got me thinking about how we open up this discussion and make it inclusive. Some questions that seemed to work were:

  • Why do you need to be told how to “be good”?
  • When do you need the tool to “pick up after you”?
  • When do you need to be reminded about what your way of working is?
  • What mistakes do you need the tool to forgive or punish (or both)?
  • When do you need the tool to prevent all mistakes?

All of this stuff is enabled by automation. So just how much automation do you need, and what is it to be used for?

  • Automate or mechanise the “boring parts” of your job?
  • Validation for error prevention or error detection?
  • Automate all of the work variants? Or just the common ones?


As I like analogies, I thought I’d explore this using one, in this case, one of my favourite topics – “food”. For the purposes of this blog, assume time is magic and doesn’t cause any problems.

Making Soup

I want to eat something. Perhaps a bowl of soup.

just in case you don’t know what it looks like


The full process starts in the ground. I could start there with a fully manual solution:

The Good Life

Grow the raw ingredients from scratch. Prepare them as I want, cook them and voila, a delicious meal.

  • + complete control of ingredients
  • – slowest method
  • – I could grow the wrong thing


I could “automate” that growing process, by buying the raw ingredients from a shop:

Carrot, Celery, Very-Strange-Onion
  • + pretty good control
  • – may not have what I want in stock
  • – might not be able to manage the quality “precisely”


I could increase my levels of automation and also automate the preparation work by buying the pre-prepared stuff:

Definitely carrot sticks
  • – only partial control
  • – may not have what I want in stock
  • – may not be prepared as I need – e.g. carrot sticks when I need grated carrot


Or I could be extreme and also automate the cooking process:


  • + fast
  • – limited control
  • – may not have what I want – e.g. I want “carrot and celery”, but all I can buy is “carrot and coriander”
  • – mass production, so probably very generic


Each of these levels of automation is accompanied by varying degrees of “policing”. If I’m a danger to myself when trying to chop vegetables with a knife, automating the preparation work is probably a good idea. But with that are constraints – I can only eat meals that can be made from pre-prepared ingredients.


Project Team Outcome

In the end, we left it such that you could move tickets back, and the policing aspect would be done by the humans in the team. Hopefully they chose that because it was the right thing to do, and not because they wanted my food analogy to stop…

Creativity and thinking

There seem to be a couple of analogies to try and understand two types of thinking (focus time and diffuse time) – the pinball one, with either close pins or separated pins, or the two types of flashlight, either a tight beam or a wide beam. Of those two I prefer the flashlight one. I’m more used to it because of how I ride a bicycle at night – I use two torches. A wide beam mounted on my handlebars and a tight focus beam on my helmet. The wide beam gives me contextual information, and an overall view of the bike trail. The narrow beam floods a small area with light to help me see subtle details that can affect how I tackle the hazard that’s coming up. The beam also moves around as my head moves, so I’m gaining the maximum amount of information possible while maintaining contextual awareness.

When I’m “in the zone”, I’m focused on a rational line of reasoning. Observation leads to conclusion (usually via hypothesis but nobody’s perfect). I can follow a line of reasoning through some pretty large interim steps. Overall, it seems reasonably clear what the focus time thinking can do for you. It’s the algorithmic stuff. Rational problem solving, the kind that ends in “QED”.

So what does the diffuse time give me? Rest? A diversion? Daydreaming? The bits I can identify seem to be all related to one core concept – patterns. The detection of patterns; the use of these patterns as reference points to remember other themes/concepts/”things”, regardless of how unrelated, as long as they too exhibit these patterns. Sometimes not even based on memory, but the use of imagination to invent a plausible “thing” that could also exhibit these patterns. Basically, these are analogies. These can be useful, as it’s possible to use these patterns to influence focus time thinking to go places that aren’t always obvious. In any case, it seems to be a useful mechanism for keeping potentially useful thoughts churning in my mind, in case serendipity strikes.

This leads me to conclude that being creative(*) requires both, a bit like the analogy of the two beam types on bike lights. The wide beam diffuse thinking to generate a whole bucketful of ideas, and then the narrow beam focused thinking to see what each of these ideas can mean. But if that’s true, where do you start? Which idea needs the narrow beam focus first? Perhaps part of the analogy generation process is some form of weighting factor, that’s a guess as to how likely the idea will generate something useful. I suppose that “magic number” is dependent on past experience, skill, perhaps just blind luck. A bit like deciding which is the immediate obstacle that I need to ride over, while also paying some attention to the next one, and the one after that etc. Occasionally I’ll get it wrong and fall off.

Not too sure how this model of thinking will help me. Perhaps I can describe this stuff to one of my colleagues who seems to be stuck on a hard problem, who knows. The only thing I’m reasonably sure of is this aphorism:

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

Hopefully this model of “how creativity works” will be useful to someone else at some point. With practice, it becomes easier to either focus in or let my mind wander and daydream. Something like this also sounds like fun, though it may be “unpalatable” in some work environments…



(*) I think being creative has to be more than ideas – you’ve got to do something with them.

Constructive Feedback during Group Exercises

What do you do if you’ve got a team doing something and you’ve got a mix of abilities in there, and some people are switching off because they’re bored?

I had that happen to a particularly bad extent in a recent classroom (team based research, ending in a report back and a discussion). There were a couple of people in each of the teams that understood the subject a lot better than the rest of the team and were bored with the rest of the team’s discussion. There were other things happening to them that were completely out of my control, which would have magnified the effects.

My typical approaches of nudging participation from the “bored contingent” weren’t having as much of an effect as usual. Having deep dive conversations as part of the report backs were also only partially successful, as we couldn’t explore a topic in too much “academic detail” as we’d lose part of the room.

Thinking back, perhaps one thing that could have helped was asking this open question, for individual contemplation:

“Do you think your report backs were the best you could have made them? If yes then cool. Great stuff. Learn more and improve. If no then tough, it’s not about you and what you could do, it’s what your team actually does. So how do you help your team be the best team it could be?”

Might also need a more positive line, for example “Teamwork isn’t about individual recognition, it’s about collective glory. You’re measured as a team not a set of individuals. And the whole team needs to be part of the work to feel like they’ve deserved the win.”

I’ll try this the next time it happens and see how it goes. Hopefully it’ll encourage some of them to adopt a more coaching/mentoring style to the work, which should help. Who knows, they might even enjoy the experience.