Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line's Journey) | Özlem Yüce | Agile Greece Summit 2016
•
3 likes•3,124 views
Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line's Journey) as presented from Özlem Yüce @ Agile Greece Summit 2016
Report
Share
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
Similar to Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line's Journey) | Özlem Yüce | Agile Greece Summit 2016
Similar to Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line's Journey) | Özlem Yüce | Agile Greece Summit 2016 (20)
More from Agile Greece
More from Agile Greece (6)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line's Journey) | Özlem Yüce | Agile Greece Summit 2016
- 1. Özlem Yüce ozlem@agileatheart.com @OzzieYuce Improving Agility (Learning from Maersk Line’s journey)
- 3. World’s largest container fleet
- 4. Turnover: $27 billion Bookings/day: 23,000
- 5. Truly global business Containers in circulation: 2.2 million
- 6. Fragmented Technology Landscape USI WebSimon P&O Nedloyd career. maersk.com eProfile (SCV) iReceivables (MLIS) World map VMLO (CAF) ATS2 eXport booking eXport documen- tation SFX (document pouch) SCV RKST GSMS MARS SAF marine eRates Message broker MEPC NGP3 GEO NGP3 office NGP3 mall SAF marine portal RKEM GEO mainframe MCS GCSS IBM payment systems MEX (MLIS) SAF sailing schedules einfo Maersk.com Mondo-search LivePerson Emergency pages Reference- Data MARS service Rates Schedules GUPS Followup shipments CCC ePayment Payment system service eDB Phone book 3 Tracking 3 sROE Portal Office WS client/portal service MailService MEPC W8
- 10. (2007)
- 12. Department
- 14. Department
- 15. Department
- 18. Source: http://epn.dk/brancher/transport/skib/article2069838.ece Make it as simple to book a container as it is to buy a book through Amazon.com – Maersk Line CEO ” “
- 19. Introduction to Agile thinking
- 20. • Making progress visible • Delivering working software • Collaboration towards shared goal • Acting as Scrum Master • Various roles in Feature Teams Individuals and interactions Co-located teams in Copenhagen
- 21. Working Software Beta Release of the new booking application
- 22. Customer Collaboration Focus on Customer and Innovation
- 24. Responding to change Taking on different roles and self organising Breaking down requirements Developing Product Roadmaps Facilitating Prioritisation Customer Experience Design Scrum Master Feature Team Coach Observing Customer Needs Real Options Adapt to Customer Feedback Managing dependencies Managing change Business Analyst Product Owner
- 25. Lessons from the revolutionary approach Manage stakeholder expectations Don’t attempt to scale until you’re ready Defer architectural decisions Legacy dependencies are painful Only tacit knowledge of ‘agile’...
- 26. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 More #Requirements Days Cycle time analysis From Lightbulb (idea) to Live (in production) Median = 150 days
- 27. From Revolution to Evolution... New Project, Platform, Team Revolutionary Existing Setup, Platform, Team Evolutionary Lean Product Development
- 28. The vision More Value Faster Flow Better Quality Supported by an agile mindset: Customer doesn’t really know what they want The developer doesn’t really know how to build it Things change! Faster delivery of value (<90 days lead time) + +
- 29. Mature practices they weren’t leveraging Lean Product Development Agile SCRUM Enterprise Practices Team Practices Project Practices XP Engineering Practices
- 30. Selected Lean Enterprise practices for Maersk Line First steps in improving the whole... Contains 8 practices selected for Maersk Line: 1. Get to initial prioritisation faster 2. Improve prioritisation 3. Pull Requirements from Dynamic Priority List 4. Reduce size of requirements 5. Get to the point of writing code quickly 6. Actively manage Work-In-Progress (WIP) 7. Enable Faster Feedback 8. Enable smooth, sustainable flow
- 31. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow Scope: Lightbulb... to Live The end-to-end innovation process
- 32. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 More #Requirements Days Cycle time analysis From Lightbulb (idea) to Live (in production) Median = 150 days During 2010 Med = 373 days GCSS
- 33. State # RQ Idea! 729 New 897 Being Drafted 416 Ready for Review 422 Ready for Guesstimation 181 Ready for Prioritization Analysis 2980 335 Ready for Estimation 68 Ready for Authorization 219 Authorized Estimation 502 215 Development Initiated 242 Development Complete Development 326 84 Testing (total of all states) Testing 395 395 On Hold Waiting 471 471 Fuzzy Front End * Requirements work-in-progress (October 2010)
- 34. Go Live! Dev & Test (82 hrs) Captured PoC (24 hrs) 18 weeks waiting 9 weeks waiting 11 weeks waiting Wait waste = 38 weeks Fuzzy Front End
- 35. Focus the upstream process 1. Get to initial prioritisation faster 5. Get to point of writing code quickly <1 week <2 weeks Triage Dynamic Priority List Max 5 Refine Pull to coding … Dev Buffer Expect >10% attrition otherwise upstream process is too heavy Don’t waste time doing too much analysis too early! Don’t wastetime on low-value ideas Quickly identify the ideas that will be the most profitable
- 36. Problem: Demand is unlimited Consumerisation of I.T. high expectations… Most change is now enabled by I.T. so they need more
- 37. HiPPO: Highest Paid Person’s Opinion
- 39. Benefits $ Cost of Delay Duration Prioritise features by How value decays over time Information discovery value 2. Improve Prioritisation Using CD3: Cost of Delay Divided by Duration
- 40. Benefits of using Cost of Delay • ‘Less yelling and screaming’ data-driven, more visible • Enables better trade-off decisions and increased ROI • Handles dependencies between teams • Changes the conversation… Cutting I.T. costs Delivering value quickly Delivering “on time” M H
- 42. Try this at home... Ask each person on one of your project teams: What would you estimate the Cost of Delay for this project to be?
- 43. System A: Value by quartile $230,000/wk $220/wk Bottom 25% Top 25% of RQs $18,600/wk Next 25% $5,200/wk Next 25% Average $ Benefits Per Requirement
- 44. $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $2,800,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Requirements sorted by Cost of Delay CostofDelay/week A small number of features have a very high Cost of Delay System A: Value distribution
- 45. System B: Value distribution 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 80:20 Pareto Principle “the vital few” Requirements sorted by Cost of Delay CostofDelay/week
- 46. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow Reduce batching to smooth flow
- 47. Before: Feast and Famine The effect of creating large release batches upstream Requirements S Des Dev T S Des Dev T S Des Dev T S Des Dev T R22 R23 R24 R25 Jan 201 Dev Dev Dev Dev …Vendor team had ~10,000 hours of idle time in 2010 Development Perspective: Time 13 wks
- 48. Next train: in 13 weeks
- 49. Next train 7 wks
- 50. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow The end-to-end innovation process Pull System From Dynamic Priority List
- 52. Fund the capacity to deliver change ...and make small adjustments over time Time Throughput Mobilise (3 months?) Learning curve (9 months?) Stop! Go!
- 53. Required flexible funding 3 potential models Fund a given team size for a period of time Fund small batches of requirements in advance Fund individual requirements on demand Time–based Buffering Just-in-Time
- 54. T Dev Des S After: Smooth, sustainable flow Reduce batching of requirements upstream Requirements Releases Action: Change batching Time
- 56. Predicting scope using data Refine Clarify WHW Check DPL: Priority Q: Dev Buffer RQ-XXX Realise Dev Demo Tests Production 18/07 14/07 07/07 05/07 27/06 23/06 04/07 14/08 15/08 12/07 05/08 03/08 18/07 14/07 02/08 11/09 RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX RQ-XXX Rn Rn+1 Then, work backwards from fixed release dates to the option expiry date Measure duration for each step.
- 57. Variable Typical measures Usual outcomes Lean-‐Agile alternaBves Time Delivering on a predicted date Incen;vises hidden ;me buffers and slower delivery Maximise speed in geGng to the point where value starts to be realised Scope Delivering all of the originally predicted scope Incen;vises gold pla;ng and discourages exploita;on of learning. Minimize size of work packages to maximize both learning and early release of value Cost Delivering at or below a predicted development cost Incen;vises hidden cost con;ngencies, pushing costs up. Maximize value delivered (trade development cost against the opportunity cost of delay) Quality Delivering changes with zero down;me and no errors Resistance to making any changes. Overinvestment in tes;ng & documenta;on. Shorten feedback cycles at many levels (coding, defects…) Key Performance Measures for IT
- 58. Refine <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow Break down the work
- 59. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 More Requirement size variability Guesstimate Points Benefits split? - Break downduring Triage Max. size <2 weeks #Requirements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 More Highly variable with some very large requirements Before After
- 60. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow Constraining Work-in-Progress
- 61. DepartmentSlide no. 61 Streamline impact assessment Improve error tracing Daily feedback/ review Actively Manage Work-in-Progress WIP LIMIT of 8 (upstream of bottleneck)
- 62. 190 #Requirements* 46 6.0 5.2 6.1 7.9 8.8 6.4 7.1 Rel 19-22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 Work-in-Progress. Controlled. Oct 2010 Jan 2012 76% …whilst at least maintaining throughput Reduced wait waste Improved visibility *”Authorized” to “Launched” Guesstimate points/week
- 63. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow ‘Quality’ requires feedback
- 64. Faster Feedback Eight Standard Measures Requirement captured Requirement validated Started coding Integrated & built Completed coding Accepted for launch Launched in production Feasible Demonstrated Accepted Launched Code complete Feature complete Require- ments Release candidate Code Launchable
- 65. Faster Feedback Comparing GCSS with the X-leap on the Eight Measures All times are in days Action: HOAT Forward Action: Faster SPT
- 66. <1 week Dynamic Priority List Prioritise new ideas quickly Triage Refine Realise Release Prioritise by knowing the Cost of Delay Manage capacity with a pull system Increase quality with fast feedback Get the point of writing code quickly Break down the work Limit the Work in Progress Reduce batching to smooth flow What about the outcomes?
- 67. Faster Delivery How do we know the changes are an improvement? Half the time60 104 168 208 FACT GCSS 90 150 Target All Apps days days days days SAP For GCSS : Prioritised to Live For FACT : Idea to Live
- 68. Better Quality How do we know the changes are an improvement? 8.2 11.2 2 1 2.2 0.3 Defects Delays Patches 88% 85% 80%
- 69. More Value How do we know the changes are an improvement? $26.30 $44.80 GCSS FACT MLIT Average (Before) Benefits per dollar invested $4.10 (After)
- 70. And... delivering Cheaper Not what we were aiming for, but reducing waste has led to... $82.8 $75.6 Cost per hour 6 7.3 Throughput 22% 9% The data is for GCSS Throughput is measured as guesstimate point/week
- 71. “Absolutely worth it” People love it! “Less yelling & screaming” “Smaller and clear changes delivered faster” “Fewer defects in a release to handle” “Daily calls provide good visibility of changes” “We have not had such a smooth launch since Release 16 – I thought my phone had stopped working” “It de eff wo
- 72. Learnings from an evolutionary approach • It’s possible to make a huge impact on cycle time without changing engineering practices • Every team is like a separate company • Long lead time to get to ‘kick off’ • It’s easier to sell when the process is knowingly broken • Two steps forward one step backwards • Organizational uncertainty is a challenge • Huge push back for WIP limits from some • It’s all about stakeholder management (70%) • Systemic issues block adoption…
- 73. What went well? • Enthusiastic portfolio managers make it easier to get buy-in from the business partners • People with right mindset and background in the team make a difference • People in the field get it; Practices work well on team level • All parts of the organisation were on our Steering Group • Combination of Consultants+Maersk resources as Lean-Agile coaches • COD adoption went viral after the pilot • Presenting an engagement plan and defining the coach’s role upfront • Kanban boards and Standups go viral (but..)
- 74. What could have been better? • Organisational changes shifted the entire stakeholder map • We could have brought management closer to the work • Introduce training on the principles early on to embed the mindset • Mandate to change the organisation and process • Set up champions network early on
- 75. What still puzzles us? • Success with legacy changed the perception that ‘agile works with greenfield’ • How to predict the value for a pipeline over the longer term • How to approach teams that are on a likely path to failure • How to encourage the organisation as a whole to learn • How to get senior managers to lead the transformation • How to change the culture of an organisation • How to explain Cumulative Flow Diagrams to people better
- 76. Bottom of the iceberg It’s not just process… Visible change Hidden Culture & Mindset Change on: le’ Behaviours Customs Language Values Traditions Beliefs Stereotypes Taboos Org chart Processes Roles Tools
- 77. Final piece of advice • Don’t give up • Avoid Agile vs. Waterfall > Outcomes • Look at the whole end to end • Make the problem visible • Start with the principles • Study your stakeholders • Appeal to hearts & minds
- 78. Drawing by Portia Tung
- 79. If you’re not moving at the speed of the marketplace you're already dead …you just haven't stopped breathing yet Jack Welch CEO of General Electric 1981-2001 “ ”
- 80. Maersk Line Experience report and lots of other material BLACK SWAN FARMING.COM Want more? ozlem@agileatheart.com @OzzieYuce Özlem Yüce