Skip to main content

Going for Lead-Time

Note: This topic of this post was heavily inspired by The Phoenix Project and the succeeding tome of reference, The DevOps Handbook.

There are many metrics out there that can guide you to improve your business, but in the upside-down world of Internet business, many of these can be plain wrong, or at least they do not serve well as guides for what you should be doing. If you measure success by measuring profit, for instance, you'll run out of good will with your users or partners very quickly.

Then there are a load of more noble but fuzzy numbers that you can measure by surveying employees or users. Think employee-happiness, etc. While these are definitely useful, they are easy to get wrong, and it's easy to over-do it, causing survey fatigue. They're also hard to trace from cause to effect. It's hard to say which particular company decision lead to some satisfaction rating going down.

Take the SWOT analysis as a particular one of these surveys. It will give you a great map of what the employees of the company are feeling about a variety of things, and while this will certainly be helpful, it does not even attempt any root-cause connection, so it ends up being a collection of subjective opinions, which may or may not be pointing at the underlying issues.

When it comes to getting real deep understanding of the issues of an organization, I'm personally a fan of the good old retrospective. Getting in a room or call with a smaller group of people who can genuinely build a common understanding of what is going wrong and right is golden, especially if done so on a repeated basis (as long as the resulting commitments and impediments are actually tended to). They don't scale so well, although I'm sure there are clever ways like open-space, or "scaling agile" techniques to help with that.

But neither SWOTs nor retrospectives give you proper metrics. They're not fast. They're not objective. They're not automatic.

So what number can we measure in an automatic way that actually gives us valuable input on how the organization is working? What number can we aim to change when changing the organization? What number can we ask about in every retrospective? The answer is lead-time.




An example of "lead" from idea to change in the world. I left out waiting times, execution times, rework/failure rates, etc.
Armed with lead-time, the Theory of Constraints, Little's Law and value stream mapping, you can go into any organization and start improving the system (yes, this is in a simplified sense what Lean is about). You'll still need retrospectives and the like to explore how to improve the system, but lead-time trend over time will tell you how bad/good it is. Shorter lead-times is a near no-brainer for improving company performance. While shorter lead-time does directly equal higher velocity or more performance, it does mean you have much more opportunity to navigate tactically and strategically, and improve velocity and performance more often.

After I joined eyeo and saw the dangers of increasing silofication, I started working for turning the ephemeral cross-functional teams into sustained, first-class organizational units. A lot of people who had been at the company for longer didn't see why this was necessary, so they asked me why.

At first, I'd be stumped, thinking this was an obvious thing to do. Then I'd think more about the happy ways of working in a team like that, and how it's just good. Also, being able to point out all the explicit teams in some map would be really handy for new-hires to navigate with. However, arguing like that didn't get me very far. People had more important things to take care of, naturally.

So I changed my line of argument: I looked at the current issues: projects seem to take a long time. Requests spend a lot of time hanging in free air before landing at the right desk. I then started building a case for optimizing our structure for lead-time:

  • If any task that needs doing can bounce between the necessary experts within the border of a team that works tightly together, lead-time will go down.
  • If a domain of related tasks will always go to the same team, their ability to deal with these types of tasks will improve and lead-time will go down.
  • Related, if the inventory of related work-in-process is oriented around a fixed team, they can increase their focus and reduce the amount of concurrent tasks, making lead-time go down.
  • If an incoming project can be take on by an existing team of people who already are able to work and deliver together, yup, you got it, lead-time will go down.
Once people started seeing that my ideas were actually about fixing their biggest issues, seeing that their biggest issues could usually be expressed as length of lead-time, the tone changed quite a bit, and soon after that we got busy organizing the introduction of these new kinds of teams.

How to turn lead-time into an actual metric then? That's for another blog-post.

Popular posts from this blog

Encrypting and Decrypting with Spring

I was recently working with protecting some sensitive data in a typical Java application with a database underneath. We convert the data on its way out of the application using Spring Security Crypto Utilities. It "was decided" that we'd be doing AES with a key-length of 256, and this just happens to be the kind of encryption Spring crypto does out of the box. Sweet!

The big aber is that whatever JRE is running the application has to be patched with Oracle's JCE in order to do 256 bits. It's a fascinating story, the short version being that U.S. companies are restricted from exporting various encryption algorithms to certain countries, and some countries are restricted from importing them.

Once I had patched my JRE with the JCE, I found it fascinating how straight forward it was to encrypt and decrypt using the Spring Encryptors. So just for fun at the weekend, I threw together a little desktop app that will encrypt and decrypt stuff for the given password and sa…

Managing dot-files with vcsh and myrepos

Say I want to get my dot-files out on a new computer. Here's what I do:

# install vcsh & myrepos via apt/brew/etc
vcsh clone https://github.com/tfnico/config-mr.git mr
mr update

Done! All dot-files are ready to use and in place. No deploy command, no linking up symlinks to the files. No checking/out in my entire home directory as a Git repository. Yet, all my dot-files are neatly kept in fine-grained repositories, and any changes I make are immediately ready to be committed:

config-atom.git
    -> ~/.atom/*

config-mr.git
    -> ~/.mrconfig
    -> ~/.config/mr/*

config-tmuxinator.git  
    -> ~/.tmuxinator/*

config-vim.git
    -> ~/.vimrc
    -> ~/.vim/*

config-bin.git   
    -> ~/bin/*

config-git.git          
    -> ~/.gitconfig

config-tmux.git  
    -> ~/.tmux.conf    

config-zsh.git
    -> ~/.zshrc

How can this be? The key here is to use vcsh to keep track of your dot-files, and its partner myrepos/mr for operating on many repositories at the same time.

I discovere…

Always use git-svn with --prefix

TLDR: I've recently been forced back into using git-svn, and while I was at it, I noticed that git-svn generally behaves a lot better when it is initialized using the --prefix option.

Frankly, I can't see any reason why you would ever want to use git-svn without --prefix. It even added some major simplifications to my old git-svn mirror setup.

Update: Some of the advantages of this solution will disappear in newer versions of Git.

For example, make a standard-layout svn clone:

$ git svn clone -s https://svn.company.com/repos/project-foo/

You'll get this .git/config:

[svn-remote "svn"]
        url = https://svn.company.com/repos/
        fetch = project-foo/trunk:refs/remotes/trunk
        branches = project-foo/branches/*:refs/remotes/*
        tags = project-foo/tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/*

And the remote branches looks like this (git branch -a):
    remotes/trunk
    remotes/feat-bar

(Compared to regular remote branches, they look very odd because there is no remote name i…

Joining eyeo: A Year in Review

It's been well over a year since I joined eyeo. And 'tis the season for yearly reviews, so...

It's been pretty wild. So many times I thought "this stuff really deserves a bloggin", but then it was too inviting to grab onto the next thing and get that rolling.

Instead of taking a deep dive into some topic already, I want to scan through that year in review and think for myself, what were the big things, the important things, the things I achieved, and the things I learned. And then later on, if I ever get around to it, grab one of these topics and elaborate in a dedicated blog-post. Like a bucket-list of the blog posts that I should have written. Here goes:
How given no other structures, silos will grow by themselves This was my initial shock after joining the company. Only a few years after taking off as a startup, the hedges began growing, seemingly almost by themselves, and against the will of the founders. I've worked in silos, and in companies without the…

The End of GitMinutes (my podcast)

I'm just about ship GitMinutes episode 46, which is going to be the final episode. I'll just paste the outro script here, as it sums up the sentimental thoughts pretty well:

I’m happy to have finally finished [publishing the last episodes from Git-Merge 2017], just in time before Git-Merge 2018 takes place in March. I won’t be going there myself, so I’m counting on someone else to pick up the mic there.

It’s sad to be shipping this one as it is probably the last GitMinutes episode ever. To go a bit down memory lane, 6 years ago, my daughter was born, and as I used a little of that paternity leave to set up my podcasting infrastructure and produce the first few episodes. Initially it was just going to be 10 episodes and call the experiment finished. Instead, I got to 46 episodes, the last dozen or so lazily tailing the last few Git-Merge conferences.

To every one of my guests, thank you so much again for coming on to share your passion in this little niche of computer science a…