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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Open source CMS evaluations

I have now seen three more or less serious open source CMS reviews. First guy to hit the field was Matt Raible ( 1 2 3 4 ), ending up with Drupal , Joomla , Magnolia , OpenCms and MeshCMS being runner-ups. Then there is OpenAdvantage that tries out a handful ( Drupal , Exponent CMS , Lenya , Mambo , and Silva ), including Plone which they use for their own site (funny/annoying that the entire site has no RSS-feeds, nor is it possible to comment on the articles), following Matt's approach by exluding many CMS that seem not to fit the criteria. It is somewhat strange that OpenAdvantage cuts away Magnolia because it "Requires J2EE server; difficult to install and configure; more of a framework than CMS", and proceed to include Apache Lenya in the full evaluation. Magnolia does not require a J2EE server. It runs on Tomcat just like Lenya does (maybe it's an idea to bundle Magnolia with Jetty to make it seem more lightweight). I'm still sure that OpenAdvant...

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...

The Git Users Mailing List

A year ago or so, I came across the Git-user mailing list (aka. "Git for human beings"). Over the year, I grew a little addicted to helping people out with their Git problems. When the new git-scm.com webpage launched , and the link to the mailing list had disappeared, I was quick to ask them to add it again . I think this mailing list fills an important hole in the Git community between: The Git developer mailing list git@vger.kernel.org  - which I find to be a bit too hard-core and scary for Git newbies. Besides, the Majordomo mailing list system is pretty archaic, and I personally can't stand browsing or searching in the Gmane archives. The IRC channel #git on Freenode, which is a bit out-of-reach for people who never experienced the glory days of IRC. Furthermore, when the channel is busy, it's a big pain to follow any discussion. StackOverflow questions tagged git , these come pretty close, but it's a bit hard to keep an overview of what questio...

Git tools for keeping patches on top of moving upstreams

At work, we maintain patches for some pretty large open source repositories that regularly release new versions, forcing us to update our patches to match. So far, we've been using basic Git operations to transplant our modifications from one major version of the upstream to the next. Every time we make such a transplant, we simply squash together the modifications we made in the previous version, and land it as one big commit into the next version. Those who are used to very stringent keeping of Git history may wrinkle their nose at this, but it is a pragmatic choice. Maintaining modifications on top of the rapidly changing upstream is a lot of work, and so far we haven't had the opportunity to figure out a more clever way to do it. Nor have we really suffered any consequences of not having an easy to read history of our modifications - it's a relatively small amount of patches, after all. With a recent boost in team size, we may have that opportunity. Also the need for be...

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...