Outcomes Matter in an Agile World

The primary outcome of Agile is achieving better business results. This is why outcome based measures are much more aligned with Agile then output measures. Output measures focuses on how much you delivered, while outcome measures focus on the results of what you deliver.  It is the results (aka, the outcomes) that matter. 

Outcome based measures are drivers to help you understand business success.  You may still need some output measures to help you on your way.  Just ensure that they are relevant to help you determine if you are reaching the outcomes you are looking for.  The output could be the delivery of a release or the number of releases.  The outcome is how many customers either bought or used the product release.  Often times people focus on outputs because they tend to be easier to measure or are a carry-over from a more traditional mindset.  

The danger of focusing on outputs is that you may have a high number of outputs with a low number of outcomes.  Outcomes are what drive business success. As illustrated in the chart, it appears that the output of the 4th quarter is best.  However, if you look at the outcomes chart, the 3rd quarter is better with revenues of $80,000 instead of only $20,000 from the 4th quarter. While the output of four releases sounds good, $20,000 is not favorable to good business results. Outcomes  ask you to measure different things, with a particular focus on customer value.

In addition, an outcome focus changes our perspective from internal to a customer or external focus.  This helps us better understand what we are aiming for in the customer value-driven world we need to establish. So next time you are considering measures of success, just remember that outcomes matter!

There is no Success or Fail, only Learn

I have been in discussions both in-person and on twitter with colleagues on whether we should use the word “fail” or “learn”.  This was in context to projects (aka, releases, increments).  Did they failed or did we instead learn.  I also realized that the term “fail” is somewhat subjective (e.g., did the whole project fail or just parts of it?).  The overwhelming agreement was that “what did we learn” was a better way to discuss the findings or results. This lends itself to a shift in mindset, to a continuous learning environment that recognizes that there is value even in the negative feedback.   We can learn from that feedback and adapt for better results in the future. 

Then it occurred to me, the term “success” was also a bit subjective.  I recall reading a Standish Group Study where those projects that were “deemed” successful, 45% of the features were never used.  Another 19% was rarely used.  This meant that projects deemed successful built 64% never or rarely used features.  That seems to be a very loose definition of what “success” looks like.  In addition, how many projects are deemed successful because it met the scheduled deliver date yet few customers upgraded to it or bought it?  Is there a benefit to use the term “learn” in place of success?

While it may sound feel like the terms success or fail are the way to traditionally judge a project, release, product, or service, we lose sight of the most important result of the work, the feedback and what we learned from that feedback.   This learning helps us adapt to achieve better results.  If you are working in an Agile context where there are short increments of work, there is the benefit of continuous learning where you can continuously adapt for better business results.

I would suggest in the modern lexicon of work, when a project, release, or increment of work is done, it is much more important to ask what was learned instead of classifying it as a success or failure.  This strengthens the mindset within the organization that there is a value in feedback and the most important thing is what did we learn.  It also emphasizes a discovery mindset where what we think a customer wants is really a hypothesis that must be explored.  It is in the learning that can help us lead to better business results in the future.  So next time people talk about a project as a success or failure, instead turn the discussion around and ask “What did we learn”?  

The Importance of Language in a move to an Agile Culture (with Polling Results)

In my experience in helping teams transform toward an Agile culture, moving away from the traditional terminology and adapting Agile terminology is very beneficial.  At the same time, I have sensed reluctance in organizations in removing from their traditional language.  I believe the language you use matters a great deal if you are attempting to achieve a certain culture.  A prime example is moving from the language of certainty in a more big-upfront Waterfall culture to discovery and hypothesis driven language in an incremental Agile culture.

If you are trying to change culture, the change in language highlights that something has changed and provides folks with a learning opportunity assuming that there is true meaning behind the language and a commitment to change. It makes everyone pay more attention. If you think about it, when you travel from one culture to another, the language does indeed change.  Using the proper language helps you inform and communicate needs more effectively while a common language provides a bond within our community.

Maybe the key is to use language that is most efficient and effective for the culture you want to get to. If you want to change your culture, you need to ensure that the language is not tripping you up and dragging along its baggage of prior meaning.  When you move from a big-upfront Waterfall to an incremental Agile culture, using the same waterfall language will trip you up.

Why? Because people in the organization still think the definition of the term is stemming from the 'old' culture. Attempting to change culture is hard enough and when you have language from the old culture still around, you can be sure that those people within the org are still interpreting the language using the old world context. This can impact your success to advance your new culture. 

With all of that being said, this is the opinion of one person.  So what of the opinions’ of others?  With that in mind, I embarked on a poll via LinkedIn to gauge other’s thoughts on how important is it to use Agile terminology to get to an Agile culture.  I present you with the following results:

Within a period of a month, there were 83 votes cast along with 26 comments.  The poll results revealed that 65% percent (or close to two-thirds) of the participants felt the use of Agile terminology was either ‘Very Important’ or ‘Important’ for an Agile culture.  Another 12% felt it were neutral.  The remaining 23% felt that the use of Agile terminology was of ‘Little Importance’ or ‘Not important at all’.

In order to more fully understand other opinions, I have included a paraphrasing of some of the comments.  They include: there is a need for specialized vocabulary; there are fundamental differences amongst various practices and methods so terminology should be considered; the terminology contributes to language precision; and the words used should work for the culture.  You can see one of the threads within the “Agile” Linkedin group for specific comments from others.

Some took my examples literally.  I didn’t really mean to imply that the term ‘sprint’ and ‘phase’ are the same, but I have seen teams use those terms interchangeably.  So I do agree that one term is not necessarily better than another but that you should ensure the language you use does not get in the way of learning and advancing within your culture.   Also, I’m not clear that there needs to be a standard “Agile” terminology across the industry.  However, with that said, if you are applying Scrum, you should use Scrum terminology (and the same for XP, Kanban, etc). There is a value of having a common Agile terminology within an organization so that there can be a more effective platform for Agile related discussion across teams.  

Also a few people mentioned that the meaning is more important than terminology.  I do favor this line of thinking because there should be an effective meaning behind all terminology used.  Terminology without meaning is babble.  So yes, it is important, dare I say critical to have a well understood and clear meaning behind all the terminology used in order to gain an effective Agile culture. 

Ultimately if you are truly trying to initiate a culture change, then the language should reflect the change you are looking to make.   In this case, if want to establish an Agile culture, utilize the terminology that provides an appropriate and clear meaning which drags little or no baggage.  This will help you get to the Agile culture you may be seeking.  Cheers!

Note: another article that discusses Agile terminology focusing on the terms 'size' vs 'estimate' may be found at: http://cmforagile.blogspot.com/2012/10/size-matters-using-size-instead-of.html