Getting to the Finish Line in an Agile Project

One of the great potentials of Agile software development is flexibility in changing requirements. We currently use agile methodologies and have scheduled 2 week iterations. We have show and tells with stakeholders every two weeks where we show them where things are at and gather new user stories, functionality changes and other feedback to plan for the next iteration.

One of the challenges we have found with this approach is that the project quickly turns into perpetual development. One of the advantages of a traditional waterfall model is a solid arc in development and a very specific deliverable - you have a good definition of when you're done. In an environment where the requirements evolve, the time lines are fluid and the stakeholders are not that experienced at software projects we are finding that this means that the project never seems to end! Every two week iteration, stakeholders simply pile on new requirements and the launch date drifts away.

In a consulting environment, this isn't such a bad thing if you're on a time and materials engagement - the client simply gets to spend their money as long as they want. But in an internal development team, this poses a challenge because most stakeholders aren't really aware of how much money they are spending and they simply keep monopolizing the team. In the meantime, there are other projects or priorities queueing up in the background.

Based on what we have found works, here are some practical recommendations on how to combat this problem:

• Establish clear business objectives and as many solid functional requirements as possible. There is a happy medium between XP style iterative programming and a rigid waterfall model. Try to put some acceptance criteria that can be measured so that the entire team has a common understanding of the target.
• Remember the law of triple constraints - of cost, resources, and time changing any of these impacts the others. Make sure that stakeholders are aware of the real cost (even if it is an internal cost) through an internal budgeting model. In our organization, we have a shared cost model in IT but we can allocated the shared cost to any department we choose. In cases where we see departments monopolizing our time we can allocate more cost to them. This gives internal stakeholders an incentive to prioritize and conserve resources.
• Make stakeholders compete with each other. This is pure politics but it works. The easiest way to stop a project is to simply tell another stakeholder that they're waiting in the queue behind someone else. There will be a pretty quick meeting between stakeholders where one will start to put a lot of pressure on the other to get their project done quickly or to get out of line altogether.
• Time box and resource constraint the project explicitly. We do this quite a bit with reporting needs which seem to continually evolve ad nauseum. When we start these types of projects, we establish a budget of 2-3 iterations and that's the budget. The requirements can evolve but there continues to be pressure on the stakeholder to get it right the first time or else lose their window.
• Always have a phased approach with Phase 2 and 3 already planned in Phase 1. This gives the stakeholder the ability to still feel they're going to get a change at some point but perhaps can live with launching without it.
• Be vigilant and communicate often about what's currently in and out of scope. I'm not sure whether stakeholders intentionally play dumb or whether people simply don't hear bad news but I've experienced several times the case where three meetings in a row we hear questions about a feature that we've already ruled out of scope and there is genuine surprise from the stakeholder that they're not getting a particular feature even if its been already discussed, documented, etc.
• Have really strong leaders in QA. QA Leads, especially in the latter stages of projects, become crucial at communicating and organizing priorities. A great QA Lead can manage stakeholders on a daily bug review meeting and can handle the constant re-negotiation of last minute feature requests, low priority bug fixes, etc. and keep the process moving towards launch. If the project loses velocity during the stage it opens the door to ever increasing scope change. If the project has high velocity then everyone on the team feels like they better prioritize because time is running out and the project is going to launch without them. This helps crystallize priorities and puts good pressure on stakeholders to commit to the minimum work required to launch.

I've been in projects where we sat at 90% for 5 months because we kept stalling as we closed in on the finish line. In addition, I've been on projects with internal teams where the stakeholders simply got used to having a software team at their disposal week after week and their was never any pressure to launch anything or to stop working.

As a project manager, your goal is to launch - 90% complete is really 0% complete especially if it's still just running in development or still buggy in test.