Next Quarter Planning
Problem
Leadership wants to know the delivery timeline of the team for the next quarter:
- what will be delivered
- when it will be delivered
Context
- Different stakeholders push for different initiatives
- The problem behind each initiative is clear, but the solution is not
- Cross-functional team
Solution
- Assign a time appetite for each initiative until the whole quarter is covered
- At the end of an initiative time appetite, decide to either:
- move to the next initiative, as planned
- keep working on the current initiative and subtract the extra time appetite from an upcoming initiative
Time appetite
- Time appetite means the amount of weeks the team desire to work on an initiative
- Time appetite only covers delivery, not planning (see later)
- The key idea is to deliver the best within a fixed time frame and then reassess global priorities
Small go-lives
- The key for the time appetite approach is small go-lives
- Small go-lives makes it easy to decide to move to the next initiative or rather stay on the current one
- Even if an initiative has a small time appetite, something is always delivered to the stakeholders of interest
- Continuous Deployment helps a lot, but it is not a necessary condition
- Small go-lives bring many nice side effects per se:
- Faster customer feedback
- Faster operational feedback (i.e. performance, bugs, observability, etc.)
- Reduced work in progress and cognitive load
Planning while delivering
- The planning of an initiative is done before its delivery
- For planning we mean:
- problem definition
- solution definition
- risks, assumptions, issues and dependencies spiking and resolution
- scope slicing (i.e. scope defined for each small go-live)
- The planning is performed by
- Product manager
- UX designer
- Engineer champion (i.e. the engineer who coordinates the others on the initiative)
- The planning happens while delivering on another initiative:
- be mindful of the extra work for the people involved in planning
- the engineer championing the current initiative should not contribute to planning the next one
Time appetite vs estimates
- Time appetite reverses the classic approach with estimates where:
- by guessing effort, the team define the scope to be delivered in the quarter for each initiative
- Team is constantly late to deliver, or worse quality is cut to respect the timeline
- Stakeholders are frustrated as their initiatives are late or nothing is delivered at all
Notes
- My proposed solution is a lightweight version of the Shape Up approach from Basecamp