- I agree that how individuals are passing their time is not the focus leadership should have, but it is still a very important metrics to diagnose the team bottlenecks. For example, finding that 5-10% of dev time is in filling timesheets is likely a sign that the time reporting tool is inadequate or that the team is putting way too much details in it (even at team level, you shouldn't need more than half-hour precision, and I would even go with half-day).
- for a long time, I found the notion of maturity of a team to be inadequate, and this capacity talk seems to point to something similar. Maturity models are often use as a way to identify the next step to improve a team "productivity" (vaguely defined as the capacity of a team to deliver good value across time) and my main objection on the term is that maturity is always expected to grow and immaturity is a very pejorative terms with childish connotations (never treat your employees as children, even metaphorically). I taught that Capacity Model would have been a good replacement, but a quick search shown that the term have been reduced to the staff allocation you mentioned. What term would you suggest to extend the scope to what you have identified?
I find this topic fascinating. I had responsibility for a product delivery function and we had timesheets which allowed everyone to capture how they spent their time in great detail. What we observed (me and finance) was that this was (a) expensive and (b) wrong. From an accounting perspective we were able to justify a management judgement of where time was spent as more accurate that self-reported, highly detailed timesheets.
We then set and objective of eliminating timesheets, which was welcomed by pretty much everyone. We moved to a model where team leads and project managers were responsible for forecasting expected allocation at an initiative level - initiative being something an exec might recognise. There was a monthly process run by finance to get managers to review their forecast at month end and adjust based on what happened.
We absolutely did not have the level of detail that you describe, but my question is who does that serve? You rightly propose nuanced commentary alongside any model of how capacity was allocated. Any exec is likely to follow the question “where did we spend our time?” with “why was that so expensive?” Or “what do all those managers do?”, which is where all the factors you list come in.
Keep up the great work and thank you for sharing your experience and insight.
I really love how you stand for a wholistic view on productivity.
In particular I take the video and diagram as pure gold:
Having seen so many organizations that are deeply troubled in the first two columns while explicitly only managing the third (and in many cases not even the forth) I really want to start using this model.
To be honest: After only reading the text I was left with a fuzzy sense of agreement rather than a clear urge to hit „forward“ on the text. Here is an idea why this may be the case: Possibly there are 3 articles in one: One applying the model (diagram) to manufacturing. A second applying it to new product development. And a third explaining the differences between both domains.
The third topic (I.e. differences between these domains) has been written and talked about by so many others (Principles of product development flow etc.). I think it blurs the more unique message from the video rather than strengthening the point with real-world examples.
I really think this stuff should be elevated, get a name and become famous. This only works if it’s as simple to understand and coins distinct terminology as say the cynfin-Model.
If you could provide the diagram I would definitely start using it in my training classes (I‘m an aspiring Scrum Trainer)
Another important aspect I think of allocation and really is the system working as it should is to also look at the components of the system and see if they themselves are working fairly well or as intended. I minutes the use of working efficiently and ideally because from my experience when you zoom in to individuals / pairs or disciplines you might find that their habits have evolved quite a bit to something that is at times unrecognizable.
I know leaders tend to want to abstract that level of detail. It I would argue that substantial outcome or output can be unlocked by diving into the detail
Interesting post . It reflects much of my work from 2010 on when a global bio pharma ( and then others) learned how to bring ( and link) Design Thinking, Lean and Agile practices to their teams. And your comments reflect the importance of this thinking and these practices. Working with the manufacturing teams was the most challenging because of the nature of manufacturing.
Your comments and thinking valid and yet there clearly remains much opportunity for change.
I can see from the LinkedIn postings that the need for ‘ change and transformation’ is increasing in importance among CEOs and their immediate leadership. I was engaged early on because of the new CEO and CIO. It is very important for someone in this ‘role’ to influence ( teach) senior leadership and engage the teams/ transformation and practices .
Excellent post John! Two observations on it:
- I agree that how individuals are passing their time is not the focus leadership should have, but it is still a very important metrics to diagnose the team bottlenecks. For example, finding that 5-10% of dev time is in filling timesheets is likely a sign that the time reporting tool is inadequate or that the team is putting way too much details in it (even at team level, you shouldn't need more than half-hour precision, and I would even go with half-day).
- for a long time, I found the notion of maturity of a team to be inadequate, and this capacity talk seems to point to something similar. Maturity models are often use as a way to identify the next step to improve a team "productivity" (vaguely defined as the capacity of a team to deliver good value across time) and my main objection on the term is that maturity is always expected to grow and immaturity is a very pejorative terms with childish connotations (never treat your employees as children, even metaphorically). I taught that Capacity Model would have been a good replacement, but a quick search shown that the term have been reduced to the staff allocation you mentioned. What term would you suggest to extend the scope to what you have identified?
I find this topic fascinating. I had responsibility for a product delivery function and we had timesheets which allowed everyone to capture how they spent their time in great detail. What we observed (me and finance) was that this was (a) expensive and (b) wrong. From an accounting perspective we were able to justify a management judgement of where time was spent as more accurate that self-reported, highly detailed timesheets.
We then set and objective of eliminating timesheets, which was welcomed by pretty much everyone. We moved to a model where team leads and project managers were responsible for forecasting expected allocation at an initiative level - initiative being something an exec might recognise. There was a monthly process run by finance to get managers to review their forecast at month end and adjust based on what happened.
We absolutely did not have the level of detail that you describe, but my question is who does that serve? You rightly propose nuanced commentary alongside any model of how capacity was allocated. Any exec is likely to follow the question “where did we spend our time?” with “why was that so expensive?” Or “what do all those managers do?”, which is where all the factors you list come in.
Keep up the great work and thank you for sharing your experience and insight.
Thank you for your great work!
I really love how you stand for a wholistic view on productivity.
In particular I take the video and diagram as pure gold:
Having seen so many organizations that are deeply troubled in the first two columns while explicitly only managing the third (and in many cases not even the forth) I really want to start using this model.
To be honest: After only reading the text I was left with a fuzzy sense of agreement rather than a clear urge to hit „forward“ on the text. Here is an idea why this may be the case: Possibly there are 3 articles in one: One applying the model (diagram) to manufacturing. A second applying it to new product development. And a third explaining the differences between both domains.
The third topic (I.e. differences between these domains) has been written and talked about by so many others (Principles of product development flow etc.). I think it blurs the more unique message from the video rather than strengthening the point with real-world examples.
I really think this stuff should be elevated, get a name and become famous. This only works if it’s as simple to understand and coins distinct terminology as say the cynfin-Model.
If you could provide the diagram I would definitely start using it in my training classes (I‘m an aspiring Scrum Trainer)
Is there a way to share the video independently of this blog post?
Hmm. Not sure. I could try to get it up on youtube
https://youtu.be/aj_5FLk9ePQ
Another important aspect I think of allocation and really is the system working as it should is to also look at the components of the system and see if they themselves are working fairly well or as intended. I minutes the use of working efficiently and ideally because from my experience when you zoom in to individuals / pairs or disciplines you might find that their habits have evolved quite a bit to something that is at times unrecognizable.
I know leaders tend to want to abstract that level of detail. It I would argue that substantial outcome or output can be unlocked by diving into the detail
Interesting post . It reflects much of my work from 2010 on when a global bio pharma ( and then others) learned how to bring ( and link) Design Thinking, Lean and Agile practices to their teams. And your comments reflect the importance of this thinking and these practices. Working with the manufacturing teams was the most challenging because of the nature of manufacturing.
Your comments and thinking valid and yet there clearly remains much opportunity for change.
I can see from the LinkedIn postings that the need for ‘ change and transformation’ is increasing in importance among CEOs and their immediate leadership. I was engaged early on because of the new CEO and CIO. It is very important for someone in this ‘role’ to influence ( teach) senior leadership and engage the teams/ transformation and practices .