Read on Twitter
Most common complaint I hear at all levels especially the executive level: We need predictability, we need to have levers we can pull to increase the value we deliver and to do so predictably on schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------
/thread
--------------------------------------------------------
/thread
Predictability is an option, it can be achieved in most normal cases (developers please don't tell me you're inventing the large Hadron Collider every day) it comes from modeling what's possible and ensuring no more work than can be modeled is attempted at any given time.
Predictability is achieved through discipline at the portfolio level. Delivery-capacity is grown holistically by understanding the nature of bottlenecks in the organization. Ensuring what is predictably delivered is something of value, strategic product coherence is necessary.
The response is usually something along the lines of "It's not that simple." and a myriad of beliefs emerge that fall along a spectrum from "Every day we invent a large hadron collider" to "Everything is life-or-death critical and so we must do all of it or die."
I've already addressed the first protestation.
If the second were true, when you'd have died a thousand deaths because the overload is why you're not predictable, or more likely, you predictably fail to deliver what you thought was life-or-death necessary.
If the second were true, when you'd have died a thousand deaths because the overload is why you're not predictable, or more likely, you predictably fail to deliver what you thought was life-or-death necessary.
In closing, a decision not to manage intake, not to prioritize economically, not to measure and manage your capacity /is a decision/ to throttle delivery. To ensure the total deliverable amount of value is minimized and what does go out is of the poorest quality we could rush.
