slides form my talk at Agile2012, Dallas and LeanKanbanCentralEurope LKCE12 in Vienna

1. Agile in the Bathtub
Gaetano Mazzanti
@mgaewsj
Agile42
Gama-Tech

2. “too many things to do”
“we are too slow”
“poor quality”
sounds familiar?

3. 18 months ago
“I would like to coach
Agile & Lean in an non-
software context”

4. on May 2011
I got a call
“we need help”

5. May 2011
“we are too slow”
“poor quality”
“too many things to do”
“engineers! those lazy ineffective
slackers”

6. products: luxury hydromassage bathtubs
and showers, italian market leader
org & process: traditional top-down org,
phase-gate process, rigidly defined
procedures
focus: cutting costs, downsizing, outsourcing

10. the challenge
Agile & Lean coaching in an non-software context
“let’s try it!”

11. step I
who, what, how...
... and why :)

12. assessment
interviews
+
Draw Your Process
+
pre-mortem retro

13. interviews outcome

14. draw your process

15. dot voting critical steps

16. draw your process
most critical steps
feasibility (especially determining costs and schedule)
late product modifications
product concept phase (too long, vague inputs)

17. pre-mortem retro

18. pre-mortem outcome
optimistic planning
delays in approvals
continuous changes in priorities
people moved to different projects
projects ‘forgotten’ in a dormant state
specs change, even late in the project
production costs higher than expected

19. summing it up
most operational issues somewhat known
some dismissed as irrelevant, some simply not
addressed for the time being
dispirited employees
management caught completely off-guard by
reported lack of transparency and communication
and by employee’s demotivation

20. step II
beginning the transition

21. timeline
!

22. active learning
“we want
prescriptions not
principles”
Agile & Lean Values
interactions, communication, self-organization
queues, WIP limits initial misunderstandings
and annoyance by people
“multitasking is a used to being told just
natural and effective what to do
approach to address
overload” (!)

23. forced managers to
read this book

24. mixed feelings
enthusiasm for the possible upcoming (r)evolution
skepticism about the chances to really change
anything

25. step III
Agile & Lean for Product Development

26. single project vs project portfolio

27. initial goals
map the real process
visualize all ongoing activities
expose dysfunctions
measure and analyze data

28. a perfect recipe for failure
Development/
Concept Production
Prototyping
CKP CKP CKP CKP CKP
I II III IV V
DRW DRW DRW
I II III
features, cost and shipment
date set here
Involved Depts:
Engineering, Operations, Quality Control, Test Lab

29. work-item type analysis
project typical average
size duration delay
(months) (months)
small 6-9 2-3
medium 9-12 3-6
large 12-18 6-9
small
modifications
/ /
each project leader is in charge of multiple projects

30. slip chart
4#May'
expected completion date
3#Apr'
3#Mar'
1#Feb'
1#Jan'
1#Dec'
31#Oct'
30#Sep'
30#Aug'
30#Jul'
1#Jul' 1#Aug' 1#Sep' 1#Oct' 1#Nov' 1#Dec'

31. demand analysis
new product concepts
recurring events (e.g. exhibitions)
sales opportunities
difficult to predict, typically take
priority over any other project

32. time for a board!

33. our first try
color = size
S
M
L

34. the magic of visualizing
capacity
demand
waiting for
CKPIII approval initial design,
planning,
outsourcing,
mold design,
etc.

35. immediate action/wins
projects reviewed in terms of business priority,
cost of delay, risk and complexity
some projects stopped; others accelerated and
moved quickly to CKP III

36. one week later

37. we used this board for three weeks to
understand which kind of information we could
get from it
we started tracking time information to collect
(partial) cycle time data

38. some issues
with our board
overloading and queues exposed but only partially
prevented
priorities still ‘suggested’ by management
with no objective selection criteria
project ownership changes during the project life,
this was not visible on the board

39. time for
daily standups
and
weekly retrospectives

40. standups & retros
initially, engineers found these activities useless and
boring
standups were too long and repetitious as they were
used just to report status to a manager
so we changed approach and started focusing only on
highlighting problems and collaboratively decide what
to do

41. the path to a new board
assign value and priorities to projects based on business
value, cost of delay, due dates, etc.
define and set WIP limits (“wow!”)
pull approach to select and move forward projects
policies to rule transitions from one state to another
define relevant data to represent on cards to help in
taking decisions and defining further policies

42. a new board
color = project leader

43. !

44. flow

45. reached WIP
limit
!

46. WIP limits
each project leader is in charge of multiple projects at a given time
initially assigned WIP = 1 to each project but this was not very useful
project characteristics including size, cardinality and parameters like machining or
forming complexity were then used to weigh WIP (defined by engineers...)
this resulted in each project inducing 0,2 to 2 in terms of WIP
specific WIP limits have been set for resources (mostly hardware and used also for
standard production) like molding machines, test lab and final prototyping
some of these limits are not constant but may vary in time as they have to look
ahead to take into account standard production needs and to anticipate the load
induced by projects in progress
whenever WIP limits are reached, a project is tagged with a blue square symbol and
put on hold until resources are available (waiting time is measured)

47. WIP limits

48. WIP limits
][ ]
][

49. too many columns?
we tried multiple simpler boards
it did not work (people rejected it)
reality is complex, better to see it clearly

50. metrics used
(sub)cycle time
active vs. idle time
cumulated WIP by project leader per project
phase (to check perceived vs measured
overburden)

51. decreased (sub)cycle time
Development/
Concept Production
Prototyping
CKP CKP CKP CKP CKP
I II III IV V
DRW DRW DRW
I II III
-50% -30%
-20% -25%

52. sm
M
0.50$
1.00$
1.50$
2.00$
2.50$
3.00$
ay
0.50$
1.00$
1.50$
2.00$
2.50$
3.00$
+1
Jul+10$
Aug+10$
Ju $
n+
Ju $
10
l+1
0
0
al
lp
Sep+10$ Au $
g+
Oct+10$ 10
Se $
ro
p+
Nov+10$
j
10
Oc $
Dec+10$ t+1
No 0$
ec
Jan+11$ v+
1
De 0$
Feb+11$ c+
10
ts
Mar+11$ Ja $
n+
11
DRW$I$
Apr+11$ Fe $
DRW$III$
b+
1
May+11$ M 1$
ar
+1
1
Jun+11$ Ap $
r+1
Jul+11$ M 1$
ay
+1
Aug+11$ 1$
LCL$
avg$
UCL$
LCL$
avg$
UCL$
DRW$III$
DRW$I$
0.40$
0.60$
0.80$
1.00$
1.20$
1.40$
1.60$
1.80$
1.00$
1.20$
1.40$
1.60$
1.80$
2.00$
Sep,10$ Jun,10$
Oct,10$ Jul,10$
Nov,10$
Aug,10$
Dec,10$
Sep,10$
before...
Jan,11$
Feb,11$ Oct,10$
Mar,11$ Nov,10$
Apr,11$
Dec,10$
May,11$
Jun,11$ Jan,11$
Jul,11$ Feb,11$
CKP$IV$
DRW$II$
Aug,11$ Mar,11$
Sep,11$
Apr,11$
Oct,11$
May,11$
Nov,11$
Dec,11$ Jun,11$
LCL$
avg$
LCL$
avg$
UCL$
UCL$
CKP$IV$
DRW$II$

53. ec ts
roj
sm
al lp ...after
DRW$I$ DRW$II$
3.00$ 2.00$
1.80$
2.50$
avg$ 1.60$ avg$
2.00$ 1.40$
LCL$ LCL$
1.50$ 1.20$
UCL$ UCL$
1.00$
1.00$ pre$avg$ pre$avg$
0.80$
DRW$I$ DRW$II$
0.50$ 0.60$
$
$
1$
$
$
2$
$
$
1$
$
$
$
$
2$
$
2$
2$
2$
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
t+1
+1
t,1
+1
,1
r+1
r,1
g+
p+
v+
c+
g,
p,
v,
c,
n,
b+
b,
n
ar
ar
Oc
Oc
Ap
Ap
De
De
No
No
Au
Au
Se
Ja
Se
Ja
Fe
Fe
M
M
DRW$III$ CKP$IV$
3.00$
1.60$
2.50$ 1.40$
avg$
avg$ 1.20$
2.00$ LCL$
LCL$
1.00$
UCL$
1.50$ UCL$
0.80$ pre$avg$
pre$avg$
1.00$ 0.60$ CKP$IV$
DRW$III$
0.50$ 0.40$
Oct,11$ Nov,11$ Dec,11$ Jan,12$ Feb,12$ Mar,12$ Apr,12$
$
1$
$
$
$
$
2$
2$
11
11
11
12
12
t+1
+1
r+1
p+
v+
c+
n+
b+
ar
Oc
Ap
De
No
Se
Ja
Fe
M
previous range

54. extending Agile/Lean to
other departments
they asked for it :), but obviously they wanted
just to “copy” the practices
in marketing: iteration-based approach to
prepare a product-launch (4 weeks)
in sales: kanban board to visualize and optimize
flow of sales activities
retrospectives rocked again

55. achievements ings you do,
how m any th eate”
“it ’s not value you cr
t how much
bu
better predictability for Small and
Medium projects; reduced cycle times
value + cost of delay based selection
reduced overburden
engineers are more engaged and
efficien cies is
motivated delays and in g fast”
“rem oving han ju st goin
impo rtant t
more

56. differences with sw
teams
no pursuing of technical excellence
engineers feeling and acting as individuals.
they did not feel they were part of a team.
they had their own independent goals and were focused
just on them
note: standups and retrospectives helped a lot in providing a
team-forming glue
no “works on my machine” syndrome

57. open challenges
people are inclined to rest on their laurels and
to stop pursuing continuous improvement
lead time (concept to cash) is still too long
economy in Italy has worsened, the company
has a new Managing Director, still not clear
what’s going to happen

58. in closing
Agile+Lean in non-software context yes!

59. on December 2011
I got another call
“we need help”
I am doing it again: currently working with a
Power Transmission company
“look ma, no software!”
to be continued...

60. Gaetano Mazzanti
@mgaewsj
Agile42
Gama-Tech