Earlier I blogged about the Seven Agile Sins and covered some frequent agile anti-patterns. I should have mentioned an eighth sin: failing to plan. That’s right, I’m talking about the “P” word.
Why do some agilists want to throw out planning? Perhaps it’s due to to the Agile Manifesto, which cites “responding to change over following a plan.” So these eager agilists suddenly drop planning like a bad habit and “embrace change” like fanatics (note: the manifesto doesn’t throw out planning; it simply ensures planning allows for change).
This misuse of embracing change manifests itself in two ways:
- Cruise-control – “we’re agile so we don’t need to plan; we just work the backlog”
- Out-of-control – “hey the teams are agile so we can re-direct their priorities at a moment’s notice”
Notice the anti-patterns involved here: In the Cruise-control model, if the teams are solely focused on executing the current backlog without business oversight, then they are failing to respond to changing market conditions, revised sales forecasts, supplier interruptions, technology innovation, competitive threats, customer feedback, etc. In effect it’s like an ostrich sticking its head in the proverbial sand.
In the Out-of-control model, on the other hand, leadership keeps zig-zagging all over the place. One week it’s a hot analytics plugin, the next it’s a complete site makeover, then wham! All of a sudden they’re going to “disrupt the market” with a killer social media engine. But change for change’s sake is not what agile is after. Throwing teams into a tailspin, aborting sprints and scrapping code that’s already in progress is wasteful, not productive. When companies speak of disruption, they mean disrupting the competition – not themselves!
Thankfully Agile Planning has an answer to these anti-patterns. Companies can perform both long-term and near-term planning, all the while embracing change. In the SAFe framework, this is realized via the Roadmap, which involves 2-3 Program Increments (PI’s), or roughly 6 months of features. And epics can be planned even further out into the horizon.
What about the other “P” word: Pivot? Isn’t this the problem with “big upfront design” and 12-18-24 month Gantt charts (complete with re-baselining) enforced by waterfall companies? How can they ever pivot? The answer is, not very well.
Agile, however, allows pivoting. But it’s in a planned fashion, as opposed to the Out-of-control model listed above. For example, in SAFe the business can decide to pivot via its Roadmap, rebalancing features within the next 2-3 PI’s, or even further out on the horizon. So product management can respond to change by re-prioritizing features slated for the next PI, or even stories slated for the next sprint. The only non-negotiable is it doesn’t disrupt the execution of the teams; namely the current sprint or PI. In this way the teams stay focused, delivering business value in a steady and sustainable manner.
That’s the beauty of agile. It embraces change, yet it also encourages responsive planning.