blogs.conchango.com

welcome to the conchango blogging site
Welcome to blogs.conchango.com Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Steve Garnett's Blog

Breaking the Iron Triangle: Project Manager v Scrum Master

As a PM my general approach to initiating projects has been to build a Project Initiation Document (PID – Prince). A PID details the project objectives, initial scope, organisational structure, roles & responsibilities, deliverables, project processes (lines of communications, risk management, issue management, change control), plans, costs and timelines.

 

And starting an agile project I would still identify most of the above and ensure it is clearly communicated to all stakeholders.

 

But… I have learnt that adopting a scrum approach changes two fundamental things for a project manager:

·        The Iron Triangle

·        The Role of Project Manager

 

The iron triangle of cost, time and scope (or quality) is typically the responsibility of the project manager to manage. Hopefully tolerance levels have been set for each element of the triangle, and if the tolerance level is about to be breached or is broken, the project manager escalates their issues to the project board or steering group.

 

Previously on traditional projects I owned and was responsible for this triangle and reported to the project board if any risks or issues were likely to break the tolerance levels.

 

In a traditional project a deliverable-focused approach to planning is used (Prince = configuration plan), whereby all the intermediate work products and “pieces” of the solution are identified and a plan drawn up to show the route to delivery usually utilising a gantt chart or network diagram. From which timelines, resources, and costs can be identified and critical path analysis and risk management conducted.

 

Now scrum doesn’t throw this all away… rather we open out the Iron Triangle and share responsibility across the team, and recognise that no matter how well we plan the project, things will change, and problems will occur.

 

So… lets open out the Iron Triangle and make time and cost fixable for a set period, say 4 weeks.

So the resources I’ve identify for the project will work for 4 weeks together which will cost a fixed price…

 

Now, let’s not set the scope as fixed, but accept that scope is variable within this part of the project.

 

The amount of work and quality of deliverables achieved within the fixed cost/time axis will depend on people… it will depend on the team’s productivity and practices. Let’s break the iron triangle that is established at the beginning of the project, and instead focus on making the team as efficient and productive as possible.

So the role of the Scrum Master is one of maximising the productivity of the team by removing obstacles, inspiring, motivating, and ensuring the scrum methodology is followed. 

 

The responsibility for what is built (the scope) is then given to the business. Scrum identifies a Product Owner, a business stakeholder who has a list of the requirements for the project prioritised by business value.

 

Maintaining quality levels can be aided through the use of agile development practices such as automated tested, continuous integration and refactoring. http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html

 

The project team select the highest priority requirements (as specified by the product owner) they think they can build in 4 weeks. So time is fixed, cost is fixed, the highest priority business needs are defined, and how much is achieved (scope) is based on the team’s productivity level.

 

So whereas PMs own the Iron triangle and spend their time, directing, planning, mitigating, and monitoring progress, Scrum Masters give the responsibility for the scope of the project to the business, set time and cost as fixed, and focus their efforts on the productivity of the team.

 

The team is responsible for delivery, the business defines the direction or scope, the scrum master helps the team meet its objective for the 4 weeks.

 

The role change from PM to Scrum Master is not easy… releasing control and sharing the responsibility with others can be a little disconcerting. However, I’ve seen at first hand that the productivity gains in adopting this approach are impressive.

 

The business sees its highest priority requirements built and delivered every 4 weeks. The team continually improves and increases its productivity levels, and every 4 weeks everyone knows exactly how far the team has progressed because the software is there for everyone to see, test and review.

 

Published 19 November 2004 16:19 by steve.garnett
Filed under:

Comments

 

TrackBack said:

November 23, 2004 17:28
 

TrackBack said:

December 8, 2004 09:14
 

steve.garnett said:

I don't see how this changes the triangle. You are fixing 2 sides, time and resources, and allowing scope to vary. Scrum definitely changes who is responsible for each side, but doesn't change the triangle itself.
December 8, 2004 15:40
 

steve.garnett said:

I think that the message here isn't the triangle disappears - more that the scope side isn't fixed in concrete (or iron) - it is variable. Although a simple statement it's incredibly hard to get this message across to your client - they know (or think) what they want, they have a fixed budget and it has to be done by date X.

As a consultancy moving from a contract to a trust orientated relationship is sometimes difficult especially if this is the first project you are undertaking together - there is no precident for much they can trust you.

Telling a client in the negotiation stage that how much of their requirements will actually be built is a guestimate - actually being honest about this upfront - rather then having bitter finger pointing exercises on delivery day when the project hasn't delivered is certainly a challenge!

It's through simple messages like "breaking the iron triangle" that we are helping our clients and hopefully educating potential clients as to the reality of long running software development projects. Have a look at this blog from our CTO [http://blogs.conchango.com/colinbird/archive/2004/12/07/401.aspx]- he covers some of the problems we face as a consultancy trying to spread the Agile message.

December 12, 2004 11:08
 

steve.garnett said:

In response to Darrel's and James's comments I think I need to dig a little deeper into the "breaking the iron triangle" idea.
As we are all aware from geometry, The square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the square of the other 2 sides.
Taken into project management, this means that if you change any side of the triangle one or both or the others will have to change as well. So if scope changes, so does either time or cost or both.
In Scrum 2 sides are fixed i.e. time and cost... but scope is variable so a triangle cannot exist.
Potentially we could argue that different shaped triangles exist for each individual sprint based on the performance capabilities of the team. This is vastly different in methodology terms, as waterfall PM theory involves specifying a triangle up-front for the entire project and forcing the project to conform to its shape throughout the lifecycle of a project.
Scrum says fix time and cost and focus on improving performance capability.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to get across... I look forward to your comments.
December 20, 2004 11:00
 

TrackBack said:

February 10, 2005 19:41
 

TrackBack said:

February 27, 2005 16:45
Anonymous comments are disabled
Powered by Community Server (Personal Edition), by Telligent Systems