When transforming an organization, we deal with complex systems which comprise many agents (ability to learn from experience) that dynamically create and recreate a spider web of connections and interactions. Everything is connected to everything.

Hence, we must consider the emotional side and the systemic side when dealing with change. The emotional side is a powerful self-defensive mechanism. We hate uncertainty. That’s all. We have been programmed to avoid it. When we are uncertain about something, we create our own reasons to reduce the stress and remove the uncertainty. Furthermore, there’s a systemic reason to avoid change; the own structure of the system. Complex adaptive systems tend to be stable. It means that the more direct and indirect interactions with other agents within the system, the harder to change the system itself. When an agent changes, the system gets forced to change how to interact with and loop starts again. Change is movement.

I have been more and more interested in learning how to teach the foundations of complex adaptive systems and this game invented by @jurgenappelo might be a valuable tool.

Meddlers is a tool focused on the systemic side aimed to create a view of your organization and to identify the direct and indirect interactions between agents within the system. Even though this game was presented in 2014 I recently took part of a workshop again I’d like to share my learnings and ideas for futures opportunities.


  1. Make visible the organizational structure of your organization.
  2. Make your mental models about roles, responsibilities and team structures explicit.
  3. A quick game for simulating how to grow your organization through what-if
  4. Involving people with different roles and perspectives in discussions to solve complex problems[1].
  5. Assess your model through a Resilience Card: Rating your organizational structure from different perspectives.
    1. Motivation, team work and healthiness.
    2. Shared goal, evolution and maturity.
    3. Quality, engineering and release process.
    4. Customer satisfaction and involvement.


  1. In case your scenarios are too vague, teams will not be able to create consistent organizational structures.
  2. It’s sometimes lead to long discussions.


  1. Split the audience in groups no bigger than 4-6 people to facilitate conversations.
  2. Allow other teams to assess other team’s models using the resilience cards after they have listened to the arguments of their organizational’ structure.
  3. Pay special attention to your scenarios. Give them enough information about roles required for each product or service you deliver.
  4. Create plausible scenarios considering the main factors of the resilience card to invite people to reflect and to adapt their organizational structure.
  5. Sharing the model between teams to provide different perspectives and refine your view of the system.
  6. Adding the possibility to add new roles not considered in the original game.

[1] Generative, dynamic and social complexity. Solving tough problems.

What if

A scenario is a hypothesis about the future that is relevant, challenging, plausible and clear (solving tough problems).

What if we could define plausible scenarios based on the companies’ experience to transform themselves? What if we could facilitate safe to fail experiments to play with those scenarios? Would that approach lead to better decisions?

What if we redesigned the company structure to create team products rather than specialized support groups (less organizational structure)?

What if we banned the boss? What if managers couldn’t make any decision and they were only facilitators of circles of decisions for the organization? What would it happen to the company? How would it affect empowerment, ownership, motivation, innovation? Will it increase or reduce its resilience?

What if we removed performance appraisals and career path?

More concrete ideas that we might consider creating scenarios:

What if we measured only elapsed time, flow efficiency and throughput? Would we have more transparency and a wider perspective of the value stream? Would it help to spot problems in our process?

What if you provided a coaching service or NVC training for all employees? Would it increase company survivability and engagement? Would it help to create healthier relationships?

What if monthly salaries were limited? What if the transparency policy publicly communicated monthly wages and managers’ expenses?


Experiencing Play 4 Agile



“I am just about to take off from the Frankfurt airport after 3 and a half days of intensive game experiences and social interactions with awesome people who you notice as soon as you arrive at their conference that enjoy a lot what they do. I undoubtedly will intent to attend next year”. This is roughly the first thought that comes up to mind just after opening Word. It’s been an exhausting learning experience that is worth the hassle when Vueling decided not to allow me to check in when I got to the Barcelona airport 45 minutes before the flight took off. But, this is not what I want to talk about…

“Be brave”

Someone at some point during the open space said” I need to be brave enough to try this with teams that I work with…” and I just began to reflect on that. If I step back on last few years, I must say that I’ve left my comfort zone and got into the stretch zone many times. I’ve tried many different approaches so far: system thinking and metaphors for retrospectives, brainstorming sessions, popcorn, personal coaching, however, I have never tried to explore teaching and learning through playing games.

So, next lines contain in a few lines what conclusion I got after playing these games.

Fluxx: This quick game changes its basic rules and the main goal almost every round. As if we were working for a company that is trying to improve through countlessly feedback loops, we have to adapt to the new target and change our strategy accordingly.

I cannot find a better way to explain to the teams the principle “Responding to change over following a plan” or We accept changes even late if it helps our customers to maximize its competitive advantage”.

Escape: Funny and frenetic game in which you and your team has to escape from a mine with the higher number of diamonds you can collect in a certain amount of time. It’s time-boxed (iteration) and players decide before starting the best strategy to accomplish the goal (planning) and execute in an uncertain world (the mine rooms and the exit room is discovered as players explore its rooms).

Scrum Cards: An easy to play game which exposes to newbies concepts like sprint, estimation, uncertainty, collaboration, teamwork and many others.

Black stories: In this game the facilitator describes a situation and invites people to ask him/her questions about it. The only single rule is that questions need to be replied with either yes or no. A useful game for training lateral thinking.

“#P4A16 it’s not only about Agile… but people”

I also had time to attend a promising session about NVC. Even though the game needed some refinement, I got some ideas I’d like to explore in future workshops.

Following with the topic, I played a Feedback Card game from the company: open cards

This game visually provides some clues about abstract concepts you can use to give feedback. A subset of the deck of cards depicts feelings you can use to express how you feel during the feedback session. As an NVC practitioner, I’ve seen these cards a very useful resource due to the fact we usually use a limited amount of feelings every day.

An awesome session led by the Agile Master Olof Lewitz invited us to dig into Confidence. I got the following list of games to play with:

  • Dixit
  • Rhetoric
  • Personality Poker
  • Delegation Poker
  • Nobody’s perfect
  • Secret Hitler
  • Macchiavelli
  • Werewolf
  • Open space
  • Dojo’s and fishbowl
  • Powerpoint Karaoke

“Lego is everywhere in this conference”

The first two days of the open space we explored with Lego different situations. I participated in a couple of sessions however I was mostly focused on the facilitation script rather than the output of the session itself. My takeaway is that most important thing is the question you ask the group to build.

“Patterns for Creativity”

The last session I attended aimed to explore how creativity can be facilitated through patterns. What could happen if you remove the main function of one thing you have on your desk and combine it with another one? Why would anyone want that new thing? @ilmirajat challenged us using different patterns to create radically different things very far away from what they were originally designed to.

“Hilarious moments”

Ellen Grove helped me to win the only single point I got in cards against humanity in 1 round like this: photo took by Jordann Gross

You can win a round of Fluxx while ordering a bise beer with the worst cards in your hand.

Petra Liesmons demonstrated her coaching skills and patience while guiding me through different rooms of the mine in the Escape.

The plane has just landed and I want to close this post giving thanks to organisers and all people who actively take part of this special community.



Thank you ever so much.

I hope to see you next year in 2017

OKResolution’s  Year


OKR is a method of defining and tracking objectives and their outcomes.

The new year is here, and it will be here for at least 365 more days so what are your goals for this year? This was the question I threw at some friends during the last year dinner. I was eager to learn more from them; their new projects, goals, reasons to wake every morning, their dreams for the new year that was coming. I felt full of energy at that night and I honestly thought that that question mixed with some beers would help us share and believe that those things would actually be achievable.

However, I didn’t expect what actually happened afterwards. One of them looked sadly at me and said: “Goals? I suppose that it’s doing whatever is needed for not losing my job.” Another one said: “I hope this year I can go to the gym. They year before I paid and I didn’t go…” other one said: “WTF, I have not even thought about what I want to achieve …” of course, not all invitees did have that pessimistic vision of the future but it was more than fifty percent of the people. As the discussion and drinks flowed, I figured out that one reason why some of my friends hadn’t had any expectation was caused by not having a method at all. After a few drinks, I committed myself to writing about the way I do so, here it is.

This blog post aims to share with you and them (they promised they’d read it) the method I have been testing for 5 years. The method consists of 4 basic steps:

  1. Select the roles you play in your life.
  2. Identify your objectives for every role.
  3. Describe the key results to measure your progress.
  4. Pivot

I honestly must say that even thought it worked reasonably well, the model had been five years without suffering any major change to the model. So, 2015 which was a complete flop in terms of goals management was a questionless signal to revisit the model. In 2015 I had had my goals in mind every time and ever day but I had failed to review and to track my progress throughout the year. Hence, I began my reflect on how to improve it. This blog post you read is the experiment I’ve decided to run during this year.

Some weeks before the new year’s eve (Dec 3rd and 4th) I attended an amazing workshop about OKR facilitated by Kitty Idling at the Conference Agile Spain. I strongly recommend it. So I took advantage to learn from my own experience with okrs. So I researched more on the topic and began to replace my old goals and actions paradigm to the new approach with something called objectives and key results.

The process basically contains 3 steps in which you define your mission, set goals and define indicators to compare your current situation with what you want to get.

1st Step: Identifying Roles – Who are you?

Steven Covey wrote that the first thing you have to do is to create your vision and mission for life. One way to do it is to think about what it is important in your life. Those words resonated in my head and something connected when I read about roles for the first time. I like to think that roles describe who you are and what is important to you.

Some examples that I set for myself:

Son Father
Husband Blogger
Banker Sportsman
Reader Individual

You should write down all roles in your life that comes to your mind: individual, family (son, daughter, mother or father, husband or wife), work, sportsman, blogger.

2nd Step: Identifying Objectives – What do you want to achieve?

For every role you play, you should define one or two objectives considering what you want for you and the people who interact with you. These objectives should be a simple sentence which might be inspirational. It ought to be qualitative and make some kind of impact in your world. It must be a reminder to explain to you the reasons why you wake up every morning.  It has to be time-bound: quarterly objectives are better than yearly objectives because you get a faster sense of progress and your motivation increases if you feel you are reaching your objectives.

Some examples that I set for myself:

  • Getting a more balance and cleanness in my mind will provide healthier relationships.
  • Getting more writing skills will allow me to connect to more people.
  • Getting more visibility about my monthly expenses will help me to save more money.
  • Getting more skills about finance will give me more options
  • Canada is calling…
  • I want to run further…

3rd Step: Describing key Results: How would you know that you get there?

Key results are in some way the translation into numbers of the inspirational message contained in the objectives. Reading 3-5 books on finance, economics, and mindfulness, writing at least 12 blog posts in English or reading 40 books are some indicators to measure if you are progressing towards your goal. A useful question to ask yourself is:

 How would you know if you met your objective?

Most OKR researchers recommend that key results should be challenging, difficult, not impossible. As you can read here a powerful way to visualize is setting a confidence level for each one. 

This is the template word that I use for both goals and tracking.

Roles Objectives Key Results Actions

4th Step: Pivot: Does the objective still make sense? 

Every Monday morning, I assess my plan and my role in order to pivot if something has changed.

Has the role changed or evolved?

Does the objetive or key results still fit with reality?

Did I make any progress?

I am using a tracking template to reflect on these questions every Monday morning. Notice that the tracking template has only 16 weeks so that I force myself to redo the complete purpose and goals every quarter.

Last but not least, I have recently started writing a post-it with the objectives every day. I am putting the post-it in my pocket and it’s become like an anchor. It reminds me why I am doing all these things.


Event though I mentioned that this method works very well I’d like to highlight some other benefits

  • Personal enrichment: You and only you can define your own goals. This activity helps me assess if what I am doing is actually important for me.
  • Widen your vision (See the whole): Your behavior, actions, and decisions impact your family, working environment and the rest of the system. Seeing the world through the lens of different roles widens your vision.
  • Simple: This activity as many others is very simple: you’re requested to identify your goals, objectives for these goals and their key results. If OKR seems to be complicated, use simple goals and list of possible actions to achieve those goals.
  • A predefined way of thinking: This benefit might not be important to you nevertheless I need some coaching guidance and predefined questions when reflecting such important topic as the mission, vision or goals.

Thanks for sharing

Download our okr templates

See my OKResolution for 2016


Incomplete vision for 2016

2016 My vision


As a blogger, I want to increase my work’s visibility and to get more feedback from my professionals.

Key results

  2. 5K Views
  3. To Increase 20% Comments
  4. To Increase the number of blog entries (> 9) per year
  5. To write in Spanish and English


AS a reader I want to research on topics that I don’t feel so comfortable so that I can have a wider point of view.

Key results

  1. At least two books for all of these areas.
    1. Coaching
    2. Mindfulness
    3. Systems thinking
    4. Complex Adaptive Systems
    5. NVC
    6. Teams
    7. Kanban
  2. 40 books challenge


Canada is calling…

Key results

  1. 25 minutes every day of the working week
  2. A valid English Certification for the VISA process
  3. 1 training book for every two weeks


I want to run further and faster

Key results

  1. Training at least 3 times a week
  2. Complete 1 half-marathon per semester


As a professional I want to provide a wider set of services.

Key results

  1. To coach >50 hours on PNL.
  2. To research 50-100 hours on systemic coaching.
  3. 3 Agile conferences this year.
  4. C4P at least 2 proposals for 3 main conferences.
  5. To research on 2 more transformational models.


This blog reflects my learning process, experiments, and personal experience helping software teams. I have worked with a bunch of exceptional professionals who have suffered many of my mistakes and they have replied to me delivering working software, putting more effort on software quality and even more energy to try new things. Several years ago I committed myself to understanding what software development actually is and how to help those professionals do their best. I think this blog is in the right direction, tirelessly, step-by-step I pay back to them and to the agile community what I owe them.

If you are wondering how my personal purpose and my unpaid debt is related to productivity keep reading. I am going to start by describing a team as a

“network of interconnected work”

Team members who are the nodes of the network, transform, exchange and convert raw information into value to customers. An important characteristic of these networks is that “work” has dependencies between nodes. An event or sequence of events must take place before another, however, the sequence is not predictable. It means that my productivity depends on many other nodes of the network.

In my opinion, many organisations have ignored this remarkable characteristic and they assess employee’s productivity individually without considering the environment. These organisations tend to avoid measuring productivity of the network as a whole.

            “You cannot improve what you cannot see.”

The situation gets more and more unfair when employees do not have either control or authority to change how they interact with the network. Edward Deming wrote 14th principles in his brilliant book Out of Crisis:

Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective (see Ch. 3).

Another side effect of productivity is busyness. As all nodes of the network are busy, the whole system loses responsiveness and effectiveness needed to react to continuous changes happening around. Busyness organisations want to reach high level of capacity utilisation avoiding idle nodes. An exaggeration might be to create a buffer of work to do just before every node in order to avoid starvation. My untested hypothesis about the expected behaviour is in this case, a network with a poorer global performance and longer time to market. Work to do has to wait in a queue until the node has free capacity to work with it and to dispatch it to the next node of the network, which is also be terribly busy. Hence, work must wait in a queue again.

Not long ago a friend of mine told me that his manager had wanted their teams to achieve maximum capacity utilisation and velocity. Then POs began to take features from here and there to prepare an iteration backlog considering number of people, their skills, expertise and calendar days… It was an exaggeration. Wasn’t it?

“Watch the baton, not the runner”

Productivity and Variability

Software development systems are high variability systems affected by external and internal sources of variability. External sources of variability are mostly rules, policies and events at the organisation level:

  1. Technology: Using immature technology we are exposed to bugs or changes in our technology. For example, lean companies try to use only reliable and proven technology.
  2. Team organisation: Changing team members continuously imply that teams must reorganise and affects negatively their performance. People are not replaceable not exchangeable. Furthermore, space configuration and distance between nodes are barriers to our communication. The likelihood of communicating falls dramatically when distance is farther than 30 meters.
  3. Knowledge or business complexity: Lack of domain knowledge to solve the customer’s problems or constant changes in their preferences are also common sources of variability.
  4. Customer: Lack of involvement or weak support from the customer. When either feedback is too long or is useless from a proxy persona instead of the real customer we can build the wrong system.
  5. Competitors: Competitors’ decisions affect our plans when they bring new products into the market. We should react and inject variability in our project plans.
  6. Waiting for availability: is the time that work is idle waiting for other parts or nodes.
  7. Dependencies or specialisation: It is a significant self-wounded promoted by organisations that encourage high levels of specialisation. This “culture” lengthens our development time and our time to market. We are more exposed to changes in market preferences or competitors.

On the contrary, internal sources of variability are mostly focused on individuals. Intrinsic factors like motivation, healthy or safety among others are very dependent on how we see the world and affect our individual performance. Variability has an important effect on productivity so we might put strong and direct effort on reducing the bad economic consequences of those variability factors in order to increase productivity of the whole system.

Now, I am going to take a different approach and see how to assess productivity through the eyes of Theory of Constraints (TOC). The only goal of an organisation is to make money. Eddie Goldratt who designed TOC considered that Throughput is a powerful metric to measure organisation’s performance. Throughput is the rate at which the organisation converts its inventory of products into sales.

From the TOC perspective, the performance of the development process is affected by bottlenecks, which impede the organisation to achieve its goal. Performance of the whole system is determined by the capacity of those bottlenecks. System performs at the speed of the slowest link in the chain. Whether you increase the capacity utilisation on non-bottleneck nodes of your network, you are not improving the system at all.

“For any resource that is not a bottleneck, the level of activity from which the system is able to profit is not determined by its individual performance but by some other constraint within the system. – Eddie Goldratt”

TOC encourages you to either increase bottleneck’s capacity through improving its process, removing unnecessary work or deriving it to other areas of the system. Finally, we might add more people or required resources if previous actions didn’t achieve the expected results. In any case, we aim at improving the whole system in order to increase throughput.

This is the sequence of steps required to apply TOC:

  1. Identify the constraint
  2. Exploit the bottleneck
  3. Subordinate everything
  4. Elevate the constraint
  5. Avoid Inertia

In theory, TOC is a tool to strengthen the view of the system as a whole through implementing a global metric (throughput) and improving flow whereas avoiding local optimisations on resources that are not bottlenecks.


I hope to give you some arguments to discuss about productivity in your organisation.

  • Productivity has very harmful side effects for the organisation: longer time to market, waste created by busyness*.
  • Culture of busyness reduces responsiveness and effectiveness required to adapt continuously to changes. Network and world around us is not static but dynamic.
  • Identifying bottlenecks is the first step of TOC to improve throughput.
  • Many opportunities to improve the whole system are manager’s responsibilities.
  • Either removing unnecessary work or deriving it to other parts of the system is a good alternative to try to improve throughput.
  • Adding more capacity should be our last choice.
  • When you prioritise an iteration backlog based on ROI and some team members are idle, take advantage of these visible signals to discuss specialisation, t shape resources availability, team organisation and organisational culture.

This is what I have learnt so far and I wish to write in the future to contradict some of the arguments written here. That would be a signal to indicate that I learnt something new.

Tagged , ,

Cost of Delay – Decision Making Framework

“Cost of delay is the language to translate value and impact to our customers into money. “

Cost of delay is the cornerstone of the economic decision making framework, which helps businesses to assess the impact of time on their products and to prioritise their scarce resources on them. Cost of delay puts the tag price on our features and assesses how their value decays over time.

Using cost of delay our discussions shift from the typical labor cost-oriented mindset in which the important topic is what the cost of the feature is to a radically different approach in which we assess the value of the piece of work to do in terms of impact to the business and customers. We model an economic scenario and consider it real when prioritising features or products in our portfolio. Notice that we are replacing gut feeling to using a more scientific model. This model is more adaptable to the complex adaptive system we have to deal with. We arrange experiments and hypothesis using “probe > sense > respond” to learn how the system responds to the stimulus. Cost of delay is a powerful vehicle to harmonise a single vision of the future and to align a common business strategy.

As we have just mentioned, cost of delay is strongly dependent on time and we should depict how time affects product development. @JoshuaJames reflects on 3 different profile life cycle development patterns to describe product development markets.

Short life cycle and sales peak is affected is cost of delay.

Screen Shot 2015-05-18 at 15.25.09

This urgency pattern has a very short life cycle and sales are profoundly affected by delay. Consider for example the challenge to release a mobile game. As soon as the product is released, sales ramp up very fast until reaches a peak. Then, sales progressively begin to decay. Life cycle is very short and peak is affected by delay. Whether we release our product too late, our peak is reduced due to the fact that market is almost covered by other titles. At a certain point, when sales begin to decay we must invest in discovering which features can help to stabilise or increase the revenue. An important characteristic of this profile is that exciting features (Kano model) are quickly copied by competitors and become basic needs future products.

Long life cycle and sales peak is affected by delay.

Screen Shot 2015-05-18 at 15.24.44

This life cycle profile for certain products also reflects a quick growth nevertheless sales maintain over time. In this case, the first company to introduce the product into the market wins the competitive advantage over latecomers. Cars market or competition between airplane manufacturers is good example of this kind of profile.

Long life cycle and sales are unaffected by delay.

Screen Shot 2015-05-18 at 15.25.00

This profile is the easiest one to compute due to profits are sustained over a long period of time. Number of sales is not affected by when the product is released.

Once, we have identified the urgency pattern it is time to decompose value and duration which are both parameters required to compute cost of delay.

The value of the product features was previously introduced here and has to be estimated considering 4 different perspectives:

  • Increase revenue reflects the revenue provided by new-delighted features (KANO model), which attract either new users or current users.
  • Protect revenue are small improvements which current users will not be able to not pay any extra money for.
  • Reduce cost are improvements in our process to deliver value faster.
  • Avoid cost: costs that are not incurring right now to occur in the future unless some action is taken.

Notice that these perspectives might be complementary and the total value is obtained summing these 4 areas.

Let’s take a hypothetical example. A small company that released a successful instant communication tool is researching on the profitability of adding new features.

           Feature: As a User, I want to use voice commands to request the application to dictate messages to the receiver.

Our network of daily active users is 5 millions. Current license price is $10. The marketing strategy is to offer an upgrade worth $5 to current users and hence we expect 10% of daily users to purchase it. We expect our immediate competitors to release their new service in 3 months so we expect to lose 8% of the revenue per month from current active users who would not pay the upgrade every month and 5% value depreciation of the network of users.

Increased Revenue:

We expect 2% rise in new revenues from users who will pay $5 for the new service.

= 2% 5M daily active users * $5 = $500K

Avoid Cost:

Releasing late this feature would decrease 8% of revenue from current users and would devaluate 5% the net value of our network every month. This network is worth $50M today.

= f(g) current users + f(i) network of users

= 8% 5M daily active users * $5 = $2M

= 5% $50M= $2,5M

COST OF DELAY = $500K + $2M + $2,5M $5M

So, cost of delay is the amount of money we will not make whether that feature is not released on time.


The amount of time required to release the feature or product to the customer is the second factor required to compute cost of delay. Notice that I prefer making statistical analysis about the performance of the system (historical data) rather than estimating duration.


So far, we have assessed the list of features in terms of value and duration, however, that is not enough to prioritize and maximise the economics. Product development contains features that usually have different value; urgency and duration so standard approaches like FIFO or LIFO are far from optimising economics. Rather we use cost of delay divided by Duration.

As you can see, cost of developing a product or a feature is not considered when prioritising. Why? First of all, Time is the most critical factor because it is irreplaceable. It cannot be replaced or reversed. On the contrary, funds can be obtained through external sources like financial capitalisation. Also, cost is not a good variable to consider when making decisions due to the asymmetric payoff function of product development. Cost is not proportional to the value obtained. Some research points out that only 30% or 40% of our features can provide up to 90% of the value and we usually only consider cost when making economic decisions. We don’t properly deal with variability and it force us to maximise economics by eliminating all choices with uncertain outcomes.

Finally, I have conscientiously removed the option of adding more capacity because its difficulty to scale in certain situations, especially in later stages of development. Most of the times, adding more capacity leads to communication overloads, and more delays.

            “If you bring new people to a product that is late, it’s likely to delay the project even more because of the increased complexity and the need for the team to adapt to its new composition”

Inspect and adapt

As our customer preferences change and competitors adapt their strategy, cost of delay is constantly affected. Our value model needs to be revisited and refined often. Hence, Cost of delay is not a static figure and urgency pattern is a way to create awareness and shared understanding about the economic impact of delays.

How to prioritize

In order to answer to this question, we have a list of features with different value, duration and CD3.

Feature Value Duration Cost of Delay
Feature A $10K 6m $1.6K
Feature B $8K 4m $2K
Feature C $27K 14m $1,92K

The optimal scheduling decision TODAY is to deliver the feature with highest CD3. So, first feature to release would be B, then C and then A.

Next 2 examples are very atypical in software development but it’s worth mentioning them.

When all features have the same value but different duration, very atypical in software development we might use shorter time first (SJF).

Feature Value Duration Cost of Delay
Feature A $10K 6m $1.6K
Feature B $10K 4m $2.5K
Feature C $10K 14m $0.71K

So, optimal selection would be: B, A, C.

When all features have the same duration but different value we might sequence the work to do with high cost of delay first (HDCF).

Feature Value Duration Cost of Delay
Feature A $30K 5m $6K
Feature B $20K 5m $4K
Feature C $10K 5m $2K

Optimal scheduling would be: A, B, C.

Finally, in Flow Product development we measure throughput as the rate at which we convert inventory through sales and value delivered to the customer. Thus cost of delay can be considered a healthy signal of the system. All partially completed features (inventory) are avoiding us reach the goal of making money.

“How much money and time do we spend on features that have not been converted into throughput?


  • Cost of delay puts a price tag on our features in order to help you maximise economics and prioritise.
  • Cost of delay shifts our mindset from cost and efficiency to speed and value.
  • Cost of delay assesses our value models against urgency, value and risk.
  • Not only Cost but also probability are required to make optimal economic decisions. Cost is not always proportional to the value obtained. Asymmetry payoff function of product development remind us that we need variability to create value and short feedback loops to cut wrong paths as soon as possible.
  • We consider 4 different perspectives to assess value:
    • Increase Revenue
    • Protect Revenue
    • Reduce Cost
    • Avoid Cost
  • Cost of Delay is an alternative way to assess the economic impact of the inventory of design in progress.
  • CD3 is a prioritisation algorithm for work to do with different urgency, value and duration.
  • Cost of delay can be obtained dividing value by duration.

This blog post is in some way an extract of the ideas developed by @JoshuaJames and Donald Reinertsen.

For further information see next sources of information:

Tagged , ,

Decision making framework

Is it possible to improve how we make decisions? That’s one of the questions that I ask to myself almost everyday. I’ve attended thousands of meetings without a clear purpose and I’ve witnessed how lots of important decisions have been made without a clear understanding of the current situation, or a clear vision of the problem to solve. Late 2014, I was reading a book called “Commitment” [Olav Maassen Chris Matts 2013] when I firstly came across Real Options theory. It is a decision-making framework feeds from financial options theory and cognitive behavioral theory that allows people to make optimal decisions within their current context. Oh uh! Easy. Isn’t it? An option is defined as the right, but not the obligation, to take an action in the future.

From financial options theory we can extract that our options have value and cost. We will see how to ideally quantify the value of our options. Likewise, NLP and cognitive behavioral theory shed light on the aversion to uncertainty and draw conclusions on why people don’t follow optimal decision processes and thus we make irrational decisions.

Real options theory is a strategic way of thinking [Amram 1999] especially valuable when there is uncertainty due to a lack of information [Ozkaya, Kazman, Klevin 2007] that advocates for deferring your commitments as long as possible. You gain flexibility to change later if you don’t commit to any option. You must wait and wait and wait to transform an option: the right to do something into an obligation. In the meantime, you actively look for either more information about options, or to create alternate options to get a optimal decision.

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 10.27.25

In agile, we recognize high uncertainty and we provide options almost everywhere. When the customer evaluates the latest release of the product, we are giving him options to address the product based on new learning: we can continue working on improving something already delivered (refine), develop new stuff (explore) or even cancel the product (abandon) if that’s not what the customer is expecting. In the same way, we can see retrospectives like ceremonies in which members assess new options to try to work better. Most agile software development practices also provide options: TDD or BDD offer fast feedback loops to detect coding errors when writing or changing the code.

“ Without test driven development, there would be no refactoring.”

Mocks or stubs also create options to isolate external dependencies. We defer the decision on how to implement certain parts of the system. The YAGNI principle – you ain’t gonna need it has its roots in options theory too. Lean transmits a similar idea through the principle last responsible moment.

Now it’s time to dig into the special characteristics of our options.

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 15.32.11

Options have value.

We should assess the value of our options in order to help us identify which option is more valuable. In fact, having numbers is better than no having numbers at all. So, we are going to consider our options from 4 different perspectives.  This framework considers that our options can contribute to one or more perspectives called buckets.

Increased Revenue

This is the revenue associated with either increasing sales to existing customers or gaining new customers. The source of this revenue is either adding value to existing products with “delighting” features [Kano model] that the current customers are willing to pay for or new products or services. Some questions will help you identify this bucket.

  • What’s the benefit of this option?
  • Will this option enable future opportunities? How?

Protected Revenue

This is the revenue received from our existing customers. It aims to maintain the existing market share through continuous improvements. Those changes aren’t valuable enough for existing customers to pay for. Sustaining this revenue requires a more defending strategy.

Reduce Cost

We contribute to this bucket with ideas to be more efficient. These aim at improving our processes and delivering value faster. We must assess the value of the option matching to the cost of the alternatives. An example is automating a process so that we can reduce the cost of 2 employee working full time (FTE).

Avoid Cost

Making actions to prevent costs that are not incurring right now but it might occur in the future unless some action is taken. We should focus our attention on technical risks but we should also consider market, strategic and operational risks [Reinertsen 1991]. We might try to answer to these questions:

  • Does it reduce a future risk?
  • How is this option going to affect me?
  • Is there any potential negative impact if I don’t choose this option? How can avoid it?

Total value of your option is obtained summing up the 4 areas.

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 15.13.56


A game software company released a new game called “Killing Br0kers in Destiny” 8 months ago and since then, the game has been very profitable. More than 1 million of daily active users have played however, the trend for last few months indicates a slightly yet continued downward of one percent every week and the company is now considering what to do in order to address the situation. On average, 25% percent of our daily active users spend 5$ on new characters, special weapons, ammunition and equipment every month.

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 15.14.05Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 15.14.12

Notice that our mental models and assumptions are described in our assessment. Cause and effect diagrams are valuable tools to shape our assumptions and to describe how we expect the system to behave considering certain conditions as true events. There are two important side effects when using these tools. Visualizing our assumptions let us challenge the assumptions and brings up healthy discussions about them and the second one is the use of (money) as a base unit to measure our all our options.

 “In the absent of information about value, of course, the system optimizes for other things. Why should it surprise everyone? @joshuajames

This model is far away from being perfect but it is order of magnitude better than gut feeling.

“All models are wrong but some are useful” George E. P. Box

           “One answer is better than no having one at all”

Options expire.

Options are very time sensitive and we must consider when our options expire and they are no longer available. We need to set the last responsible moment either estimating the duration it would take us to carry out the option or using historical data. I like calling this point PNR. Point of no return is considered the point beyond which one must continue on one’s current route because turning back is physically impossible.

So, point of no return is obtained subtracting the duration of an option from the due date.

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 10.29.57

Never commits early until you know why, and when you know it, do it as quickly as possible.


  1. Don’t treat everything as an option; we should only use real options theory for important decisions. We are suffering from overabundance of choice and it might overwhelm you and produce analysis paralysis.
  2. Agile methodologies and many Agile software development tools and practices provide options to deliver high quality products faster and better.
  3. Options have value: Use four different perspectives to estimate the value of your options.
  4. Options expire: use historical data to determine the last responsible moment.
  5. Those who make decisions ought to learn to be lazy. Wait, wait, and wait until you have more information before making a decision. Then, do it as quickly as possible.
  6. A scientific approach like A3 thinking should dramatically help your decision-making framework and will visualise your options.
  7. Use cause and effect diagrams to forecast how you expect the system is going to behave before releasing your experiments.
  8.  Variability will jeopardize your plans, no matter how well you value and forecast them.
  9. Cost optimization is not the same as revenue optimization. Sometimes it is worth investing in more than one option even though this might cost slightly more.


    1. Black Swan Farming Case study from Maersk Line
    2. Commitment

Cost of change

You are likely familiar with the cost of making changes to a product but let me share with you a deeper view of elements which are affected by cost of change. The most common elements are: code and tests to verify the expected behavior, but there are also non-code artifacts: user manuals, analysis and design documents, software requirement specifications, test documents and so on. Hence, cost of change can be computed considering the following list of elements:

Cost of Change = coordination costs + transaction costs + Failure load cost

Coordination costs: the cost of getting people together to coordinate the change. For example, the cost of coordinating people to release a new patch for the current version.

Transaction costs which are the costs associated to the activity performed. For example, the cost of regression tests before releasing the product. And finally, failure load is the cost of addressing changes demanded by the customer. For example, cost of fixing a critical bug. David Anderson writes on his book about Kanban: “Demand generated by customer that might have been avoided through higher quality delivered earlier. Those activities don’t create any value

First person who wrote about cost of change was Barry Boehm in the 80s. According to his point of view, cost of making changes in software development increase significantly overtime. Waterfall, which was the predominant methodology for developing software products at the time, was not able to handle cost properly due to the sequential process and as a result, cost of change for small projects increased up to 4 times and rocketed up to 100 times for big projects. Such extreme changes called “architecture breakers” were actually discovered once the system was in production due to scalability and performance issues. Waterfall’s is still being broadly used and its weak points are: no customer involvement since the requirements elicitation phase, no feedback from previous stages and delayed validation of assumptions (testing phase too late in the product life cycle).

Of course, software engineering has evolved and there are new frameworks, tools and programming languages. However, we have been unable to reduce its devastating effects so far. Back in 1980s, Boehm tried to minimize cost of development through delivering software in small increments. Agile and other lightweight methodologies evolved those ideas and nowadays they foster to build software making small iterative and incremental steps.

But, that’s not enough. For example, the Lean principle “last responsible moment” suggests that we should deliver features only when we have enough information to develop them. Thus, we defer the cost of making decisions as much as possible to minimize the risk of change.

As a consequence, Agile radically reduces the effect of cost of change however in many cases, this effect isn’t real due to superficial transitions to Agile. Many companies which are becoming non-perfect “Agile” companies have a lower cost of change than waterfall driven companies due to the fact that Agile promotes iterative development and fast feedback through delivering value often. Yet, they fail to complete the transformation: managers and developers aren’t willing to accept non-conventional software engineering practices to build high quality products.

Next picture depicts how cost of changes evolves for different approaches over time.

cost of change

Notice that fast feedback dramatically reduces the cost of change at first, but it increases again over time if short feedback mechanisms aren’t ready to provide information about the health of the system. Such systems like test automation, unit testing or customer feedback provide invaluable data to react quickly to unintended consequences of change.

Now, it’s time to present a new topic aimed to help our teams visualize, identify, anticipate, react or mitigate the impact of this problem. Systems thinking aims to describe how the elements of a given system interact with each other and how the system as a whole is expected to perform. It’s worth mentioning that next part of the article is going to briefly cover systems thinking but I promise to keep writing about it in the future.

Next part depicts my personal view of the system and it can/must be argued / discussed with other actors who interact within the same system. The real value of this technique is to create a shared understanding and alignment from different actors.

Describing “my view” of the problem.

In order to support the explanation I want to show you how to use a simple archetype. An archetype is a template for describing patterns of behavior repeatedly found in different kind of systems.

Fixes that backfire

Fixes that backfire

“Fixing that backfires” describes a problem symptom. First feedback loop called balance loop is intended to fix the problem symptoms in the short term. This “quick fix” tries to eliminate the problem symptom but quickly it emerges again. More “medicine” is injected into the system but symptoms seem to be alleviated only for a short period of time. Same “solution” is tested again and again and again. On the contrary, there is a second feedback loop which describes a slow and silent degradation of the system. This harmful lack of performance is more and more catastrophic due to a delayed time of response between the “quick fix” and the unintended consequences.

Learning by Example

Let’s describe a hypothetical situation in which an important project for a company was very late in development. At first glance, project seemed to be very easy: project’s goal was to rewrite an existing application using a new technology. Besides, new requirements weren’t required which significantly reduced external sources of variation and complexity.

Problem Symptom:

Deadline was coming and the team wasn’t responding according to the expectations. Product and code metrics, bug trends and data collected from static code analysis tools seemed to indicate critical quality problems. Furthermore, feedback collected during the product review meetings clearly indicated a lack of trust due to continuous crashes and instability of the system. Product owner who was continuously receiving pressure from stakeholders tried to reduce scope or negotiate a new deadline but his efforts to convince managers were fruitless. The company needed that product to guarantee its position in the market. Hopeless, the product owner shared the critical situation with the team during a meeting and shifted the main responsibility for delivering the product to the team.

Problem Symptom

Problem Symptom

Short term reaction Fix:

Team members who didn’t have a firm code of ethics naturally reacted to the pressure cutting corners in order to meet the deadline. They quickly planned to develop features without any kind of automatic testing and decided to postpone exploratory testing until the later phase. Finally they reserved a buffer of time to stabilize and to test the product before releasing.

Quick Fix

Quick Fix

After many hours of overtime and tireless effort, team was able to release a “stable” version.

Hey grandpa!!! Stop and keep talking about “Fixing that backfires”

As I mentioned before, the second loop usually takes more time to be noticeable and it provokes unintended effects on the system. At the moment that the team was making those decisions, they were unaware of the psychological impact on morale or motivation and the economic impact on cost of change, technical debt or maintainability index.

Unintended consequences

Unintended consequences

Ok, what should have they done?

The second balancing loop usually needs traction in the opposite direction from the balancing feedback loop. Making a route cause analysis of the problem in order to understand how the system is actually performing is a good starting point. Notice that, automated testing and continuous integration services provide invaluable information about the health of the system and provide fast feedback which dramatically reduces the cost of change.

Likewise, a bundle of actions can extend your toolbox:

  • Providing training on systems thinking and archetypes like “Fixing that backfires” might help the team to avoid linear thinking* and superficial analysis of the problems.
  • Bringing more visibility and transparency to the technical debt and cost of change through the use of tools like sonar cube, Jira or TFS.
  • Putting more effort on agile practices mentioned in this article help reduce the cost of change.

Finally, I want to share with you some conclusions I have learnt from this writing.


  • Cost of change is much more expensive than you can expect at first glance. In this book, authors explain to us how Microsoft Word came to market years late due to the same reasons described here.
  • Agile methodologies allow us to reduce cost of change but superficial transitions only have a slight reduction in cost of change.
  • System thinking is a branch of knowledge which allows us to share our mental views with others and to forecast how a system is expected to perform.
  • Archetypes are templates used for determining patterns of behavior repeatedly found in different companies and different situations.
  • Start modeling the system searching for feedback loops instead of fitting the view of the system into an existing archetype.
  • Our behavior and code of ethics have dramatic effects in people around us and the products we work in. We shouldn’t underestimate team’s health, morale, motivation and the impact of our actions or inactions in our families.
  • Root cause analysis of the problem (5xWhy?) and retrospectives are basic tools for learning.

*I promise to write about it in the future.

*For unknown reasons my zip file you can download here: Cost of is not permitted so rename it from .doc to .zip

Impact Mapping


In a few weeks I am going to attend a hangout to discuss both: impact mapping and user story mapping tools. It will likely cover what these tools are, benefits, problems, how and when to use both tools. I have had some experience with impact mapping because stakeholders in last few projects I was involved in, hadn’t direct communication to the real user and thus, they had an imprecise idea about what the system should to. We used impact mapping to help stakeholders and team members align their vision, see the product as a whole focused on its business value and keep different assumptions / choices alive as we built the product. The map was an indispensable tool to center many discussions.

But first of all, let’s briefly describe what impact mapping is:

Impact Mapping:

Impact Mapping Template

IMPACT MAPPING IS A VISUAL TECHNIQUE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MAP, DISPLAY AND organize hierarchically your ideas. First node is the central one and describes the goals, reason or purpose for the impact. “Why” you want to achieve something. From the blog point of view, I want to visualize and organize my ideas in a procedural way to reduce the amount of time I invest in setting up the content of this blog.

Second level, is a set of child nodes in which we describe Who? may help or prevent from achieving our goals. This article is focused on writers and readers: agile coaches, product owners, software developers, testers and scrum masters. Such roles will benefit in some way from the impact. Third level describes “how” role’s behavior contributes to facilitate the effect or prevent it from happening. This branch is focused on how to create these impacts. Last level is called “what” or scope and is intended to detail a list of actions or capabilities to support the required goals. Again, I intend to write these maps in advance and to provide a downloadable impact map for each blog entry delivered.

Impact Mapping 

An interesting side effect produced by following this tool is that my mindset shifted from free writing or writing content without any script to look for a more profound purpose or business goal for this blog entry only by asking these questions. Consequently, focusing on who will be affected by these ideas and how to impact them has addressed my chain of thought and has helped me approach writing content in a more structural and procedural way.


As a newbie writer, organizing my ideas is the activity that takes me longest so the experiment should help me shorter this set-up time and help me deliver content faster and more often. Yes, I know that that’s not a SMART goal so here it goes my redefinition:

S: Specific

  • I want to deliver content faster (less than 1 month) and to reduce set up costs needed to organize my ideas.

M: Measurable

  • Measuring set-up cost
  • Measuring lead time for writing the content of the blog

A: Actionable

  • Preparing impact mapping files for each blog entry
  • Measuring set up
  • Measuring lead time

R: Realistic

  • Despite the fact that my baby demands a lot of time and energy I think I will be able to do it.

T: Testable

  • 4 more blog posts in next 4 months


The purpose of this section is to address the learning obtained from collecting metrics feedback from you.


A web tool to create impact maps

For unknown reasons my zip file you can download here: Impact Mapping is not permitted so rename it from .doc to .zip and open it with: