The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), part 2

Since the WBS is a hierarchical structure, it has bottom level parts.  The WBS can be constructed like a table of contents, like so:

WBS Item 1 WBS Item 1.1 WBS Item 1.2 WBS Item 1.3 WBS Item 1.3.1 WBS Item 1.3.2 WBS Item 1.4 WBS Item 2 WBS Item 2.1

The lowest level items (shown above in bold) are called ‘Work Packages’.  The Work Packages are discrete pieces of work to be assigned to someone in the project, perhaps an individual, a business unit, and internal, team, or a contractor.  The key is that there is someone responsible for delivering the Work Package.

WBS’s should be oriented towards the deliverables, not towards the functional groups.

The reason for breaking down the project into smaller work packages is for management and control. 

The smaller a piece of work is, the easier it is to estimate how much time is needed to do the work.  Work packages also facilitate the scheduling of the project. The work packages can be the components mentioned in the master schedule. Work packages can be scheduled individually, and the resulting duration be fed into the master schedule, which only shows the work packages.

It is also easier to estimate the cost of smaller work than bigger work.  To estimate the cost of the project, just estimate the cost of each individual work package and sum them up.

The WBS is often claimed to be the backbone of the project, and some writers have said that project failures can be traced back to faulty WBS’s:

“Component or full-project failures, when they do occur, can often be traced to a poorly developed or non-existent WBS”(Norman, Brotherton, and Fried, "Work Breakdown Structures: The Foundation for Project Management Excellence")

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

After the Gantt chart and the network diagram, there is perhaps no other project management tool that is more ubiquitously discussed than the WBS. 

As the Gantt chart is the primary tool for documenting the project schedule, so is the WBS the primary tool for documenting the project scope.

What is a WBS?

The PMBOK Guide describes the WBS as “a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition of the work required to be executed by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and create the required deliverables.” 

That is, the WBS, “defines the total scope of the project.”

According to this definition, the WBS is a “decomposition of the work required”. 

But work required to do what? There are two kinds of work:

1. Work required to accomplish the project objectives
2. Work required to create the required deliverables

Together, these two kinds of work define the sum total of all kinds of work required: all project work falls into at least one of these two.  We say at least, because it is possible that some piece of work can be properly thought of as belonging to one or the other – that is not a matter of great concern.

The first kind of work is about work that need to be done in order to successfully complete the project objectives, even though they are not the purpose of the project.  An example of this type of work is developing the project schedule (which is needed to help attain project completion date objectives).  Other examples include developing a WBS,  supervising the work-force, and conducting project communications.

The second kind of work is covers what’s needed to deliver what the project needs.  Examples include designing a piece of software, integrating components, reviewing the quality of sub-components, and testing the components.

Note that the WBS is “deliverable-oriented”, but it is not a compilation of the deliverables.  It is a compilation of the work required, hierarchically organised around the deliverables.  The star of the show is the work, not the deliverables.

A software development project with the goal of delivering a commercial software product (and nothing else, not even documentation), the list of deliverables will not change, whether you use an Agile approach or a waterfall approach.

However, the WBS for the Agile approach will be different from the WBS of a waterfall approach.  Examples of the differences include:

• The Agile WBS will include such work as ‘Write User Stories’
• The Waterfall WBS will include such work as ‘Develop Design Document’

The deliverable is the outcome, the work is the effort and activities required to produce the outcome. 

Given that there are many different ways to produce the outcome, the WBS is a reflection of the plan chosen to produce the outcome.  Change the strategy, the WBS can potentially change.

People all the way

Working with people is already hard enough, with all their individual quirks, moods, emotions, hidden motives, competencies (or lack thereof), fears, ambitions, etc. 

What makes it doubly, triply, frustratingly hard sometimes is that we are working with people who themselves have to work with people, and who in turn have to work with people.  It’s people all the way down.

Scrum Fundamentals – Iteration, Sprints, and Feedback

I said in the previous post that one of the biggest problems brought about by a waterfall approach is the lack of feedback.  The future users of the software get to see the software only when it is finished, when the opportunity to provide valuable corrections and suggestions are practically over.

Not only is it too  late (or too expensive) to modify the program, the software is often actually unusable.  Scrum directly addresses these problems by mandating that software must be developed iteratively, in iterations, and the at the end of each iteration, the software must be demonstrated to the stakeholders to get their feedback. 

Scrum calls its iterations Sprints.  Scrum recommends that Sprints be between 2 to 4 weeks.  Whatever duration you choose, all the Sprint must be always the same duration.  If you go for 2 weeks, then all the Sprints must each be 2 weeks. 

This is in the ideal case of course, in practice a Scrum team that is just beginning to learn the ropes can choose a tentative duration to try out (say 2 weeks).  If the team finds that 2 weeks is too short, they are free to adjust it (and all future Sprints).  If they find that it suits them, they stick to it.

The key thing is to establish Sprints as a regular occurrence, like a heartbeat.  Sprints of different lengths are like arrhythmia, with all the unpleasantness it brings.

The completion of each Sprint produces a finished subset of the product.  The ideal is to deliver a working subset, preferably something that can be shipped.  In practice this is not so easy to achieve, for some functions rely on other functions which may not fit in the current Sprint. 

For example, an online store may include such functions as allowing the customer to search for products, order products, apply discounts, and have them shipped to an address of their choosing.   Very often all of these functions cannot be built within a single Sprint. So which ones to build in order to product a shippable subset?

The Scrum team (together with the Product Owner) decides which functions to build in order to deliver working software.  One such option could be to simply include only the search for products function.  So at the end of the Sprint you end up with software that searches for products, and does nothing else.  That is an acceptable choice.

It is far better than deciding to build all the user interfaces for all the above functions, but not have them work.  If you do this, what you get at the end of the Sprint is not working software, rather, you end up with a glorified series of screenshots.

Back to feedback.  At the end of each Sprint is a Demo of what was built.  The Scrum teams demonstrates the current product so that the Product Owner (and other stakeholders) can review it and give their feedback.   Is this what was envisioned?   If it was, was it what you wanted?  Very often, once we see the the incarnation of what we said we wanted, we come to the realisation that that is not really what we wanted.

The purpose of the Demo is NOT to show the Product Owner that the Scrum Team is working hard.  No.  The purpose is only feedback regarding the product.  (There is a time when evaluation of the Scrum Team occurs, but this is not that time, and I will talk about it later).

If there is one thing that feedback causes, it is change.  You can be sure that the feedback will result in changes, changes to what the software will do, and changes to what it is currently doing.

So what do we do with the changes?  I’ll talk about that in the next post.

Scrum Fundamentals – Iterations, Sprints, and Feedback

I said in the previous post that one of the biggest problems brought about by a waterfall approach is the lack of feedback.  The future users of the software get to see the software only when it is finished, when the opportunity to provide valuable corrections and suggestions are practically over.

Not only is it too  late (or too expensive) to modify the program by then, the resulting software is sometimes not only bad, but even unusable. 

Scrum directly addresses these problems by mandating that software must be developed iteratively, in iterations, and the at the end of each iteration, the software must be demonstrated to the stakeholders to get their feedback. 

Scrum calls its iterations Sprints.  Scrum recommends that Sprints be between 2 to 4 weeks.  Whatever duration you choose, all the Sprint must be always the same duration.  If you go for 2 weeks, then all the Sprints must each be 2 weeks. 

This is in the ideal case of course. In practice a Scrum team that is just beginning to learn the ropes can choose a tentative duration to try out (say 2 weeks).  If the team finds that 2 weeks is too short, they are free to adjust it (and all future Sprints).  If they find that it suits them, they stick to it.

The key thing is to establish Sprints as a regular occurrence, like a heartbeat.  Sprints of different lengths are like arrhythmia, with all the unpleasantness it brings.

The completion of each Sprint produces a finished subset of the product.  The ideal is to deliver a working subset, preferably something that can be shipped.  In practice this is not so easy to achieve, for some functions rely on other functions which may not fit in the current Sprint. 

For example, an online store may include such functions as allowing the customer to search for products, order products, apply discounts, and have them shipped to an address of their choosing.   Very often all of these functions cannot be built within a single Sprint. So which ones to build in order to product a shippable subset?

The Scrum team (together with the Product Owner) decides which functions to build in order to deliver working software.  One such option could be to simply include only the search for products function.  So at the end of the Sprint you end up with software that searches for products, and does nothing else.  That is an acceptable choice.

It is far better than deciding to build all the user interfaces for all the above functions, but not have them work.  If you do this, what you get at the end of the Sprint is not working software, rather, you end up with a glorified series of screenshots.

Back to feedback.  At the end of each Sprint is a Demo of what was built.  The Scrum teams demonstrates the current product so that the Product Owner (and other stakeholders) can review it and give their feedback.   Is this what was envisioned?   If it was, was it what you wanted?  Very often, once we see the the incarnation of what we said we wanted, we come to the realisation that that is not really what we wanted.

The purpose of the Demo is absolutely NOT to show the Product Owner that the Scrum Team is working hard.  No.  The purpose is only feedback regarding the product.  (There is a time when evaluation of the Scrum Team occurs, but this is not that time, and I will talk about it later).

If there is one thing that feedback causes, it is change.  You can be sure that the feedback will result in changes, changes to what the software will do, and changes to what it is currently doing.

So what do we do with the changes?  I’ll talk about that in the next post.

Scrum Fundamentals

Stripped to its essence, Scrum is an approach to delivering software.  Nothing more, nothing less.

There are many approaches to developing software.   At one end, you can have a very formal ‘waterfall’ style approach where the development lifecycle consists of major phases that follow one another.  These phases include the Requirements Phase, where the project analyses and documents what the stakeholders need.  The next phase would be the design phase, where designers design the system to be built, which once built will deliver the requirements identified in the Requirements Phase.

After the Design Phase comes the Build Phase.  This is where the actual product get built, based on the specifications produced from the Design Phase.  Once built, the product gets tested in the Test Phase, in order to ensure the quality of the built product.

The phases in the waterfall approach are very logically  structured.  Each phase produces exactly what the next phase requires.  From arguments based on reason alone, it seems to be the perfect approach. 

In reality, however, the above approach is riddled with inefficiencies and problems, not due to the phases themselves, but because they are performed by fallible human beings, using fallible communication methods.  

Perhaps the most commonly cited problem is that very often, the product that comes out at the end meets the specifications, which in turn meets the requirements, but somehow ends up not being what the end users wanted or expected.

The lack of feedback between the stakeholders and the product being built – as it’s being built – contributes in no small part, to the problem.

Agile, and in particular, Scrum, proposes to fix the above problem by increasing the visibility of the product being built, while it’s being built.

We can illustrate Scrum at a very high level in the IDEF0 format as shown.

The output of a Scrum process is working software.  The inputs are a vision of the product, and of course time and money.

The process is executed by the Scrum Team, who relies heavily on the Product Owner, who represents the business stakeholders and from whom comes the Vision of the product.

Scrum comes with a set of techniques and procedures, and guided by the principles espoused in the Agile Manifesto.  You execute Scrum using these techniques.  In theory, you get working software, and the software that is guaranteed to be what the customer wants.

How does Scrum do that?  We’ll start exploring beginning with the next post on this topic.

Investor Directed Portfolio Services

What is an IDPS?   An IDPS is a service offered by a service provider (called an  operator) to an investor, wherein the operator arranges execution of buy and sell orders from the investor, custody of assets held, and provides reporting services to the investor.

The IDPS provides a selection of investment options to the investor.   The key distinguishing feature of this service is that the investor is responsible for making investment decisions.  The IDPS provider does not provide investment advise. 

An example of an IDPS is www.schwab.com where individuals can buy and trade shares and are charged a commission on trades.

Member discretionary master funds and wrap accounts are also examples of IDPSs.

In Australia, only public companies who hold a securities dealers licence may operate an IDPS.

The IDPS is a vehicle for allowing investors access to investment opportunities.   An IDPS operator must ensure that investors using their IDPS have access to the same information available to those investing directly in an investment.  For example, if a public company or a fund issues notices to shareholders,  the operator must ensure that any investor in their database who have invested in that company or fund through that IDPS receive the same information.

Due to this requirement, an IDPS operator must have an arrangement with securities issuers to ensure they (the operator) receive the disclosures.

An IDPS operator must also provide their customer with quarterly reports of transactions and holdings of those customers.  Besides the quarterly reports, customer must also have access to such information on a continuing basis.

Investments made through an IDPS will be put in custody by a party other than the investor.  The operator of the IDPS does not have to be the same entity keeping the securities under custody.

Because an IDPS offers savings to the investor through economies of scale, it is considered an investment scheme.  The economies of scale include pooling of funds from other investors for transaction netting (this is a mechanism by the volume and size of transactions are reduced by identifying transactions which ‘cancel’ out each other)