There is a longstanding joke in the Agile community that the real purpose of a Software Development Manager is to stay out of everyone’s way.

With self-governing teams interacting with competent Product Owners, an Agile Team can competently produce value in short increments, consistently moving the business further down the road to where it wants to be next. This team collaboration requires focus, discipline, communication, skill, competency, teamwork, and emotional intelligence by everyone involved.

Although humorous, this legitimately does raise the question—While the teams are busy generating value, what is the REAL purpose of the Development Manager?

The software development value stream has often been described as an assembly line of decisions, building a massive mathematical product. The better that humans can harmonize and organize, the better the product’s final utility value and fit will be for the organization’s customers.

Good Software Development is NOT Intuitive

All of this complexity must be managed correctly along the software value steam, and surprisingly it’s not intuitive. What you think you should do next is sometimes NOT what you should do next.  In other words, on-the-job training will produce pretty good managers, but not excellent ones.

The Standish Group’s CHAOS Surveys tell us what a typical organization look like.  Only 31% of projects are delivered successfully. 50% are late. And 19% are complete loses. (Standish 2020). With an combined industry budget of around 250 $Billion, this is a lot of unnecessary waste, dealt out by a lot of mediocre development leaders.  How do we fix this?

Ten Critical Software Development Bottlenecks:

There are ten critical bottlenecks (read: wastes of money) in the software development process and they are not intuitive. I propose the real job of a Software Development Manager is to attend to these things:

1. Employee Turnover – While this happens in our industry, every time a programmer leaves it takes about 6 months of work for the next one to come up to speed firing on all cylinders. Even highly skilled developers need time to acclimate to the products, the code base, the tools used in that environment, the customers, the customers attitudes, and how they use the product. Figuring a typical developer salary corporate burden today is around $150,000/annually, every time a programmer leaves a company, it costs them about $75,000 and six months of one person’s schedule.  Great Development Managers minimize turnover, saving the company lots of money and unnecessarily lost time.
   
   A good Development Manager keeps the teams productive and content.  Being near them, praising them for work well-done, and keeping the environment healthy and productive are important factors for healthy teams.  The best environments report high-trust, good communication, happy employees, and a good sense of satisfaction. Some people call this Psychology Safety.  
   
   It’s important to develop a culture of accomplishment and teamwork.  Team branding with a team identity, vision, mission, goals, and values which are supported by a feeling of appreciation and accomplishment is the magic formula here.
   
   

2. The Hidden Factory: I like to say “If it takes your team eight weeks to get six weeks’ worth of production completed, your team has 2 weeks of hidden factory.” This term describes everything that has to happen over again because it wasn’t done correctly or completely the first time around.  Meeting with customers again for the same reasons, re-structuring screens or reports, changing workflows, re-pushing builds, hot-fixes, testing churn, and many smaller and larger things including multi-million-dollar entire solution rejections which we see occasionally in large companies. These become multi-million-dollar mistakes.
   
   It’s not easy to address a Hidden Factory problem. Most groups naively think they just need more time to get some things done and if management would relax a bit they could catch up and stop making these consistent mistakes and omissions.  The truth is, they will never address the problem until they start doing work differently.  What they need is a quality system such as CMMI, ISO, or The Stable Framework to solve their reactivity issues.  This is an unintuitive reality of software development.
   
   Most groups I talk to report about a 33% effort loss to the Hidden Factory over time.  Just do some simple math on the total payroll burden of your Software Department x 33% and that’s only PART of what you are losing unnecessarily.  Add to that the opportunity cost for revenue delays on your products until 33% past the optimum endpoint and the wasted costs magnify.
   
   It is the Software Development Managers job to bring in a quality system to solve this problem. Quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming was extremely unpopular for putting the blame for low-quality work on management—not employees. Although he was uncomfortable and non-intuitive, he was right.
   
   

3. Not Using AI to Vibe Code: There is a tremendous advantage available now to software development teams who use AI to generate units of code and debug challenging problems. Many groups are reporting about a 30% increase in productivity using these tools. CoPilot, Clive, Grok.com, Gemeni, Claude.ai, and even local LLM’s using Ollama or LM-Studio will provide immediate lift.  To keep up with who’s currently leading the AI wars check out ARCPrize.org.
   
   
4. Using Awkward Tools: The first time I met Ken Schwaber, co-inventor of Scrum, he told me the best Scrum tools were a white board, sticky-notes, and a spreadsheet.  I met him again nine years later on the other side of the planet and he told me the same thing.
   
   Of course, today, many of us work remotely making those tools awkward. There are many digital tools to chose from. I can tell you from personal conversational experience with many professionals the most popular tools used tool today are Jira (80%), and SmartSheet (20%), with many companies using both.  Probably 10% of the remaining companies use Asana, Shrike, Monday.com, or ADO (Azure DevOps).
   Some companies are even reverting back to a virtual whiteboard and virtual sticky-notes using a group collaboration space such as Miro.com, LucidSpark, or just the new whiteboards inside of Zoom.  This works, and is a fun solution.
   
   Whatever tools your groups choose, make sure it helps keep you organized for speed, and doesn’t slow down your work. Incorrect tools, or misconfigured tools will slow the team down.
   
   
5. Bad Approaches to Coding: The first part of Robert C. Martin’s book Clean Architecture explains how important correct coding architectural techniques are to minimizing the cost of maintaining a developed system once deployed. Not all coders are the same, and if you hire sloppy coders you will soon have a production product that requires an exponential number of additional programmers just to maintain it.  Data with compelling examples are in his book. Basically, spaghetti code kills productivity.
   
   This costs a company millions of dollars of unnecessary payroll over time. As an owner, or investor, and because this is non-intuitive, you won’t know what you don’t know until it’s too late—and you will be paying a large team, instead of paying yourself.
   
   

6. Continuing to invest in Monoliths: Software development has evolved. In the past we all invested in Microsoft, Oracle, and other monoliths because they were the mainstream providers of proven technology. “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.” or so the expression went.
   
   While this once was an expensive but safe position, today Microsoft IIS webservers only make up about 4% of the internet.  Open-source solutions like PostgreSQL, Python, JavaScript, are proven, and all you need to construct a complete enterprise, or SAAS solution.  Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the days of these big players are waning.  Don’t spend unnecessarily big money on new investments here. There is no need anymore.
   
   
7. Hiring Wrong: An accountant and a seasoned software development manager would have two very different approaches to hiring for tech talent. While accountants want reasonable value for the best price, Steve Jobs said he witnessed a 25:1 difference in productivity between good and bad developers.
   
   You want your development staff to match the workload. Staffing for new development should look like an upside-down birthday cake.  You want it top heavy with senior coders, and just a few junior coders on the bottom to do the busy-work. This configuration will yield much more productivity over time of much and more stable products.
   
   It takes developers years to understand and permanently distill the larger compliment of common logical structures available within most programming languages.  Senior developers look at a challenge and select and organize which “tools” to use to construct the solution.  This is much like making a product from Legos.  Once you have a few years working with them, you’ll command a solid knowledge of all the common shapes.  Developers with this level of competency can be given an objective and can quietly create a solution correctly, the first time.  In contrast, junior developers must search and forage for solutions to what are all-new challenges for them.  This is the process that takes the x25 times longer Steve Jobs was talking about.
   
   
8. Not pulling weeds: Nobody likes a bad apple. Sometimes, despite all initial attempts for reaching across the aisle, you end up with a team member that causes problems for others on the team. This can quickly become a problem that never goes away without intervention. If someone presents with unwanted behavior over time, a good development manager should take the team member aside and find if the problem is temporary. If so, work with the team member privately to help them regain a successful gait. If not, they are likely in the wrong role. Work with them to get them where they would rather by. A good manager wants their team members to be successful not just on the job, but also in life. Good managers understand their team members are also their customers.
   
   
9. Outsourcing Incorrectly: Outsourcing is rarely effective. It’s never really been a good idea. Sure, you can find senior level management who defend outsourcing, but talk to any team and they will tell you it’s awkward, comparatively slow, and frustrating.  Most companies outsource because other companies outsource.  The argument used to be it was cheaper labor, but those days are past. Now the argument is the resources are instantly available.  This is a pretty weak argument. In my experience most senior executives support outsourcing so they can confirm to their senior board of directors, who are even more removed from the real software development value stream, that they are in-fact outsourcing, too.
   
   Companies who outsource successfully do it a certain way.  They budget for one member of their team to go stay with the outsourcing group for the duration of the project, or at least, go back and forth frequently.  Sometimes the model is reversed and the outsourcing agency has a team member stateside.  That team member spends 9 hours working with the American team, and then the other 9 hours working with the offshore team—each day.  It is brutal, and frankly unfairr
   
   Studies have shown outsourcing adds 20-40% on to a projects effort in cost and schedule—and that’s if you have a useful product.  Many a local team overcompensates for the outsourced contribution. However popular, it is difficult to outsource efficiently.
   
   
10. Not Investing in Training: Niccolo Machiavelli stated “…training--not budgets--wins wars!” That’s an important principle to digest.  More recently, Deming taught his customers, when evaluating vendors, to ask them how much money they had spent on training their people during the past 12 months.  This will give you some insight into the level of performance you’ll get out of them.
    
    

    Deming would draw the effect of training as a tight squiggly line representing effort, which abruptly straightens into a longer mildly jagged line at the point of training.  In this manner he demonstrated how training narrows the amplitude of ineffective effort, transforming the trainees’ efforts into work that move the company down the road towards their objectives faster.
    
    Training helps both new employees and seasoned employees get better at their jobs.  While new employees benefit from structured guidance on how to perform their tasks, seasoned employees benefit from having real-world experience they can conceptualize into immediate practical application.
    
                 
    
    Training also gives trainees a correct vocabulary use throughout the industry, and gives them confidence their efforts and skills are industry-standard.

In summary, statistics show software development is not performed efficently, and these ten factors are keys to leading your teams to perform much better than the Standish CHAOS Report data--or industry average of on 31% of project's being delivered on-time.

The ADKAR model is a popular change management framework that helps individuals and organizations understand the stages of change, and how to manage change effectively. The ADKAR model was developed by Jeff Hiatt, the founder of Prosci, a leading change management firm.

ADKAR is an acronym that stands for:

1. Awareness: This stage involves creating awareness about the need for change among the people who will be affected by it. This includes understanding the reasons for the change, the benefits of the change, and the potential impact of the change.

2. Desire: In this stage, individuals need to have a desire to support the change. This involves understanding why the change is necessary and how it will benefit them and the organization.

3. Knowledge: Once individuals have a desire to support the change, they need to acquire the knowledge necessary to make the change successfully. This includes training, education, and communication about the change.

4. Ability: In this stage, individuals must have the skills and ability to make the change happen. This may involve providing additional resources, tools, or support to help people adapt to the change.

5. Reinforcement: Finally, in this stage, individuals need to be reinforced and rewarded for making the change. This includes recognizing and celebrating successes, and providing ongoing support and encouragement to ensure that the change becomes a part of the organizational culture.

The ADKAR model is a useful framework for managing change because it focuses on the individual level, and helps to ensure that people have the necessary knowledge, skills, and motivation to make the change happen. By following the ADKAR model, organizations can increase their chances of success and achieve their desired outcomes.

The Hidden Factory is everything your group does over again because it didn't go right the first time around.

This ranges from re-doing a failed multi-year project, to re-pushing a production release which had some minor issues the first time around. Sometimes these activities are called "Fire Fighting."

Most groups I talk to tell me that about 35% of their teams efforts are lost to this problem.

Someone must pay for this, and it's very expensive.  Higher prices, lower wages, and lower shareholder dividends are one way to quantify the hidden factory.  In addition, the opportunity cost of not being able to reach your project monetization goals 33% faster means you left money and customers on the table.

The Stable Framework™ is a performance management framework for IT designed to give IT departments the tools needed to tame this wild Hidden Factory beast and bring the fire-fighting down to nearly zero, where it should be.

Read more about it here

Mike Berry

I've heard people make references to Geoffrey A. Moore's Crossing the CHASM book for several years now but had't read it until this past week.

Moore's book is a must-read for any IT company trying to launch a new product.  Although the concepts in the book are not novel (so admit's Moore) the book brings a vocabulary and metaphoric dictionary to the readers allowing marketing groups, investors, and techies alike to communicate about the playing field in a proactive manner.

Moore discusses the importance of delivering continuous innovation, instead if discontinuous innovation.  Our new innovations need to help people do what they are already doing better, and not force them to abruptly change something that kinda works for something that they are not sure about that may possibly work better.

Moore introduces the Technology Adoption LifeCycle, complete with five categories of market segments.  He discusses how to market in succession to each group:

1. Innovators


2. Early Adopters


3. Early Majority


4. Late Majority


5. Laggards

Finally, Moore introduces some business concepts you may have heard of by now, like the bowling alley, the tornado, and the fault line.

If you haven't heard of these, then you need to get reading!

Mi Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

Recently, while attending the '09 Agile Roots conference in Salt Lake City, UT, Alistair Cockburn--the keynote speaker--referenced Miyamoto Musashi's 16th-century book called The Book of Five Rings.

I like Asian philosophy (and swords and such) so I picked up the book and read it.  The book was written in 1643 by an undefeated Japanese samurai master who was so effective he was rumoured to have spent the latter part of his career entering sword-fights purposely without a weapon.  Although meant as a battlefield manual, the book has gained popularity as a handbook for conducting business in the 21st century.

The book was translated into English by Thomas Cleary at some point and the edition I read was published in 2005.   Improperly named "The Book of Five Rings," the book is actually a compilation of five scrolls.

The Earth Scroll: Musashi talks about how a straight path levels the contours of the Earth and how various occupations provide life-improving principles.  He talks about observing patterns and learning from them.  Certainly a great primer for any business trying to get across the chasm.

The Water Scroll: Here Musashi talks about how water conforms to the shape of its container.  He suggests a separation of one's inward mind against it's outward posture, maintaining that one's control over one's mind must not be relinquished to outward circumstances.  He translates these philosophies into about 80 pages of sword fighting techniques.  An interesting modern parallel is found in Jim Collins book, Good to Great, where he talks about how the most successful companies are able to say 'No' and not be influenced by immediate but non-strategic opportunities.

The Fire Scroll: As with any book written by a 16th century samurai master, you'd expect a core discussion on combat strategy.   The fire scroll is full of combat strategies, positioning, and pre-emptive theory.  Very interesting.  Did anyone notice how Apple's announcement of the latest iPhone came about 1 day after the Palm Pre phone was officially launched--killing it's market blitz?  No coincidence there.

The Wind Scroll: The wind scroll contains a directive to study and be aware of your opponents techniques.  Translated into business speak, this means one should always study ones competitors.  Be aware of new offerings, partnerships, markets, etc. that they persue.  Emphasis is placed on observing rhythms and strategically harmonizing, or dis-harmonizing with them as appropriate.

Finally, The Emptiness Scroll:  This scroll discusses the value of escaping personal biases.  Emphasis is placed on not lingering on past situations and being able to adjust quickly to new scenarios.

Overall I found this book 'enlightening' to read.  If you like metaphors and inferences, or sword-fighting, then you will enjoy this book.

Mike J. Ber />www.RedRockResearch.com

I was sitting in a KFC eating lunch, reading the slogans muraled on the wall.  This particular KFC is supposedly the first KFC in America.  Yes, it's in Utah.  Along with some chicken legs and a drink, you can enjoy a small exhibit showing Colonel Sander's original briefcase, white suite, shoes, etc.

One mural read, "Somehow we'll do it, by the principles of thrift, honor, integrity, and charity."

I thought for a moment.  Some of the financial service companies I've worked with would fail if they valued charity.  Then I thought about how trust is a wonderful interpersonal dynamic, but the companies I've worked with in the medical field allow no latitude for trust.  Everything must be written down and authorized by a credentialed physician.  Walk into a pharmacy and you'll need a signature on piece of paper to get a prescription filled.

Hmmm, just like charity is an anti-value in the financial services industry, trust is an anti-value in the medical industry.

I spent the day thinking about this new concept.  I owe the title of 'Anti-Value' to the Discovery-Channel documentary about Anti-Matter I was watching the night before.  I  guess I'm coining the phrase here, but it makes a lot of sense to me.  Normally, a value is something our society charish's, yet in a particular situation, or line of business--it becomes the wrong thing to do.

I started seeing how this concept can be applied all over to help clarify the decision making process.

I remembered taking third place instead of second in a Maryland school-district programming competition in high school because I let the guy from our rival high school cut in line in front of me to turn in his test.  When the results were announced we had both scored the same grade, but because he handed his paper in first, he won second place and I won third. (I beat him in the State programming competition the following month.)

I've never forgotten this experience, and actually now that I think about it, offering your competitor any leeway is an anti-value.

Some business meetings I've been involved in are a collage of participants cutting other participants off mid-sentence to make their point known.  Rude? Yes.  But, in fact, politeness may be considered an anti-value in these types of situations.

I think the concept is fascinating.  Just as a good value system should be in place to help an organization, department, team, or individual govern their decisions, an anti-value system can compliment a value-system by providing additional clarity for the decision making process.

One example of this is the U.S. government's policy on dealing with terrorists.  The government values having a "no negotiating with terrorists" policy.  As a disincentive to future terrorism, they have an additional policy to provide or produce exactly the opposite of what the terrorists are demanding.  The notion--to give them what they want--really becomes an anti-value, and is an additional input to the decision-making process.  So, in fact, their policy is set by values, and anti-values.

I hope you find this concept as fascinating as I do.  It was the best $7.79 I've spent on lunch in a while.

Mike J. Berry www.RedRockResearch.com

What is a value system?

As of late, corporations have discovered that mission-statements are only somewhat helpful in providing direction to a company.  Being strategic in nature, they don't provide enough detail to govern tactical decisions made by the corporate employees on a daily basis.

To answer this need, value-statements, and value-systems have come into vogue.  Many companies have value-statements to underscore their mission statements.

Just as some mission statements are more effective than others, some value-systems are more effective than others.

The simple approach to establishing corporate, department, or team values is to get everyone together in a room and have them suggest values the team should adopt.  Voting happens, and the group committs to their agree-upon values.

After one of these sessions, the group might come up with a list like:

• respect


• trust


• excellance


• high performance

This list is a start, but only representative of a one-dimentional value system.  These values, by themselves, realy don't project any context or weight.

A more effective approach would be a two-dimensional value system.  A two dimensional value-system provides a greater context fabric.  For example, you could say your group values:

• respect over cynicism


• trust over hope


• excellence over heroics


• high-performance over sub-optimization

These comparison value statements proved direction and context.  This represents a two-dimensional value system, and is more effective that a simple list of values.

A three-dimensional value system is a prioritized list of these comparison statements.  For example, you could say your group values these statements in this order:

1. trust over hope


2. excellence over heroics


3. high-performance over sub-optimization


4. respect over cynicism

This list shows that trust is the highest factor in inter-departmental dynamics.  It shows that excellence is more important than high-performance (so no cutting corners!), and that the group values trust, excellence, and high-performance more than respect.

Every group will have their own values and differences in priorioties, but putting a three-dimensional value-system in place with your team is a great step forward in building functional team cohesion.

Once in place, a reward-systems can be built around your value system to promote it' ectivness.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com

Jack Welch, in his book, Winning, talks about how to create great mission statements.

He says most mission statements are dull, uninspired, and even unhelpful.  Most groups write their mission statement to describe only what they are in business to do.  While this is not wrong, it creates a whole bunch of mission statements that all look the same among competitors, and are not really valuable.

Welch suggests that a good mission statement not only describes what the company is in business to do, but how they are going to succeed at it.

For example, "We are going to sell lots of chickens," is not as effective as "we are going to sell lots of chickens by growing the largest free-range chickens and advertising their value to the industry."

Following his logic, I did some research and found some interesting comparisons:

Ford Motor Company in Europe's mission statement (couldn't find the U.S. mission statement anywhere online) is:

"Our Mission: we are a global, diverse family with a proud heritage, passionately committed to providing outstanding products and services."

OK, so Ford's mission is noble, but there is no explanation as to how they will succeed at their mission.  Compare this to Toyota's mission statement:

"To sustain profitable growth by providing the best customer experience and dealer support."

Toyota's mission statement expresses their intention to make money by providing the best customer experience and dealer support.

Indeed, their mission statement tells what they are doing and how they will succeed.  This is an example of an effective mission statement.

There is a business principle at hand here:  Ambiguity is the enemy to progress.  It's nice Ford wants to provide outstanding products and services, but there is no formula or direction given in their mission statement as to how they plan to do this.

Toyota states it will succeed by providing the best customer experience and dealer support.   Are they succeeding at this?

In 2007, Toyota became the largest seller of cars in America.  As customers, we vote with our money.  It seems then,  that they are providing the best customer experience, and are fulfilling their mission statement.

On a lighter note, Enron's mission statement is/was:

"Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence."

Mike J y
www.RedRockResearch.com

I just finished reading Willie Pietersen's book, Reinventing Strategy: Using Strategic Learning to Create and Sustain Breakthrough Performance.

Pietersen first sets the stage for the rest of the book by underscoring the need for organizations to be adaptable.  He paraphrases Charles Darwin, concluding that is it not the largest, the strongest, or even the most intelligent of species that survive, but the most adaptable to change.  He explains that corporations need to start thinking beyond doing things right, to thinking about doing the right things.

He explains that vision is different from insight.  Vision is what the leader has in mind for the group.  Insight is what the group learns about their customers needs, through studying their customers.

Pietersen describes a four-step process he calls the "Strategic Learning Process:"

1. Situation Analysis (Learn)

1. Strategic Choices (Focus)

1. Align the Organization (Align)

1. Implement and Experiment (Execute)

This process provides the basic toolset for gaining insight, and turning that into vision.  Continuous learning is essential, Pietersen says, and he quotes Arie de Geus's observation that a company's "ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage" they have.

He continues, "Nature, in effect, suffers from two massive learning disabilities.  When nature fails, it doesn't know why; and when it succeeds, it doesn't know why...therefore strategic learning is at the heart of successful adaptation"

Pieterson's goes on to offer a formula for initiating change.  His formula is:

D x V x P > C

D = Dissatisfaction with Current State
V = Clear Vision for Change
P = Process for Getting it Done
C = Cost of Change

His formula suggests that if D,V, or P are not strong enough to collectively overcome C, change will not occur.

Pieterson concludes his book by suggesting Strategic Learning can be applied to our personal lives to enable personal growth.  Appling it to such topics as Emotional Intelligence, and Personal Renewal, the Strategic Learning process can help us throughtout our life.

Mike J Berry www.RedRockResearch.com

What is a value system?

As of late, corporations have discovered that mission-statements are only somewhat helpful in providing direction to a company.  Being strategic in nature, they don't provide enough detail to govern tactical decisions made by the corporate employees on a daily basis.

To answer this need, value-statements, and value-systems have come into vogue.  Many companies have value-statements to underscore their mission statements.

Just as some mission statements are more effective than others, some value-systems are more effective than others.

The simple approach to establishing corporate, department, or team values is to get everyone together in a room and have them suggest values the team should adopt.  Voting happens, and the group committs to their agree-upon values.

After one of these sessions, the group might come up with a list like:

• respect


• trust


• excellance


• high performance

This list is a start, but only representative of a one-dimentional value system.  These values, by themselves, realy don't project any context or weight.

A more effective approach would be a two-dimensional value system.  A two dimensional value-system provides a greater context fabric.  For example, you could say your group values:

• respect over cynicism


• trust over hope


• excellence over heroics


• high-performance over sub-optimization

These comparison value statements proved direction and context.  This represents a two-dimensional value system, and is more effective that a simple list of values.

A three-dimensional value system is a prioritized list of these comparison statements.  For example, you could say your group values these statements in this order:

1. trust over hope


2. excellence over heroics


3. high-performance over sub-optimization


4. respect over cynicism

This list shows that trust is the highest factor in inter-departmental dynamics.  It shows that excellence is more important than high-performance (so no cutting corners!), and that the group values trust, excellence, and high-performance more than respect.

Every group will have their own values and differences in priorioties, but putting a three-dimensional value-system in place with your team is a great step forward in building functional team cohesion.

Once in place, a reward-systems can be built around your value system to promote it' ectivness.

Mike J Berry
www.RedRockResearch.com