SPaMCAST Grand Finale

Speaker A: I'm Kiana and I leveled up my business with Shopify. Once I figured out that Shopify was a thing, I never turned back. I can create a site with my eyes closed. Shopify thinks ahead of us, you know, and it thinks about the customer more than anything. Every day I'm thinking about some other new business, but Shopify is doing it to me because it's so easy to use. It's like I can't stop. I'm addicted. Start your free trial@shopify.com.

Speaker B: Welcome to the Software Process and Measurement Cast. Today, our grand finale. This is our final podcast. Today we have a treat, a radio play entitled Navigating the Silos or Playing the Game with House Rules, written by David Herron and me. Over the years, Mr. Heron has been a boss, a colleague, a mentor, and most of all, a friend. The story unfolds in the aftermath of the late 1990s tech boom. Innovate, a pioneer in construction software, once rode the wave of innovation, disrupting the industry with its flagship product, siteflow. However, as the digital landscape evolved, innovatech found itself struggling to keep pace. Faced with increasing competition and stagnating growth, the company's leadership embraced AI as a panacea. Uh, the play is extracted from a business novella case study that David and I wrote to help process and measurement consultants learn to generate process improvement in organizations. Happy to share a copy. If you're interested, give us Give us a shout out at www.spamcast.net or send us an email at spamcastinfomail uh.com we really would like to hear what you think of the play. The spamcast players are Jeremy Willits as the narrator, Susan Parente as Emma. She's the protagonist of this play. David Herron as Jerry, Emma's mentor and Jeremy, the product owner. Myself, Tom Cagley as Ali, the gruff cto. I was told I wasn't gruff enough. Jeremy and Jeremy Berrio as Corey, the QA Manager. Script reviewers included John M M Quigley, Brad Biterfield, Freddie Clark, and Daniel Doran. On top of all of the other spamcast players, this was really a community event. Sound effects by Freesound Community from Pixabay and royalty free SFX pack from DarkFantasyStudio.com from Humble Bundle. As always, this episode is brought to you by Mastering Work Intake written by Tom Cagley and Jeremy Willits. J. Ross Publishing. Buy a copy or Amazon Buy a copy. We love to hear what you think of the book and in reality, getting your Work Intake right is still the most, uh, important thing I've learned in all of the years of doing software, process and measurement. Cast the blog, all of the other things, and as a consultant. By the way, the blog is going to continue with Reread Saturday and probably some fiction from the Innovatech universe. Remember, you can always reach out to us@spamcastinfomail.com tcagleyomcagley ah.com we look forward to the conversation and enjoy the play.

Speaker C: The story unfolds in the aftermath of the late 1990s tech boom. Innovate, a pioneer in construction software, once rode the wave of innovation, disrupting the industry with its flagship product site Flow. However, as the digital landscape evolved, innovatech found itself struggling to keep pace. Faced with increasing competition and stagnating growth, the company's leadership embraced AI as a panacea. The narrative delves into the challenges of implementing such a sweeping change within a large organization. Siloed teams, conflicting priorities and a lack of clear vision hinder progress. The story highlights the tension between the executive team's lofty ambitions and the day to day operations realities. As the plot unfolds, it becomes evident that a mere technological solution cannot address the deeper systemic issues plaguing inovatech. Emma, uh, a newbie to the firm, the senior manager for household products, sees the storm building with a bias for action. She knows that something needs to change. What should be done tactically and strategically is the million dollar question. It's time to get advice from a trusted advisor and mentor. Jerry. We see Jerry, Emma's mentor, mid-50s, warm and approachable, seated at a back table with a good view of a baseball game on tv. He sips his beer. A moment later, Emma arrives.

Speaker D: Hey, Jerry. Thanks for meeting me.

Speaker E: Of course, Emma. Uh, always good to see you. Grab a seat. All right, here we go. So how's the new job going? What's been on your mind?

Speaker D: It's okay. But it could be better six months in, right?

Speaker E: So what's not clicking?

Speaker D: Yeah, six months. Honestly, I'm starting to think moving to inovatech was a mistake.

Speaker E: Really? You were so sure about the switch. We talked a lot about it. And your old place is practically in chapter 11 now. So what's going on at, uh, the new place?

Speaker D: Typical office politics. But the bigger issue is financials and sales are shaky. Sure, the perks are nice. Who doesn't love an espresso machine? But we're not delivering. It's all meetings and no action. I feel like we're working hard, but on the Wrong things and no one's aligned. I've got solid team members. I'm considering introducing some metrics to highlight the problems. With the right data, I can make a strong case for change.

Speaker E: What's the real story then? What's going wrong?

Speaker D: We're late on everything. Quality is slipping, customers are frustrated. No one seems to care. It's like we're coasting.

Speaker E: Can you implement it yourself or do you need to make it an official study?

Speaker D: That's the tricky part. I could get my teams to start collecting the data. They're there may be pushback, but they do it. If I explain the reasoning, uh, the data would help me make the case up the chain. Or I could pretend not to notice the issues, but that's not me.

Speaker E: Just make sure the data is credible. If people doubt it, the whole effort could backfire on you. You're a director now, right? You report to George, the cio. Why not just talk to him directly?

Speaker D: I could, but if George isn't on board from the start, I might not get another chance. I'm also thinking of building a coalition with my peers. It's not just my problem. It's a company wide issue.

Speaker E: Do your peers see this as a problem?

Speaker D: I'm not sure. When I bring it up, they usually dodge the topic. Politics, right?

Speaker E: Exactly. You've got to play it smart. Involve a product manager or someone from marketing. Make it about the team, not just you. Involvement is a good thing. That could take the heat off of you and get George on your side. Plus, with your peer support, you'll have more confidence going into that conversation.

Speaker D: That sounds good, Jerry. I appreciate that. Let me put some thought to that. I'll see you. Okay?

Speaker F: All right, Emma.

Speaker E: It's nice seeing you keep me up to date.

Speaker C: Emma left the meeting mulling over several ideas. The first hurdle was deciding how to gather enough data to have a conversation or build a coalition. After the evening's conversation, the idea of implementing flow metrics in her division wouldn't be as easy as she thought and might attract the wrong kind of attention. A few days after dinner with Jerry, Emma decides to hang out in the cubes. With Sandeep's team working on site while they mob, Emma decides it is time to see if she can confirm her suspicions. Confirmation will give her a basis to start a conversation with her management. Emma gathers three sets of data. The first data set is the quarterly feature delivery rate for the last two years. The data shows only the work R and D has delivered. Emma knows this is not a complete picture but it is what she can get. By, uh, visualizing the data, Emma can see that fewer features are being delivered. As she digs deeper, the data becomes more compelling. Emma and her boss call a meeting with the executive committee. The committee includes the CEO, her boss George, the cio, Ali, the CTO, and others. In the meeting, the executives approve, uh, a more in depth study and provide people and resources to get the job done. But all is not rainbows and unicorns. Ali, the stern CTO pulls Emma aside and asks for an immediate lunch meeting. He looks serious.

Speaker D: Thank m you, Ali. Appreciate you inviting me to lunch.

Speaker G: You know, it was an interesting meeting today and I was pleased with the decision and the discussions, but I have to admit I'm concerned. The whole operation is under a lot of stress, especially with this new AI program that we're putting in. I'm not sure if now is the right time to ask people to change their behavior. We're betting the farm on this,

Speaker D: Ali. Here's the issue, and I think you see it too. We're not delivering software, not getting value out of our clients. Staying the course might seem safe, but if it means you don't deliver, are we all at risk when our revenue begins to fall?

Speaker G: We are getting software out there. Maybe it's not the quality we like, as some of your findings suggest, but we're still producing and the business isn't losing money. I think pushing forward with your program might not be the best move right now.

Speaker D: We're pushing out fixes as fast as we can, but it's not enough. If we don't turn this around, we'll be losing money soon.

Speaker G: Come on. Our customers can't tell the difference between patches and new features. They just see stuff changing. I see your point. I got it. But with your approach you're proposing, we're going to uncover problems that demand immediate action. And you have to understand people are going to be very territorial about this. If fingers start getting pointed, especially at me, it's going to create resistance. And that's not just me. It's true for most of your peers and my peers at the C level. I don't have a clear answer on how to manage this, but you need to be highly aware of the politics at play here because it's going to impact you and your career. You're walking on eggshells, which is going to seriously impact your ability to move this program forward.

Speaker D: We have to do something. How do we address these issues as they arise so we can start delivering real value on time?

Speaker G: From my perspective, if you uncover a critical issue in my area, something I'm responsible for, I need you to come to me directly before going public. I'm sure that the rest of the C level team would want the same courtesy.

Speaker D: I hear you. This is going to be a collective effort. Given that, I'll do my best to control the flow of information.

Speaker B: Fair enough.

Speaker G: But it's on you to try. Let me put it this way. I think you deserve credit for bringing the group together. You've got their attention, which isn't easy. They're usually so wrapped up in their work and their day to day stuff that they don't see beyond their areas. So you've done something oppressive here. Just don't mistake their participation for total buy in. They might be more focused on protecting themselves than on solving any problems that come up. You'll need to manage them as both individuals and as a group. Now, what are you ordering?

Speaker C: After the initial conversation, Ali and Emma finish their meal, spiced with only a bit of tense badger. Emma leaves deep in thought. As Emma pondered the lunch conversation, she recognized that Ali's message was clear. A leadership power struggle would make any change problematic. Emma needed to make a crystal clear case or risk the backlash. The executives, including Ali himself, would protect their organizations. While the lunch was excellent, the conversation disturbed Emma. She thought, welcome to innovatech's office Politics. And not the good kind. Following a tense lunch, Emma's team, now the prime lines, mapped their plan. They'd start with a high level value stream, visualizing anovatex workflow. Next, they'd establish a baseline, gathering crucial metrics like throughput and cycle time. Brainstorming would pinpoint problem areas, leading to a backlog of improvement experiments with clear acceptance criteria. They'd run these experiments, monitoring and adjusting as needed, learning from every outcome. The team, wary of failed experiments, prioritized clear impact measurement and risk assessment with a value stream diagram and a shared language. Inspired by project to product, they sought to break down departmental silos, gathering leadership input. They agreed on flow metrics and data collection, sensing a shift towards meaningful change within Inovatek. In the labyrinth of Inovatek, a baseline was a mirage. Departments, each a kingdom, used separate metrics, languages and truths. Work. A restless river flowed across these territories, losing clarity and purpose. But Emma, a beacon in the fog, saw a different path. Not more metrics, but a new lens. Flow. Flow is a language of business value, not technical jargon. Features, defects, debt, risk. These were the currencies of customer experience, the visible threads of progress. They spoke of the River's output, its true velocity. The prime lines. Emma's crew grappled with the river start and end, its very definition. Flow time, the journey from idea to hand, became their compass. They tracked, they argued, they built. A Messy, revealing map. 97 days. The average feature's voyage. A stark reality unveiled. Then came flow efficiency. The river's true pulse. 47%. A whisper of work. Amidst a roar of waiting, bottlenecks emerged whispers of architectural decay, misalignment, and of busy hands achieving little. And finally, flow distribution. The river's composition. Features dwindled. Defects swelled. A, ah, picture painted in stark contrast to the strategic plan. A company is busy but not productive. A, uh, river is flowing but not delivering value. The ticking clock, a constant reminder of the time slipping away. Before the pivotal Primeline group review. Corey, the QA manager, and Jeremy, the product owner, met in the sterile conference room to dissect the unsettling data.

Speaker H: Oh, wow. Jeremy, you got to check this out. This is wild.

Speaker F: Yeah, I know. Corey, I was looking at this after our meeting yesterday, and believe it or not, I even took it home to go over it. And, well, um, there are some things here that concern me. They should concern us both, really. I'm seeing a clear decline in features being released to our customers. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this, but do we have a serious problem here? Is it an issue with features, defects, or maybe even procedures? Let me know. What's your take on what's going on?

Speaker H: Well, it's clear we have a quality issue. The stuff is piling up. We're getting defects reported from the field, mostly from our clients.

Speaker F: Are, uh, we really prioritizing our, uh, defect fixes properly

Speaker H: our fixes, could that be an issue? Yeah, like I mentioned, we're getting defects from all over. Whether it's from testing we're doing or problems reporting from the field. All I know is when someone's hair is on fire, and if we don't react, I'm the one getting chewed out by Ali or the CIO for not being responsive. So it's about importance or urgency. Maybe, but right now, it's more about not getting fired.

Speaker F: Corey, do we have a problem with the old code? Remember Gertrude from field engineering mentioned that the architecture is becoming really brittle?

Speaker H: Uh, I'm not sure what that means, but if we don't have a problem, why aren't we in the cloud yet? But seriously? Yeah, I think that's the pro that's part of the problem. And I'm sorry, but if I'm getting A bit touchy about this, but the code's fragile, the architecture is sensitive, and people are constantly complaining about it. Honestly, it's keeping me up at night wondering how we're going to blow up next. So yeah, we've got a quality problem. And it's probably a mix of everything. Defects, technical debt, bad processes. It's all piling up.

Speaker F: Listen, Corey, I get it. I'm feeling the pressure too. I wonder why didn't we discuss this sooner? I'm feeling a bit exposed here too. So what can we do collectively? I know we might be feeling defensive, but if we prepare a solid response, won't we be better off?

Speaker H: Or we could just not show the graph at all and say we didn't get the data.

Speaker F: Yeah, no, uh, we obviously can't do that, but we need to be both ready and proactive. We need to look at a few more metrics. The flow distribution is one thing, but we also need to examine the load and make sure we're prioritizing correctly. Don't you agree? Ah, uh, it feels good to stretch. I've been sitting all day. The defects haven't increased much, nor have the risk. It's the debt that's dragging down our ability to add new features. Which ties into your concerns about the architecture and code structure. So what if we put together another team? Old school, I know, but hear me out. Focused on fixing the architecture while we continue pushing out the product? Or would that just make things worse?

Speaker H: Well, it depends on what the organization is willing to fund. If they want to invest in a whole new set of teams to work on next generation products while the other maintain the old one, that's certainly an option. But to pull that off, we probably need an increase in staff of like 20 to 40%.

Speaker F: Well, that might be worth considering though, financially and resource wise. If it means we can ramp up our feature delivery, it would be worth looking into.

Speaker H: How do you think the CFO will take that?

Speaker F: Well, that would mean going back to our private equity firm for more funding, which could lead to diluting ownership or giving up another big chunk of the company. But if we don't take action, the situation will get worse. Right?

Speaker H: Right. Let's capture some ideas for discussion in the upcoming meeting and with the rest of the team. Just so we know, ensure that quality stays visible. Here's my list. Is there a developing quality problem? Is the steady reduction of delivered features? A. Ah, work intake problem? Are defects jumping the queue? What do you think, Jeremy?

Speaker F: Corey, these are great ideas. Let's add them to the Agenda? Do I have time to get coffee before the review with the rest of the team? These meetings are killing me. What room are we meeting in anyway?

Speaker C: Five days. Five days to distill weeks of data, months of observation, into a presentation that could either save innovatech or bury it. Emma and the prime lines knew the stakes. Each slide, each bullet point. A, uh, carefully placed minefield in a room thick with egos and fear. The CEO, eyes on market share. The CPO desperate for product launches. The CIO and cto, their reputations, their very futures hanging in the balance. And the cfo, a silent sentinel guarding the company's purse strings like a dragon's hoard. 10, 30. The room was set. The zoom link flickered to life, bringing in the remote executives. The air crackled with unspoken tension. They meticulously prepared, anticipating every question, every objection. But could they thread the needle? Could they deliver the stark truth without igniting a firestorm? Emma stood at the front. The first slide illuminated a graph showing a sharp, undeniable decline in feature delivery. She began to speak, her voice steady. The message that Emma and her team were there to deliver was that unless something changed, innovatech was not going to meet its goals for AI a prescription to continue to fade in the marketplace. The fix would not be simple, because the whole organization was at fault. Not just rd, product service, delivery, or even sales. As Emma completed the punchline, the room, which had been silent, erupted in a babble of voices. The noise couldn't have been worse if all the alarms in the nearby server room went off at once. It was time for the facilitator to earn their keep. An hour later, the conference room door opened and the leaders filed out with a consensus that there was an overall product flow problem. The time for Inovatek to grow up had finally arrived. And they were going to do it.

Speaker D: Second scotch. It's been, uh, two days. Two days since we kicked over the anthill. Was it worth it? Did anything really change? We partied like it was a victory. The prime lines. But victory for who? We showed them the delivery problem, laid it bare. Ollie Stone face, polite. The CEO finally understood the threat to his precious AI vision. Did I just make an enemy of Ali? Powerful enemy that could kill this whole thing. I didn't do it for comfort. I did it because someone had to. Because no one else saw or cared or dared. Data doesn't lie back of the envelope, sure, but it proved the point. Time, throughput, flow. It's all about the value chain. And getting them to see that was the real fight silos, turf wars, everyone defending their little empires. But we broke through one for all, we said. And they finally got that there was a product flow problem and the whole organization needed to change. Jerry asked if I'd met my goals. Did I even have clear goals, or was it just instinct? The old lean process, training kicked in. Go to the Gemba, they said. See it for yourself. And I did. I saw the problem, the drift, the waste. And I acted. But now. Now what? Did I light a fire or just a spark that'll feed all those sea levels in the room? That was something. Maybe. Maybe they're listening. But I need to talk to Jerry, get his. Take a different perspective. Because even in victory, there's always more to learn. Um, always.

Speaker I: Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to, uh, a podcast right now. And it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising or from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to libsynads. Com. That's L, I, B, S, Y N ads. Com. Today.