Lean Competency Management

As the software development world adopts Agile and begins to implement some of the concepts of Lean, there remains a restraining force. We are so used to the idea that work flows through competency centres. Then we try to pull together a sense of “team” by organising our initiatives around projects, but there is no real team and no sense of urgency in the work.

Clearly, in a lean world, one-piece flow demands cross functional teams that are organised around the work, not our competencies.

For many years now I have been an advocate for a cross-functional software development team structure in some of Australia’s larger organisations.

When we set about adopting Agile/Lean development, without fail, resistance comes when we try to map the new cross-functional team into our existing organisational structures that are predicated on “competencies” and “command and control”. We fail to map the work and focus on our structures as the organising concept.

Because of our orientation toward structure our new cross-functional team raises some awkward questions:

What do we do with the Testing Manager, now that the development team includes testers?

What is to become of the manager of the Business Analysts? Do we need them now that the Business Analysts are included in the development team?

The key question comes to mind for each competency manager. How will we ensure that the testers are good testers (are trained and developed as testers) if they can’t leverage off each others experience? They can when they’re all bunched up together in a competency centre.

A concept that can shed light on a solution comes form Womack and Jones book Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. The concept is “A channel for the stream; a valley for the channel”.

A channel for the stream; a valley for the channel

Not everything from Lean, as it applies in a manufacturing context, translates to service-based business. However, I do believe Womack and Jones concept can help us with a solution to the competency dilemma that will keep our competency managers in a job – albeit slightly modified.

First we have to break down the phrase from a software development perspective.

What constitutes the stream?

The stream is simple: business requirements are fed in, working software comes out.

What do we mean by channel?

The channel is the groove down which the stream flows. In terms of corporate software development, it is the alignment of business users with the team that builds the system(s) that implement automation for that business.

The channel is cross-functional and therefore it includes all the workers required to add value to the requirement, as it flows, all the way from business idea to working software.

The channel is the alignment of workers into a value stream that gets the business (the customer) the software they require.

The valley is where competency managers provide value.

What then is the valley?

Channels follow the contours of the valley. When we set out to service a particular customer requirement and thereby establish a new business capability, we define the work-flow and management structure that sits around the process. In a sense, we define the peaks, with the valleys between them, and we prepare a groove down which the requirements fulfillment will flow.

The valley is where all the channels, with flowing streams, are guided from request to result. The valley is the organisational design that defines the contours of the land and determines the supply of resources and support to the workers in the stream. Managers prepare the people to work within the flow and ensure the whole system works as effectively as possible.

The workers in the stream are looking to pull resources from the high points of the valley down into their stream. They’re looking to pull in support, expertise, training, professional development, policies, process improvement, better methods and tools.

So, how can Competency Managers add value in a Lean Context?

Managers are there to design the organisation and the way the work will flow. They prepare the people within the flow and ensure the whole system works effectively.

John Seddon’s approach fits well here, in the sense that managers “work on how the work works.” I would add that managers continually empower and encourage the workers in the stream.

Managers themselves are not in the stream. They are to work on the work, not in the work, bringing improvement.

Competency Managers add value to the stream by:

• Training workers to add value in the best possible way from their competency
• Deploying policies that focus and improve the flow of work
• Providing thoroughly tested resources and tools
• Monitoring overall system performance
• Facilitating continuous improvement (kaizen) workshops that include members of the value stream.
• Keeping a handle on the innovation being generated within the value stream and encourage those teams to publish/share them with other teams
• Establishing and maintaining the knowledge management process
• Building capability

Competency Managers build up those workers in the stream that add value from their competency. The Testing Competency Manager adds value to the testers in the development team. Likewise the Engineering Competency Manager and the Business Analysis Competency Manager.

Each will continue to improve the value added by those from their competency, however they must work together to ensure there is a focus on the overall flow. After all we are in the business of turning ideas into working software for business benefit, not building our own empires.