Ikea Floor Lamp Bulbs

PROBLEM SOLVING PROBLEMS SEE

That's very nice to see the problems . That said, the aim is to solve the !

Then, those problems identified and visible to everyone, are they treated?

1. REMINDER

Remember : the team realizes that to learn, grow and become more effective, it must systematically solve the problems it faces .
So

• is developed systematic detection of problems;
• it shows the problems for making visible ;
• it solves problems in a structured .

This attitude and approach are described in a preceding note .

2. Is it practical É ?

To ensure that these fine principles became practices, we 's show an indicator showing the number of solved problems (lower bars) and the number of unresolved problems ( the top of the bars) . This indicator is updated every iteration (see photo above) .

3. IS IT EFFECTIVE?

It's fine to put in place new practices - does it still there is a return on investment ... And there you have recognize that it is difficult to measure the impact of systematic problem-solving.

Difficult is not impossible: burndown chart- curve and non-quality show gains in productivity and quality of this approach.
particular, the curve non-quality revealed severe reductions in non-quality corresponding to sites set up in response to a problem raised. Then, the ranges after a fall of this curve shows that the remedial action "punch" was effectively transformed into continuous practice. Since
burndown chart- does not suffer from an increase or a stagnation of the "remaining to be done" is that the resolution of the problem has contributed positively to development.

4. SIDE EFFECT

We noticed another beneficial side effect of this approach. This is a very large increase standardization.
Indeed, solving a problem usually results in:

• a measure against automated ( scripted build in in the commit, ...) ;
• a cons manual measurement described by a small textual procedure;
• improve an existing process.

Thus, we found that our wiki has enriched many small pragmatic procedures. This is the formalization of the best ways to make this point for this project. This is a standard lightweight, scalable, shared by team members.

I thought that standardization was a formal step, heavy and slow down evolution. I am now convinced otherwise.

Catchy Im Back Phrase

"Out of sight, out of heart." A problem that is not visible is not treated .

On the advice of Régis Medina and after attending his lecture at the Agile Tour in Valencia, we are looking for a few iterations to make our issues visible not to let the trainer. For this, we have implemented 2 practices.

1. SEE THE PROCESS OF DEFECTS

The first, already mentioned in connection with a ticket on the resolution systematic problems is displayed on a table dedicated problems encountered by the team (see photo ).

2. SEE PRODUCT DEFECTS

The second is to identify, measure and display daily and automatically non-quality product. It is the sum of all that is correct to the level of quality we are looking for our product (and we are VERY demanding) .
Thus, we urge

• the number of warnings compiling code and tests ,
  
• the n shadow of operations that exceed a threshold of complexity ,
  
• the number of classes not covered 100% automated tests ,
  
• the number of classes that do not meet coding standards ...

history of this metric enriched a curve which is shown daily at the place the open space where there is more traffic, right next to the burndown charts.

Since we decided to make visible these problems, we put so disciplined and continue to reduce this non- quality, as shown by the curve shown.

Once the curve stabilizes at an acceptable level of non-quality (corresponding to a minimum of work in progress) we enrich this indicator of a new class of defects. You will see a leap in hand commented on the displayed curve. Thus, we are raising our level of demand in a controlled manner.

We're not interested in the value of the metric but rather the slope of the curve . Indeed, it reveals very clearly if the team is improving or break.

It is very interesting to view this curve of non-quality alongside burndown charts. Indeed, one often finds that the improving productivity (visible on a burndown chart) comes at the expense of quality (visible on the curve of non-quality). The day view and side by side these two curves can see that we do not play in communicating vessels. Better still, we come to correlate even better than work permits to work faster !

Finally, we also valued this measure of non-product quality. For each category we have identified defect associated value: This is the theoretical time required to correct a defect in this category. Thus, we measure the estimated time needed to obtain a product of the desired quality.

With daily measurement and the combined remaining to and non- product quality, we have tools objective, relevant and complementary to steer our development .