Category Archives: Management

Jeff Sutherland on Scrum – if you follow the flight plan you will be taken down

Video

Coding Management Software Engineering

Jeff Sutherland explains how Scrum was originated.

Key to the success: Make work visible

Every morning, there’s a bullet coming at you with your project’s name on it. If you follow the plan, you will be taken down. Most of the project managers don’t get out of the way. 84% of IT projects are failures.

In the daily meeting we need to debate what is the next item in the sprint backlog that we would implement that touch which component that would cause the biggest impact in the system that would emerge a new capability. The minimal change to push the capability forward.

The whole team needs to know the architecture of the system and they all needs to argue about where they touch the system to systematically produce the feature in the shortest time possible.

Conway’s Law: the culture of the organization reflects in the system architecture – you need to create an object oriented organization

Jeff Sutherland

Jeff Sutherland on Scrum

 

 

 

Published by:

PHZ.fi Values

Careers Coding Company Management Strategy Work Psychology

At PHZ.fi we have found a better way to develop sustainable software by following the core values of Agile Manifesto
http://www.agilemanifesto.org

Jeff Sutherland, the inventor of Scrum has elaborated the meaning of values further.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997578.aspx

We should Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Our core value is teamwork, which enables Collective Code Ownership and continuous learning. The sysadmins will pair with frontend developers and customers with the backend developers, trainees with senior developers. Studies have shown that when all communication obstacles have been removed, the team will perform up to 50x better than the industry average.

  • Respect for the worth of every person
  • Truth in every communication
  • Transparency of all data, actions and decisions
  • Trust that each person will support the team
  • Commitment to the team and to the team’s goals

Working software over Comprehensive documentation

By constantly refactoring the software by doing Test Driven Development, the best documentation for the software is 100% passing automated tests.

  • Define acceptance tests when defining the feature
  • Implement features serially and in priority order
  • Run acceptance tests on each feature as soon as they are implemented
  • Fix bugs that are identified as highest priority as soon as possible

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

We have found out that the Truth doesn’t reside in our office, but we should go out of the building and find out the real customer. Since it is difficult to get the customer to come over to our office, we normally nomadically roam on-site at customer premises.

  • When the team cannot work on-site with the customer (such as consumer projects), the team must appoint a customer proxy, product owner, who is always available at the office

Responding to change over following a plan

  • It is better to adapt to change quickly rather than agree and follow a fixed contract or a plan. We have found out that even a 2 week iteration might be a too long period to fix on a certain plan, customer typically wants to change the plan even faster especially on consumer services that are in production maintaned by PHZ.fi Devops.
  • At PHZ.fi we unfortunately do not excel at fixed price and scope projects, but try to avoid them. Instead we provide an agile team for an hourly rate, and the customer can decide on the scope, priority and the length of the project flexibly. By prioritizing the highest value and highest risk customer stories to be implemented first and released frequently (daily or weekly), the highest business value can be delivered quickly and the total project risk diminishes quickly towards the end of the project.

Summary

The core PHZ.fi values are

  • High Skill
  • Teamwork
  • Feedback
  • High Quality
Published by:

Apple ALV kirjaukset

Android Company Finance Management Mobile Start-up

Aloitimme myymään Apple Store:ssa mobiilisovelluksia ja parin kuukauden päästä kilahtikin iloisesti muutama lantti rahaa tilillemme. Pää meni kuitenkin pyörälle kun yritimme miettiä miten kyseisistä maksuista tehdään kaikkien sääntöjen mukaiset ALV-kirjaukset.  Applen omat raportit eivät ole kovinkaan avuliaita tässä suhteessa. Jos haluaa päästä hieman vähemmällä, voi kirjauksissa oikoa jättämällä laskematta Applen myyntikomissiot, mutta itse ajattelin että on parempi tehdä se oikein ja ilmoittaa mieluummin suurempi suurempi liikevaihto (eli meidän liikevaihto on suoraan tuotteen myyntihinta 1.79 EUR – ALV, eikä esim. tilille tullut 1,09 EUR, josta Apple on vähentänyt ALV:n ja oman komissionsa). Sijoittajat ja verottaja ovat ainakin hieman tyytyväisempiä, kun liikevaihto paisuu ja kirjaukset ovat prikulleen ja itsekin voi varmistua että Applen myyntikomissio on laskettu oikein 🙂

Eli mikä ALV-kirjauksissa on ongelmana?

Ok, eli Applelta kilahti tilille 168,40 EUR. Kuinkas tämä kirjataan? Sain ladattua Itunes Connect:sta myyntiraportin, joka sanoo että meidän 1,79 EUR maksavaa Tier 2-hinnoiteltua sovellusta on myyty euro-alueella (Suomeen) yhteensä 150kpl ja 1kpl Ruotsiin hintaan 15 SEK. Tästähän siis tulee myyntiä euroissa 150 x 1,79 EUR +1.74 EUR = 270,24 EUR (15 SEK oli päivän FX-muuntokurssilla 1.74 EUR). Periaatteessa tässä meidän kotimainen firma on myynyt kotimaisille kuluttajille sovelluksia, joten siitä vähennetään Suomen 24% ALV ja Ruotsissa ALV olisi 25%. Käytännössä kuitenkin Apple Storen myynnin hoitaa Luxemburgiin (EU-alueelle) rekisteröity tytäryhtiö ITunes S.A.R.L., joten heidän vastuullaan on tilittää ALV. Jos kyseessä olisi tavarakauppa, niin EU VAT Threshold -säännösten mukaan jos yrityksen myynti esim. Suomeen ylittää 35000 EUR, niin heidän tulee laskuttaa ja tilittää ALV Suomeen, eikä esim. Luxemburgiin. Kuitenkin Threshold-säännökset eivät koske palvelumyyntiä, joten Applen myynti Suomeen (ja kaikkiin muihin EU-maihin) kulkee 15% ALV:lla. Toisin sanoen, vaikka suomalainen firma ei ole rekisteröitynyt Luxemburgiin, Apple Storen kautta pääsemme nauttimaan kotimaan myynninkin osalta Luxemburgin keveämmästä veroasteesta 🙂

Tilitys tuli tosiaan toiselta EU-yritykseltä Luxemburgista, joten kyseessä on kotimaan myynnin sijasta EU Palvelumyyntiä. Normaalisti esim. yritysten väliseen EU -kauppaan sovelletaan ns. “Reverse Charge” mekanismia, eli laskut ja maksut tehdään ALV 0%, ja ostaja lisää ja vähentää laskennallisesti oman maansa ALV:n kirjanpidossa. EU-palvelumyynnin raportoinnissa on kuitenkin pieni poikkeus normaalisääntöön, sillä ALV-ilmoitusta tehdessä veroilmoituksen kohtaan 312 EU Palvelumyynti tuleekin ilmoittaa ALV 0% myynti nettona, ja kirjanpidossa ei tehdä lisäys/vähennystä. Kuitenkin, EU-palveluostoissa Reverse Charge -lisäys/vähennys tehdään kauppapaikkakomission osalta.

Kirjaussääntö

Tein itselleni seuraavan kirjausohjeen, että oikeaoppisen kirjauksen muistaa seuraavassa kuussakin 🙂

  1. Pankkitili 1940 Debet 168,40 EUR
  2. Myynti 3000 Credit 233,48 EUR 0% EUPM 312 “FI 150 x 1.79 EUR”
  3. Myynti 3000 Credit 1,51 EUR 0% EUPM 312 “SE 1 x 15 SEK”
  4. Komissio 4460 Debet 69,98 EUR 24% EUPO “FI”
  5. Komissio 4460 Debet 0,45 EUR 24% EUPO “SE”
  6. ALV-saamiset 1760 Debet 16,90 EUR
  7. ALV-velka 2939 Credit 16,90 EUR

Lukujen laskemista varten pitää noutaa Itunes Connect:sta kohdasta Payments & Financial Reports sekä Earnings -tabilta kunkin kuun kaikkien valuuttojen raportit (pakattu CSV-tiedosto), että Payments sivulta tulostaa PDF:ksi Payout-raportti, josta näkee valuuttakonversiot.

Earnings -raportilta löytyvät seuraavat tiedot

  • Customer Price (EUR, SEK)
  • Partner Share
  • Quantity

Payout -raportilta löytyvät nämä tiedot

  • FX Rate

Ja vielä itse pitää tietää että esim.

  • Luxemburgissa ALV on 15% (Apple)
  • (ja Suomessa EU palveluostoihin laskennallinen ALV +/- 24%)

Myynti lasketaan kaavalla

  • (Customer Price SEK x Quantity / (1+LU VAT%)) x FX Rate
  • Kun kyseessä on euro-myynti, niin FX Rate = 1
  • Esim. (15 x 1 / 1.15) x 0.116 = 1.51 EUR

Myyntikomissio taas lasketaan

  • ((Customer Price – Partner Share) – ((Customer Price – Customer Price / LU VAT%)) x Quantity x FX Rate
  • Eli esim. ((15 SEK – 9.13 SEK) – ( 15 SEK – 15 SEK / 1.15)) x 1 x 0.116 = 0.45 EUR

Näin päästään vielä tarkistamaan että myyntikomissio / liikevaihto ≃ 30% eli n. sama jonka Apple väittääkin olevan heidän myyntikomissionsa.

Raportointi

Seuraavaksi EU-palvelumyynti kirjataan ALV-raportin kohtaan 312 nettomääräisenä (eli 0%) ja palveluostot kohtaan 314. Palveluostojen “Reverse Charge” summa lisäksi kirjataan vähennettävään veroon (eli oikeasti joutuu maksamaan tältä osin veroa +/- 0 EUR).

Toiseksi normaalin ALV-kuukausi/kausi-ilmoituksen lisäksi nyt pitääkin verovirastolle lähettää toinen raportti “ALV-yhteenvetoilmoitus”, johon pitää raportoida toiseen kertaan mille firmalle palvelumyynti on tapahtunut.

Summa Summarum

Tässä parit helpot esimerkit miten Apple myyntikomissiot lasketaan oikein, ainakin EU-alueen sisällä tapahtuvasta myynnistä. Jos myyntiä on EU:n ulkopuolelle, laskutapa muuttuu jälleen, pitää täydentää ohjetta kun myynti kasvaa laajemmalle 🙂

Published by:

Your deadly sins – Finding your personality

Management Start-up Work Psychology

I think there is good resemblance between the Enneagram  and Belbin Team Roles .

Enneagram

The Enneagram shows also the linkage (“wings”) between different role groups, which seems also to match my (limited) study of co-workers. For example I think most people (or at least the coders 🙂 are on the “inner triangle” of 3-6-9 (Achiever, Loyalist, Peacemaker = Implementer, Completer Finisher, Team Worker. Further, the Myers-Briggs personality indicator is also closely related, but somewhat different.

I quickly tried to figure out a draft mapping between the Belbin Team Roles and the Enneagram:

Blue Inner Circle
3 Achiever = Implementer		(doing)
6 Loyalist = Completer Finisher?	(doing)
9 Peacemaker = Team Worker		(social)

Red Changer
5 Investigator = Plant			(thinking)
7 Enthusiastic = Resource Investigator?	(social)
8 Challenger = Shaper?			(leading)

Black Maintainer
1 Reformer = Monitor Evaluator		(thinking)
2 Helper = Coordinator			(leading)
4 Individualist = Spacialist		(doing)

What I found was that while the Belbin Team Roles gives a quantitative psychometric and good descriptions of the roles, but lacks further analysis and grouping of the arch-typical role groups. I have found that the same roles tend to appear with each other, while Belbin does not suggest this. However, the Enneagram suggests exactly this. For example the role Implementer is usually occurring with Teamworker (high diligence and drive for team cohesiveness), and Plant with Resource Investigator and Shaper (high inclination towards constant change). The Enneagram gives a try to map the groupings, while lacking the quantitative measurement tools and exact weighting of the Belbin’s test. By combining the both you get both quantitative exactness and good overview to guide for example forming of the optimum team structure and how to manage different personalities individually.

I have grouped the team roles in three colors by the inclination towards the change. The blue roles (“inner circle”) are rather indifferent to change or following the opinion leaders, while the black roles are resisting any change. The red roles are the drivers or initiators of the change. However, actually the Enneagram might be giving a better overview of the attitudes towards change having the “red” roles on the left and “black” roles on the right. This would mean that the role 6 (Loyalist/Completer Finisher) on the Inner Circle is actually pro-change, while the role 3 Achiever/Implementer is resisting changes to plans or existing procedures (as described by Belbin).

The Details
While my personal role is firmly on the red side (5-7-8), I find the descriptions to match rather well between the Belbin Team Roles, Myers-Briggs and the Enneagram. However, the Enneagram has also the “wing roles” with stress and security (or integration/disintegration) points describing the behaviour under stress or in a relaxed environment. For the role 5 (Investigator/Plant) I find, however, that the points are flipped.

According to the Myerrs-Briggs the 5-7-8 archtype actually thrives under pressure (role 8 Challenger/Shaper), while the Ennegram suggests role 7. Similarly I find that under relaxed situation I rather act like role 7 Enthusiastic/Resource Investigator (rather than 8 Challenger/Shaper) having vice of gluttony rather than forcefulness. Anyhow, although flipped, there seems to be linkage which is very similar to the psychometric results given by the Belbin’s and Briggs-Myers’ tests.

Leading Different Personality Types and Building an Optimal Team

Actually I started to investigate the Enneagram while I was analyzing the motivational factors of different Belbin’s team roles. For example to motivate a Shaper, you need to threaten his goal, or to provocate him. A Resource Investigator looses quickly momentum, unless he is stimulated by constant social interaction of opportunities and ideas. To motivate an Implementer/Team Worker one needs to establish rapport, promote co-operation and common social norms, rituals and procedures. The Enneagram actually gives a very good guidance of the basic fears, desires, vices and temptations of different personality types, giving a good ideas for individual coaching and leadership.

The key is to first map out the role mix of the team by doing the Belbin’s team role test. To build a successful team the role mix should be balanced, with a few considerations. For example the there should be only one person with role 5 (Investigator/Plant), since the Plants have tendency to disagree and fight each other. Also only one Leading role can be dominant, either the role 2 or 8. For a note, the Enneagram shows the Stress & Security points linkage between roles 2 and 8. I’m not sure, but I think this is an erroneous linkage,
since most probably one person can’t have two leading roles, which are conflicting so strongly (please give me an example if you have witnessed this nemesis-role :).
Similarly, I’m not sure if there is a similar schism between roles 1 (Monitor Evaluator) and 7 (Resource Investigator). It might be that this contradiction is not so important since these roles are not competing on the leadership of the team, and the role 1 is lacking drive to inspire others (he has tendency to demotivate at least Resource Investigators by being overly critical, though).
Test Your Personality
Here is a link to the Belbin’s Team Role test (unfortunately in Finnish) http://www.fujitsu.fi/cgi-bin/roolitesti.pl
Published by:

The Inmates are running the Agile Asylum

Management Software Engineering Usability

Here is a great interview of Alan Cooper, the designer of Visual Basic & Visual Studio and the author of the Goal-Driven Design (GDD), a close relative to the GUIDe by Sari A. Laakso:

http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Interaction-Design-Alan-Cooper

Agile is not about productivity, it’s about the core of motivation of the developers. The traditional management of the software projects usually lack understanding what is going on, set unrealistic objectives, drive for low quality and make the work of the developers miserable. While the industrial-era management doesn’t really understand what’s going on, the developers have filled out the vacuum by managing themselves. Instead, the knowledge workers are not motivated by money or following the schedules, but doing good (or great) work. Thus the rise of the Open Source, over there people can do as good products as they wish 🙂 If the industrial management techniques makes this impossible by managing the knowledge workers as industrial workers, then the developers are not pleased either. Because nobody is really managing the development work, the Agile has risen from the ranks of the developers to fix the management problem.

Alan Cooper claims that the process of the interaction design is quite similar to the agile ways. The key process is to reflect on the business problem before day zero of the start of the development. The key thing is to have deep and profound understanding of the business process.

Tasks are not Goals

The important thing is not what tasks the users do, but what is the end state. The design process is to redesign the tasks so that the goals can be achieved easier. By designing based on the tasks the result will be a Dancing Bear :). It dances, but not very prettily. The objective of the interaction design -school / GDD / GUIDe is to make the bear to dance well!

In software there is no economics of scale

In the old times the main driver of the business was to get the unit costs down. However, in the software industry the maintenance costs are zero or very low, but the development cost is rather high. The economics of the software are profoundly different to the economics of the manufacturing. Driving the cost down just drives down the desirability of the design. The most important thing is to worry how you can elevate your number one goal. The business managers should think only about how to increase the business value and quality instead of reducing the cost.

Published by: