Challenge:

Our organization has always been great at setting a strategy or a vision but has had difficulty focusing on  the key things required to achieve that strategy. If funding is attached, we say yes to everything; leaving  our teams spread thin and leading to deliver problems. Our solution to this issue is to clearly prioritize  initiatives through our annual planning process and then implement portfolio reporting to measure how  we are doing against those commitments. However, it is not clear what portfolio reporting solution we  should use that provides information to senior leadership and helps teams connect their work to  strategy but does not stifle innovation by punishing teams for taking chances.

Selection:

For this challenge, we utilized the learning launch to understand what data we needed to drive the right  conversations to keep us focused on achieving our strategy but keeping an innovative environment. We  felt this was the right approach because it allowed us to experiment with data as well as coach senior  leadership on how their uses of data could send mix messages to the team about experimentation and  taking risks. We could try having the conversation based on easily accessible or mocked up data without  investing time in setting up a portfolio reporting process that does not work or leads to the wrong  behaviors.

Application:

For our learning launch, we worked with program directors from all domains to understand what data  was already available to answer the question: “How are we progressing against our annual strategies?”  We identified that we could produce quarterly value drops that the team was working on and  qualitatively track progress against those items.  While this was not as quantitative as we wanted, it  started a conversation that was at the heart of what we were trying to accomplish. We created a  spreadsheet for teams to enter their information and then created a simple excel report to display the  data. Until we gathered feedback, we did not want to utilize Tableau or any of our other systems that  required more effort to program. We produced the report for 1 quarter sharing it with both leadership  and teams. We collected data on what the follow up questions were and watched how teams reacted to  having to provide this data. We also coached leaders on the questions that they asked. For example,  instead of “Why did you miss a commitment?” we changed the question to “What caused the shift and  what learnings did we gain?”.

Insight:

One insight we gained was that teams were hesitant to provide data at the beginning of the quarter  about their plans but at the end of the quarter we were inundated with data on their accomplishments.  It made us realize that we could standup portfolio reporting, but it would not be effective without a  culture change. Leadership was saying the right things about why we wanted to collect this information,  but we needed to do more to develop trust. The teams need to see people being rewarded for trying  something that didn’t work rather than just for the things that worked.

We also noticed that the data was being summarized so much that it didn’t resonate with the teams  that were delivering the work. One of the key features, we were missing was connecting this data to the  agile lifecycle management tool, JIRA, that the teams were using to track the work.  While we didn’t do  this in the pilot because we were trying to do “an experiment that is cheap and fast” as Martin Meyer

mentioned in the Learning Launch Tool lecture in week 4. However, we learned that this was such an  important feature we needed to invest the time in this before rolling out any additional reporting.

Approach:

There are two things that I would do differently next time. First, I would make sure it is clear to everyone  that this is a Learning Launch and use that terminology.  It was referred to as a pilot. This made it seem  like it was an already baked solution and not an experiment. Leadership questioned quality and the  teams questioned our intent.

The other change I would make is to pull in a more diverse group of stakeholders. We really focused on  portfolio/program directors and leadership to create the experiment and provide feedback. I would like  to include a more cross functional group of product managers, engineers and scrum masters in our next  iteration. We also gathered our feedback from groups of similar roles (i.e. sperate sessions were held  with leadership and portfolio/program directors). Next time, I would hold sessions to discuss feedback  on the solution cross functionally so that the different groups can understand why each other need  portfolio data and we can increase visibility and transparency between teams and leadership.


Challenge : Our organization has always been great at setting a strategy or a vision but has had difficulty focusing on the key things required to achieve that strategy . If funding is attached , we say yes to everything ; leaving our teams spread thin and leading to deliver problems . Our solution to this issue is to clearly prioritize initiatives through our annual planning process and then implement portfolio reporting to measure how we are doing against those commitments . However , it is not clear what portfolio reporting solution we should use that provides information to senior leadership and helps teams connect their work to strategy but does not stifle innovation by punishing teams for taking chances . Selection : For this challenge , we utilized the learning launch to understand what data we needed to drive the right conversations to keep us focused on achieving our strategy but keeping an innovative environment . We felt this was the right approach because it allowed us to experiment with data as well as coach senior leadership on how their uses of data could send mix messages to the team about experimentation and taking risks . We could try having the conversation based on easily accessible or mocked up data without investing time in setting up a portfolio reporting process that does not work or leads to the wrong behaviors . Application : For our learning launch , we worked with program directors from all domains to understand what data was already available to answer the question : “ How are we progressing against our annual strategies ? ” We identified that we could produce quarterly value drops that the team was working on and qualitatively track progress against those items . While this was not as quantitative as we wanted , it started a conversation that was at the heart of what we were trying to accomplish . We created a spreadsheet for teams to enter their information and then created a simple excel report to display the data . Until we gathered feedback , we did not want to utilize Tableau or any of our other systems that required more effort to program . We produced the report for 1 quarter sharing it with both leadership and teams . We collected data on what the follow up questions were and watched how teams reacted to having to provide this data . We also coached leaders on the questions that they asked . For example , instead of “ Why did you miss a commitment ? ” we changed the question to “ What caused the shift and what learnings did we gain ? ” . Insight : One insight we gained was that teams were hesitant to provide data at the beginning of the quarter about their plans but at the end of the quarter we were inundated with data on their accomplishments . It made us realize that we could standup portfolio reporting , but it would not be effective without a culture change . Leadership was saying the right things about why we wanted to collect this information , but we needed to do more to develop trust . The teams need to see people being rewarded for trying something that did n’t work rather than just for the things that worked . We also noticed that the data was being summarized so much that it did n’t resonate with the teams that were delivering the work . One of the key features , we were missing was connecting this data to the agile lifecycle management tool , JIRA , that the teams were using to track the work . While we did n’t do this in the pilot because we were trying to do “ an experiment that is cheap and fast ” as Martin Meyer mentioned in the Learning Launch Tool lecture in week 4 . However , we learned that this was such an important feature we needed to invest the time in this before rolling out any additional reporting . Approach : There are two things that I would do differently next time . First , I would make sure it is clear to everyone that this is a Learning Launch and use that terminology . It was referred to as a pilot . This made it seem like it was an already baked solution and not an experiment . Leadership questioned quality and the teams questioned our intent . The other change I would make is to pull in a more diverse group of stakeholders . We really focused on portfolio / program directors and leadership to create the experiment and provide feedback . I would like to include a more cross functional group of product managers , engineers and scrum masters in our next iteration . We also gathered our feedback from groups of similar roles ( i.e. sperate sessions were held with leadership and portfolio / program directors ) . Next time , I would hold sessions to discuss feedback on the solution cross functionally so that the different groups can understand why each other need portfolio data and we can increase visibility and transparency between teams and leadership .