How we Plan at Bonial (part 2: control)

blue angels - extreme control
Blue Angels – extreme control

As you read in the previous post, we shed some light on what we were (and weren’t) doing with some simple Clarity mechanisms with regards to planning our software development.  Now we needed to make sure everyone knew who should be doing what – a.k.a. Control. 

We started with a new roadmap governance process.  We knew that if we wanted to scale the organization we had to fundamentally rationalize the “roadmap committee”.  To that end we developed the following decision flow chart:

Bonial’s first update to roadmap governance

Though it appears complex, it’s built around a single principle: push as many decisions to the teams as possible.  The “roadmap committee” would be responsible for major strategy and funding decisions and for monitoring progress; the teams would execute under the broad guidance from the committee.  

This shift to distributed control was fundamental to our later growth and success but the truth is that it took the better part of a year until we “got it right-ish”.  It was an iterative process of building trust on all sides – management had to trust the teams to make good decisions, the teams had to trust management to provide clear guidance and hold to it, and the stakeholders had to trust both.  But it was worth it.  

Most importantly, the teams began to “own” their mission which changed everything. 

The Roadmap Committee has long since been replaced with other more focussed and lighter-weight mechanisms, but the principles still hold true – executive management sets the goals, allocates resources and provides experience and mentoring; the teams decide how to achieve the goals and execute.  We continue to explore different organizations and alignments to optimize our software development and delivery and we assume we’ll continue to experiment as we grow and our missions changes.

Another major step we took that impacted both control and clarity was to align our teams into Value Streams.  In our effort to improve how we applied Lean and Agile principles at the team and group levels, we decided to adopt best principles from the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) for software development at the enterprise level.  SAFe teams are built around “Programs” or “Value Streams” that allowed teams to focus on a specific portion of the mission and operate as independently as possible.  We deviated quite a bit from pure SAFe and formed three streams around our user facing efforts, our business systems and our operations initiatives.  Never-the-less the benefits were immediate as we reduced “prioritization hell” which is what I call the often fruitless act of trying to compare a revenue generating topic with, for example, a cost savings or security topic. 

Key takeaway: it’s impossible to both scale and maintain central control.  Effective scaling requires creating semi-autonomous, fully-capable teams organized to be relatively independent and provided with the clarity needed to tackle their mission.  This can be a tough step, especially in organizations with a long history of central control, but it’s a step that must be taken.  (FWIW I’ve seen the opposite and it’s not pretty.)

So now we knew what we were doing and who should be doing what.  We were getting a lot closer, but we had one more big step…

How we Plan at Bonial (part 2: clarity)


How do you go about fixing something that requires you to change almost everything you do?  As described in part 1, this was the situation we faced at Bonial in late 2014 when it came to the governance and execution of our product development roadmap.  

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, we took advantage of proven play books – one for organization change and one for enterprise agile.  On the organizational side, we knew that the “top down, centralized control” model was already strained and would not scale.  So we leveraged elements from the (fantastic) book “Turn this Ship Around!” by Capt. David Marquett, which describes one organization’s journey from a top-down leadership structure to a “leader-leader” structure with distributed ownership and control.  Bonial would have to undergo a similar transformation – we needed everyone to be engaged and feeling ownership if we were to realize rapid transformation and scale. 

In the book, the author presents a couple dozen excellent leadership mechanisms and groups them under three high-level categories – Clarity, Control, and Competence.  In the interest of brevity, I’ll describe just a few of the things we did to improve in these categories.  (I’ll also break them up over several posts.)

Starting with clarity, we began with the simplest exercise possible: we documented all of the work-in-progress on one list.  Absurdly basic yet profound.  We created the first draft by literally going from team to team and asking them what projects were in progress and putting them in a Google Sheet.  (Why this format?  Because normalizing and adapting the existing tracking tools (Jira, Trello) would have taken far too long and wasted the team’s time and energy.  Also, Google Sheets allow for simultaneous editing which is critical for collaboration.)  To make this relevant for business stakeholders, we then dropped the small “story” and “task” level items and broke down the “saga” level items so that the resulting list was at a meaningful “epic” or “project” level.

Here’s a snap of an archived copy of the first version:

Screenshot of first Bonial Roadmap on Google Sheets

This exercise had several immediate impacts.  First, it showed our stakeholders that the engineering team was actually working on a quite a few projects and began to restore some confidence in the product development function.  Second, it shed light on all the projects and prompted a number of valid and constructive questions as to priorities and business justifications for the projects.  This in turn led directly to our decision to do more formal and intentional planning: we wanted to ensure that our engineering resources were “doing the right things,” not just “doing things right.”

Over time this simple Google Sheet has grown to be the primary tool for viewing and communicating the current quarter’s roadmap development.  We populate the sheet with the output of each quarter’s planning exercise (more on that to follow).  Twice a week we review the status of all items (red, yellow, green) and discuss as a team what we can do to adjust if needed.  The same spreadsheet is publicly available to all stakeholders for full transparency.  We’ve considered several times moving to more sophisticated (and expensive) tools but each time we decided that the Google Sheets does everything we need.

Key takeaway: it’s hard to plan if you don’t know what you’re already doing.  Take the time to get clarity on what’s happening, tune it to the right granularity, and ensure there’s full transparency.

In the next post I’ll talk about how we approach mechanisms for control. 

How We Plan at Bonial (Part 1: the early days)

Today is the first day of our quarterly planning ritual here at Bonial.  As I write this the teams are huddled away passionately discussing, digesting, challenging, and estimating their candidate work items.  We have over a hundred people from 25 different countries and multiple offices working through dozens of epics.  By tomorrow we’ll have a solid plan agreed upon by the engineers, designers, testers, data scientists, operations specialists and product managers as well as their stakeholders.  

It wasn’t always like this.

When I arrived at Bonial a couple of years ago, there was no documented roadmap or cohesive prioritization process.  The planning horizon ranged from intra-day for emergencies to a couple of weeks for most other items.  No-one had a clear understanding of what we were working on and why.  The stakeholders didn’t trust engineering and everyone was unhappy.

Getting from there to here hasn’t been easy.  Over the next few posts I’ll walk you through how we got to where we are today.  

But to understand the journey we have to start at the beginning-ish…

In 2014, Bonial was a mature startup with seven or eight years under its belt.  We had a very successful mobile and web app being used in a dozen or so countries.  The product development crew was organized into four scrum teams, an ops team and a design team and was responsible for developing all of the user facing systems as well as the critical business systems.  All-in-all, there were 40-50 people working together in product development.

Unfortunately the team was less effective than it could and should have been, in large part due to lack of clarity and governance.  For starters, not only was there a lack of a coherent roadmap, there wasn’t even any clear record of what work was currently being executed.  We had tickets in Jira scattered across a dozen or more “projects,” Trello boards, stickies on blackboards, and whole lot of ideas in people’s heads, but there was no one place a stakeholder could go and get a simple answer to the question: “what is the status of my project?”

What roadmap planning was done happened in a bi-weekly session called the “roadmap committee.”  This was a group of senior managers from the extended product development organization and stakeholders who reviewed development progress and made decisions on new initiatives.  I’m being nice when I say that it wasn’t much fun.  The selection of initiatives being governed was somewhat arbitrary and the value provided by the committee was questionable.  We often hashed over the same questions over and over again.  Unfortunately it was the only vehicle in place to provide some level of two-way communications regarding roadmap and status.

The end result was that no-one was happy.  The stakeholders and customers felt like their needs were ignored and that, when their projects were accepted, delivery was too slow.  The engineers felt like they were in a blender of arbitrary and incoherent requirements over which they felt no sense of ownership.  And the product management team was stuck in the middle, working to adjust to the latest change and managing both unhappy stakeholders and engineers both.  The end result was perceived and real low performance and sense that we were set up to fail.

So we decided to change this; the solution would require a great deal of work in many areas across the people/process/technology spectrums.  It all came together, though, in planning.  Stay tuned for part 2.