Starting in early 2019 our stakeholders told us that delivering two epics per week is way too low. We then did a deep analysis of our problems using systems mappings and we derived actions from it. In my talk we take a look at these systems mappings, the derived actions, and their effects by using real data of our three level Kanban system. On our way towards operational excellence it is surprising which elements have an impact on WIP, throughput, cycle time and how this affects operating costs and the value we deliver to our customers.

1. Two Epics per Week!?
Boris Karl Schlein
AgileCoach
HAMGI-AC Customer Facing

2. TWO EPICS
PER WEEK
ARE WAY
TOO LOW!
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved2

3. Let’s talk about
Dependencies

4. Potential Dependencies betweenTeams
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved4
Potentially, there are dependencies between each team.
2Teams, 1 Dependency 3Teams, 3 Dependencies 4Teams, 6 Dependencies
Team Potential Dependency
1Team, 0 Dependencies

5. Dependencies and Simple GraphTheory
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved5
Graph theory tells us, that potential dependencies (edges) between
teams (vertices) grow exponentially.
Vertices V Edges n
1 0
2 1
3 3
4 6
5 10
6 15
7 21
8 28
9 36
10 45
Vertices V
Edges n
𝑉 =
𝑛
2
= 𝑖
𝑛−1
𝑖=1
=
𝑛 − 1 𝑛
2
=
1
2
(𝑛2
− 𝑛)
28

6. Adding Resources May Not BeThe Answer
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved6
Our throughput does not grow in a linear manner –
but our operating costs do!
Potential dependencies
Idealized throughput growth
Actual throughput
Impact of dependencies considered –
approximation, but aligned to real data
Dependencies
Teams
Assumption: Teams are independent

7. What the CFD isTelling Us
Although we added teams, our overall throughput remains constant –
per team it sank from 0.53 to 0.39 epics per week.
AACT = 71 days
W = 32 epics
8 teams
4 epics/team
2019-02-07
Little’s Law
AT = W/C = (32/71)*7 = 3.15
0.39 epics per team & week
2018-09-13
Little’s Law
AT = W/C = (11/24)*7 = 3.2
0.53 epics per team & week
2018-10-10
The growingWIP
started here
AACT = 24 days
W = 11 epics
6 teams
1.8 epics /team
AACT =:ApproximateAverageCycleTime,W =Work in Process, AT :=AverageThroughput
(datafrom7thFeb.2019)
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved7

8. Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Strong Code Ownership
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved8
Our 8 development teams complain a lot about “blockers” from other
teams.
Vostok Hudson Pacific Como…

9. Our Multi-level Kanban System
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved9
Strong code ownership of teams and dependencies visualized based
on our work artifacts.
Epic X
e. g. assigned to Vostok
Epic
assigned to a single team
Story
assigned to a
single team
1
1..n
Story assigned to Vostok
Story assigned to Hudson
Story assigned to Pacific
Story assigned to Como
Team Level
Klaus Leopold: “Flight Level 1”
Coordination Level
Klaus Leopold: “Flight Level 2”

10. Ratio of Self-Contained Epics
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved10
Red means, that an epic contains at least one story assigned to a
team different to the team which owns the epic.
(datafrom7thFeb.2019)
Epic X
e. g. assigned to Vostok
Epic
assigned to a single team
Story
assigned to a single team
1
1..n
Story assigned to team Vostok
Story assigned to team Hudson
Story assigned to team Pacific
Story assigned to team Como

11. Epic X
e. g. assigned to Vostok
Story Distribution ofTeams per Epics
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved11
A snapshot from January 2019 – it changes depending on the demand
our teams are working on.
Strong dependencies
to Pacific,Toba andVostok
Strong dependency
toVostok
Strong dependencies
toOdra – bidirectional!
Epic
assigned to a single team
Story
assigned to a single team
1
1..n
Story assigned to team Vostok
Story assigned to team Hudson
Story assigned to team Pacific
Story assigned to team Como

12. Active Dependencies Make it Complex
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved12
Active dependencies change per demand – worst case scenarios are
circular dependencies which increase complexity.
Team Potential Dependency Active Dependency
Demand A Demand B
“Chained”
Dependencies
“Circular”
Dependencies

13. A Little Law Called “Little’s Law”
13
Let’s just apply some standard Kanban know-how to show that we are
facing a complex environment.
CycleTime
Blockers
Throughput
Task Switches
Work in Process
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved
WaitingTimes
𝑻 =
𝑾
𝑪

14. Perceived Pressure
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved14
An easy example how external pressure increases WIP and lowers
throughput.
Low/moderate
perceived pressure
High perceived
pressure
 Dependencies exist and stay constant
 WIP stays constant
 Busy work: tendency that teams should not idle
– push & pull new work items
 WIP increases
 More dependencies
– blockers and waiting times
– push & pull new work items (vicious cycle)

15. Yet AnotherVicious Cycle
15
The effects of our actions are often counterintuitive.Thus, focusing
on cycle time would be more effective to work on the system.
CycleTime
Blockers
Throughput
Task Switches
Work in Process
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved
WaitingTimesPerceived Pressure
𝑻 =
𝑾
𝑪

16. Pressure and the J-Curve Effect
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved16
In times of high pressure people avoid to work on the system because
people are more risk-avers.
Effort/Gain
Time
New status quo
High perceived pressure
Negative effects,
change resistance
Positive effects Outcome

17. Uncovering the Real Problems
Kanban is about continuous change and improvement: Limiting the work in
process is the start – it generates pain where the real problems are and forces us
to identify and handle root causes.
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved17

18. Confront the
Brutal Facts!

19. Systems Mapping – a Real Life Example
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved19
A deep analysis based on observations and real data.

20. Be aware of the
Newtonian Mindset
Still in 2019, we are mostly influenced by a mindset of linear causalities –
even though we are working in complex environments.
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved20

21. TheThreeTraps of the Newtonian Mindset
Trap of Determinism
Mindset of Linear Causalities: If I do A it must result in B.
“We must do the one thing and everything will be great!”
Trap of Directing People
Transactional Leadership.
“Do the task as I told you and get the reward! Otherwise you won’t! In the meantime, you will
not see me at all.”
Trap of Punctuation
Leads to finger pointing.
“It’s the management’s fault! “ or “It’s the team’s fault!”
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved21
Systems thinking helps us to understand complexity by identifying causal
loops.

22. Trap of Determinism
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved22
Avoid this trap by thinking in short PDCA cycles and use experiments
where people are allowed to fail.

23. Trap of Directing People
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved23
Transformational leadership on all levels instead of a top-down
transactional leadership style.

24. Trap of Punctuation
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved24
Start with yourself, rely on The Responsibility ProcessTM.
It’s not “either … or”, it’s “and … both”.

25. Something wants to happen.
Currently, there is a lot of movement inside KN.
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved25

26. Addressing All Levels
Team Level (Gemba): Reduce Complexity & Focus on Flow
 Smaller user stories (and epics)
 Cross-functional feature teams (weaken code ownership)
 Increase product management maturity
Organizational Level: Enable (Transformational) Leadership
 Less hierarchy
 OKR-like target system
 Salary model (no bonuses)
 Career path
 One product organization: end-to-end thinking
A holistic view helps to understand that local optimization on team level
will only lead to frustration of all involved parties.
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved26

27. Thank
you
Two Epics Per Week!?
Boris Karl Schlein
Agile Coach
Kühne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG
HAM GI-AC Customer Facing Order
boris.karl.schlein@kuehne-nagel.com
27
Fin.

28. Books, Books, Books!
The Human Side of Enterprise
Douglas McGregor
Transformational Leadership
Bernhard M. Bass, Ronald E. Riggio
Leadership: Theory and Practice
Peter G. Northouse
Leadership Without Easy Answers
Ronald A. Heifetz
Leadership Agility
William B. Joiner, Stephen A. Josephs
Leadership and the New Science
Margaret J. Wheatley
Co-Active Leadership: Five Ways to Lead
Karen Kimsey-House, Henry Kimsey-House
The Responsibility Process
Christopher Avery
Denkwerkzeuge der Höchstleister
Gerhard Wohland, Matthias Wiemeyer
“Every managerial act rests on assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses—that is to say, on theory. […] Another
common way of denying the importance of theory to managerial behavior is to insist that management is an art.”
Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960.
Thinking in Systems: A Primer
Donella H. Meadows
A Fuller View
L. Steven Sieden
Feedback
Jürgen Beetz, Martin Lay
Pragmatics of Human Communication
Paul Watzlawick, Don D. Jackson, Janat Beavin Bavealas
Why We Do What We Do
Edward L. Deci
Flow
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Drive
Daniel H. Pink
The Normal Personality
Steven Reiss
Crossing the Chasm
Geoffrey A. Moore
Good to Great
Jim Collins
The Future of Management
Gary Hamel
How To Lead Self-Managing Teams?
Rini van Solingen
Reinventing Organizations
Frédéric Laloux
Holacracy
Brian J. Robertson
Measure What Matters
John Doerr
Practical Kanban
Klaus Leopold
Actionable Agile Metrics for Predictability
Daniel S. Vacanti
Large-Scale Scrum: More with LeSS
Craig Larman
© 2019 KUEHNE + NAGEL All rights reserved28