All posts by Gene

2018 BUSINESS AGILITY CONFERENCE – NYC

Summary

2018 Business Agility Conference @ NYC is in the books.  More than 300 people attended – they came from all over the world: to listen  to selected speakers, on great topics.  Evan Leybourn (the main organizer) also announced the birth of Business Agility Institute.

On impulse, and with a lot of excitement,  NYC-based meet-up was created: Big Apple Business Agility (BABA)


Special Shout-Out

Special thanks to Stuart Young (on right, below) from the UK – the legendary professional Business Visualiser who has perpetuated many agile events with his amazing graphic art:

Speakers’ Quotes & Main Take-Away Points

Below are some highlights of the most memorable quotes, from selected presenters.  (Note: some notes are captured verbatim, others are transcribed from presenters’ slides, yet others – closely paraphrased.  What is underlined – really resonated especially strong.  Please forgive any potential omissions and if you find any, please request correction)

>>> Nancy Taylor of IBM
  • “Beware of people that say: I am a coach but i really never coached anyone.”
  • [There are too many ]”box-checking” agile transformation by companies, out there”
>>> Jonathan Smart of Barclays
  • “Business agility is the future”
  • “Descale work, descale org, DONT scale”
  • “Substitute agile for nimble (without capital A)” [too see is meaning remains the same]
  • Change your language from “hi, I am John i will enforce agile on you” to “hi i am John, i will deliver better products for you“.
  • [Chasing] “increased productivity leads to churning and faking.  Instead, focus on better value and safer environment”
  • “You need enterprise agility, not just [agility for] IT”
  • “The better your brakes, the faster you can go”
  • [Move from] “task-based definition of success” to “outcome definition of success”
  • [You should be ] “moving from hard/fixed budgets to rolling scorecards”

Irony in some of his Jonathan’s slides:

  • “Our people are not suited for self-organizing, we’ve got the wrong ones…”
  • “We want best of both worlds”
  • “Easy job.  Just fire the managers and tell the teams the are in charge now”
  • “It can be done without restructuring the back office.”
    “It won’t work, it is just a hype.”
>>>Andy Cepio of Target
  • “Don’t crush the chips”: the smallest and most impact-ful innovation NOT to crush fragile chips at the bottom of a box was to make two holes on both sides of a box, as hand grips
>>>Steve Deming of Learning Consortium
  • [There is] “lots of agile faking. In Learning Consortium companies have safely, and this is where they can share their experiences.”

Jimmy Allen of Bain & Company
  • “The purpose of good organizational design is to create conflicts”
  • “When you get to a certain organizational size, any initiative takes about 18 months…to fail
  • “Micro teams MUST report directly into senior Leadership, periodically. Otherwise, mid-level management will kill agility, as they hate agile teams”
  • “Jumping to playbooks is silly.”
  • “[You have to] create a vocabulary that describes misery [of your people],so you can speak about it
  • “The biggest problem of failed agile efforts is distance b/w sr. leadership and doers”
  • “Modern organizations must flatten”
  • “Only 1 in 11 companies grow sustain-ably – and yet in only 15% of  cases do those that fail to grow blame the market”

“Scaling as a capability: 10 lessons from the Masters”

  1. Recognize that scaling will be critical to your success, demand that your leaders remain in balance
  2. Winning repeatable models demand an iterative process; don’t declare victory after a good prototype
  3. Don’t jump to playbooks; there are different scaling models depending on the degree of tailoring needed
  4. The best scaling models consider the “unit of scaling” to identify resource bottlenecks early
  5. Address bottlenecks and “Everyone wants Brent” problem from Day 1
  6. Don’t underestimate behavioral change required especially across functional hierarchies
  7. Understand the role of the three communities; especially the Scaling Community which acts as a bridge
  8. Scaling well demands dynamic resource allocation; shift resources fast behind a “winner”
  9. Eventually scaling will demand changes to your operating model
  10. Use Engine 2 to build specific capabilities
Jutta Eckstein and John Buck of The Cociocracy Group
  • “Every company is a software development company but some dont know it yet
  • “There is no such thing as “Spotify model”. If you take their model, inspect and adapt, then maybe it is OK….So they say.”
  • “Always use lower case A in “agile” (substitute for ‘nimble’, whenever your can)
  • “Fixed budgets will kill organizational agility (refer to Beyond Budgetting)”
Laurence Jourdain of BNP Paribas Fortis

-[You should] “keep a small group of internal coaches but hire many professional coaches from” [reputable places]

Joshua Seckel of Sevatec
  • “I don’t have a power point today.  –> I may not have any power but I do have a point to make.”
Sudhir Nelvagal of General Electric
  • [The company] “is transforming and it is over 125 years old into a lean start up”
  • [You have to make] “huge focus on Senior Leadership coaching”
  • Using burn-down charts with Senior Management has pluses and minuses. (E.g. velocity policing [is a big minus])
Susan Courtney of Blue Cross Blue Shield
  • Problem statement: “Leadership did not know how to reward talent”
  • [Had to] bring in Leadership Development coach
  • “Culture change is not negotiable”
  • Lessons Learned:
    • “Build critical mass around the journey – find like minded people”
    • “Right people – in the right roles (nice does not = good fit)”
    • “Identify and remove toxic people, especially leaders”
    • “Value culture fit as much as functional skills”
    • “Clarity & co-creation of road-maps”
    • “Do this WITH OR in-spite of HR”
    • “CULTURE-CULTURE-CULTURE…if you say it’s who you are, you have to mean it (actions not just words)”
David Horowitz & Matias Nino of REI Systems
  • “We should stop thinking that ‘everything that what happens in retros stays in retros. We should produce a lot of retrospective radiators.”
Melissa Boggs of Agile42
  • “Your have to change organizational culture as a barrier to agile success”
  • “It makes sense to focus on principles not on practices”
Jason Tice of World Wide Technology

“If you want to be able to speak to HR, you have to learn how to speak their language”

Amanda Bellwood of Sky Betting and Gaming
  • “Embed HR people onto teams”
  • “Have HR run their own daily stand-ups and have them come and see what other teams are doing at their stand-ups”
Some personal Kodak moments at the conference:
  • 1st row (Left to Right): w/ Steve Denning, w/Mike Beedle
  • 2nd row (Left to Right): w/Zuzi Sochova, w/Jeff Suit Lopez-Stuit

2018 BIG APPLE SCRUM DAY: COACHING CLINIC


This page is being gradually developed towards May, 2018 Big Apple Scrum Day Coaching Clinic.

For similar past events please visit:

Below are some basic guidelines for participating coaches on how to run a coaching clinic during Big Apple Scrum Day.  Experience and working models of previous clinics (Scrum Alliance, Agile Alliance) have being used. If you have other recommendations or additional ideas, please suggest 🙂  .

BOARD: Coaching Guidelines:

  • Wear a coaching hat – we shall try to get some from SA folks
  • Walk-ins are OK if we have capacity
  • Each session is limited to 15 min, unless there is no line
  • Appointments get priority over walk-ins
  • Business cards and follow-ups are OK
  • Do NOT sell services or proactively solicit business, while coaching
  • Paired coaching is OK if we have capacity (one coach works, another observes; after – debrief).
  • Always, start off with “What brought you here?” or “How I can help?”
  • We can briefly retrospect at the end of the day or, if not possible, later via email

 BOARD: Participating Coaches (example from Orlando):

 

Coach’s Name Home base
 Gene Gendel  New York, USA
Jeff Patton  Salt Lake City, UT
Bob Galen North Carolina, USA
David Liebman New York, USA
Jim York  Leesburg, VA
Alexander Kizhner   New York, USA
Amitai Schleier  New York, USA
Mariya Breytner  New York, USA
Ross Hughes  Burlington, Vermont
Diane Zajac  Erie, Pennsylvania

 

BOARD: Coaches’ Availability

On this board, each coach will put his name (on a sticky), in a time slot when they are willing/able to offer service:

Time Slot Available Coach
8:00 – 8:30
8:30 – 9:00
9:00 – 9:30
9:30 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12:00 – 12:30
12:30 – 1:00
1:00 – 1:30
1:30 – 2:00
2:00 – 2:30
2:30 – 3:00
3:00 – 3:30
3:30 – 4:00
4:00 – 4:30
4:30 – 5:00

Note: Time slots should correlate to the Event’s Main Schedule

 

BOARD: Appointment Schedule:

On this board, each attendee will put his name/discussion topic (on a sticky), into a time slot when they are planning to attend the clinic.  Attendees may request multiple time slots, within reasonable limits. Each request  = one sticky note.

15-min Time Slot During

Attendee Name/Discussion Topic

Registration
Morning Session Part 1
Morning Break
Morning Session Part 2
Lunch Break
Afternoon Session Part 1
Afternoon Break
Afternoon Session Part 2

Note: Time slots should correlate to the Event’s Main Schedule 

BOARD: Coachee’s Response:

On this board, every person that attends the coaching clinic will be asked to write a brief feedback on a sticky note (example from Orlando). They may or may not provide the name of a coach that offered assistance – it is up to them.   We, the coaches, don’t have to watch them doing this.  Once we are done with a coaching session, they can self-manage.

BOARD: Appointment Counter

On this board, we shall be collecting all sticky notes that were served. Attendees will be asked to post them there, after they attended the clinic.

 

 

Proper Scaling of Scrum and Dynamic Financial Forecasting


The purpose of this post is to summarize two very important and independent topics and then integrate them together, into a joint discussion.  The topics are:

  1. Moving from rigid annual budgets to rolling forecasts (super important! in agile/adaptive product development environments)
  2. Quality of scaling in agile product development, specifically Scrum

…and tying effective scaling of Scrum to dynamic financial forecasting.


Rigid Annual Budgets vs. Dynamic/Rolling-Wave Forecasting

Challenges presented by rigid annual budgets have been known for a long time.  For people that are new to the topic, a great way to stay on top of most recent research and publications, is to follow what is going at BBRT.org (Beyond Budgeting Round Table).  One of BBRT’s core team members – Bjarte Bogsnes, in his book “Implementing Beyond Budgeting: Unlocking the Performance Potential” (please, refer to the book’s highlights here),  clearly summarizes the problems with conventional, end-of-year rigid budgets. They are as follows:

  1. Budgets represent a retrospective look at past situation and conditions that may not be applicable in a future
  2. Assumptions made as a part of a budgeting process, even if somewhere accurate at the beginning, get quickly outdated
  3. Budgeting, in general, is very time-consuming process, and it adds additional, financial overhead to organizations
  4. Rigid budgets, can prevent important, value adding-activities, and often lead to fear of experimenting, researching and innovating (crucial for incremental development)
  5. Budget reports are frequently based on subjective metrics, as they take on the form of RAG statuses, with the latter, introducing additional errors and omissions (for details, please refer to Red, Yellow, Green or RYG/RAG Reports: How They Hide the Truth, by M. Levison and The Fallacy of Red, Amber, Green Reporting, by G. Gendel)
  6. Budgets, when used as a yardstick to assess individual performance, often lead to unethical behaviors (e.g. “churning & burning cash”at year-end to get as much or more next year) or other system-gaming activities

…The list of adverse effects caused by traditional budgeting is long…

On contrary, a rolling-wave forecast, respects the fact that environmental conditions are almost never static, and recognizes that if too much reliance is placed on prior years’ financial situation, it may lead to miscalculations.  Rolling-wave forecasts are based on frequent reassessment of a small handful of strong KPIs, as oppose to large number of weak KPIs, as frequently done in conventional budgeting..  The more frequently forecasts are being made, the higher chance that most relevant/reliable information will be used in assessments.  One good way to decide on cadence of rolling forecasts is to align them with meaningful business-driven events (e.g. merchandise shipments, production code deployments, etc.).  It is natural to assume that for incremental/iterative product development (e.g. Scrum), when production deployments are made frequently and in small batches, rolling-wave forecasting could be a concurrent financial process.  Short cycle time of market feedback could provide good guidance to future funding decisions.

It is worth noting that one of the key challenges that Scrum teams face today, is the “iron triangle” of conventional project management, with all three of its corners (time, scope, budget) being rigidly locked. And while the most common approach in Scrum is to make scope flexible, ‘clipping’ the budget corner brings additional advantage to teams.  Above all other benefits, rolling-wave forecasts address the problem described in #4 above, as they provide safety to those teams that want to innovate and experiment.

But what if there not one but many Scrum teams, each working on their own initiatives, running under different cadences (asynchronized sprints) and servicing different customers?  How many independent rolling-wave forecasts can one organization or department adopt before things become too complicated?  What is too much and where to draw a line?

Before we try to answer this question, let’s review what is frequently seen, when organizations attempt to scale scrum.

 

Proper Scaling vs. “Copy-Paste” Scaling

Let’s look at the following two situations: (1) more than one Scrum team, independently, doing their own Scrum and (2) more than one Scrum team, working synchronously, on the same product, for the same customer, sharing the same product backlog and domain knowledge.  The former case, is referred to as “Copy-Paste” Scrum, clearly described by Cesario Ramos. The latter case can be seen in skillful Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) adoptions. Here are some of the most classic characteristics of both scaling approaches:

(1) – “Copy-Paste” Scrum (2) – Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) 
  • Product definition is weak. Applications and components that don’t have strong customer alignment are treated as products
  • “Doing Scrum” efforts are often a result of trying to meet goals of agile transformation (some annual % goals must be met), set at enterprise level
  • Tight subsystem code ownership
  • Top-down, “command & control” governance, with little autonomy and self-management at team level
  • Importance of Scrum dynamics and its roles are viewed as secondary to existing organizational structure blueprints
  • Too many single-specialty experts and very few T-shaped workers
  • No meaningful HR changes to support Scrum team design
  • Simplified organizational design. Reduction of: silos, handovers, translation layers and  bureaucracy
  • Scrum is implemented by coordinated, feature-centric teams, working on  widely defined Product, for the same PO.
  •  Local Optimization by single specialists is eradicated
  • Scrum is a building block of IT organizational structure
  • Teams are collocated Multi-site development is used for multiple locations
  • Strong reliance of technical Mentoring and Communities of Practice
  • No subsystem code ownership
  • Reduction of “undone” work and “undone department”
  • Focus on Customer values
  • Strong support by Senior Leadership & intimate involvement of HR

Note: Please refer to Scaling Organizational Adaptiveness (a.k.a. “Agility”) with Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) for additional graphic illustration.

Based on the above, the following also becomes apparent:

In “copy-paste” Scrum, development efforts, marketing strategies and sales (ROI) are not treated as constituents of the same unified ecosystem.  In this scenario, it is almost impossible to fund teams by means of funding real, customer-centric products.  Why?  There are too many independent ad-hoc activities that take place and artifacts that are created.  There is no uniformed understanding of work size and complexity that is shared by all teams.  Estimation and forecasting made by each individual team is not understood by other teams.  Team stability (and subsequently, cost-per-team member) is low, as individuals are moved around from project to project and shared across many projects.  Further, with multiple teams reporting into different lines of management, there is a much higher chance of internal competition for budget.  By the same token, there is a low chance that a real paying customer would be able to step in and influence funding decisions for any given team: too many independent and competing requests are going on at the same time.

In organizations, where “copy-paste” Scrum is seen (and is often, mistakenly taken for scaled scrum, due to lack of education and expert-leadership), there is still strong preference for fake programs and fake portfolio management.  Under such conditions, unrelated activities and, subsequently, data/metrics (often fudged and RAG-ed) are collected from all over the organization and “stapled” together.   All this information rolls up to senior leadership, customers and sponsors.  Subsequently, what rolls down, is not dynamic funding of well-defined customer-centric, revenue-generating products, but rather rigid budgets for large portfolios and programs that are composed of loosely coupled working initiatives, performed by unrelated Scrum teams (secondary, to conventional departmental budgeting).  As rigid budgets cascade down from top, onto individual teams, they further solidify the “iron triangle” of conventional project management and hinder teams’ ability to do research, experimentation and adaptive planning.

On the other hand, in Large Scale Scrum, things are different:

  • When up-to-eight LeSS teams work synchronously, together (side-by-side), on the same widely-defined product (real), their shared understanding of work type and complexity (having certain scrum events together really helps!) is significantly better. As a result, when it comes to forecasting a completion of certain work (features), eight LeSS teams will do a better job than eight loosely coupled teams that work completely independently, on unrelated initiatives.
  • Since all LeSS teams work for the same customer (Product Owner), there is a much higher chance that they will develop a shared understanding of product vision and strategy, since they are getting it from an authentic source – and therefore will be able to do planning more effectively.
  • Having more direct correlation between development efforts LeSS teams (output, in the form of shared PSPI) and business impact (outcome, in the form of overall ROI), makes strategic decisions about funding much more thoughtful.  When real customers can directly sponsor product-centric development efforts, by getting real-time feedback from a market place and deciding on future strategy, they (customers) become much more interested in dynamic forecasting, as it allows them to invest into what makes most sense.  Dynamic forecasting of LeSS, allows to increase/decrease number of scrum teams involved in product development flexibly, by responding to increased/decreased market demands and/or product expansion/contraction.

Noteworthy that in LeSS Huge cases, when product breadth has outgrown capacity of a single Product Owner and requires work by more than eight teams, dynamic forecasting can still be a great approach for Product (overall) Owner and Area Product owners (APO): they can strategize funding of different product areas and make necessary timely adjustments to each area size/grown, as market conditions change.


Conclusion:

All of the above, as described in LeSS scenario, will decrease organizational dependency on fixed budgets, as there will be less interest in outdated financial information, in favor of flexibility, provided by rolling-wave forecasting that brings much closer together “the concept” (where value is built – teams) and “cash” (where, value is consumed – customers).

December 6th-8th: Certified LeSS Practitioner Course With Craig Larman | NYC


Another Large-Scale Scrum Training (CLP), taught by Craig Larman in NYC, is in the CompuBox.

More than thirty people from all-around the globe (North America, South America, Europe) came together for this brain-jelling learning experience! The group consisted of product owners/managers, software engineers, managers and organizational design consultants (scrum masters, coaches and trainers) – people coming from different backgrounds and with a focus on different aspects of organizational agility. What has united them all, however, was their eagerness to learn in-depth about principles of organizational design and implications of Scrum adoption at scale in complex organizational settings.

Course Highlights

With exception of a few rare questions/clarifications, the class spent NO time discussing basic Scrum.  It was implicit (assumed) that everyone in class had strong knowledge and hands-on experience with the basic framework.  On occasions, the topics discussed would bump into “…oh this is not even LeSS-specific; this is just basic Scrum…” but those cases were rare.

Not until day three,is when the class took a deeper dive into LeSS Framework and LeSS-specific events, artifacts, roles…. Why was not it done sooner?   Well…

  • LeSS is Scrum. It is the same very Scrum described by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland in the Scrum Guide, but done by multiple teams, as they are working together, on the same product, for the same product owner.  LeSS is not “…something that IT does, that is buried in a company’s basement, under many layers of organizational complexity…”. LeSS is an organizational design that uses Scrum (team) as a building block.  Understanding basic Scrum made understanding of LeSS very easy for everyone.
  • The class was made of people that have completed all assigned homework (self-study), before attending. People knew what LeSS picture looks like 😉, when coming in.  Everyone in class was an educated customer.  Importantly: there were no attempts to change LeSS (or change training content 😊  of LeSS), to make it better fit conditions of organizations, where people came from.
  • Spending the first two days on understanding system modelling techniques, differences between causation and correlation (as well as other dynamics) among many system variables, made full understanding of LeSS on day three, come more naturally.

The class learned how to see ‘the whole’/full picture of organizational ecosystem and learned to appreciate why Organizational Design is the first-order Variable that defines System Dynamics (followed by everything else: culture, policies, norms, processes, etc.)

One of my (Gene) biggest take-away points (on the top of an excellent LeSS refresher, from Craig himself), that I plan on using immediately, was the fact from history that was discussed at the beginning of the course (and, sadly, forgotten or known known by many).  And it goes as follows:

…Back in 2001, at Snowbird, UT, where the group of seventeen entrepreneurs-product-developers have met and came up with what is known today as ‘Agile Manifesto’, the two contending terms to-be-used were adaptive (suggested by Jim Highsmith, the author of Adaptive Software Development) and agile (suggested by Mike Beedle).  ‘Agile’ won because of the reasons that are described here.  Truth be told, because the English meaning of ‘agile’ is not as intuitive is the meaning of ‘adaptive’, today, there is a huge number of fads and terminology overloading/misuse that make the original meaning of agile so diluted and abused…. As it was meant to be: Agile == Adaptive ==Flexible.  We all have to be careful with the meaning of words we use, to avoid this painful irony😉.


Here are some Kodak moments from the event:

NYC Salary History Ban – What Does it Mean?


On October 31-st, 2017, the Mayor of NYC Bill de Blasio signed the new Law, prohibiting companies in New York City from asking, searching or verifying a job applicant’s salary history during the hiring process.  From now on, violation of this law, by any NYC-based employer, will be viewed as an “unlawful discriminatory practice.”
(Please, read more about the NYC Salary History Ban.)

Below are some potential, consequences of this Law, as it applies to any employees-candidates and any NYC-based employing organizations:

  • If an individual has worked for a long time at the same company and, while employed, has acquired a lot of practical experience/skill set, but unfortunately was not able to secure compensation that was an objective reflection of her capabilities/expertise, she may now seek an employment at another company without worrying that prior, unfairly low compensation, will be a benchmark for her future offer.
  • If an individual is a self-starter/entrepreneur who has acquired a lot of knowledge/experience in ways, other than formal employment (e.g. self-paid study or research) and by doing so, has significantly increased her professional maturity, she may confidently leverage these rightfully owned credentials , when negotiating a salary with her next employer.
  • If an individual’s goal has always been to remain as a hands-on contributor (she loved what she did, and did not want to lose her practical skills) and was never aspired to seek a promotional/managerial position – something that usually leads to higher compensation, she may do so more freely, without worrying that she will miss out on a “compensation-bargaining-chip”, at her next job interview.  This also means that employees will be more experience/knowledge-seeking and less promotion-seeking, as it is really an experience, not prior organizational position that define their true self-selling power.  (note: often, promotions are associated with loss of hands-on expertise, in favor of managerial/administrative responsibilities).
  • If an individual’s full compensation consists of base salary and discretionary bonus (the latter, often being too subjective, as it is based on individual performance appraisals, efficiency of which have been proven as ineffective, for many decades), with a bonus, representing a significant chunk of her full salary, she does not have to be concerned so much with her next employer, trying to count in only her base salary,  as a ‘benchmark’ , while making an offer.  This will also, hopefully, drive companies towards paying higher base salaries, and away from subjective bonuses.
  • Recruiting agencies and staffing firms will have fewer opportunities to ask unethical questions (“how much were/are you making at your prior/current job?”), something that is often delegated to them by companies’ HR departments, with the ladder not wanting to be directly associated with unethical behaviors.  Further, this may lead to more transparency and direct interaction between hiring managers and candidates.
  • Companies-employers would have to improve their vetting/interviewing/hiring approaches significantly, by incorporating validation methods and more reliable/objective assessments of candidates, to prevent under-qualified, low-skilled individuals (some of whom may have strong negotiations and “talking the talk” skills) from slipping through companies’ doors and causing internal problems.  This may require conducting more practical tests, real-life simulations and hands-on exercises, administered directly by hiring areas and peers-coworkers. Further, this could also reduce an amount of subjective/administrative, error-prone and often unnecessary screening processes, usually handled by companies’ departments that are least benefited from hiring high-quality candidates, but at the same time, most benefited from creating and administering actual processes 🙂

In all the above situations, the main compensation-determining factors will be:

  • From an employee’s perspective: her professional competency, skill/mind set, ability to produce tangible results and deliver business value
  • From an employer’s perspective: ability to properly assess a candidate for what she is worth (not for what she was price-tagged in her past) AND clear understanding of how much an employer is willing to pay for a given job/to a given candidate

The natural question that comes to mind:  Does the new Law have any relevance to internal hiring situations (when employees move around a company)?  

According to the Employer Fact Sheet, the Law does not apply directly to internal re-employment (also, for most companies, employees’ compensation is transparent to hiring managers of the same company).

However….  There could be some indirect implication: NYC-based employers will probably realize that properly educated (know the Law) employees will have more confidence to ask a higher pay, when they seek a new employment internally.  The new “compensation-bargaining chip” for employees will be their increased self-confidence that they will be able to get a higher compensation elsewhere, irrespective of their current compensation (should their internal efforts not materialize).  As a result, to avoid losing good people to their direct competitors, employers will probably revisit their compensation increase standards, with regards to internal  re-employments.

Addressing Problems, Caused by AMMS


Nowadays, for too many organizations, Agile Maturity Metrics (AMM) have become a trusted way to measure improvements of agility at personal (individuals), team and organizational level.

However, it is not always apparent to everyone that AMMs are different from Agile Check-Lists (e.g. classic example of Scrum Check list by H. Kniberg) and this can often lead to problems and dysfunctions:

Check-Lists are just a set of attributes that are usually viewed on-par with one another; they are not bucketed into states of maturity (other logical grouping could be applied though)

On contrary, AMMs place attributes in buckets that represent different states of maturity, with one state, following another, sequentially.

With very rare exceptions (favorably designed organizational ecosystems), there are three potential challenges that companies face, when relying on bucketed AMMs:

1 – System Gaming: If achieving a higher degree of agile maturity is coupled with monetary incentives/perks or other political gains (for many companies that are driven by scorecards and metrics, this is the case), there is will be always attempts by individuals/teams to claim successes/achievements by ‘playing the system’, in pursuit of recognition and a prize.

2 – Attribute-to-Maturity Level relationship is conditional, at most: Placing agile attributes in maturity buckets implies that attributes in higher-maturity buckets have more weight than attributes in lower-maturity buckets. However, this is not always a fair assumption: weight/importance that every organization/team places on any given attribute, while defining its own maturity, is unique to that organization/teamFor example, for one team, “…being fully co-located and cross-functional…” could be much more important than “…having Product Owner collocated with a team…” For another team, it could be the other way around.

3 – Correlation between attributes is not linear, at system-level: Regardless of buckets they are placed in, many agile attributes are interrelated systemically and impact one another in ways that is not apparent, to a naked eye.  For example, placing “Scrum Master is effective in resolving impediments”attribute in a maturity bucket that comes before the maturity bucket with “…Organization provides strong support, recognition and career path to Scrum Master role…” attribute, dismisses the real cause-and-effect relationship between these two variables, misleads and sets false expectations.

To avoid the issues described above, it would be more advisable to treat every identified agile attribute as a system variable, that is on-par with other system variables, while assuming that it has upstream and downstream relationship.  In many situations, instead of spending a lot time and resources on trying to improve a downstream variable (e.g.  trying to understand why it is so difficult to prioritize a backlog) it is more practical to fix an upstream variable that has much deeper systemic roots (e.g. finding an empowered and engaged product owner who has as the right to set priorities).

Below, is the list of agile attributes (a.k.a. system variables) that are logically grouped (check-list) but are not pre-assigned to levels of maturity (all flat).   Some examples  of suggested system-level correlation between different attributes are provided (cells are pre-populated).

Please, click on the image to download the matrix to your desktop, amend the list of attributes if you feel that your situation calls for modification, and then use “Dependency on Other Attributes?” column to better visualize system-level correlation between the attributes are of interest to you and other related attributes (some examples are provided).

10/13 – LESS TALKS: MEETUP – Working LeSS Brings Great Results (Case Study)


Tonight -a  great presentation by Malik Graves-Pryor of Natoma Consulting, as he shared how his company leveraged LeSS to achieve  stunning results, while facing challenges and learning lessons.

Malik’s Summary

At the Thursday October 12, 2017 NYC Large Scale Scrum Meetup, Malik Graves-Pryor shared his company’s LeSS case study, “Web and Mobile Applications Agile Transformation”. He covered the extensive issues the company faced at the beginning ranging from only 1-2 releases a year with hundreds of defects, and how they transformed over the course of several months to an organization that released monthly, and then continuously, with low defects and high customer satisfaction and engagement.

The discussion covered the merger of the Sales and Product Management Pipelines, adoption of technical practices leading to a DevOps-focused culture, how to take the necessary steps to build trust and cooperation within the organization, as well as the road-map they used to iteratively migrate the organization to continuous integration and deployment.

The interactive discussion spanned two hours with attendees raising questions and issues about the case study, as well as correlating them with their own challenges and aspirations.

Presentation deck is available at  Natoma Consulting website for download.

 

How Detailed Should Business Requirements Be? Discovery Through Agile Gaming.


Last week, at New York Scrum User Group (NYSUG) monthly event, co-facilitated by  the agile coaches Dana Pylayeva and Emilie Franchomme, there were multiple agile games presented – all for different purposes and for all types of audience.  Above all, what really stood out was  the “Beautiful Meadow” game that helped with making a revealing discovery about handling business requirements.  Below is the summary:

Game Rules:

Team A and Team B, of 8 people each,  were given the following drawing instructions (click on the image below to enlarge):

Team A Team B

The requirements of Team A were very detailed, whereas the requirements of Team B were rather generic.   Each team was given a set of color markers and a  large flip-chart sheet.  Both teams were allowed to review the requirements in silence – for 30 seconds.  Then both teams were given another 60 seconds to draw a picture, based on given requirements, but they were allowed to collaborate in sign language only.

Observations and Results:

For the first 30 seconds of the exercise both teams’ dynamics were very similar: hurdling around the requirement, trying to understand it, orienting yourselves are around the canvas.   Silently,  some people seemed to volunteer to draw various elements of the picture.  For the second 60 seconds interval, dynamics significantly changed:

At a glace, Team A seemed to be somewhere less organized and more hectic.  People seemed to move around the canvas anxiously, trying to pull markers from each other’s hand.  What also became obvious was that each person was trying maximize their contribution to the picture, by drawing in a silo, without much collaboration with others.

Team B, on the other hand, seemed to be much more organized and focused.  Individual work of each person seemed like a continuity of someone else’s effort.  Markers were effectively passed on from one person to another.  There was much more collaboration and common effort here.

After 60 seconds of drawing, the teams produced two images, illustrated below: Team A  – left canvas, Team B -right canvas (click on the image below to enlarge):

Team A has produced a picture that consisted of multiple disjointed elements that together did not seem to fit well.   Oddly it even produced two suns – in two opposite corners of the canvas, whereas the instructions  clearly asked only for one sun.

On contrary, Team B was able to produce a simple, coherent logical picture, with each element enriching the overall composition with  additional relevant detail.

Conclusion:

This exercise clearly demonstrated that too detailed requirements, passed on to a group of individuals, as one conclusive document, are executed much poorer than light requirements  passed on to a similar group of people.  In case of Team B, there was a request of “WHAT” to draw, not “HOW”.  The team was able to use all of this innovation and artistic skills to produce what was required.   Oppositely, team A was asked to delivery “WHAT & HOW” and the teams’ ability improvise on-the-fly was significantly reduced.

Disclaimer:

There were two sets of teams (two Team A and two Team B) and the results produced by the second set of teams were very similar to the case described above.

Relevant Article: Waterfall Requirements in Agile Product Development

What Should Agile Leadership Care About?


Agile frameworks (e.g. Scrum, Kanban, XP), individuals’ roles & responsibilities, processes & tools, metrics & reporting, burn-up charts, estimation techniques, backlog prioritization, agile engineering practices, agile maturity models etc. – all of them are important attributes of a typical agile transformation.  However, NONE of them are first-degree-of-importance system variables that are responsible for transformation success.  Most of them, are good superficial lagging indicators of agility but they are all corollary (secondary and tertiary) to another much more important system variable.

What is the most important system variable that defines a company’s agility?  It is Organizational Design –  the most deeply rooted element of organizational ecosystem that defines most of system dynamics.

When organizational leadership decides to take an organization through an agile transformation journey (it could take years, sometimes), it [leadership] needs to acknowledge that real, sustainable agile changes are only possible if deep, systemic organizational improvements are being made.  For that, leadership needs to be prepared to provide to its organization much more than just support in spirit, accompanied organizational messages of encouragement and statements of vision.  Leadership must be prepared to intimately engage with the rest of an organization, by doing a lot of real “gemba” (genchi genbutsu (現地現物)) and change/challenge things that for decades, and sometimes for centuries, have been treated as de-facto.

What does it really mean for leadership to engage at System Level?  First, it is important to identify what a system is: what are a system’s outer boundaries?  For example, one of the most commonly seen mistakes that companies make when they decide on “scope of agile transformation” is limiting its efforts to a stand-alone organizational vertical, e.g. Technology – and just focusing there.  Although this could bring a lot of local (to IT) success, it may also create unforeseen and undesirable friction between the part of an organization that has decided to change (IT) and the part of an organization that decided to remain ‘as is’ (e.g. Operations, Marketing).  For example, if Scrum teams successfully adopt CI/CD, TDD or other effective engineering practices that enable them deliver PSPI at the end of every sprint, but business is not able to keep up with consumption of deliverables (too many approvals, sign offs, red tape) then the whole purpose of delivering early and often gets defeated.  Then, instead of delivering to customers soon, in exchange for timely feedback, teams end up delivering in large batches and too far apart on a time scale.

A successful Agile Leader must treat an organization, that is expected to transform, as a sushi roll.  Just like seaweed alone does not provide a full spectrum of flavors and does not represent a complete, healthy meal, one single department (e.g. IT) is not sufficient enough to participate in agile transformation efforts.  Other organizational layers need to be included as well, when identifying a slice for agile transformation experiment.  A slice does not have be too thick. In fact, if organizational slice is too thick, it might be too big to “swallow and digest”.  But still, even when sliced thinly, an organization must include enough layers, to be considered as a ‘complete meal’.

Note: A great example of treating an organization as a sushi role, while making it more agile, is Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) adoption.

So, what are some key focus areas that every Agile Leader must keep in mind, while setting an organization on agile transformation course?

  • Location strategies. Geographic locations.
  • HR policies (e.g. career growth opportunities, compensation, promotions)
  • Budgeting & Finance
  • Intra-departmental internal boundaries and spheres of influence
  • Organizational Leadership Style
  • And some other areas that historically have been considered as …untouchable

All the above listed areas are defined by Organizational Design and can be better understood through self-assessment, done by organizational leaders at all levels.

Diagnosing Challenges in Scrum

When people go to the doctor’s office, they often complain of superficial manifestations of a problem (i.e., “chief complaints”) that don’t present any serious concerns, but in reality, are indicators of a much more serious systemic illness.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we in the Scrum field are also dealing with a similar type of scenario.

For those of us who have been coaching for a while, it’s probably a common experience to have a team member or a manager come to us with what appears to them as a “key problem,” but in reality, turns out to be a symptom of a much more serious underlying dysfunction.

On June 1, 2015…(read more from the original post)