Category Archives: Agile_Role

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.

Agile Organization, as a Sushi Roll

When we ask an experienced Scrum developer what defines a good User Story, the answer we hear almost immediately is that “…every user story must be INVEST-able…(taken from B. Hartman’s post)”.

When we further elaborate on “INVEST” part, we hear that splitting user stories should be done Vertically (along features), not Horizontally (along components or applications layers).  Why is the latter condition so important? Because when split vertically, and cross-cutting through multiple components, a user story has a much higher chance of representing a potentially shippable product increment (PSPI).  Delivering, UI/UX alone, or business layer alone, or database alone, does not present value to a buying customer.

Frequently, we hear the analogy of a sushi roll, when describing story slicing: “…every User Story must represent thinly sliced sushi roll that provides taste and flavor of multiple layers (caviar, seaweed, rice, tuna, avocado, etc)…


…Now, imagine an organization that is undergoing agile transformation.  Predominantly (statistically), transformation efforts stem from Technology, where agile improvements come in the form of introducing good engineering practices, such CI/CD, TDD, unit testing, test automation, automatic deployments, etc.  But technology alone, is just one layer of an organizational sushi roll.  Sure, just like seaweed alone, it may be tasty enough for starters, but without adding additional flavors, it is not a complete, healthy meal.

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. 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 complete meal.

What are some of those layers?  Let’s consider a few:

Business & Operations:  it is imperative to have real customers intimately involved in agile transformation efforts and making them closely aligned with technology partners. This requires identifying and providing a strong support for some key agile roles, such as product owner, stakeholders and SMEs.  Often, this requires organizational realignment and changes to sphere of influence.

HR:  Subjective monetary rewards that are based on individual performance assessments and fueled by invisible internal competition among employees, must be discontinued, in favor of incentives that promote teams’ collective ownership and performance.  An organizational slice that wants to become more agile will have a much higher chance for success if HR policies were genuinely supportive of the initiative of the efforts.

Budgeting & Finance: For agile teams (Scrum, Kanban) that use adaptive planning and iterative development, and continuously have their work re-prioritized by business, it is imperative to have flexible budgets (“flexible spending”).  By unlocking a rigid budget corner of what is known as Project Management Iron Triangle (budget, scope, timeline), technology dramatically increases their chances to do research or conduct new experiments, if an opportunity presents itself (often, unexpectedly).  There is also a higher chance that more Scrum teams would be built out faster, if budgets were flexible and not done as ‘budgets against the wall’ (‘the world ends on December 31st’) – more flexibility to acquire new talent.

Real Estate & Facilities: Having agile teams co-located under the same roof is a huge win: e.g. Scrum team dispersed around the globe is not as good as Scrum team placed on the same floor. (Note: Please, do not confuse a single Scrum team spread thin across multiple locations with multi-site Scrum product development, when many, whole teams are collocated but separated from from peers-teams by geography).

However, putting a team on the same floor is not sufficient.   Interior design must be supportive of team collaboration and dynamics: ‘caves & common’ (read A. Cockburn about XP), information radiation techniques (lots of whiteboard space, flip-charts), breakout areas, extra space to accommodate extended user community during sprint reviews, etc. – is all required.  It is unfortunate but common to see so-called Scrum team members sitting in a long single row, next to each other, spear-headed by a line manager (usually, a window seat), all joining a daily stand-up call by phone (while sitting!) and ‘reporting on status’, while staring at an electronic story board on their respective monitors.  Agile teams don’t want that.


As a summary, please consider the following quote that describes sushi-roll-like organizational design in Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by C. Larman:

You Get What you Ask For: Agile Coaches-Centaurs

Why are there so many troubled agile “transformations”?  We frequently hear the following answer: “because companies lack senior leadership support”.  True.  And let’s not trivialize this: without strong and genuine support by senior leadership (beyond slogans and “support in spirit”), without selecting a deep, systemic approach to problem resolution, companies can only expect localized, peripheral and, most likely, short-term improvements.

But is there anything/anyone else that can be conveniently held accountable for failed agile transformations?

How about ineffective agile training and coaching?  [Note: If you are interested in learning more about some of the most common challenges with agile training, please visit this page.  This post is about coaching .]

…There is a vicious cycle that hurts so many companies (can be also considered as a self-inflicted wound):

initially, companies set a low bar for coaches, based on poor understanding of a coaching role  low quality coaches are hired (most of them are not even coaches, but rather people that have mastered agile jargon and know how to impress HR and uninformed hiring managers) weak coaches (most of whom have minds of conformists, not challengers) cannot effectively guide companies to fix systemic weaknesses and dysfunctions  teams and departments  don’t really improve; rather create a superficial appearance/illusion of progress (often, to impress senior management)  companies lose faith and stop seeing value in coaching → companies start trivializing a coaching role  companies decide not to spend more money on high quality coaching cheaper, even less effective, coaches are hired (or internal, misplaced people are refurbished into coaches, overnight, as per Larman’s Law # 4) initially, low-set coaching bar, is lowered even further…and so on….

Graphically, it looks something like this:

As a result, what was initially meant as a strategic organization- improvement effort, now takes on a form of just another system-gaming change management fad that ultimately leads to a failure and responsibility/blame-shifting.

What are some of the reasons why the above happens?  Here are some suggested reasons:

  • Companies don’t understand the essence of agile coaching role: it is viewed as another “turn-on switch” management function
  • Leadership does not feel a sense of urgency (p. 14) to make changes and exempts itself from being coached: people are too busy and too senior to be coached; they find coaching trivial
  • Certain organizational pockets are genuinely resistant to/feared of changes that can be brought about by real coaches (as per Larman’s Laws 1 – 3)
  • Market over-saturation with unskilled recruiters that hunt for low-quality coaches and contribute to the above cycle: this further lowers a company’s chances to find a good coach
  • This list can be extended….

Who is responsible for initiating this vicious cyclic dysfunction?  Does it really matter if we identify guilty ones?  Maybe it does, but only, as a lessons-learning exercise.  What probably matters more is how to break out of this cycle.  Where to start: discontinue low-quality supply (coaches) or raise a bar on demand (by companies)?  Usually, demand drives supply and if so, for as long as companies remain complacent and reliant on outlived staffing/head-hunting approaches, cold-calling techniques, and ineffective HR-screening processes, performed by people that poorly understand the essence of an agile coaching profession, while trying to procure cheap “agile” resources or treat seasoned professional coaches, as “requisitions to be filled”,  a coaching bar will remain low, and companies will be getting EXACTLY  what they have paid for: coaches-centaurs (p.17).

Big question

What should companies be looking for when hiring a coach?”

An organization should be looking much father and beyond of what is typically presented in a resume or a public profile of a candidate: usually, a chronological list of an employment history or a long list of google-able terms & definitions,  popular jargon or claims of experience in resolving deep, systemic organizational challenges with Jira configurations 😊.  Much more attention should be paid to the following important quantitative characteristics of a coach:

Coaching Focus: What is an approach and/or philosophy to coaching does a coach have?  This will help a company understand an individual mindset of a coach.

Coaching Education AND Mentorship: What active journey through education, mentorship and collaborative learning in coaching and related activities over significant period has a coach taken?

Formal Coaching Education: What has contributed significantly to a person’s coaching journey, including courses on topics of facilitation, leadership, consulting, coaching, process, and other related activities which have influenced a person’s coaching practice? Such education may not have to be degree-related (training and/or certification from any recognized institution could be sufficient).

Coaching Mentorship & Collaboration: How a coach developed a skill/technique or received guidance to a coaching approach and mindset?  Respect and recognition of mentors – matters here.

Informal Coaching Learning: What important topics outside of Agile/Scrum literature have impacted a person’s coaching philosophy?  This increases chances that a coach is well-rounded, beyond standardized book learning.

Agile Community Engagement & Leadership:  Does a coach engage in agile user groups, gatherings, retreats, camps, conferences, as well as writing, publishing, reviewing, presenting, facilitating, training, mentoring, organizing, and leading agile events?  An active participation and leadership in the agile community is a good demonstration that a coach has not developed herself within a unique organizational silo, by self-proclaiming and self-promoting, but rather has diverse and ‘tested’  industry experience.

Agile Community Collaborative Mentoring & Advisory: Does a coach mentor or advise other individuals (not for pay) on how to increase their competency or development?  Is a relationship on-going, purposeful and bi-directionally educational?

Coaching Tools, Techniques and Frameworks: Does a coach develop awareness and understanding of tools, techniques and frameworks while engaging with organizations?  Has she customized or developed anything that was client/engagement-specific?

In addition to quantitative characteristics , here are qualitative characteristics of a good coach:

Coaching Mindset
  • How does a coach react when an outcome of coaching was different from what she had desired? In the past, how did a coach address this situation?
  • How, based on clients’ needs, a coaching mindset had to change? In the past, what compromises did a coach make? What was learned?
  • What new techniques or skills did a coach learn, to meet a client’s needs?
Coaching Competencies
  • Assess – Discovery & Direction
  • Balance – Coaching & Consulting
  • Catalyze – Leadership & Organizations
  • Facilitate – Focus & Alignment
  • Educate – Awareness & Understanding
Coaching Specialties
  • Lean / Kanban
  • User Experience / Design
  • Scaling Agile / Enterprise Agility
  • Technical / Quality Practices
  • Organizational Structures
  • Lean Startup
  • Product / Portfolio Management
  • Organizational Culture
  • Learning Organizations
  • Non-Software Application
  • Business Value / Agility
  • Technical / Product Research
  • Multi-Team Dynamics
  • Organizational Leadership
  • Organizational Change

[Note: The above, is based on guidelines provided by Scrum Alliance application process for CTC and CEC.]

While running some risk of sounding self-serving (very much NOT! the intent here) : please, be mindful and responsible when you select guidance-level professionals in your agile journey 😉.

Sprint Length: Who Decides? How? Why?

What is the best Sprint length?  Who decides on Sprint length? Are there any exceptions?  What are some of the most common mistakes people make, when making decisions about Sprint length?

Let’s start from grassroots and answer the following basic question: “What is Sprint main goal?”  And while looking for an answer, let’s refer to the Scrum Guide, where the goal of each sprint is clearly described as “…increment (a.k.a. PSPI = potentially shippable product increment) that must be in usable condition and meeting DoD (Definition of Done)”.  From the Scrum Guide perspective, it is also clear that while being potentially shippable, an increment does not necessarily have to be shipped.  Why is it so? For PSPI to be shipped, it must also represent MMP (Minimal Marketable Product) and the decision about what is marketable comes only from Product Owner and it is based on several factors, including long-term strategy and economics.

(Note: End-of-Sprint deliverable, sometimes, is also referred to as MVP (Minimum Viable Product) and is described well by Roman Pichler here.)

Sprint Length and Release Economics

Speaking of economics, lets recall the relationship between Transaction Costs (Shipping) and Holding Costs, also described in “The Principles of Product Development Flow” by D. Reinertsen.  By analogy, if applied to Scrum product development, ‘batch size’ would represent a volume of PSPI and ‘cost’ would represent all combined efforts, associated with  production deployment (e.g. integration, end-user training, marketing announcements, etc.).

How does this relate to Sprint length?

While each Sprint is supposed to produce PSPI, it is only Product Owner’s decision ,when to release it (MMP), depends on finding a “sweet spot” between the two types of cost: Holding and Transaction, or if spoken, in software development terms, costs of code deprecation/aging and costs of deployment. On the graph above, it is illustrated by the lowest point of Total Cost curve and it is responsibility of Team and Product Owner to determine what it is.

Corollary to having both strategy and economics changing over time, release frequency may change as well.  It would be natural to assume that sprint duration and release frequency are related too.  Indeed, the need to release more frequently may lead to sprint shortening, and vice versa.

Are there any other external factors that may influence Sprint frequency of a single Scrum team?  The most classic example would be Scrum by multiple teams that sprint together (e.g. LeSS, S@S): develop the same product, for the same Product Owner, and share the same a backlog.  While release economics principles would still apply, the situation with scaling may become more complex if multiple teams are tasked to select a shared cadence.  One assumption comes to mind immediately: if multiple teams sprint together (synchronously), then their shared PSPI (overall output) will be more substantial (“voluminous”) than that of a single team, and from a Product Owner’s point of view, may sooner merge the gap between PSPI/MVP and MMP (more about factors influencing Sprint length below).

In other situations, e.g. in non-scaled settings, individual Scrum teams could be dependent on other teams (Scrum, Kanban, Waterfall groups, etc), separate organizational domains or external vendors that operate on their own cadence.  In such cases, product backlog refinement and sprint planning becomes even more challenging.  As a result, sprint length, as well as frequency of scheduled production releases may be impacted.

Who Ultimately Decides on Sprint Length?

Just like any other decision about Scrum team dynamics, the decision on sprint length belongs to a team.  Nobody should be deciding how to structure or manage work, on behalf of people that actually do it.  Neither Product Owner, nor stakeholders, nor management, nor anyone else.  Teams that are new to Scrum may experiment with sprint length at the beginning, while trying to optimize to conditions that are very specific to a team’s dynamics.  The best time to self-assess and decide if sprint length should be changed is during a retrospective, when decisions about process improvements are made; and it is done by majority voting.  Only in rare cases, when a team has a difficulty to reach consensus, ScrumMaster , who owns Scrum process and plays the role of an arbitrator in retrospectives, can step in and help a team make a choice.  This should happen rarely, as frequent lack of consensus might be a sign of deeper team dysfunctions.  Initially, during team formation, and before ScrumMaster is elected, Scrum/Agile coach may help team with sprint length selection.  Mike Cohn describes his personal experience in a similar situation here.

Factors to be considered while selecting Sprint length?

As a rule of thumb, sprint length should not be shorter than 1 week and should not be longer than 4 weeks. If there is a strong reason to make sprints shorter than 1 week (e.g. could be driven by production release frequency requirements), Kanban, instead of Scrum, could be considered, since it offers, on demand and almost instant, release capabilities.  On the other hand, extending sprint length beyond 4 weeks may lead typical challenges of waterfall (sequential work, silos, hand-overs).

Statistically, anywhere between 1 and 4 weeks, a team should be able to establish a steady and healthy cadence to do product development.

Shorter sprints do have certain advantages:

  • More frequent sprint reviews and retrospectives – shorten feedback loops that allow applying improvements to product and process development, respectively.
  • Shorter sprints require lighter sprint planning and, subsequently, reduce the risk of going too deep into a product backlog and selecting items for a sprint that do not meet DoR (Definition of Done) and are not INVEST-able.

Shorter Sprints may also bring some potential challenges:

  • For example, the ratio of time spent on sprint preparation and process management to time spent on actual product development could be high – too much procedural overhead.
  • Additional important prerequisites must be met, before moving teams to shorter sprints. For example, if a sprint becomes too short (e.g. 1-week) and there is no full test automation and no TDD, then a team may have a difficult time, keeping up with testing: after completing a few sprints, as  the amount of code base increases, manual testing will fall behind. As a result too much work may fail DoD by Sprint-end. 

Relationship between Sprint length and Scrum Maturity

It would be reckless to claim that there is a direct cause & effect relationship between sprint length and maturity.   Some research indicates (some was done by Jeff Sutherland) that for as long as a sprint is under 1 month, there is no strong and immediate correlation between sprint length and performance. But anything beyond 4 weeks lowers performance and introduces elements of waterfall dysfunction to a team’s dynamics.

What is, by far, more important than sprint length is sprint length consistency.  While in early stages of sprinting, it is normal for a team to experiment with sprint length, if length “juggling” continues into later sprints or happens ad-hoc, it could be viewed as a sign of deeper problems.  Some teams falsely believe that by periodically extending a sprint they will be able to get more work to Done state.  Thinking more systemically, this is a false assumption, as cadence- and task-switching, especially done by multiple  teams,  can significantly lower overall output.  Further, inconsistent sprint length will lead to difficulty of sprint planning, unstable velocities and unreliable long-term forecasting.

Applying LeSS Thinking to Basic Scrum

As per Scrum Guide, “…Scrum is a framework for developing and sustaining complex products… It [Scrum] is lightweight, easy to understand and difficult to master”.  The guide talks about basic Scrum, or Scrum by one cross-functional team that works for only one Product Owner, on one single product.  The guide also mentions situations when multiple Scrum teams must work on the same product backlog and share the same Definition of Done (DoD) – an example of scrum scaling.

Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS), is a product development framework that extends Scrum with scaling rules and guidelines, without losing the original purposes of Scrum.…”.  Some of the hallmarks of LeSS are:

  • It is the framework that requires organizational de-scaling (simplification), to scale basic Scrum
  • It is the framework that strongly relies on effectiveness of organizational design and system dynamics of multiple organizational layers, departments and spheres of control
  • It is not merely a group of teams doing their own Scrum, while working for different product owners and supporting different products. Rather, it is a group of teams (2-8) that works together, synchronously, on the same product and serves the same product owner.

It is worth stressing the last bullet point above:
Frequently, novice agile adopters mislabel scrum implementation by independent and unrelated teams, as “LeSS”. Sometimes, they are genuinely mistaken. But there are instances of intentional LeSS terminology overload. In either case, inappropriate use of LeSS terminology creates asymmetry between LeSS guidelines and rules, on one hand, and reality of teams’ working dynamics – on the other.

Another prevalent misconception about LeSS (and more on this later in this post), is that LeSS postulates are ONLY applicable in large scale settings. Some, less experienced agile practitioners feel that if an organization implements Scrum in its basic form only, without attempts to scale, the facing organizational dysfunctions that are vividly exposed by LeSS, could be avoided. This is a mistaken belief: LeSS principles can be used to improve basic Scrum as well. Practically, any organizational dysfunction that is exposed by LeSS, also presents a challenge for basic Scrum, but perhaps, in a form that is not so obvious, and with a manifestation that is not so disturbing. In a way, LeSS serves the purpose of “dysfunctions amplifier/magnifier” that allows seeing more clearly, at scale those things that may not be as obvious at single team level.

Below are the six big topics (LeSS “Hexagon of Values”) that are always brought up in LeSS discussions. Lets take a closer look and see if they still retain their relevance in basic Scrum:

Feature Teams over Component Teams

From LeSS perspective:

From a stand-point of a paying customer, feature-centric product development is the most effective way maximize business value.  Feature teams can perform this work best, since they are able to operate across multiple application components, independently and autonomously.  Component teams cannot do the same. A component team is focused only on one single application domain that is not shippable (marketable) on its own, if viewing from a standpoint of paying customer.  Trying to fake LeSS, by putting under the same wrapper multiple component teams, creates a large amount of handover and other procedural overhead before a release.  For example, if eight component teams (max. # in LeSS) work only on respective single component items, pulling them from the same backlog, there will be a lot of component integration required, before a product becomes truly shippable (PSPI).  This will either, at best, consume a lot of teams’ capacity at the end of each sprint, or will require an additional “hardening” sprint before going to production (at worst).

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

It is not uncommon to see single component team that pretends ‘doing scrum’, by introducing scrum roles, artifacts and events to their work model.  At a glance, it may appear that a team does what other scrum teams do – it sprints, but the goal of scrum: to deliver PSPI – is still absent.  The impact of such faking, on the ability to meet a product owner’s goals may not be as strong and obvious, because delivery expectations from a single team just are not as high as expectations from 8 LeSS teams.  (Another word, from a standpoint of time & resources spent and humans involved in performing work, a single component team that pretends ‘doing scrum’ would have an easier time to justify to a product owner and stakeholders ‘why’ their end-of-sprint deliverable is not shippable: justifying ‘undone’ work by 3-9 developers of basic scrum is just easier than justifying ‘undone’ work by 50 developers of LeSS).  However, the core underlying problem still exists in basic Scrum: a sprint deliverable is not PSPI. 

Component Mentorship over Component Ownership

From LeSS perspective

There is a distinction between Component Ownership and Component Mentor-ship:

Component Owner  – is an individual (sometimes, a group) that has unique privilege to work on a particular application component.  If any other team needs to make modifications to a given component, they must delegate this work to a component owner.  Rarely, these ‘private code policies’ are justified by external regulatory requirements or internal audit needs.  More frequently, such ownership is due power retention and sphere of control ambitions of certain individuals/groups, both being secondary to internal organizational politics.

On the other hand, Component Mentor – is an individual that has a lot of work experience with a particular component, but instead of becoming a bottleneck to component-specific work, he teaches others how to do the same.  Effectively, a component expert becomes a teacher of “how to fish”, instead of a giver of an “already caught fish”.  With such approach, any feature team, over time, becomes proficient at working on any application component, without being dependent on a component owner: each component becomes a shared property; no more someone’s private and protected domain.

By giving up the privilege to be the only person who can touch an application component, an application mentor should not lose his organizational value: instead of being a single-contributor/performer he now becomes an educator and advisor – the role that is much more scalable in large organizational settings. This empathizes another concept (below) that is strongly advocated by LeSS trainers and coaches: Job Security should not be confused with Role Security.

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

Perhaps, the most important distinction in basic scrum is that for a single-team operation, the benefit of having experienced and willing to share their knowledge with others, component mentors, is not as obvious.  Also, an organization may have a hard time to justify designating a component mentor, per component, serving a stand-alone and unrelated to others, scrum team.  But even for a single team that does basic scrum, the problem still remains: not being able to work directly with certain application components will continuously lead to having external dependencies on other teams/individuals, and therefore, will put at risk the ability to deliver PSPI at the end of each sprint.

System Optimization over Local Optimization

From LeSS perspective:

There is strong contrast made between Local Optimization and System (Global) Optimization.   Any single-specialty department (UI/UX, BA, QA, Dev, DB) is ‘locally optimized’. This means that people within each department might be very busy and work hard to complete a series of tasks that ONLY they can do.  The opposite is true too: a group of single specially workers can perform ONLY a subset of tasks that their skillset allows.  While from their own (local) perspective, they work very devotionally and produce a lot of output, from a stand point of a paying customer, the overall outcome is still low.  False perception of local efficiency by single-specialty workers does not directly translate into system efficiency: individual ‘local progress’ does not add up to system progress.  A classic example of local efficiency could be over-production of comprehensive BRDs by Business Analysts (BA), way ahead of development efforts: while from a stand point of BA, lots of great documentation is produced and signed off, from a stand point of a paying customer, much of this work may become obsolete (projects are delayed, priorities change, budgets get cut, etc) before implemented in code.

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

Manifestation of local optimization, also being a direct result of single-specially (component) work, is frequently seen on basic scrum teams that lack T-shaped developers.  For example, non-technical business analysts and manual testers, will be, most likely, focused on ‘writing stories’ and producing manual test cases, respectively, way ahead of sprint development.  For example, is not uncommon to see BAs, attempting to ‘clarify’ user stories by adding to them a lot of conventional, contractual documentation (e.g. BRDs) that leads to reduction of communication with a product owner and stakeholders during sprinting; this introduces elements of mini-waterfall in scrum.

Job Security over Role Security

From LeSS perspective:

Any person should have a job and be capable of making living.  Offering job security to each employee, should be one of the most important goals for any organization. However, job security should not be equated to role security.   Gradual changes of needs in any particular role, could be a natural process that follows bigger industrial changes: modernization, computerization, robotization, etc.  Efficiency an overall system organization should not be sacrificed for preserving specific roles that no longer bring value.

One of the most common role changes discussed in LeSS is the role of Project Manager (usually, first-line PM).  Scrum requires self-organized and self-managed teams that take full responsibility for their own work and interaction with customers.  Everything is done by a team that performs work: work estimation and assignment, ownership and information sharing, communication and reporting.  Historically, all of this has been handled by a project manager.  Shifting all these responsibilities to a team, makes PM feel underutilized, sometimes annihilated.  In environments, where teams no longer require tight managerial control, managers may have to re-focus on removing organizational challenges that teams face and cater to teams everything, what is required, to optimize team work.

It is critical that any organization that reevaluates its existing roles, also takes a close look at existing job families and employee career paths.  If an organization suspects that some employees might be displaced due to changes of roles and responsibilities, it must provide other alternatives for people: education, training, internal mobility to other parts of an organization, etc.

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

The need to provide job security for potentially displaced workers in basic scrum settings is no less important than in LeSS.  Business analysts and manual testers should be given an option to move into scrum teams and learn additional skills.  In basic scrum, unlike LeSS, where there is a much stronger need for addressing and resolving organizational impediments, it could be less obvious how a first-line manager of a single scrum team can be fully occupied, with removing impediments, as this is usually Scrum Master’s responsibility (in basic scrum, at single team level, impediments may also be not as systemic).  In such cases, line managers should be given an option to move to another part of an organization, where traditional development is still practiced.

Narrow & Deep over Broad & Shallow

From LeSS perspective:

When it comes to large-scale agile adoptions, it is very easy to develop a false assumption that bigger is always better.  Some organizations are trying to jump on a bandwagon of agile-mania and claim early victories (this is often caused by ill-defined motivation and bonus schemas that praise people for achieving certain fabricated goals, e.g.: by ‘rolling out agile’ to a very large part of an organization.  Such attempts of broad coverage also lead to shallow impact: organizations are able to demonstrate short-term superficial (sometimes, fake) results but there is not enough momentum to ensure continuity and long-term success.

It is always much better to focus on a narrow part of an organization, by extrapolating it from a larger organizational construct, and improving organizational agility, by going deeper into organizational structure.  In LeSS, the recommended size of an organization (at least, on technology side) is about 50 people.

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

This concept is probably not as applicable to basic scrum, as other concepts mentioned so far.  ‘Breadth’ of implementation implies wide organizational areas and involvement of many people.  Basic scrum is not as concerned with horizontal span of efforts because, by definition, a scrum team is  only 3-9 people.

Owning over Renting

From LeSS perspective:

When it comes to making decisions, organizations and teams should look for ways to develop their own approaches, instead of ‘copying & pasting’ solutions of others.  Relying on professional trainers, is a great way to learn from expertise of others, in classroom settings.  Leveraging help of professional coaches, is another, longer-term, way to mature, through self-discovery, experimentation, inspection and adaptation.

Organizations and teams should be striving to own their own decisions and take responsibilities for successes and failures.  On occasions, trainers and coaches may lead by example (e.g. mock-up a behavior of a specific agile role), share lessons learned from prior engagements, but this is not done to encourage customers to copy/paste approaches and styles.  Ultimate decisions should be always made by those that will live with those decisions in a long-term.

How is this applicable to Basic Scrum?

In basic scrum, just like in LeSS, teams are expected to leverage what they have learned from trainers and coaches, to gain autonomy and become owners of their decisions and solutions.  Through frequent inspection and adaptation, teams that work in basic scrum should be able to ultimately modify their processes, as needed.  Logically, it would be also expected that a coach who assists team (s) that use basic scrum, coaches ‘himself out of work’ sooner than a LeSS coach, since organizational design challenges have much more severe impact on LeSS team that on basic scrum teams.

Challenges with Agile Training: Examples, Reasons, Consequences

Virtual networks of professional agile coaches and trainers is good place to pick up some most thoughtful and provocative agile discussions.  The most reputable networks that I know of, and happen to belong to, are the communities of: Certified Enterprise Coaches and Certified Scrum Trainers (both, from Scrum Alliance), and Candidate Large Scale Scrum Trainers and Coaches (both, from LeSS company).  These communities are great because there we continuously  share our experiences and learn from one another.

The summary below is the result of one such in-network discussions that spans in duration for more the a year. It is focused on in-class training experiences and highlights  – some of the most common challenges that we encounter with our students in pre-, in- and post-classroom situations.  Some of our observations are specific to internal classes, some – to public and some – to both.

Below, are some of the common challenges with Agile Training that we face:

Training “Wrong” Attendees with “Wrong” Intentions

At times, we get training attendees that have never held agile roles (e.g. ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Team member), … nor did they ever have an intention to do so.
While agile education is recommended at all organizational levels and for all horizontal structures (perhaps, with different focus, depending on audience), what is sometimes observed is that certain types of individuals show no signs of desire to truly understand to further implement newly-learned agile principles. Instead, their true desire, seems to be, in understanding agility concepts just enough to be able to figure out a way of creating “anti-dote” against them.  Typically, this is seen with individuals that are concerned with their own role security (not to be confused with job security) as it frequently gets challenged in agile and lean organizations (includes processes, tools and roles).

This situation is rather difficult to control in public classes, where any individual who pays a fee, can attend.  However, it can be (and should be) much easier to control with internal training. By requesting class attendees to come in ‘clusters’, as hands-on technical teams that share work already, accompanied by their respective business counterparts, trainers can ensure that right people are gathered together in the same classroom, at the same table, for shared learning, collaboration, and simulation exercises.  This is the most effective way to ensure that in-class learning will retain its momentum, when people go back to their work areas and start implementing newly gained knowledge in practice.
It is important to note that for any trainer who is planning to engage with trainees for a longer period of time and coach them, it would be especially important to have right people in the room during training – together.

Training “Certification Collectors”

It is not uncommon to see individuals that come to training with the main goal to add another trendy certification to their collection.  This is mainly fueled by job market demands, as hiring companies create job requisitions and look for a “soup of certifications”, sometimes, asking for most awkward and, sometimes, conflicting combinations.  For example: “A candidate must have CSM, PMP, PMI-ACP, SAFe, PRINCE2, etc”.  Most of such jobs are usually poorly described and contain erroneous statements about actual role expectations.

This situation has been observed much more frequently in public training courses, where individuals pay their own money to attend.  Less so, this has been observed with internal training, where students do not pay their own money to attend (nor do they get certified). As such, their eagerness to maximize ROI from attending aa class is much lower.

Also, as a side-effect of this unfortunate pattern, blind pursuit of certifications by non-practitioners who don’t have any intentions to put their learning to practical use,  also dilutes meaningfulness of certifications in the market and adds even more confusion to hiring companies.

Influence of Past Quasi-Agile Experience or Misguidance

Some individuals come to training after prior “agile theater” experience.  Please note that in this post, the emphasis is made on specific cases, when prior agile exposure was of low quality and had created confusion or conflict with new learning.

Bad agile experience may come in various forms.  For example, poor agile implementation “on the job”-  often due to a complete lack of training and misguidance by management.  Another example would be previous low-quality/misleading agile training that was delivered by unqualified guides.  The adverse effects of these types of wobbly foundations are observed equally frequently with public and private training.

It is worth mentioning some well-known sources of unqualified guidance:

  • Vendor companies that lack internal agile expertise or track record of teaching.  Historically, such companies have done mostly staffing/recruiting or management consulting of some sort and just recently decided to step into ‘agile arena’ in pursuit of additional revenue (pretty common these days).  Such companies “get lucky” when their is long-standing clients pull their names off a preferred vendor list and ask to fulfill agile staffing needs.  Usually, hiring companies that use this approach get exactly what they paid for :).
  • Internal employees that have been promoted/fast-tracked into trainers or coaches to fulfill a growing internal company demand for agile guidance.  Such individuals, most of whom do not have any prior field experience as coaches or trainers, are too restrained to existing organizational norms and standards: they are not reformists and challengers by mindset; they are conformists and executioners. Thus, in classroom settings, they present “by the book”, at rudimentary level and steer their followers towards “…this is how things are done around here…lets conform our Scrum to constraints of our organizational design and our internal best practices…”.  Such agile guides are not very effective in handling out-of-the-box situations or addressing serious inquiries that require deep understanding of organizational design and system dynamics.

Internal agile trainers that have been more successful in their work than their peers, usually position themselves in a way that they have, first and foremost, ensured their own security and operational safety that is required to drive organizational changes from within. Secondly, such individuals also have a very strong connection with external professional circles of trainers and coaches, though which they explore horizons of their learning beyond boundaries of a single organization and continuously hone their craft as trainers and coaches.

Lack of Pre-Training (Self-Study)

Almost any trainer will appreciate having in her class well-informed students (a.k.a. “educated consumers”) that have done recommended preparatory self-study before attending training.  Self-study helps normalizing basic understanding of concepts and level-setting students’ expectations from in-class learning.  It also, potentially, reduces the amount of basic, rudimentary questions that unprepared students often ask in class: about terminology, conventional abbreviations, jargon, etc.  By spending less time on explaining basic book definitions, an instructor can spend more time on collaborative activities, role-playing, discussing real-life simulations and doing practical exercises.  This case of low preparedness is more frequently seen with internal training, where a company sponsors an event (even, when an external trainer is hired from outside, employees don’t pay from pocket) or training is totally free (done by an internal trainer).  Just like in the situation described above, students’ desire to maximize ROI is lower than in public training, where people invest their own time and money to attend.

Attempts to Change Training Content to “Conform to Reality”
  • “Is it possible to shorten our training from 2 days to a few hours?”
  • “Can we conduct training just for IT people, since it is hard to justify to our business partners why they need to be away from their desks for a few days?”
  • “Can we conduct training just for business people, since our IT people are already well-trained in agile, “doing stand-ups” and using Jira/Rally to track time spent 🙂 on tasks and they see no value in going through another training, alongside with business?”
  • “Can we review training materials upfront, to make sure that we don’t waste any time on topics that are not relevant to us and ensure that we conform to our existing organizational reality (philosophy, norms, rules)?”

These types of requests are almost unique for internal training arrangements.  Frequently, they come from first- and mid-level managers that get their marching orders to “do agile” (a.k.a. “support-in-spirit”) from senior leadership, and while orders are given, the empowerment to make sure that things are done properly– is not there.  Such corner-cutting and artificial scope reduction has its own reasons. Here are some of them:

Sometimes, agile training is perceived by both: attendees and their managers – as an easy way of meeting personal objectives in order to receive good performance appraisals (when students are asked in class why they are there, they frequently respond that “…it is in our personal development plan and our management wants us to do it, because everyone else is doing it…”.  [Author’s irony: “if everyone was jumping off the roof would you do the same?”].  There is no clear understanding, purpose, vision or goal.  There is no clear strategy on how to put new learning to work, after attending classroom training.

There are other times, when attempts to change training content are caused by a desire to circumvent or avoid sensitive topics that could be perceived by some as politically-incorrect implications of organizational dysfunction.  For example, topics about harm of performance appraisals and monetary rewards, weaknesses of conventional budgeting, inappropriateness of old methods to procure for agile roles (e.g. product managers, T-shaped developers or agile/technical coaches), ineffectiveness of waterfall requirements in agile product development, shifting control and responsibilities form first-line management to teams, etc.).  In these situations, agile training might be reduced to a discussion of “best practices” (agile tooling, metrics collection, agile status reporting, etc.) or reviewing some sort of an internal agile guide for best practices that usually comes in a form collection of publicly available, commoditized (internet) information.  On the other hand, there are situations, when internal agile training turns into a battle field between people, whose hidden friction and conflicts of interest become more obvious because of agile topics and associated  with them transparency.

Attempts to Steer Training Content towards “Unique Situations”

Somewhere like the above, this case of uniqueness is more frequently seen with public training, where people come from different companies and pay for training out of their own pocket.  While their intentions to get “more bang for buck” are good and well understood, sometimes, methods are not.  There are instances, when students attempt to steer discussions towards their unique situations at work, by frequently interjecting with inappropriate comments or asking an instructor to reflect, in real-time, on their personal work experiences.  If this happens too frequently, it becomes disruptive for other students and reduces effectiveness of basic learning for everyone.  It becomes a trainer’s responsibility to ensure that special cases and real life scenarios are reviewed at appropriate times, preferably, with participation of other students, in team break-out sessions (could be also facilitated by a trainer).  Such cases of uniqueness are not as frequently observed with internal training because there is much less variance in situations within the same company.

Requests for Exemption from Training by “Special” People

There is a fundamental difference between support- in-spirit (a.k.a lip service) and true, genuine hands-on involvement and support-by-action (a.k.a. gemba).  Unsurprisingly, there is a shared belief among organizational coaches that: “…a coach can take an organization in its agile journey only as far as an organizational leader is willing to go…”.  It is imperative that senior leadership that is behind agile transformation is well informed and educated.  While content of agile education for senior leadership (executive training and coaching) may differ from content taught to feature teams, ScrumMasters and Product Owners, it must be delivered as the earliest phase of transformation, to prepare seniors for inevitable organizational changes: structurally, culturally, processes -, norms – and values-wise.

Unfortunately, there are many cases when senior leaders excuse themselves from agile education.  They delegate this critical activity to more junior people beneath.  Soon, this leads to misalignment and disconnection between teams that are trying to implement agile changes and senior leadership that is trying  to effectively support the effort, but cannot – due to lack of understanding of systemic and organizational implications.

It is a rarity to see senior leadership attending public training – they just find it too difficult to allocate time for this external activity.  With internal training, things are somewhere better, but not by much.  On occasions, senior leaders will attend initial part of agile training, and try to motivate their subordinates by personal example.  While it is somewhere useful to create initial momentum, it is not sufficient.  As a rule of thumb, having a senior leader sit though an entire experience of in-class learning that includes collaboration, system modeling and practical exercises, alongside with a feature team developer or product owner, is extremely rare. As a result of this, leaders leave with superficial knowledge and limited understanding of what their teams will be experiencing on practice.

Lack of Classroom Participation

In public training, it is hard to attribute lack of students’ participation to any specific cause; it is rather situational. Factors may vary from student’s disinterest in a topic (e.g. a person attends only for certification, as described above) to an instructor’s inability to effectively engage with a class, …to anything in-between.

With internal training, however, the situation is slightly different.  Here, in addition to a wide array of factors, suggested above, there is an additional important factor of individual safety.  Existing organizational structures (e.g. reporting lines, chain of command, seniority) may seriously influence in-class environment and dynamics.  Junior folks may feel unsafe and act submissively to others, whose seniority is higher, either by reporting structure or by experience.  It is not uncommon to see first-line managers and team leads attending internal training, alongside with their subordinates and more junior co-workers, and dominating in classroom by trying to set a pace and tone.  What sometimes worsens a situation even further is that, inexperienced internal agile instructors that are also a part of the same organizational structure, are not able (or not willing) to control in-class dynamics to ensure safe and democratic participation by students: they lack their own personal safety and hesitate to put a hard stop to misbehavior of empowered bullies.

Too Much Reliance on Training Materials

This is probably one of the most difficult paradigms that is hard to break: there is often so much reliance on documentation that goes as far as violating the second postulate of Agile Manifesto.  Most commonly, this is seen in internal training, at companies that mostly rely on their internal ambitions and self-confidence to become agile. When it comes to internal communication or information sharing, employees are accustomed to lengthy, “high-density”, corporate-style presentation decks.  They carry this experience into agile training, where now it becomes their expectation of what agile training materials should look like: they look for lengthy pages of instructions and execution plans.

Speaking of training materials, it is relatively easy to distinguish training materials of a professional trainer and materials produced by an internal agile champion, who has little experience in the field.  In the former case, materials are usually light in verbiage, more illustrative, graphical and entertaining; they mainly serve as conversation enabler and a “pacer” for an instructor.    In the latter case, materials are very data-dense, fine-printed and require intensive reading.   Unsurprisingly, when students attempt to follow pages of heavy presentations, they disengage from their classmates and instructor.  This further reduces learning and information retention.  This is also a primary reason why there is so much reliance on slides post-training.  Students mistakenly believe that what has been presented on slides is a prescriptive set of executable instructions.  Upon exiting “deck-driven” training, people end up ‘renting’ decisions that were suggested on slides, instead of deriving and owing their own decisions.  Instead of leaning more towards experimenting, inspecting and adapting, people look for directive guidance and “best practices” from a trainer (whose experience might be also questionable).

A few classic erroneous requests that thrown at internal trainers:

  • “Can we review training materials upfront so we can evaluate relevance of training to how we work today, so we can decide if we should come?”
  • “Can we be excused from training but review training materials instead to get up to speed?”
  • “Can training materials be finalized and standardized across all current and future training for all teams?”
  • “Would it be OK if we joined via audio or video bridge and closely followed training slides, instead of attending in person?”

What some people also don’t realize is that today, the best training/educational information is an absolute commodity and it is freely available on the internet.  Today, a heavy training deck has practically no intrinsic value because it is, most likely, a digest of books and articles created by others with a lot of copy-pasting involved (often, plagiary).  From a standpoint of a professional trainer or coach: if someone is looking for so much reliance on training materials and execution scripts, they may just purchase a really great agile book and read it on their own, instead of coming to class.

Summary:

Challenges with training (both public and internal) may cause further downstream adverse effects, beyond classroom:

  • For public training, this may potentially lead to bad reputation of a trainer or give undesirable publicity to his/her course value
  • For internal training, especially in situations, where it is followed by longer term coaching (could be also done by the same person that delivered training if he possesses coaching skills), this may lead to inability to effectively assist a team in their agile journey.

Agile Role: Product Manager

Note: if you are interested in this role, please reach out directly by using the form at the bottom of this page. I will put you in direct touch with the hiring entity. I dont’ play the role of a middle-man.


A talented Product Manager is wanted – to join the Product team. In this highly visible role, a person will be spearheading the development of the company’s RMS platform. The ideal candidate will have a combination of product development and product marketing experience, ability to thrive in a fast-paced environment and consistently drive for results in Agile software development environment.

Primary Responsibilities:
  • Develop the vision for your product and collaborate with key stakeholders
  • Own the roadmap and set achievable release goals which deliver value
  • Define and groom product backlog; create and prioritize user stories that align with product roadmap and release goals, and get internal agreement with key stakeholders; refine and revise priorities as necessary
  • Work directly with clients to understand their needs, and collaborate with your multi-functional teams to develop the best possible solution
  • Develop and lead go to market strategies for new products and services, including: creating product strategy, competitive analysis and product marketing materials
  • Refine and optimize the positioning/value propositions of existing products to help drive increased adoption and ROI
    Work closely with our business development and sales teams to develop and manage relationships with 3rd party partners, vendors and customers
Skills & Knowledge:
  • 5+ years of software product development and product
  • arketing experience with a focus in retail management systems
  • Experience in Agile Software Development Methodology
  • Excellent people and management skills to interact with colleagues, cross-functional teams, and third parties
  • A product maven, on top of the best practices, trends, and innovation in retail space
  • Smart, a quick learner and a creative problem solver
  • A self-starter with a strong sense of accountability and ownership
  • Excited about startup culture
  • Vision to connect product features to business results
  • Ability to work on multiple projects with varying deadlines
Education/Degree(s):
  • Bachelor’s degree or Higher
Other Job-Related Requirements:
  • Willing to travel
  • Experience working in an offshore development model

Agile Role: Technical & Agile Coach

Note: if you are interested in this role, please reach out directly by using the form at the bottom of this page. I will put you in direct touch with the hiring entity. I dont’ play the role of a middle-man.


Overview:

A large financial company is looking for people who are passionate about developing software in the most effective and efficient manner with the highest quality. If you are obsessive about achieving outcomes, crisp and clear in your communication, well-versed in group dynamics and coaching, proud of your software craftsmanship, and not afraid to raise issues and drive organizational change, then this is the role for you. You should have an insatiable appetite for learning new things and improving the status quo. If you’re the right one for us, you pay attention to details and take great pride in your work. 

General Requirements:

  • Bachelor’s Degree or above in Engineering preferably Computer Science with 8+ years’ experience in building complex enterprise software. 
  • Have exceptional communication, facilitation, organization, conflict management and time management skills
  • Have strong analytical and problem solving skills with a high attention to detail Have expertise in forming smaller strategic teams out of a big waterfall team that works on a single product code base, ensuring connected scrum teams develop functional features of the broader application

Agile Software Engineering Skills

We are looking for technical coaches within the Corporate Technology Line of Business who can help us drive ourselves towards becoming more Agile and Lean. As a technical coach, you will bring your strong, multi-year, technological experience in Lean and Agile software development environment to our organization.  You will be expected to enable our teams, middle- and senior management to develop appreciation for best-proven agile engineering practices and techniques: such as TDD, ATTD, Refactoring, CI, Unit Testing, Use Case Diagrams, System Sequence Diagrams, UML/Interaction/Class diagrams, Domain Modelling, Architectural Analysis.  Tooling: Fitnesse, Jenkins, Cucumber.  Conversant with best practices of DevOps, CI/CD pipeline

 

Agile Leadership

At least, 3 years of experience, operating as Agile coach or multi-team Scrum Master, working with most commonly used agile methodologies, specifically – Scrum (also Kanban).  Ability to provide strong support for values and principles, stipulated in Agile Manifesto, Scrum Guide and Principles of Lean Thinking.  Broad experience with single and multi-team dynamics, specifically with Scrum teams.  Deep understanding and hands-on experience with agile scaling frameworks, specifically, Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) or Scrum @ Scale (S@S).  Ability/willingness to nurture and help grow internally T-shaped (cross-functional) developers.   Ability/willingness to identify and call out anti-patterns and dysfunctions at all levels of the system.  Strong understanding of system dynamics and system waste reduction, lean thinking; experience with improving organizational design and corporate culture.  Ability to collaborate with other organizational coaches.  Ability to differentiate between training, coaching and consulting and apply all of the skills, situationally.

 Nice to have:

  • Banking experience is a plus
  • Hands on experience on PaaS and IaaS platforms like Cloud Foundry, AWS or the likes
  • Experience transforming applications to be ready to move to Cloud
  • Certifications in one or more of the following: CSM, CSPO,CSD or CTC and/or from the Scrum Alliance or other recognized authority

Location:

Country: USA

Employment Type: Full-Time

Travel will be required for the position