Starting Your Agile Process Engine

Written by Derek Huether Tuesday, 11 February 2014 07:18

agile process

I read an interesting exchange on Google+ about Agile process transformation successes and failures. Here is one of the comments. Tell me if it sounds familiar.

QuoteMarks-ClosedMy previous employers had big problems with Agile. Attempted to use it multiple times and had a nice failure rate of 100%. As far as I know, they are trying again. I’m rather curious. Would be interesting to know how it turns out this time.

It’s hard to say this but I believe it’s ok if they’ve failed a few times, if they understand why and what needs to change this time around to be successful. Usually, they first need to become better planners and more predictable. The recommendation usually catches people off guard.  I’ve interacted with Agile zealots who believe that doesn’t sound like Agile. Personally, I don’t care if it sounds like Agile or not, if we’re able to get teams to deliver consistently over time when others can not.

If you like it or not, I can pretty much guarantee that company mentioned above will fail again, if they don’t have the proper organizational structure, governance, and clearly defined criteria for progress and success.  In other words, their agile process engine is going to stall.

Priming the Agile Process Engine

Beginning an agile process transformation is like trying to start an old vehicle on a cold day.  To add complexity, that vehicle has a carburetor and manual choke knob.  If you’re old enough to remember carburetors and chokes, you’re either going to smile or wince thinking about starting a “cold” engine. The important thing to remember is if you don’t do the proper sequence of events, given the current environment, you’re going to stall.  It could take an experienced driver only a few seconds of asking you questions to figure out what you did wrong and tell you what you need to do. Still, being told what you need to do is just treating a symptom. You, as the proverbial inexperienced driver, will need to learn new skills given the environment.  It takes time, persistence, and finesse.

Carburetors and Manual Chokes

When it comes to running gas powered engines, the only things old vehicles have in common with new ones is they all need a spark and fuel delivery. Getting a new one started is much easier, thanks to a complicated series of electronics, while starting an old one is dependent on what the temperature is and how well tuned the ignition might be.

If you’ve never started a car built before 1990, you need to realize that just turning the key won’t get the engine running. All it will do, especially if it’s cold, is crank away until the battery is dead as a door nail. Instead, you need to set the choke to allow the engine to suck in lots of raw gas so some of the vapor will ignite.

If your old car had a choke knob, you pulled it out to close the “butterfly” valve on the carburetor (this limits air intake, thus allowing a far greater fuel-to-air ratio).

I know this may be way too mechanically nostalgic or geeky for some but bear with me.

Now it’s time to start her up. With your foot pushing the gas pedal down about half of the way, crank the engine until it fires. It will usually start running, but rather rough. As you give it some gas you can slowly push in the choke knob until the engine smoothes out. 

If you do it wrong, you’re going to flood the engine and you’re going to stall.  The same goes for an Agile process transformation.

The Agile Process Transformation

When you decide you’re going to transform your organization, don’t just jump into the driver seat, crank on the starter, and put your foot to the floor. It’s not that simple.  For a car, you should be thinking about how long it’s been sitting or how cold it is outside.  What is the current environment and state of affairs?  For a transformation, you want to do some form of Agile adoption assessment.  Understanding the current environment allows an experienced coach to know what the next crucial steps will be to ensure you don’t stall.  Next, you’re going to want the proper organizational structure and governance in place.  That’s right, you need to know the rules of the road.  Lastly, you’ll need a system of measurements (metrics) in place to provide feedback and know when your transformation engine is warm enough or if your fuel to air ratio is still off.  Are you giving it too much gas?  Are you going to stall?  Do you have both hands on the steering wheel at all times?

As an experience driver, you’d listen very closely to the sound of the engine as she tries to turn over. You’re prepared to either pump the gas pedal or adjust the choke knob. If you smell gas, you know it’s time to curse and let the engine sit a while because you just flooded the engine.  More often then not, the experienced driver can react quickly because they’ve been through this before. It’s easier for an experienced driver to do it, then describe how to do it. Enterprise Agile coaches are experienced drivers.

Agile Process Test Drive

When I was in high school, I took Drivers Ed.  I sat in a classroom, reading book about cars and driving.  Regardless of how much classroom training I got, it was really just teaching me the basics. Once I jumped into a simulator, I realized how complicated things could be.  Here’s the kicker.  The simulator was a controlled environment.  Everything I learned up to that point got shelved, as soon as I got behind the wheel of a real car.  There were so many variables!  Not only did I have to figure out how to start the thing, I had to figure out how to accelerate and shift gears.  I had to learn how to avoid that old person in the left lane who’s had the right blinker on for the last mile.  And yes, in my youth, I crashed the car more than once.

Working with Agile teams is no different for the coach or the client.  It doesn’t matter how many certification classes you take, it doesn’t matter how many workshops or conferences you go to, nothing can compare to being on the ground with a team and having a client who is insisting on results.

Some Free Advice

When you were a kid, trying to start that 1979 AMC Pacer for the first time in 45 degree weather, you listened to your Dad or whoever when they warned you about the manual choke and what to be mindful of when you were ready to turn that key.


  1. If you think you’re ready for an Agile process transformation, get an Agile adoption assessment.
  2. Be prepared to change your organizational structure.
  3. Get ready to harden up your ALM governance.
  4. Identify metrics that are going to provide you feedback as to conditions on the ground.
  5. Don’t text and drive!
Join the conversation.

Shu Level Agile Isn’t The Same As By-The-Book Scrum

Written by Mike Cottmeyer Monday, 10 February 2014 08:07

Martial Arts

A couple of years ago… gosh, probably more than that now… I got turned onto the idea of Shu-Ha-Ri by Alistair Cockburn. Alistair talks about this concept in both Crystal Clear and Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game. While it’s been a few years since I’ve read these books, what’s stuck in my head is that Shu means Beginner, Ha means Journeyman, and Ri means Master.

The idea is that, when you are just getting started, you need to follow one way of doing something. As you progress, you’ll learn the limitations of that one way, and ultimately discover that there are other ways to achieve the same or better results. Once you have mastery, you blend and adapt approaches without even thinking about it. That’s the point where the student has become the master.

Quite often though, I hear people using the idea of Shu-Ha-Ri as a way to mandate that new Scrum teams follow the rules of Scrum by-the-book. In a sense, this is fairly consistent with Alistair’s quote from Ron Fox in Agile Software Development. The Shu level student is copying techniques without fully understanding why and that Shu implies an allegiance to a single instructor (page 18, 2nd edition).

I think this is fine when we are learning a given style of martial arts, but what about when we are applying process or methodology to a complex business problem? What if the teachings of the instructor aren’t working? What if the teachings are not applicable to our given context? Should the student blindly apply the teachings without understanding why and without modification?

I think that some of us have taken the concept of Shu a little too far. I think some of us bring a certain arrogance in believing that any one approach is applicable to any given student in any given context. That said, I do believe that as students we progress through a Shu-Ha-Ri process as we learn… it’s just that my Shu isn’t necessarily your Shu when it comes to process.

I have always taught that Shu means the beginner must have one way that can work. If we give the beginner too many choices up front, they won’t know how to choose and may be overwhelmed. As the student gains experience, that one way will inevitably have limitations and need adaptation. Once the student has achieved mastery, they can adapt and blend techniques as necessary.

Let’s say I want introduce agile into a large complex organization like the one I wrote about in my last post. I can teach team level Scrum all day long, but it won’t solve their fundamental business problem. The problem is too large and too complex for team level Scrum. For this organization, a Shu level approach might be an implementation of Leffingwell’s SAFe model.

While SAFe is more complex than Scrum, it may be minimally sufficient for the more complex needs of the enterprise.

When LeadingAgile engages an organization, we’ll bring our skills and experience with Scrum, XP, Lean, Kanban, and SAFe to blend an approach that is minimally sufficient to run that particular enterprise at scale. From the receiving organization’s point of view, this approach is a Shu level implementation… even thought we’ve brought Ha and Ri level understanding to help develop the solution.

Even though we have blended approaches to create the Shu level implementation, there are many more options available to solve even more complex problems. As the client learns, they will learn the limitations of our Shu level implementation and begin to adapt their own process. This is Ha level understanding. In time, and with practice, the organization will progress toward mastery and achieve Ri.

In summary… don’t confuse a Shu level implementation of enterprise agile with a by-the-book implementation of Scrum. Your organization may require more advanced mechanisms to implement agile at scale. What you need is one combination of approaches that works consistently while you are getting started. Once you’ve got that working… you’ll learn, inspect and adapt, and make it your own.

Check out the next post, Should You Use Agile To Build Your Next Home?

Check out the previous post, How to Structure Your Agile Enterprise.

Join the conversation. There are currently 11 comments.

How to Structure Your Agile Enterprise

Written by Mike Cottmeyer Wednesday, 5 February 2014 08:58

Build new business


First of all… this is a really, really, really big topic. If we are lucky, we’ll get a start and maybe lay a foundation for future conversations. My goal in the next 1000 words or so is to at least introduce the foundational concepts, and frankly… help me see where I want to go with this. So… with all my pre-qualifications in place, let’s see what we can do.

Over the last few posts, we’ve talked about what it takes to do Scrum well and explored many of the anti-patterns that cause Scrum to fail. One of the biggest challenges to adopting Scrum is the ability to form complete cross-functional teams. Before we get into how to solve the problem, let’s first explore why it’s so hard to begin with.

First of all… let me share that I have NEVER worked on a small agile team. I’ve coached many of them, but my introduction to agile was in the context of large enterprise class financial systems… things like online banking and bill payment. The kinds of systems where the company makes a penny or two on every transaction and does millions every year.

Think about what it takes to build these kind of systems. Quite often you had a hundred or so people involved… maybe more. You are dealing with a very diverse technology stack. At the time, we had people building software in .NET, Java, C, and Cobol… interfacing with an Enterprise Data Warehouse, leveraging web services, PeopleSoft, and any number of other systems.

To make things more complicated, quite often the systems we were building were actually systems of systems. Not just in the Systems Engineering sense of the word, but actually products of products where the product we were building was made up of other products, each with their own customers, product management, and deadlines.

Our job was to introduce changes in these systems, not break any of the other existing functionality, make sure we delivered on time, without getting in the way of anyone else delivering on time. Needless to say, these were pretty complicated delivery efforts and required tons of analysis, architecture, and business sponsorship across the entire organization.

All said, the core team of folks was maybe 100 people or so, but we were interfacing with an organization that all said was at least 400 people.

Okay… so now think about the guidance that we give for the formation of a Scrum team. A cross-functional group of 6-8 people that have everything necessary to deliver a working, tested, increment of the product. How in the world would I get 6-8 people with the skills necessary, the understanding of complex workflows, and the domain knowledge to touch this many systems?

I’m not suggesting that it’s *impossible* to do this, but I’ll tell you… most products have not been built with the underlying architecture, test harnessing, or continuous integration necessary to even take a stab at shared code ownership across such a diverse stack. At some point, the lack of sub-system level ownership would very likely erode the integrity of the overall solution.

Even suggesting this would be incredibly risky proposition and likely a non-starter in most organizations.

So where does that leave us relative to forming Scrum teams? The idea of feature based teams in organizations building these kinds of systems, at this level of scale, is not practical guidance. If you can form a team like this in your environment… stop reading now and go do it. It is clearly the simplest way to go. If not, you have some work to do to figure this out.

Forming Capability Based Delivery Teams

Most organizations can be viewed as a series of capabilities. A product is effectively a capability. A feature set within a product can be a capability. Services that support multiple products can be a capability. Things like accounting, and finance, release management, and deployment can be capabilities. Performance testing and integration can be capabilities.

At the team level in any organization, rather than getting hung up on the idea of the cross-functional feature team, the idea is to form Scrum teams around capabilities. The capability based Scrum team operates just like any other textbook Scrum team, it’s just that their output is a capability that can be consumed by other capabilities within the enterprise.

Capabilities as defined here tend to have pretty well defined inputs and outputs, contracts and service levels with the rest of the organization. They typically rely on a less diverse technology stack and the level of domain knowledge necessary to iterate the product is less relative to the entire system you are trying to build.

The comparison we like to make here draws a parallel between refactoring a legacy architecture into a services oriented architecture. The goal is to get each of the services loosely coupled and highly cohesive. Similarly forming Scrum teams, we want each team to be loosely coupled and highly cohesive… just not necessarily responsible for an end-to-end slice of the entire product.

That said, if you think about it… we might just have a semantic argument at play. One man’s product is another man’s service. So from the point of view of the Scrum team, they are building a product… it’s just that the product is a service that can be consumed by the rest of the organization… building blocks if you will… that the enterprise software is based upon.

Forming Products From Collections of Services

The problem with services oriented teams is that, more often than not, our customers aren’ buying services from us (although sometimes that actually does happen)… it’s our internal product organization that is consuming the service. In this case, you may very well have a traditional Scrum team formed around a product or feature set of the product consuming the output of the services teams.

In this case, these Scrum teams operate more like a textbook Scrum team. They have a backlog, meet with the Product Owner, and produce working tested software every sprint. But get this… by definition, these teams wouldn’t have everything necessary to actually deliver the software, they are dependent on the services in order to create an end-to-end slice.

Here is an interesting insight…

The problem with this scenario, isn’t that the product team is dependent on the services team… the problem is that the product team and the services team are both delivering their backlog at different rates and potentially at different times. When an end-to-end feature requires both teams to deliver their piece… we create a planning dependency between the teams that is difficult to manage.

I’m clearly jumping into the governance conversation here a bit… but it’s these planning dependencies that are killing large scale agile adoptions. You can go the SAFe route and try to get everyone into the room to work out an integrated release plan. We’ll often do something similar but leverage a smaller group of people, running features through a Kanban system.

The idea is that we’ll manage requirements decomposition through a Kanban, but have queues to batch requirements into sprints or releases if the organization isn’t ready for a continuous flow delivery model. Either way, the challenge remains… when you have a large, multi-team system, it’s very likely that you’ll find bottlenecks in the system. Some teams will go faster than others.

The problem with bottlenecks is that one team races ahead building services while the product is struggling to make forward progress. Quite often, it’s the products that are able to race ahead and the service creation that struggles to keep up. In both scenarios, you end up effectively with partially complete code that no one can use.

High Cohesion and Loose Coupling

To alleviate these problems between teams, we come back to the idea that teams must be highly cohesive and loosely coupled. That means that we should avoid at all costs committing to features that require more than one team to be done in the same place at the same time in order to make an integrated delivery.

Maturing agile enterprises, need to move toward a model where the product teams and the services teams operate on their own individual cadence and are able to deliver software at whatever velocity they are able to commit. In practice, this results in three rules for team-to-team interaction in a large enterprise.

1. Product teams can only commit to delivering features based on services that currently exist. This is the least risky approach.

2. Product teams can commit to delivering features based on services that are on the near-term services roadmap. This carries some risk, but is usually pretty manageable.

3. Product teams inject dependencies, by requiring a service be created while the feature is in flight. This is the highest risk scenario and should be avoided if at all possible.

Basically, Scrum tries to solve the dependency and bottleneck problems by requiring each team to have everything necessary to deliver a working tested increment, asking each of the team members to serve as specializing generalists, and having people swarm on backlog items to get done and stabilize velocity. I totally agree with all of this, it’s just not practical at scale.

We’ll explore this more when we talk about governance… but for now… let’s recap where we are.

Large organizations often can’t implement the idea of a complete cross-functional feature team. In these organizations, Scrum teams need to be organized around capabilities, products and services that must be combined to evolve delver software at enterprise scale. The more effectively we can decouple the delivery teams from each other, the less planning overhead we’ll require.

Product Owner Teams

I’ve been on record for quite a while that I believe the single product owner construct is a myth in most organizations. I get why this was created and why it should work. Without a singe voice of the business to give clear unambiguous guidance to the team, the team is going to thrash. The problem is that a single person with the necessary skills and authority to create the backlog don’t often exist in companies.

We’ve been a big fan of a construct called a Product Owner Team and implement this construct almost everywhere we coach. The idea is that to sufficiently groom a product backlog you need several points of view. We encourage the PO Team to have of course the product point of view, an architectural point of view, an analyst point of view, and a project management point of view.

I’m not talking about roles or people, I’m explicitly talking about the perspective brought by each of these disciplines, regardless of who actually does the work. When you are working in a methodology based on the idea of fixing time and cost, and varying scope to meet business goals… it requires more than just the business’s point of view to make the appropriate tradeoffs.

When we are working in a predictive-convergent organization… remember that concept… our job is to figure out how to solve relatively fixed business problems with somewhat pre-determined solutions. By having these four perspectives working together, you can make real time trade-offs about what to build and how to build it to optimize your chances of being successful.

I kept promising to tell you guys the story about my house… that would have illuminated some of my thinking here… but that will still have to wait for another day.

Portfolio Governance Teams

Similar to the Product Owner Team structure, we find that many organizations need cross functional teams of leaders to approve the investment increments at the portfolio level of the organization. Depending on the size of the organization, this can be a team of directors and managers. I’ve implemented it as a team of the CIO, CTO, the VPs of Engineering and Marketing.

Most organizations have some sort of governance model in place… a phase gate model if you will. Again… we’ll talk more about this when i do a post on agile governance… but for now, just think about leaving your existing phase gate model in place, model it in a Kanban, run much smaller batches through the system, limit WIP, etc… you get the picture.

For the same reason I like cross-functional teams providing guidance on requirements decomposition, I like cross-functional groups of leaders providing guidance on how work is approved and flowing through the system. When delivery is blocked, the leadership team can see it, and help get the resources necessary to the teams to get things moving again.

That Still Isn’t Everyone

At this point we’ve talked about teams formed to help work get approved and into queue to be built, teams of people that are responsible for requirements decomposition and high-level architecture, and teams of people responsible for building products, and different teams of people responsible for delivering services. What about the rest of the organization.

Some organizations have strategy groups, marketing, sales, integration, release management, performance testing, infrastructure, DevOps, SCM… and many, many others that I’ve failed to mention. Should we tuck these people into Scrum teams, or maybe disband these groups and let the Scrum teams do everything themselves?

That might work for smaller organizations… but again, in many of the large organizations we work with, these functions are necessary, and maybe even necessarily separate. For us, this is where the Lean part of Lean-Agile program and portfolio management comes in. It doesn’t matter so much how these teams work, if they use Scrum or Kanban or Waterfall.

What matters is that these teams agree to work with the other parts of the organization in small batches, limiting work in process, and reducing cycle time. At scale, there are going to be upstream and downstream groups that have to work together to get the product you’re building into market. Coordinating the delivery across those teams is the current problem de jour in the scaled agile discussion. I don’t believe that Scrum is the answer in these kinds of organizations.


Okay… where does that leave us? When you are designing your agile enterprise… you’ve got to ultimately take into consideration how you are going to form teams, how the work of those teams gets coordinated, and what you are going to measure to know you’re making progress. We explored (in somewhat gory detail today) the structure side of the problem.

I tried my best to make the case that the notion of the cross-functional feature team will break down at scale. There is just too much subject matter expertise, too much domain knowledge, and too diverse a technology stack for one team of 6-8 people to build much of the large scale software that is getting built today.

If this is your reality, that means you’ll have to consider implementing Scrum teams based on products and services, or more generically, capabilities that can be reused across your organization. Governance is largely the way that work gets coordinated across these teams, but the more you can decouple teams, and have them work at their own pace, the more agile you’ll actually be when you are done.

Product teams and services teams don’t make up the whole of the agile enterprise. We have many upstream and downstream groups that have to be able to work effectively with the Scrum delivery teams to get the product into market. IMO… this is something that Scrum doesn’t have much to say about. SAFe is making a pretty good stab at it.

More generically though… the idea is to model the rest of the organization into a Lean/Agile value stream, run smaller batches through the organization, limit WIP, and work to reduce cycle time and reduce time to market. At scale, business agility isn’t about how effective Scrum teams are… it’s about how effectively the entire organization can get product into market and generate a return.

Hope this gives you guys some things to think about. IMO… this is the missing piece of the puzzle for many companies.

I usually try not to directly pimp our services when I write, but helping people solve this problem is a significant part of our practice at the moment. We use all sorts of techniques from interviews and collaborative sessions to a very structured approach called Capability Modeling that allows for structured conversation and results in a heat map of your organization that can be used, not only for forming teams, but for having conversations about the impact of changes you might want to make to your technology platforms. It’s proving to be a pretty powerful lever for making organizational changes at scale.

Good luck, let us know how we can help. Looking forward to your feedback.

Check out the next post, Shu Level Agile Isn’t The Same As By-The-Book Scrum.

Check out the previous post, Structure, Governance, and Metrics on Large Scale Agile Teams.

webinar ad

Join the conversation. There are currently 12 comments.

The Top Five Agile Methodology PPTs

Written by Torrey Dye Tuesday, 4 February 2014 07:00

agile methodology ppt

Are you looking for the best Agile Methodology PPTs? Check out our the LeadingAgile list of the best Agile Methodology PPTs! We have scoured the web to pull together a list of the greatest Agile Methodology PPTs we could find. We hope you find these helpfully whether you are just starting your Agile journey or are well on your way and just looking for ways to improve.

1st Agile Methodology PPT

Our first presentation was presented by Mike Cottmeyer and Dennis Stevens at the Agile2013 conference. The presentation explains how to create safety and visibility for management when doing an enterprise wide agile transformation.

 2nd Agile Methodology PPT

Our second presentation was presented at the 2013 PM Symposium in Washington DC by Derek Huether. This presentation explains how to be successful with Agile at Scale by putting culture last and predictability first.

 3rd Agile Methodology PPT

Our third presentation is from Rick Austin. This presentation covers how to do story mapping and requirements decomposition.

4th Agile Methodology PPT

Our fourth presentation was presented by Mark Kilby at the South Florida Agile Conference. This presentation discusses the five sources of conflict and various tools to help your team navigate it for better collaboration

5th Agile Methodology PPT

Our fith presentation is from Dennis Stevens. This presentations describes an approach to integrating Risk Management into Agile in the Enterprise.


I hope you found these Agile Methodology PPTs helpful. I hope that if you are just starting your Agile journey these presentations inspire you to take the next step. If you are well down the path of your Agile journey, I hope these Agile Methodology PPTs provided you some ideas on how to improve.

What other types of presentations would you like to see?

webinar ad

Join the conversation.

Structure, Governance, and Metrics on Large Scale Agile Teams

Written by Mike Cottmeyer Monday, 3 February 2014 07:00

Scale Agile Teams

Okay… let’s recap my last two posts. My first post in this little segment was called “The Underlying Mechanisms of Team Based Scrum.” In that post, I tried to make the case that the rules, ceremonies, artifacts, and roles of Scrum… while an integral part of Scrum… weren’t what Scrum was really all about. Scrum is really about having extreme clarity around what we are going to build at least a few weeks out. Scrum is really about forming a team of people who have everything necessary to produce the product and are accountable for actually producing it. Finally, Scrum is about having a working, tested increment of the product that can be measured and compared against what we set out to do. This way we know how far we’ve come and how far we’ve got left to go.

My next post was called “Failure Modes of Team Based Scrum.” Building on the three themes of the previous post, I explored many of the ways that we see Scrum teams struggle getting clarity, accountability, and measurable progress… especially in larger, more complex organizations. Most companies struggle getting the right people together to product a well groomed, prioritized backlog. Most organizations really struggle putting together complete cross-functional teams. Even in the presence of a well-groomed prioritized backlog and a complete, cross-functional team… many organizations struggle to produce a working tested increment of the product every couple of weeks, and have no idea what they’ve produced or how much software is left still to build.

So where does this leave us? Well, it seems that in many organizations we’ve got some things to figure out before we can even really think about doing Scrum. First, we need to figure out what kinds of teams we are planning to form and how we are going to go about forming them. Next we need to figure out where teams are going to get their backlog, how much detail they are going to need, and how the backlogs of many interdependent teams are going to come together to product an integrated whole. Finally, we need to figure how what we are going to measure and how we are going to measure it. This is pretty straightforward at the team level, but can get more complicated as we start integrating the work of several teams that have to come together on an integrated product.

Remember this… we are going to see this again. Before you start your agile transformation, you need to understand how you are going to structure agile teams… how are we going to govern where the backlog comes from… and what we are going to measure so that we know we are making progress against integrated deliverables. In a simple, single-team Scrum implementation, this may very well be one cross-functional team, an empowered Product Owner responsible for creating the backlog, and the means to produce a working-tested increment of product, on a regular cadence, with a stable velocity, against a known backlog. This canonical expression of Scrum is one example of a Structure-Governance-Metrics triad that works in many smaller organizations.

In larger organizations this single team metaphor is likely going to break down. We are going to need a different set of constructs, a broader palette of constructs maybe, to express the Structure-Governance-Metrics needs of the more complex enterprise. As I’ve been noodling on these ideas over the past few weeks and sharing some of my ideas with Dennis and others on my team, we’ve been talking about the other more heavy-weight agile approaches out there, and using them as a way to understand our industry’s attempts at putting together patterns for doing agile at scale. If you think about it, frameworks like RUP, FDD, DSDM… and more recently SAFe… are all attempts at putting some language around the Structure-Governance-Metrics challenges we have with agile in large companies.

Okay… before we wrap up for the day, I want to put some language into play for the next few posts. When I talk about structure, all I’m really talking about is the pattern on which the enterprise is going to form teams. I think in the next post, we’ll talk about different kinds of teams we might need in a larger agile enterprise. Next, when I talk about governance, all I’m really talking about is how the organization defines what the enterprise is going to work on and how that work will get coordinated and communicated to the teams. Finally, when we talk about metrics… we need some agreement on what success looks like, from a product delivery perspective, and a means for measuring, assessing progress, and knowing if we are getting better or not.

I think what we’ll do over the next three posts is explore the Structure-Governance-Metrics framework and talk about how you go about making some of these decisions for organizations at scale. As always… thanks for hanging in there with me ;-)

Check out the next post, How to Structure Your Agile Enterprise.

Check out the previous post, Failure Modes of Team Based Scrum.

Join the conversation. There is currently 1 comment.

Public Training Locations

Upcoming Training Classes

2-Day Agile Requirements Course
2-Day Agile Requirements Course
April 7-8 Orlando, FL
Advanced Agile Development with Dr. Alistair Cockburn 3 Day Master Class
April 14-16 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
April 14-16 Reston, VA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
April 28-30 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
May 5-7 Denver, CO
2-Day Agile Requirements Course
May 15-16 Alpharetta, GA
2-Day Certified ScrumMaster Training Course
May 19-20 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
June 9-11 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
June 16-18 Reston, VA
2-Day Agile Requirements Course
June 23-24 Orlando, FL
2-Day Agile Requirements Course
July 10-11 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
July 21-23 Westminster, CO
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
August 11-13 Alpharetta, GA
3-Day PMI-Agile Certified Practitioner Course
August 18-20 Reston, VA
2-Day Agile Requirements Course
August 25-26 Orlando, FL