2016 LAST Conf Sydney - Running Agile Specialist Teams
•
3 likes•1,017 views
The lecture was presented at the 2016 LAST Conference in Sydney, July 25th 2016. It presents experiences with different types of Agile Specialist Teams and shows several ways how they can address their specific needs. Agile Specialist Teams, such as Shared Services, DevOps, Infrastructure, Databases, Networking, etc., are usually on the fringes of Agile Transformations. For a variety of reasons, they usually do not receive Agile training and coaching, and definitely not Agile coaching specific to their needs. However, they are expected to: - build assets, such as networking, cloud, infrastructure, databases etc. on time and on budget, and - support the Development Teams and Operations, often at short notice. This Dual Nature of the work of Agile Specialist Teams requires a different approach to that of Agile Development Teams. Unless carefully analyzed and adaptively addressed, it can lead to Specialist Teams becoming roadblocks for the rest of the Agile Organisation.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to 2016 LAST Conf Sydney - Running Agile Specialist Teams
Similar to 2016 LAST Conf Sydney - Running Agile Specialist Teams (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
2016 LAST Conf Sydney - Running Agile Specialist Teams
- 4. 4 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Methodology Specialist Team Examples SAFe DevOps, System Team, Shared Services XSCALE System Squads: Quality Automation, Process Automation, Production Support Nexus Nexus Integration Team DA/DAD DevOps Team Agile Specialist Teams and Agile Methodologies
- 7. 7 Why do Agile Specialist Teams get in trouble? Scenario #1 – Specialist Team has no Agile experience: 1. Do NOT receive Agile support 2. Continue working as before (waterfall, ITIL, ...) 3. Roadblocks visible too late 4. Blame-game begins: Specialist Teams are …@%$# © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016
- 8. 8 Scenario #2 – Specialist Team has some Agile experience: 1. DO receive Agile support as Feature/Dev Teams 2. Start working like Feature/Dev Teams 3. Initially do deliver, but start getting interrupted 4. Roadblocks visible too late 5. Blame-game begins: Specialist Teams are …@%$# © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Why do Agile Specialist Teams get in trouble?
- 11. 11 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Insight #1: Dual Nature of Work Differences… Nature Build Asset Provide Service Focus Most Valuable work Most Urgent work Work sequence Time based Priority based Sync with Dev/ Feature Teams Yes No Suitable Agile approach Sprint/Scrum Kanban *or* Support Epic (if combining with Sprint/Scrum)
- 12. 12 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 MVC: none? Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example
- 13. 13 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 22 77% 11 11 0% 33 MVC: none? R: Failed ¾ of Build AGAIN! 14 99 MVC: AGAIN none ?? Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 14. 14 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 22 77% 11 11 0% 33 MVC: none? R: Failed ¾ of Build AGAIN! 14 99 48 52% 41 23 44% 71 MVC: AGAIN none ?? Failed ½ of Build. 15 48 MVC: reduce Build by 50%, Services Staff up by 50% Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 15. 15 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 22 77% 11 11 0% 33 MVC: none? R: Failed ¾ of Build AGAIN! 14 99 48 52% 41 23 44% 71 MVC: AGAIN none ?? Failed ½ of Build. 15 48 43 10% 85 77 9% 120 MVC: reduce Build by 50%, Services Staff up by 50% R: Close!!! 16 52 MVC: 10% Build increase Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 16. 16 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 22 77% 11 11 0% 33 MVC: none? R: Failed ¾ of Build AGAIN! 14 99 48 52% 41 23 44% 71 MVC: AGAIN none ?? Failed ½ of Build. 15 48 43 10% 85 77 9% 120 MVC: reduce Build by 50%, Services Staff up by 50% R: Close!!! 16 52 31 40% 75 67 11% 98 MVC: 10% Build increase R: Missed! Supply blocker… 17 44 MVC: reduced Build by 15% Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 17. 17 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) 12 96 25 74% 60 40 33% 65 R: Failed ¾ of Build! 13 96 22 77% 11 11 0% 33 MVC: none? R: Failed ¾ of Build AGAIN! 14 99 48 52% 41 23 44% 71 MVC: AGAIN none ?? Failed ½ of Build. 15 48 43 10% 85 77 9% 120 MVC: reduce Build by 50%, Services Staff up by 50% R: Close!!! 16 52 31 40% 88 80 9% 111 MVC: 10% Build increase R: Missed! Supply blocker… 17 44 36 18% 84 68 20% 104 MVC: reduced Build by 15% R: Needs closer... Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 18. 18 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16 52 31 40% 88 80 9% 111 MVC: 10% Build increase R: Missed! Supply blocker… 17 44 36 18% 84 68 20% 104 MVC: reduced Build by 15% R: Needs closer... 18 34 MVC: reduced Build by 23% So… Keep trying??? (google “BA 9 quadruple engine failure”) Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 19. 19 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Sprint Build Committed Build Delivered Build Failed to Deliver Service Requested Service Delivered Service Failed to Deliver Total Delivered Minimum Viable Change (MVC) / Result (R) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16 52 31 40% 88 80 9% 111 MVC: 10% Build increase R: Missed! Supply blocker… 17 44 36 18% 84 68 20% 104 MVC: reduced Build by 15% R: Needs closer... 18 34 32 6% 90 81 10% 113 MVC: reduced Build by 23% R: Reliable Build estimates 19 37 MVC: 9% Build increase Got it! Insight #1 applied – DevOps team example (cont.)
- 20. 20 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 – v3 Insight #2 – DIYO Agile Ways of Working Retrospect and Learn Try a Minimal Viable Change (MVC) (AKA Inspect-Adapt Cycle)
- 21. 21 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 – v3 Stages in Creating Your Own Ways of Working Novice - Internal Focus - Team MVCs Intermediate - External Focus - Stakeholder MVCs Advanced - Optimization Focus - Continuous Learning MVCs Gate 1 - Behavioural Criteria: velocity is reasonablypredictable (+/-20%), usually takes 3-6 sprints Gate 2 - Behavioural Criteria: velocity is predictable (< +/-10%), usually 4-8 sprints
- 22. 22 Before you begin… - Agility is a Team Sport - if the Team does not want to do it, Do Not Start! (DNS) - if you get in any trouble, Use The Team! (UTT) - Train the Team at the Start – scrum, kanban, roles, ceremonies, etc. - Coach – will help enormously, get one or at least a part- time one, “steal” her/him for few hours if needed! © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016
- 23. 23 NOVICE © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 - Do: basics, as any other Agile team - establish roles, Product Owner & Scrum Master, social contract (DoR, DoD), create board/s, run ceremonies, select tool (jira) - Likely MVCs: improve internals – board, ceremonies, estimation, stats - Critical to Success: keeping stats (build and support velocity,...)
- 24. 24 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 – v3 Example – Radiator Improvement – Sprint 4 Started with using Burndown Chart Support stories added mid sprint (72 to 87 jump) Visibility is low, not clear how many support stories were added mid-sprint.
- 25. 25 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 – v3 Example – Radiator Improvement – Sprint 7 Improved by using Burnup Chart, much better visibility: - Committed 55 points (yellow line) - Added 11 points by day 7 of sprint (blue line and step graph between yellow and blue line) - Histogram at bottom: 36 points done by day 7
- 26. 26 INTERMEDIATE © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 - Do: Stakeholder management, Supplier/Vendor managment, establish separate “Front doors” for Build (backlog) and Support (queue), - Likely MVCs: improve externals – governance, supplier reliability - Critical to success: streamlined work, minimised external blockers
- 27. 27 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Architecture Development and other Specialist Teams Operations Target: Best Value Example – “Light” Governance: Stakeholders
- 28. 28 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 Example – “Light” Governance: Process - Select and agree on Stakeholders - Architect/s, senior Developer/s, senior Tester/s, senior Operations staff, other Specialist Team senior representatives - Established weekly 30min Stakeholders catch-up meeting to: - discuss latest / current progress - (re)prioritize backlog - discuss next sprint goal and scope - check / update roadmap and strategy - Use prioritized backlog in Sprint Planning meeting
- 29. ADVANCED 29 © 2016 Mihail Sestakov25th July 2016 - Do: optimize flow, build reliability, knowledge management, self service, automation, SLAs - Likely MVCs: optimise – build/support capacity allocation, cross-skilling, optimised support mix (support, self-service, automation), analytics, knowledge repository - Critical to success: employee and customer satisfaction, employee engagement, proactive/reactive work ratio