I'm Not Calling Your Baby Ugly: 2 Ways & 25 Dimensions to Compare 3 Agile Scaling Frameworks

ABOUT ME
2
• Education:
 Bachelors in Computer Sc. & Engg.
 Masters in Entrepreneurship
• Certifications:
 PST (PSF, PSM, PSPO), PSM II, PSPO II
 Evidence Based Management Consultant
 MBTI Certified Practitioner
 Certified in Advanced Conflict Resolution
 Certificate in Organizational Development
• Experience:
 Founder & Org Whisperer – SmoothApps
 18+ years in SW Delivery, Consulting
 Siemens, HP, Avaya, Cisco, AT&T, Sabre. among others
 Dev Background: C/C++, VC++, Win32 SDK, Oracle…

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3

IF YOU WANT TO…
• Increase familiarity with 1 or
more Agile Scaling
Frameworks
• Compare Agile Scaling
Frameworks
• Educate clients about
differences between Agile
Scaling Frameworks
• Validate pre-existing opinions
4
THIS IS…
• A quick overview of the 3
Agile Scaling Frameworks
• A structured approach to
guide your thinking
• A way to frame the
conversation with clients
• An approach
THAT CAN HELP…
• Save time spent on the next
pass of your research
• Decide which framework you
prefer as a Coach
• Your clients make informed
decisions & manage risks of
scaling
• You get all wound up & PO’d
WHAT IS THIS…?

FRAMEWORK CANDIDATES
LeSS is Scrum applied to many teams working together on one product.
The LeSS Rules are the definition of the LeSS Framework. They are things we consider a must.
Why? This is explained in the Why LeSS? section.
Essential SAFe is a subset that describes the minimal elements necessary to be successful.
If you incorporate these ten essential elements for each release train in your portfolio, you’re
well on your way to realizing the full benefits of SAFe.
Nexus is a framework consisting of roles, events, artifacts, and techniques that bind and
weave together the work of approximately three to nine Scrum Teams working on a single
Product Backlog to build an Integrated Increment that meets a goal.
Learn More…
Learn More…
Learn More…
5

EXPERT
VIEWS
EXPERT
VIEWS
EXPERT
VIEWS
APPROACH
6
BUSINESS
OUTCOMES
CLIENT
VIEWS
EASE OF
ADOPTION
CLIENT
VIEWS
BELIEFS
ABOUT
SCALING
CLIENT
VIEWS
+
+
+
+
+
Validated
Learning
EXPERT
VIEWS
BARRIERS
TO SCALING
CLIENT
VIEWS
+
+
CRITERIA RESULTS SPRINT!

ALWAYS ASK THE TEAMS
1. What Business Outcomes do you want from scaling?
2. What are the biggest barriers to achieving these outcomes?
3. What constraints impact scaling adoption? What characteristics of a
scaling framework will enable easy adoption?
4. What are your fundamental beliefs about a scaling frameworks?
7

…LINE OF BUSINESS ‘n
LINE OF BUSINESS 2
LINE OF BUSINESS 1
ALWAYS ASK THE TEAMS
TITLE
CXO
SVP / VP
DIRECTORS
MANAGERS
LEADS
INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS
8
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TESTING INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
COACHING
• Get diverse perspectives…

MY PERSPECTIVE...
9

FUTURE STATE, ASPIRATIONAL DEFINITION OF SCALING
3 or more inter-dependent Scrum Teams (~30 or more team members)
working together from a single, shared Product Backlog
to develop a high-quality, high-value, potentially shippable increment of software
that may be delivered to production at least once every 30 days.
CAVEATS:
• This is the aspirational, future state definition of Scaling
• Most companies will not be at this state when they begin scaling and that is OK
10

TYPICAL BARRIERS TO SCALING
1. ACTIVITY BASED SCALING
2. PROJECT THINKING
3. SILO’D TEAMS
4. TEAM PERSISTENCE
5. REACTIVE INTERACTIONS
6. LOCAL OPTIMIZATION
7. ENVIRONMENTS
8. TOOLS
9. POLICIES
10. CULTURE
‒ Focus on scaling # of people, teams, rituals & not on scaling business value
‒ Wasting company time and money on project accounting, context switching
‒ Teams based on components, functional areas increasing hand-offs, dependencies
‒ Team composition changing frequently, impeding self-organization and learning
‒ Reactive, crisis driven interactions between inter-dependent teams
‒ Valuing good of the silo over good of the organization
‒ Lack of shared prod-like environments & data impede frequent integration
‒ Ineffective use of tools inhibits interactions, self-organization and learning
‒ Org Structure, Hiring, Performance management, Office space, Outsourcing
‒ Command and control, waterfall culture inhibits empirical management of value
11

SCALED VALUE
SCALING SCOPE
• Effectively scaling requires
much more than just
picking a software delivery
scaling framework
• Effective scaling also
requires enabling changes
in the surrounding
organizational eco-system.
• Most software delivery
scaling frameworks will
suggest and indirectly
describe but not explicitly
prescribe relevant
organizational changes.
GOVERNANCE
COACHING&
MENTORING
ORGPOLICIES
&PROCEDURES
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
ORGSTRUCTURE
1
TRAINING
SCALEDSCRUM
SWDELIVERYFRAMEWORK
TOOLS
FINANCIALS&
PORTFOLIOMANAGEMENT
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12

RECOMMENDED OUTCOMES FOR SCALING
1. VALUE
2. QUALITY
3. TIME TO MARKET
4. WASTE
5. RISK
‒ Scale delivery of valuable features and solutions that customers use
‒ Scale quality of integrated features and solutions
‒ Deliver valuable features and solutions frequently & regularly
‒ De-scale the waste of time, effort, money
‒ De-scale the exposure to uncertain, undesirable outcomes
13

FRAMEWORK ATTRIBUTES THAT IMPACT ADOPTION
1. SIMPLICITY, CLARITY
2. BUILDING BLOCKS
3. ORG CHANGES
4. EASE OF LEARNING
5. CERTIFICATION
‒ Simple, clearly expressed framework enables shared understanding
‒ Using Scrum as a building block enables Scaled Scrum
‒ Minimal addition of new roles, up-front org changes eases adoption
‒ Free, online resources enable scaled, self-paced learning
‒ Certification helps team members validate their understanding
14

COMPARISON BASED ON SCALING BELIEFS
To Enable…
Consistency. Enables shared understanding across teams.
Consistency. Minimize need for teams to un-learn / re-learn.
Adoption. Minimizes complexity of explaining new roles, new training, confusion.
Business Alignment, Value. Aligns teams to a shared, elevating true north.
Business Alignment, Value. Avoids disconnects between PO-teams & PO -proxies.
Business Alignment, Value. Creates a single, unifying source of shared work.
Quality. Creates single, shared, transparent standard of quality.
Business Alignment, Value. Identifies dependencies, aligns teams, reduces risk.
Business Alignment, Value. Identifies dependencies, creates alignment & plan.
Collaboration, Integration. Enables daily course corrections, daily integration.
Collaboration, Integration. Minimizes risk, reduces cycle time, increases value.
Business Alignment, Value. Enables stakeholder feedback & course correction.
Collaboration. Enables shared learning, course correction, reduces risk.
Consistency, Adoption. Enables self-paced learning, shared understanding.
Consistency, Adoption. Enables validation of learning, shared understanding.
We believe effective Scaling requires…
1. A simple, clear framework
2. Building on Scrum
3. Minimal addition of new roles
4. Customer-Centric, Product Teams
5. Single Product Owner
6. Single shared Backlog for all Teams
7. Shared Definition of Done
8. Shared Backlog Refinement with Team Reps
9. Shared Sprint Planning
10. Shared Daily Scrum
11. Single PSI each Sprint
12. Shared Sprint Review
13. Shared Retrospective
14. Ease of learning via free online resources
15. Certification detached from training
15

COMPARISON BASED ON SCALING BELIEFS
LeSS Nexus
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
X, Not recommended
√
√
√
√
X, By sitting in class
√
X, role of PO, SM, Dev Team
X, RTE, PM, Arch. BO
√
X, ART PM, Team PO’s
√
X, Only in BP(Big Picture)
↔, Only in I/P iteration
X, Only at PI Planning
X, Weekly SOS in B.P.
√
√
X Only in I/P iteration
√
↔, Not rigorous
√
√
↔, NIT
↔, Not explicit
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
X, Not as good as LeSS
√
We believe effective Scaling requires…
1. A simple, clear framework
2. Building on Scrum
3. Minimal addition of new roles
4. Customer-Centric, Product Teams
5. Single Product Owner
6. Single shared Backlog for all Teams
7. Shared Definition of Done
8. Shared Backlog Refinement with Team Reps
9. Shared Sprint Planning each Sprint
10. Shared Daily Scrum
11. Single PSI each Sprint
12. Shared Sprint Review each Sprint
13. Shared Retrospective each Sprint
14. Ease of learning via free online resources
15. Certification detached from training
16

COMPARISON BASED ON SCALING OUTCOMES & EASE OF ADOPTION
1. VALUE
2. QUALITY
3. TIME TO MARKET
4. WASTE
5. RISK
6. SIMPLICITY, CLARITY
7. BUILDING BLOCKS
8. ORG CHANGES
9. EASE OF LEARNING
10. CERTIFICATION
• √, Single PO, Product Centric Teams
• √, Single shared DOD
• ↔,.
• ↔,
• ↔,
• √
• √, Builds on Scrum.
• √, No new roles.
• √, Clear, intuitive, site in 6 languages
• X, Only way to CLP is via 3 day training
LeSS Nexus
• √, Single PO. Nexus Sprint Goal.
• √, Single, shared DOD.
• √
• √
• √
• √
• √, Builds on Scrum
• ↔, Introduces new role of NIT
• ↔, Website not as good. 27 languages
• √, Rigorous, detached from training
• X, Misalignment between PM & PO’s
• X, No DOD. I/P Sprint may enable debt.
• X,
• X,
• X,
• √
• ↔, Misaligned with Scrum
• ↔, New roles - RTE, PM, Arch., BO
• ↔, Detailed, confusing site. English
• ↔, Must attend training, not rigorous
17
CRITERIA
ADOPTIONOUTCOMES
No ART DOD,
No ART Refinement in Sprint,
No ART Sprint Planning,
No ART Daily Scrum,
No ART Sprint Retro,
I/P Iteration may enable debt.
No Daily Scrum
Can increase risk,
Can increase rework
Can increase time to market
Nexus Daily Scrum focusing on
resolving Integration issues each
day manages risk, reduces
rework and reduces cycle time

258
130
260
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
LeSS SAFe Nexus
Totals - Weighted Scores
LeSS SAFe Nexus
ASSESSMENT SCORES & RECOMMENDATION
• Final scores for each framework based on 10 criteria compared on a 7 point scale…
-300
+100
+300
0
Current State Of
Agile Scaling
Framework
ENABLES
Improvement
Framework
IMPEDES
Improvement
Impedes
Some
Teams
Impedes
Most
Teams
Helps
Most
Teams
N o
Im pact
-200
Helps
Some
Teams
Nexus
260
LeSS
258
SAFe
130Recommended
Framework
-100
Impedes
Many
Teams
18
+200
Helps
Many
Teams

WHEN TO USE EACH FRAMEWORK
USE WHEN: There is strong C-level support, you can change org structure, people hate prescription, there
is high Agile Maturity in Management and teams
START WITH: LeSS Rules, pull in practices from the LeSS Works Framework
AND: Provide job safety to Project / Program Managers & consider Daily Scrum for ‘shu’ teams struggling
to self-organize to resolve integration issues.
USE WHEN: People hate ambiguity and want maximum detail up-front.
START WITH: Essential SAFe pull in practices from SAFe Big Picture gradually.
AND: Consider adding ART DOD, ART Sprint Planning with team reps, ART Daily Scrum with team reps,
ART Backlog Refinement with Team Reps, ART Retro with team reps. Manage mis-alignment between
Product Manager & Team level Product Owners. Manage mis-use of I/P Iteration as an enabler for big-
bang hardening / stabilization phase
Learn More…
Learn More…
USE WHEN: Teams have varying levels of Agile Maturity and are OK with some prescription.
START WITH: Nexus Guide, pull in practices from case studies and resources
AND: Complement the intentional minimal guidance with practices for your context. Encourage self-study,
free practice assessments and online certification to validate shared understanding of framework.
Learn More…
19

RECAP / Q&A
20
smoothapps
smoothapps
orgwhisperer
Ravi Verma, The Org Whisperer
SMOOTHAPPS

APPENDIX
1. ASSESSMENT APPROACH
21

DETAILS ON ASSESSMENT APPROACH
1. 2 CATEGORIES
2. COMPARISON CRITERIA
3. WEIGHTS AT A GLANCE
4. RATING SCALE
5. APPROACH SUMMARY
22

COMPARISON CRITERIA
• Comparing Scaling Frameworks in 2 broad
categories…
1. SCALING OUTCOMES:
2. SCALING ADOPTION: Enable
Outcomes,
60
Enable
Adoption,
40
SCALING OUTCOMES vs
SCALING ADOPTION
How effective will this framework be in helping
accomplish Scaling Outcomes?
How easy will it be for us to adopt this
framework
• Distribute 100 points of weight across these
2 categories
60 points
40 points
23

FRAMEWORK COMPARISON CRITERIA
1. ACTIVITY BASED SCALING
2. PROJECT THINKING
3. SILO’D TEAMS
4. TEAM PERSISTENCE
5. REACTIVE INTERACTIONS
6. LOCAL OPTIMIZATION
7. ENVIRONMENTS
8. TOOLS
9. POLICIES
10. CULTURE
TOP 10 SCALING CHALLENGES
24

COMPARISON CRITERIA– AT A GLANCE
25

SCALING FRAMEWORK – RATING SCALE
• Rate each framework across 10 criteria on a 7 point scale…
RATING DESCRIPTION
+3
Will help MOST Agile Teams
in accomplish desired scaling outcomes
+2
Will help MANY Agile Teams
+1
Will help SOME Agile Teams
0
Will have MINIMAL IMPACT
on status quo for most Agile Teams
-1
Will impede SOME Agile Teams
from accomplishing desired scaling outcomes
-2
Will impede MANY Agile Teams
-3
Will impede MOST Agile Teams
26
-3
+1
+3
0
Current State Of
Agile Scaling
Framework
ENABLES
Improvement
Framework
IMPEDES
Improvement
Impedes
Some
Teams
Impedes
Most
Teams
Helps
Most
Teams
N o
Im pact
-2
Helps
Some
Teams
-1
Impedes
Many
Teams
+2
Helps
Many
Teams

SCALINGADOPTIONSCALINGOUTCOMES
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
ASSESSMENT APPROACH
1. Listen to Team members to understand Scaling Challenges
2. Combined with challenges based on prior Scaling Experience
3. Create 2 groups of criteria and allocated 100 points across them
1. Helping Achieve Business Outcomes
2. Ease of Adoption
4. Defined 10 criteria to compare frameworks
5. Distributed 100 points across these 10 criteria
6. Rated each framework on a 7 point scale: +3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3
7. Captured comments to explain justification for rating
8. Calculated weighted score for each criteria: SCORE = WEIGHT X RATING
9. Added up weighted scores across all 10 criteria to arrive at Total Score
10. Recommended framework with the highest Total Score
: 60 POINTS
: 40 POINTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
CRITERIA
RATING
WEIGHTED
SCORE
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100
PTS
=TOTAL
SCORE
WEIGHTS40POINTS60POINTS
GROUP
DETAILS ON ASSESSMENT APPROACH AVAILABLE HERE
27

I'm Not Calling Your Baby Ugly: 2 Ways & 25 Dimensions to Compare 3 Agile Scaling Frameworks

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

I'm Not Calling Your Baby Ugly: 2 Ways & 25 Dimensions to Compare 3 Agile Scaling Frameworks