Scaling Agile When the Models Don’t Fit · 2016-04-29 · Scaling Agile When the Models Don’t Fit Measure. Optimize. Deliver. Where marked, this presentation contains copyrighted

Phone: +1-610-644-2856

Measure. Optimize. Deliver.

softwarevalue.com

Scaling Agile

When the Models Don’t Fit


Where marked, this presentation contains copyrighted material of Leffingwell, LLC and Scaled Agile, Inc. and is

protected by US and international copyright laws. It is intended for the sole purpose of promoting use of the Scaled

Agile Framework so as to benefit the enterprises and individuals who apply it.

©2016 DCG Software Value

Context

• With multiple Agile teams using Scrum for a number of years, our client

felt that it needed more than just Scrum and was curious about the

Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe ®).

• It sent a representative group from its development team to one of our

Leading SAFe classes.

• After the two-day class, the team concluded that its software

development environment would not be an ideal fit for SAFe because:

– SAFe is designed to scale from a few to many Agile teams working on the

same product/program/value stream.

– Our client has enough Agile teams, but not enough grouped around one

product/program/value stream to map directly onto the basic SAFe model.

– The client asserts that they have 50-60 “products” supported by 8-10

teams!

1


Approach

• There are a number of elements of SAFe that could help to improve

the effectiveness and efficiency of the client’s Agile teams.

• We performed an investigation into which elements of SAFe could help

the client and how best to prioritize those elements for implementation

using techniques from SAFe. This presentation reports the results.

• This investigation starts with one major assumption: Initially, changes

should be contained within the client’s software development

environment as much as possible.

2


Phase 1

• We sat down with the client to review the full SAFe framework.

• Together, we identified candidate SAFe elements that could help the

client AND were within the control of the development group.

3


Phase 1 – Step 1

The Full SAFe Framework

4


Phase 1 – Step 2

Initial Client Coverage of SAFe

5


Phase 1 – Step 3

Proposed Client Use of SAFe After Phase 1

6


Phase 1 – Step 3

Phase 1 SAFe Elements Selected

SAFe Element Description

Architectural Runway Code that technically enables near-term business features at program level

Architecture Evolves

ContinuouslyEnterprise-level roadmap and epics to direct Architectural Runway

ART Metrics Set of program-level metrics focusing on five points of the framework

DevOps Team Ensures tight integration of Development and Operations to maximize efficiency

of flow of code to users

Enterprise Architect Provides enterprise architectural guidance and decisions to System Architects

Inspect & Adapt Program demo & retrospective for every program increment

IP Sprints Innovation and Planning sprints facilitate reliability, Program Increment

readiness, planning, and innovation

Kanban Process for Arch.

Epic ApprovalThe Portfolio Kanban System manages the flow of Epics from concept to

portfolio backlog with limited work in progress at each step.

Lean-Agile Leaders Trained in lean thinking. Develop people: People develop solutions.

Release Management Team Responsible for scheduling and governing releases

Release Planning Meetings Cadence-based. Plan next Program Increment. Input: Vision and top ten

features. Output: Team and PI Objectives and Program Board

Shared Resources Across

Agile TeamsResources necessary to success of agile teams but cannot be dedicated to any

one team

System Architect Provides Program architectural guidance and decisions to agile teams

WSJF Analysis Prioritization Technique: WSJF = Cost of Delay / Duration.7


Phase 1 – Step 4

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)

• The job with the highest WSJF provides the greatest economic benefit

• Can use real data but we used relative scale: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 20

• Strictly, WSJF = Cost of Delay

Duration

• But, for our purposes and when using relative sizing, job size is a

reasonable proxy for duration.

• Hence, WSJF = Cost of Delay

Job Size

8


Phase 1 – Step 4

Components of Cost of Delay

Relative value to the customer or business

• They prefer this over that

• Revenue impact?

• Potential penalty or other negative impact?

How User|Business Value decays over time

• Is there a fixed deadline?

• Will they wait for us or move to another solution?

• What is current effect on customer satisfaction?

What else does this do for our business?

• Reduce the risk of this or future delivery?

• Is there value in the information we will receive?

• Enable new business opportunities?

User |

Business

Value

Time

Criticality

Risk

Reduction|

Opportunity

Enablement

(RR|OE)

9


Phase 1 – Step 4

Stakeholder’s Agree on CoD and Job Size

• The list of SAFe elements identified as potential improvements for the

client in Phase 1 was prioritized by a group of client staff including

business and development stakeholders.

• Two two-hour sessions!

• Do one column at a time, start by picking the smallest item and giving it

a “1.” There must be at least one “1” in each column!

Feature

User|

Business

Value

Time

Criticality RR|OE CoD

Job

Size WSJF

10


Phase 1 – Step 4

Team Agrees on CoD Elements & Job Size

Feature

User|

Business

Value

Time


Job

Size WSJF

Architectural Runway 13 8 13 5

Architecture Evolves Continuously 13 8 13 8

ART Metrics 1 1 3 8

DevOps Team 5 13 8 8

Enterpirse Architect 8 13 13 8

Inspect & Adapt 8 8 5 8

IP Sprints 8 8 3 3

Kanban Process for Arch. Epic Approval 13 13 13 13

Lean-Agile Leaders 13 8 8 5

Release Management Team 5 13 8 5

Release Planning Meetings 8 13 13 8

Shared Resources Across Agile Teams 20 20 13 3

System Architect 13 13 13 5

WSJF Analysis 5 5 2 8

11


Phase 1 – Step 5

Calculate CoD

Feature

User|

Business

Value

Time


Job

Size WSJF

Architectural Runway 13 8 13 34 5

Architecture Evolves Continuously 13 8 13 34 8

ART Metrics 1 1 3 5 8

DevOps Team 5 13 8 26 8

Enterpirse Architect 8 13 13 34 8

Inspect & Adapt 8 8 5 21 8

IP Sprints 8 8 3 19 3

Kanban Process for Arch. Epic Approval 13 13 13 39 13

Lean-Agile Leaders 13 8 8 29 5

Release Management Team 5 13 8 26 5

Release Planning Meetings 8 13 13 34 8

Shared Resources Across Agile Teams 20 20 13 53 3

System Architect 13 13 13 39 5

WSJF Analysis 5 5 2 12 8

12


Phase 1 – Step 6

Calculate WSJF

Feature

User|

Business

Value

Time


Job

Size WSJF

Architectural Runway 13 8 13 34 5 6.8

Architecture Evolves Continuously 13 8 13 34 8 4.25

ART Metrics 1 1 3 5 8 0.6

DevOps Team 5 13 8 26 8 3.3

Enterpirse Architect 8 13 13 34 8 4.25

Inspect & Adapt 8 8 5 21 8 2.6

IP Sprints 8 8 3 19 3 6.3

Kanban Process for Arch. Epic Approval 13 13 13 39 13 3.0

Lean-Agile Leaders 13 8 8 29 5 5.8

Release Management Team 5 13 8 26 5 5.2

Release Planning Meetings 8 13 13 34 8 4.3

Shared Resources Across Agile Teams 20 20 13 53 3 17.7

System Architect 13 13 13 39 5 7.8

WSJF Analysis 5 5 2 12 8 1.5

13


Phase 1 – Step 7

SAFe Elements Prioritized by WSJF

Feature

User|

Business

Value

Time


Job

Size WSJF

Shared Resources Across Agile

Teams 20 20 13 53 3 17.7

System Architect 13 13 13 39 5 7.8

Architectural Runway 13 8 13 34 5 6.8

IP Sprints 8 8 3 19 3 6.3

Lean-Agile Leaders 13 8 8 29 5 5.8

Release Management Team 5 13 8 26 5 5.2

Release Planning Meetings 8 13 13 34 8 4.3

Enterpirse Architect 8 13 13 34 8 4.25

Architecture Evolves

Continuously 13 8 13 34 8 4.25

DevOps Team 5 13 8 26 8 3.3

Kanban Process for Arch. Epic

Approval 13 13 13 39 13 3.0

Inspect & Adapt 8 8 5 21 8 2.6

WSJF Analysis 5 5 2 12 8 1.5

ART Metrics 1 1 3 5 8 0.6

14


Phase 1 – Step 8

Prepare Implementation Backlog and Implement

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Days

Burn-up Chart Example

Done

24 Hours

2-4 Weeks

Daily

Standup

Iteration

BacklogImplementation

Backlog

Continuous

Reporting

Demo

Iteration

Planning

Potentially

Deployable

Retrospective

15


Contact Us

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 1-610-644-2856

http://www.softwarevalue.com

16

@DCGSWValue

/DCGSoftwareValue

/company/DCG-Software-Value


softwarevalue.com

http://www.url.com/

Documents

Scaling Agile When the Models Don’t Fit · 2016-04-29 · Scaling Agile When the Models Don’t Fit Measure. Optimize. Deliver. Where marked, this presentation contains copyrighted