The relentless improvement experiment continues. For the SAFe Scrum master course I instructed this week I offered to the team of teams (students) the opportunity to use the Scaled Agile baked in geekbooks.com simulation for PI Planning or simulate PI Planning using the Lego Product Development Game. The teams unanimously chose the Lego Game. Go figure. 🙂 Read the rest of this entry »
We had a “SAFe Air Bear” visit us for P3 PI Planning this week! Hilarious selfie’s ensued… The SAFe Air Bear was motivating our Agile Release Planes (ARPs) to successfully plan out feature flights for the next three months (Program Increment three).
Two ARPs, and a little over 150 people participated. Still working on feature / PI Objective counts… Release Plane Flight Engineers, where are you?
We are formally requesting an “Air” version of the SAFe. Airplanes are faster than trains. They can go where trains will never reach without tracks. Quality is higher on a plane than a train. Airplanes can break the sound barrier. In-flight entertainment.
Due to privacy laws, I had to blot out people. But not the SAFe Air Bear. I do not work for or represent Scaled Agile Inc…
After instructing “SAFe® for Teams” a half-dozen or so times now using the stock slides I decided to experiment with simulation improvements to address concerns / challenges students have had learning about program level PI Planning on a team of teams in SAFe context. The geekbooks.com simulation and intent and timing of SAFe for Teams as part of the overall “Implementation Roadmap” does not fit my client. Financial services and information technology go hand in hand. One size fits all courses…don’t. That being said, the content, slides/materials and learning path are top-notch quality from the amazing thought leaders at Scaled Agile. They have to please everybody. But the use case here with my client is different. Hence the experiment.
I have been teaching SAFe for Teams over the past few months with the stock v4.x slide deck and in musca change of the geekbooks simulation in favor of “Building a House.” It was quite a bit more effective as a learning tool than the stock simulation. However it takes much more time for setup of features and story development. Plus I had to coach the Exec/PMPO/Arch’s on the context vision slides separately. PO’s had to have time to write up the features while the other instructor continued with the course. Or as in most cases I teach by myself (not recommended)… we take a class break while the PO’s and I create features.
Since then I have found some time to create new slides to draw in the context of the Build a House PI planning simulation into the SAI instructional material (no I don’t change any of their slides; license compatible; Enterprise client). Read the rest of this entry »
Coaches and Practitioners of Lean-Agile and the SAFe
In my experience the amount of time that we get to spend in Lean-Agile and SAFe courses on the subject of Velocity and Capacity Planning is inadequate. So I spent some time building a tool for one of my client organizations. I have since spent some time greatly enhancing the tool and getting it ready for distribution. I am offering the tool for free. All that I ask is if you decide that the tool has value and you are going to use it, to like my blog. Perhaps even share this article on your favorite social media. Read the rest of this entry »
The good folks at Scaled Agile, the SAFe® community, Agile agnostics, consultants, and some in the “Agile” community are onto something incredibly important in defining the elusive and dynamic Agile End Game for organizations. Read the rest of this entry »
S_Fe is not Agile. S_Fe is not even Scrum. – Mike Beedle
In response to Mike Beedle on LinkedIn. Mike is wrong about the SAFe of course. And not just because of his childish method of attack. Facts, evidence, experiments, my experience and dozens of business case studies back up the experiments of the SAFe. Mike sounds a lot like project managers that swear the PMBoK/waterfall works better than agile for large scale “projects” with high complexity, significant uncertainty, many dependencies and new knowledge to be obtained to deliver the product. Project management works in those scenarios (fantasy). But not as well as Agile (reality). Read the studies (Chaos Report, Standish Group; State of Agile, VersionOne; others). A sea change is in play — right now. Customers want predictability, results — and truth. Not endless “Change Requests” and contract modifications for more time, more money and more people. One truth about the Agile Manifesto is that it is great guidance as a value system and principles for software development. The big problem is that it [Agile Manifesto] is STATIC. Relentless improvement drives us to go beyond yesterday. Study the Scaled Agile Framework for the enterprise and come to your own conclusions. Evolve or join the museum with the other artifacts of the information age.
Studying up on Lippitt / Knoster change models I learned about from Construx videos. Steve McConnell of course being one of the greatest software development thought leaders is the presenter. Interesting how these change theories are baked into some of the Agile frameworks and mindsets like the SAFe / Agile Manifesto. As a coach, these are useful strategies on how to build our approach to managing change (like fear, unknowns, budgeting/money, et cetera).
Get a Grip on Managing Change – Michael Nanfito
Agile Transformations – Change Model – Construx