Scaled Agile Framework
Economic thinking and principles
In the popular Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Enterprises (SAFe) we strive to “apply a comprehensive economic framework” through Principle #1: Take an Economic View. Certainly, part of how we deliver on this framework is through the natural decentralized decision making process that occurs when real Agile teams hypothesize their way through optimizing batch sizes, building quality in, and relentlessly improving. Breaking down work into slices of working software/deliverables/efforts that are potentially shippable (i.e. features) each iteration.
I believe that the dominant paradigm for managing product development is fundamentally wrong. Not just a little wrong, but wrong to its very core. It is as wrong as we were in manufacturing, before the Japanese unlocked the secret of lean manufacturing. I believe that a new paradigm is emerging, one that challenges the current orthodoxy of product development.Reinertsen, Donald G.. The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development (p. 1). Celeritas Publishing. Kindle Edition.
At scale, we apply the same core thinking to how we invest in Epics and Features. Run experiments.Read the rest of this entry »
There are a few Formula1 videos around the web that we use to teach about the economics of batch sizes, particularly in the SAFe, where the teachings of Don Reinertsen are embedded in the body of knowledge. I found this new video on LinkedIn today and thought I would share them with the community.
Remember, we are trying to reduce the transaction cost of a batch. In these videos the older pit stop people, process and tooling resulted in a much higher transaction cost compared to the modern pit stop with automated tools and swarming. This can be done through automation, architecture, tools, kaizen of process, and through new ways of thinking and working, and even new ways of feeling. We must pay particular attention to the relationship between tools, people, and process as optimizing one without tuning the others may not improve anything (systems thinking).Read the rest of this entry »
There is a bunch of Apple hype recently coming out of the most recent WWDC event, or perhaps all of them?. Like the new $6,000 cheese grater (super, sigh). I’m a bit of an Apple ecosystem fan so I noticed something in an article that we can use as an example for that common question SPC’s get from teams and Product Managers. How do I write a SMART PI Objective?Read the rest of this entry »
A coach shared this with me and I thought is was pretty good stuff. Here ye go in PDF format. Not from Cliff, but…
What is an acceptable pace of change for your organization? The root of all improvement lies in change. Should we go all out with unmanaged chaos, or manage change as part of a strategy through extensive controls? How does your enterprise identify and engage what the appropriate pace of change is? How do you balance change to affect positive business outcomes?
How fast does your company need to innovate to stay competitive?
Remember the wisdom of Jack Welch, “If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near.”
The answer lies in the balance of new and/or improved thinking tools, ways of working, and even ways of feeling as an organization. Every organization is unique and therefore requires a unique approach to managing change. We can always start with existing ideas and tooling and fit to purpose. Choose wisely, and actively engage and match the pace of change to the needs of innovation.
I am particularly fascinated by Rimac and their explosive growth and ability to continuously and relentlessly improve and match the external markets demand for innovation.
“We need to change everything. The whole company changes pretty much every year. – Mate Rimac”
Company founder and CEO Mate Rimac takes you deeper behind the scenes than most journalists have ever been. And this is only the first episode of the four they’ve produced.
Someone who claims expertise in and loves to play the agile game of thrones recently posted an article on Forbes.com about the Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Enterprises (SAFe). Of particular interest the author took the time to denigrate the SAFe by knocking it for not having a focus on the customer. In fact, the author, Denning, specifically states that he is worried because, “the customer is almost absent.” Denning even went through the effort to point out that the SAFe “only” has the customer represented by this little icon in the Large Solution space.Read the rest of this entry »