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).
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?
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.
I updated the title of the article. I have observed a pattern over the past year or so of Scrum Alliance aligned folks like Certified Scrum Trainers (CST) and other certified Scrum folks writing articles and posts of varying degrees of criticism from valid debates over ideas (rare) to mostly disparaging misrepresentations, to openly hostile, to outright extremist comments like the picture above. I changed the article title to properly address not all CST’s. The original title was meant to address the pattern observed by many people in the industry of several unnamed CST’s making hateful comments about SAFe and the people behind the SAFe.
Remember, hate comes in many forms. All of it is bad, and unacceptable. I’ve lost count of the number of people that I have known, loved, and like that have died or suffered from cancer (and parasites). Attributing those words to the good people behind the SAFe is absolutely abhorrent, evil behavior. The picture above is just the latest attack. So, I apologize for the original generalization.
There are also two parts to this article. The first part addresses the hateful opening comment from Alexey. The second challenges the misrepresentations of the SAFe. These are separate discussions. Debating ideas is necessary. We should not ever accept hateful words or behavior.
Let me start by explaining why I even bother debating with hateful people in the first place. Because we must confront evil in the world. Yes, at its root this is evil, misguided behavior. If we want to move ideas forward to innovation they must be challenged in a respectful, professional manner.
Anyone that starts out a conversation by saying you or your thing is a “cancer and parasite” isn’t actually looking for conversation. They are being hateful and are probably ignorant on the topic of debate. If this were a political topic then perhaps the bad behavior could be expected because it has been normalized for millennia. Does it make it right? Emphatically, no.
I find it disturbing that extremists and their ilk who are supposedly exemplars for the Agile Manifesto and values of Scrum openly display behavior that is antithetical to the Agile Manifesto and Scrum. After all, “RESPECT” is a value of Scrum. And the manifesto has a clear purpose, “We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.“