Check out the amazing things that high performance, motivated teams can do. This is business agility and Lean-Agile culture at its best. The transformation of my client’s organization is amazing. We are using Lean, Agile, Scrum, Kanban (and systems thinking), SAFe®, OrgMindset®, and other tools to inspire and persuade a positive change in culture at the FAA-ESC.
It is hard work, but it is worth every minute of it. It isn’t perfect, but the results are significant and measurable. The “why” was a burning platform. Now, just a few PI’s later, it is a thriving platform. We focus on the goals, not the tools to achieve positive business outcomes.
Congratulations to Team Armada for winning the “Relentless Improvers” innovation football for PI6.
Big kudos to John Wiese and his team for putting together an awe-inspiring PI System Demo.
Special thanks to the FAA-ESC, John Wiese, and teams for providing permission to publish the video under the safe harbor notice/policy. Also, special thanks to Matt Taylor for sharing a different video perspective as a content contributor.
Did you know that the value of facilitating retrospectives is also valuable at scale? In other words, facilitating cross-organizational retrospectives. Improvement is necessary to create better business outcomes. Relentless improvement should be a prime directive in every Lean-Agile organization.
In particular, if you are working within a Lean-Agile SAFe® portfolio you may be familiar with some of the following retrospectives. Others may not be so obvious. The point of which is that we should retro our performance for significant activities/ceremonies. When there are obvious bottlenecks in the system, do a retro, and use wisdom when this is not the case. And remember the easiest way to fail at a retrospective is to neglect to create improvement stories that make their way into the backlog. Continue reading “Retrospectives @Scale within SAFe® portfolio context”→
If you read it and found some value. Please share it:
I’m sitting here on Sunday morning thinking about how there is a propensity in the “Agile” space to re-name or [re] label things that already exist so they supposedly become “new” things. That action in of itself is not bad. It can create new value, new wealth, new knowledge. Perhaps?
It becomes bad when it is sold as something entirely new, but it isn’t actually. Where is the innovation? In the content or context — how the pieces were moved around or collected or displayed?