Challenges I’ve learned how to solve by attending to Business Agility, Flow, and Lean

Business Agility sets the why and goal. Flow and Lean both provide insights on what to do and how you are doing.

Here are some challenges they help overcome:

Continue reading “Challenges I’ve learned how to solve by attending to Business Agility, Flow, and Lean”

Slower, Better, Cheaper- Why Scaled Learning Is Our Future and How to Get it Today

There are two types of classroom training – one where the instructor dumps information into the students minds. The second when labs are involved so that students are mostly interacting with the instructor or doing work.

This post refers to the first type.

Classroom training is centuries old. The recent fad of adding exercises and games helps, but doesn’t change the fact that the students forget 80-90% of what they’ve learned after just a week. Training is also focused on a canned solution instead of people’s problems.

Continue reading “Slower, Better, Cheaper- Why Scaled Learning Is Our Future and How to Get it Today”

The 3rd Decade of Agile – The Cathedral and the Bazaar

My #Agile2019 talk discussed what’s next for Agile to improve its offerings at scale. The most significant of these is the shift from the Cathedral to the Bazaar. I am referring to Raymond’s book “The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary” which discusses how the Bazaar (Open Source software) rose to challenge, and in many areas, surpass the Cathedral’s (Microsoft) dominance.

Continue reading “The 3rd Decade of Agile – The Cathedral and the Bazaar”

Creating a True Community of Service Providers for Agile

FLEX’s unique architecture enables it to incorporate any # of practices that are consistent with Flow and Lean. Based on this ability I have created the the FLEX Partnership program which allows FLEX Sr Consultants to provide their own services in FLEX. We’ve already started this with Nancy Van Schooenderwoert who is an expert in both FDA regulated product development and hardware/software projects.

Continue reading “Creating a True Community of Service Providers for Agile”

Refactoring SAFe to FLEX part 1 of 2

Frameworks should be architected in the same way that software systems are. Both need to be able to evolve without adding complexity, be robust and be clear in how their different components interact. Few frameworks, other than FLEX, however, have what could be called an architecture. Most are collections of value and practices loosely overlaying some principles (which, often enough the framework itself doesn’t follow well).

Continue reading “Refactoring SAFe to FLEX part 1 of 2”

The Foundations of FLEX

When I started writing up Net Objectives’ 14 years of experience in Agile at scale that has now become FLEX I came from a foundation of the following:

  1. FLEX itself is an hypothesis of the best way for an organization to have a customer realize value. As an hypothesis, it should be continuously tested, validated and improved.
  2. How people react to FLEX must be considered to be part of FLEX (this is a basic tenet of systems thinking, albeit often ignored by most frameworks)
  3. FLEX must both attend to how to provide a well-defined start and how to extend the start
  4. It must be based on the value stream so that it doesn’t inadvertently do sub-optimization
  5. Technical skills must be included in the system and should be considered when deciding on a starting point
  6. Although users will extend FLEX you never transcend it in the sense that what it’s based on is always valid. People will just come up with more innovative methods to use known principles

Continue reading “The Foundations of FLEX”

FLEX’s launch this week is a harbinger of the next wave of Agile

The Adopting FLEX online workshop gets into full gear next week. I believe this is the start of the next wave of Agile on many levels

Since ’05 I’ve been working on overcoming several challenges:

  1. people need a specific start but there is no one-size fits all
  2. expanding an approach tends to add complexity to it
  3. on-experts often can’t tell if a change is good or not but need this ability in order to be able to improve on their own
  4. providing optional practices so people don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but do this without causing confusion
  5. provide a simple model for Agile product management that aligns both business stakeholders and development groups
  6. provide training in an economical way that doesn’t stop people doing their day jobs and actually enables more interaction while learning

FLEX solves these challenges by incorporating approaches various Net Objectives consultants have done over the last 20 years. FLEX is an expert system that guides consultants in how to help an organization improve by both providing guidance and creating a shorter workshop tailored for the organization that will implement FLEX.

I am excited to have a group of people working with me on taking this into the future.

Learn more here

What If?

What if a leader in Scrum, Kanban, Lean, Flow, SAFe, design patterns, ATDD, …

… when he saw a challenge with a framework he worked on overcoming it

… was focused on results not on creating a unique framework

… didn’t agree with others that there were limitations on what could be done

… didn’t think simple to understand meant difficult to implement

… attended to the dilemmas in creating approaches that were straightforward to start and guided you in improvement

… respected people’s knowledge and didn’t think they should trust consultant’s recommendations but trust themselves after a little guidance

… believed consultants should work themselves out of a job as soon as possible

… thought the attention should be on the work, not the framework

… argued for what worked, not defended frameworks

… put together a framework that incorporated the good that was learned while avoiding the limitations that had been accepted

After 20 years of working on this, there is, and the result is a new kind of framework. One based on patterns thinking that provides a tailored start and includes how to learn to improve. It’s based on laws of development, not my opinion. The first online workshop (with me guiding you) starts this week.

Please let me know if you’re interested.

How does your approach help you start and learn?

Note: This post is one of a series in the post Questions to ask about your approach.

Frameworks should provide a quick start while helping organizations continue to improve. Here are a few different approaches taken.

I. Provide a preset framework that has you do what it says until you learn to adjust (Scrum). The challenge with this is that the preset practices may not fit. This may have them lose faith in the entire transition. In addition, there is nothing in the framework that tells them how to transcend the starting practices. People may eventually feel locked in and just try new things with little guidance.

II. Provide some theory with preset practices (SAFe). This has somewhat the same challenges as I. above with the additional challenge of putting people into cognitive overload which results in few principles being remembered.

Both I & II focus on learning the framework with no training provided to transcend it.

III. Provide great detail in principles and let them figure out the practices. This does ground people in principles, but most want an answer to “what do I do?”

IV. Provide principles, a starting set of practices with options and a roadmap on how to select the practices that work for you. This gets people started on something that works for them while providing a way to improve. Yes, this is FLEX.

Does your approach utilize the concept of smallest realizable chunk of value that can be realized?

One of the cornerstones of Flow, Agile and the Lean Startup is quick delivery of value to customers. This reduces waste by focusing on what’s of greatest value while enabling pivoting and creating a tight bond between the organization and its customers.

We call this concept the Minimum Business Increment (MBI). The intention is to answer two questions when faced with implementing an initiative. 1:”what is of highest value that I can deliver quickest?” 2: “what besides development is necessary for the realization of this value?” MBIs lie between epics and features in size and are what calculating cost of delay (CoD) should be done on. Calculating WSJF on epics or features doesn’t make sense. Only subsets of an epic as delivered at a time, WSJF should be calculated on that. Features may not provide value on their own, so CoD is incalculable. Continue reading “Does your approach utilize the concept of smallest realizable chunk of value that can be realized?”