In my earlier post I discussed the relationship between visualization and reorganization & discussed how orgs should not limit themselves to visualization but should reorganize after visualization as appropriate. But in some situations reorganization is often not a real possibility.
Consider when vertical applications drive horizontal support systems & at scale. In a financial company one might have verticals for – banking, credit cards, signature programs, loans. These feed horizontals such as – payment processing, transactions across accounts, client account setup and maintenance …
In a situation like this, splitting up the horizontals into trains to work with the verticals won’t necessarily work well – either when you run them as separate trains or as part of the vertical train. Running the horizontals as separate programs doesn’t solve the problem either as they are each pulled in multiple directions.
In these cases, it is often best to create visibility on the work to be done by using Minimum Business Increments as the guide for what to work on across the organization.
n is often not a real possibility. Consider when vertical applications drive horizontal support systems & at scale. In a financial company one might have verticals for – banking, credit cards, signature programs, loans. These feed horizontals such as – payment processing, transactions across accounts, client account setup and maintenance … In a situation like this, splitting up the horizontals into trains to work with the verticals won’t necessarily work well – either when you run them as separate trains or as part of the vertical train. Running the horizontals as separate programs doesn’t solve the problem either as they are each pulled in multiple directions. In these cases, it is often best to create visibility on the work to be done by using Minimum Business Increments as the guide for what to work on across the organization.
This blog is an excerpt from my upcoming book –Achieving Business Agility at All Scales
SAFe has many concepts across its levels-strategic themes, epics, solutions, value stream, MVPs, MMFs, capabilities, stories & several backlogs.
While SAFe nobly attempts to present all needed concepts it does not explicitly call out the most important one–the smallest chunk of work that will provide the most value for the time it takes to build it. We call this the Minimum Business Increment (MBI). It is very similar to Denne& Cleland-Huang’s Minimum Marketable Feature (MMF), which, unfortunately, SAFe changed original meaning of to represent “the minmimum functionality that the teams can build to learn whether the benefit hypothesis is valid or not.” This concept is already part of Agile which always suggest to build in vertical slices to test our hypothesis.
SAFe definitely intends to have the concept of the MBI, but its use of overloaded &redefined terms make it hard to see. MBIs encapsulate the intention of solutions, MVPs, capabilities & SAFe’s re-defined MMFs. Realizing this can simplify SAFe by starting with initiatives that are consistent with our strategic themes & defining a sequence of business increments for them. These business initiatives can then be refined into MBIs which create the context for everything needed to manifest value.
There are many lessons we can learn from the challenges incurred in adopting Scrum. I suggest the significant amount of bad Scrum in the world is due to the approach in teaching it.
The most popular method focuses on the framework itself. It usually consists of a CSM taught to a team. Some guidance is provided on how to write stories, but the attendees spend virtually no time writing their own stories past the ubiquitous “as a user…” method which is insufficient in the real world.
Another method focuses on Agile analysis by having teams create a backlog of their own stories using some aspects of ATDD. Only minimum training on Scrum is needed since it is now in support of what the team’s work & they already have an understanding of the why for feedback.
We have found the 2nd approach to be significantly more effective because people leave the workshops actually doing Scrum & don’t have to figure out parts later.
I see the same thing happening with SAFe with different ramifications. The SAFe framework alone often improves orgs’ agility because of the quarterly planning event. But working with product managers prior to the event & teaching teams more ATDD & less SAFe is critical.
I remember my first SAFe implementation – Northwestern Mutual (you can see a case study of it on the SAFe website). I remember that my main focus was on training the managers, product managers and shared service managers. While I did do a SAFe/Scrum course for the train, I wasn’t particularly worried about them. Continue reading “Why teams starting out with SAFe need little SAFe training but do need ATDD up front – 6 days to #SAFeSummit”
When people adopt SAFe they often believe that the way to do work with each other is by having everyone adopt SAFe’s roles and act accordingly. But this is a componentized view. That is, it looks at the organization as a collection of pieces and won’t result in a true system. A system is not the sum of it’s parts but rather the synergy that its parts create when working towards a common goal.
We have found that all roles need to agree to work with each other in order to achieve the following: Continue reading “How do we work together at Scale? – 7 days to #SAFeSummit”
A question often arises of how to connect strategies, which are long term thinking, with the shorter event horizon of small increments of delivery. The first part of the answer is to shift our thinking from project thinking to product/service thinking. This means that we think of the offerings we provide and consider how we consistently improve them instead of doing a series of one-off projects.
We manage these improvements by creating initiatives based on our strategies and then consider the business increments we want to release on a regular basis. Continue reading “Implementing Strategies with Small Pieces of Work- 8 days to #SAFeSummit”
Frameworks in and of themselves are not the goal. This is sometimes forgotten when Scrum is conflated with Agile. Scrum is a means to Agile, but it is not Agile in the same way a recipe is not the meal. Recipes have ingredients, an order to cook, how to cook, etc. Frameworks provide us with roles, rules, events, structure (of the people) and events. These are all required for effective work. Continue reading “What is the purpose of a framework? 9 days to #SAFeSummit”
Essential SAFe is intended for when a group of teams working together using SAFe. It presumes that a backlog has been created for the train(s) to work on. Most groups starting SAFe at the program level have done so, however, because they can’t get product management involved or believe the higher levels of SAFe are too complicated. Continue reading “What to do when prod management won’t provide MBIs to a program – SAFe countdown #10”
Many dev groups in large companies start with Essential SAFe because they are the only group starting SAFe. This is not a bad way to start. However, many of the concepts needed for such groups are described at levels above the Essential SAFe level. This can be confusing.
We suggest adding the MBI concept as we discussed in the earlier post. In this situation, as epics comes in, the dev group can break them into MBIs by collaborating with product managers & asking them the following questions: Continue reading “Essential SAFe for Large-Scale Companies – Countdown #11”
Essential SAFe was intended for large orgs adopting SAFe at the program level. But many mid-scale companies have adopted it as well.
Mostly they’ve done this because of: Continue reading “Essential SAFe for Mid-Scale Companies – #SAFeSummit 12”