An Agile Architecture Community of Practice

Note:  The format of this article did not transfer over well from the previous site, so this pdf version might be much easier to read and distribute.

Background

We often coach organizations on scaling Scrum, where 4-12 Scrum Teams are working on the same Product or a set of closely related Products (Applications, Systems, etc). We often get asked how things like Architecture and other multi-team related concerns are handled in a scaled Scrum approach. In Agile practice, handling these multi-team concerns is usually handled via a mechanism called a “Community of Practice”. Below is an example of a moderately mature community, based on a compilation of ideas that we have seen work well in the field. Note also that a TeamSet should always have more than one “Community of Practice”,and new ones should be formed and dissolved as needed.

For more info on Communities of Practice, see An Agile Community of Practice Starter Kit

Caveats about the example below:

  1. We use the term “TeamSet” below to refer to a set of teams, the 4-12 mentioned above, working on a Product or set of closely related Products. Obviously the more high impact the architectual initiatives, the more formality of process you will likely need. So, if your set of closely related Products is not that closely related, then this community should be less formal and less broadly applicable in its decisions. The converse of this is also likely true.
  2. The below example is that this shows more of an “ideal end state” — your org will likely have to take a few steps of organizational change before you can get here. But try to get as far as you can on step 1 — you might surprise yourself.
  3. We have probably added more formality and more documentation below than would be typical in a real life, highly Agile, community of practice. We do so here primarily for illustrative learning purposes, to give you more ideas than are truly needed (i.e. so you can pick and choose what work in your context). In real life, the community would likely be less formal.
  4. This example is for Architecture, but this same kind of approach easily fits other types of CoP’s: Agile CoP, Scrum CoP, Scrum Master CoP, Product Owner CoP, DevOps CoP, Programming CoP, Automated Testing CoP, UX CoP, SAFe CoP, RTE CoP, Nexus CoP, LeSS CoP, etc. [ONE MORE REMINDER: Your CoP should have the minimum amount of formality necessary, and to the extent possible, should operate bottom up.]

The Aegis Architecture Community of Practice

Our Charter Statement: We all work on a set of closely related products, collectively known as Aegis. This community organized around ensuring that the highest Architectural concerns that have a high impact on Aegis are efficiently and effectively addressed. Please note that this community focuses only on the highest Architectural concerns.

In Scope: The set of teams (TeamSet) that this community encompasses are: Stingray, 49’ers, Falcon, Journey, Explorers, Red October, Phoenix, and Hawking. The main “in scope” topic is high Architectural concerns, though the dividing line between “high” and “not high” is not always black and white. As you look below, hopefully the mechanisms we have in place will give you the idea of where that line is usually drawn.

Out of Scope: Practices related to Programming, Design and other concerns are generally left to others (Other communities and/or the Scrum teams themselves to self organize and solve). Test and Build automation is left to others. The Director of Software Dev hires and chooses the LA (Lead Architect), so that is out of scope for our community. Our Arch CoP only covers the teams in the Aegis TeamSet, so for Arch issues that are decided at the corporate level, you will need to talk to the EAG (Enterprise Architecture Group, not a CoP yet. 😦 ). Our Lead Architect has good communication with the EAG, but anyone should feel free to go the EAG for the appropriate services(just loop the Lead Architect in as well). Typically we form a working group from this CoP to go and talk to the EAG for any requests.


(In the sections below, note that we have specifically named them “Individuals”, “Interactions”, “Processes”, “Tools” to relate to the Agile Manifesto, valuing “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools”.)

Individuals

Community Leadership

Home Scrum Team

Community Coordinators (CC) Jill Hutchins, Henry Nguyen Stingray, Falcon
Agile Coach Jeff Schwaber (Liaison to Scrum Master CoP) Falcon
Management Contact Ellie Swanson n/a, Director of Software Dev
Lead Architect(LA)
90% allocated to community
10% allocated to Scrum Team
Ian Robison Journey
Community Architects(CA)
50% allocated to community
50% allocated to Scrum Team
Phillip Smith Explorers
Brijesh Singh Hawking
Jill Hutchins Stringray
Henry Nguyen (Liaison to Tech Excellence COP) Falcon

Community Members

Architecture Team Reps(ATR)
10% allocated to community
90% allocated to Scrum Team
Sheila Hill Stingray
Carlos Diego 49’ers
Rachel Story Falcon
Chris Bradford Journey
(open) (interim- Phillip Smith) Explorers
Adam Gideon Red October
Adrienne Maxhouse Phoenix
Sandesh Mokkarala Hawking
General Member (GM)
All people above are also considered GM’s
Anyone interested!
Melissa Hayden (Liaison to Testing CoP)
Role Definitions
Community Coordinators This role is to be a servant leader to guide the community on what initiatives and other efforts to focus on. This role also helps provide leadership on which decisions are truly of high enough concern to warrant formality and process via the community. The only requirements for this role are that the person has the appropriate architecture knowledge and must have 3 months of experience in the role of ATR and/or CA prior to serving. The Lead Architect cannot be a coordinator (this helps prevent command and control hierarchical leadership — and respects self organization of the community). The coordinators are elected every 6 months.
Agile Coach This role is to be a servant leader to guide the community on how to respect the Agile Manifesto, the Scrum Guide, and in general, the “Community of Practice” approach to self organization. This person is expected to be an experienced senior Scrum Master or Agile Coach. The requirements for this role are: 1 year of experience as a Scrum Master or Agile Coach, 2 Agile/Scrum certifications, and at least 3 months of participation as a General Member in this community prior to serving. This person will also need to be able to spend ~20% of their time playing this role. The Agile Coach is elected every 6 months.
Management Contact This is senior management role from the Dev Org, cannot be a first line dev manager. Currently the Director of Software Dev plays this role. This contact is used to secure funding, facilities, and other logistical approvals needed for the community to hold its events. This person does not usually spend much time interacting with the community.
Lead Architect This person is hired by the Director of Software Dev to be the Lead Architect for the TeamSet and for the community. This person participates heavily in the community and has some decision making power (see “Process” below). The requirements for this role are determined by the Director of Software Dev. Cannot be the Community Coordinator (see that role description for more info)
Community Architect This person spends around 50% of their time on community initiatives. They are expected to be good communicators, accessible, and have the appropriate architecture knowledge.
The only requirements for this role are that the person has the appropriate architecture knowledge and must have 3 months of experience in the role of ATR and/or CA prior to serving.
Architectural Team Rep This person spends around 10% of their time on community initiatives. This usually revolves around being a communication radiator for their Home Scrum Team and ensuring that all relevant community communication gets shared with their home Scrum Team. This person will also often help with architectural initiatives that their Scrum Team is sponsoring. This should never be considered a gate or bottleneck role — i.e. anyone on any Scrum Team can interact with the community without having to go through (or get approval from) their ATR.
General Member Anyone who has an interest in architecture can participate in the public activities, meetings, and communication mechanisms of this community. In order to vote for the approval of CWA’s or in approval meetings, the person should have significant knowledge of the subject at hand, and have materially participated in 3 months worth of immediately prior community activities. It is strongly recommended that you recuse yourself from votes any time you do not meet these pre-requisites, OR any time you don’t have a strong opinion on the thing being voted on.
Liaison The community has various volunteer liaisons to other parts of the organization, generally to other CoP’s. These people help us identify synnergies and conflicts of scope between this community and the other communities. This is a pretty informal position, and any General Member is free to provide the same kind of information — it’s just that these people volunteer to definitely keep an ear to the ground between the two communities.

CWA’s re: Individuals

(CWA’s = Community Working Agreements)

  1. In everything we do, we try to honor Scrum(as defined in the Scrum Guide) and Agile (as defined in the Agile Manifesto). Because we have not yet chosen a scaled Scrum approach, we simply extend many of the ideas of the Scrum Guide and Agile Manifesto to our entire Community and TeamSet.
  2. The table and information above includes information that is also effectively CWA’s.
  3. Because we believe in the Agile value statement of valuing “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools” and “Responding to Change over Following a Plan”, don’t ever be afraid to get some architects together in an ad hoc way to solve an architectural challenge — we can always retrofit those actions to our processes and tools later.
  4. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of the term “architect” refers to the LA, CA’s, and ATR’s (i.e. does not refer to GM’s).
  5. The architect titles above are completely independent from your job title and career path. The above titles are bestowed by the community (except for the LA, who is hired by the Director of Software Dev). This community makes no claim over the management or career path domains of the company. We are simply a self organizing community that co-exists with the rest of the organization.
  6. Every architect belongs to and works on a Scrum Team. In their Scrum team, they hold no special authority or title on their team other than “Scrum Dev Team member, ” regardless of their title in this community.
  7. Being a GM of the community is voluntary, with one exception: each Scrum team must choose and have an ATR with the appropriate skills, who is not an LA or CA.
  8. All new CWA’s(re: Individuals or any other topic) must be approved by a “fist of 3” by the entire community. For all new CWA’s that have a heavy impact beyond the community, a forum must be held where all Scrum team members from the TeamSet can give feedback prior to approval.
  9. There is always a Scrum team sponsor for each initiative, even if there is only a subset of the team working on the initiative.
  10. We strongly prefer bottom up initiation of all architectural initiatives, coming from the teams. Initiatives need not come from the architects, but the ATR for that sponsoring team must be involved and be highly informed of the initiative.
  11. The general time allocation expected of architects is listed in the chart above. Of course, there are exceptions at times. At any one given moment, an architect might have to choose between focusing on helping their team or helping their community. In that moment, the architect is expected to consult with others on which focus yields the most value for the entire TeamSet. Sometimes this means focusing on community efforts, and sometimes it means focusing on team efforts. Try to choose wisely in that moment.
  12. Coordinators can fulfill the role of either a CA or an ATR while also fulfilling the coordinator role, but this is not a requirement.
    1. Note above that an ATR cannot fulfill the role of ATR AND [CA or LA] at the same time, but an ATR could be an ATR and a coordinator at the same time.

Interactions

Communication Mechanisms
Ad hoc conversations and informal meetings — we encourage these the most! We encourage involving your ATR or CA when needed.
This Wiki
“Roughly” Monthly Public Meetings
Occasional ad hoc public meetings when needed (includes educational meetings, approval meetings, etc)
Group Chat (HipChat)
Email List
Occasional Private Meetings (Primarily only open to the LA, CA’s, ATR’s, and specially invited guests)
ATR’s are responsible for communicating the important outcomes of all of the above to their respective teams.
Architectural elements of the TeamSet Definition of Done
Scrum Team “Code Based Tools” pages
Communication Contact To get connected to our communication mechanisms, ask your ATR who to talk to.

CWA’s re: Interactions

  1. In everything we do, we try to honor Scrum(as defined in the Scrum Guide) and Agile (as defined in the Agile Manifesto). Because we have not yet chosen a scaled Scrum approach, we simply extend many of the ideas of the Scrum Guide and Agile Manifesto to our entire Community and TeamSet.
  2. The table above includes information that is also effectively CWA’s.
  3. Because we believe in the Agile value statement of valuing “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools” and “Responding to Change over Following a Plan”, don’t ever be afraid to get some architects together in an ad hoc way to solve an architectural challenge — we can always retrofit those actions to our processes and tools later.
  4. In all of our architecture discussions and initiatives, we agree to use Agile Emergent Architecture.
  5. Our community maintains a wiki for any communication where light documentation seems like a good communication mechanism. This page is just one of our pages. See our home page for lots more stuff.
  6. Any person in the TeamSet can contact their ATR or a CA for help, collaboration, mentoring, or whatever is needed. It is NOT required to go through your ATR for every architecture interaction. We generally discourage direct communication with the LA unless you are working on an initiative with that person. The person is VERY busy. Your ATR or CA will involve the LA if that is needed.
  7. Each Scrum Team must keep an updated “Code Based Tools”(CBT) page connected to their team wiki. Only include tools that your team regularly uses and/or has significant experience with. The purpose of this CBT page is to spread knowledge to the entire TeamSet about which tools are in use, and which teams have knowledge of those tools. On the CBT page, the team must include 2 categories of tools and info:
    1. CBT’s that they use that are expressly approved by the Arch Community Tool Matrix.
      1. For each 3rd party library, please specify the exact library and versions in use, why the library is being used(it’s purpose), known scope of use(product, module, class, etc), and how widespread is its use (low, medium, high).
    2. CBT’s that they have not been expressly approved by the Arch Community Tool Matrix. (Note that this is not considered bad usage — not all tools are in the scope of our community)
      1. please specify the exact tool and versions in use, why the library is being used(it’s purpose), known scope of use(product, module, class, etc) and how widespread is its use (low, medium, high).
  8. In all of our communication mechanisms, we try very hard to be specific about topics of discussion and whether they are they “in scope for the community”– or not?
    1. For instance, using our communication mechanisms to just get general ad hoc architectural or even design/implementation/technical help is perfectly fine, but say something like “This is really more in scope for just our team, but we could really use some help on — who can help us with that?”
    2. If you’re not sure whether a topic is in scope for the community, just ask the community for help in determining that!
    3. Obviously, if you realize that a topic is in scope for a different community, by all means, please use that community’s communication mechanisms instead of ours.

Processes

Processes
Architecture Tools Approval Process (ATAP) (tools, frameworks, arch approaches, etc)
Election of Community Leaders
Quarterly Retrospectives

CWA’s re: Processes

  1. In everything we do, we try to honor Scrum(as defined in the Scrum Guide) and Agile (as defined in the Agile Manifesto). Because we have not yet chosen a scaled Scrum approach, we simply extend many of the ideas of the Scrum Guide and Agile Manifesto to our entire Community and TeamSet.
  2. The table above includes information that is also effectively CWA’s.
  3. Because we believe in the Agile value statement of valuing “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools” and “Responding to Change over Following a Plan”, don’t ever be afraid to get some architects together in an ad hoc way to solve an architectural challenge — we can always retrofit those actions to our processes and tools later.
  4. We use the term “Tools” fairly broadly, to include essentially all architectural initiatives that require community approval or coordination.
  5. Community retrospectives are held at least once each quarter, and at least within the 2 weeks prior to a new community leadership election. At this time, we often review our CWA’s and Charter Statement to ensure we are in alignment.
  6. Every 6 months, an election is held to select the CC’s, CA’s, and Agile Coach.
  7. All architectural initiatives must include an “independent usage plan” that describes how future users of the initiative can be quickly educated on the tool/approach such that they will not be heavily dependent on tribal knowledge by a small number of people. This often includes light documentation as well as video recordings of education sessions for the initiative. Decreasing this type of “key person” risk enhances our Agility and ability to respond to change in the future.
  8. The ATAP is documented in detail elsewhere, but here is a summary:
    1. A Scrum Team suggests sponsoring an initiative to be approved as an experiment or as a tool, initiative, or decision that is approved for widespread community use.
      1. We encourage the teams, as much as possible, to sponsor initiatives of their own choosing. I..e we prefer they initiate.
        1. In rarer cases, sometimes the CA’s or LA will ask a team to sponsor, but the decision is up to the Scrum Team.
    2. An approval meeting is scheduled (giving the team time to be prepared). Sometimes this is done in regular monthly meetings, sometimes scheduled ad hoc.
    3. The Scrum Team makes review material available 1 week prior to the approval meeting for voting members to review prior to the approval meeting.
    4. The Scrum Team presents to the community.
    5. The community votes with a fist of five, where at least a fist of 3 is required of all approved voters. If a fist of 3 cannot be obtained, a “unity group” is formed to discuss further and/or come up with a compromise within 2 weeks, including those strongly in favor, as well as any that are a fist of 2 or lower(the dissenters). If the unity group can agree with in 2 weeks, then the voted is considered approved. If they cannot agree, then the LA makes the decision to approve or disapprove as a last resort.
    6. If approved, the community then documents the new tool as “approved for experiment” or “approved for use” and is added to the tool matrix. (see below)

Tools

Tools Matrix

Tool/Initiative Name

Being Proposed

Approved

For Experiment

Approved

For Use

Deprecated

Sunsetted

Logging Framework – SLF4J (v3.4, v4.0.1) X
Programming Language: Java (23.4 or above) X
Dependency Injection Framework: InjectorSpace 3.2 or above
(Home Grown)
X
Dependency Injection Framework: InjectorSpace 3.1 X
Dependency Injection Framework: InjectorSpace 3.0 or below X
Architectural Pattern/Domain Logic: Domain Model X
Architectural Pattern/Domain Logic: Service Layer X
Database: Oracle 23i or above X
Deployment Platforms: ???
Other various open source libraries:
Must be GPL-3.0 or EPL-1.0 license.
X
Programming Language: Scala (12 or above) X
Architectural Pattern: Microservices (will likely be limited in scope, as only valuable in certain contexts) X
Persistence Framework: Hibernate (54 or above) X
Architectural Pattern: Monolith applications X
Peer Review: Scrum Team must have documented procedures for peer reviews. X
… (author note — there would likely be many more items in a real CoP —
these are just examples)

Note that the TeamSet Definition of Done requires that all 3rd party tools that are code based (Libraries, code frameworks, Development Environments, etc) be represented on the above Tool Matrix.

The items below have at one time been considered out of scope for the Architectural Community.

Out of Scope Matrix

>

CWA’s re: Tools

  1. In everything we do, we try to honor Scrum(as defined in the Scrum Guide) and Agile (as defined in the Agile Manifesto). Because we have not yet chosen a scaled Scrum approach, we simply extend many of the ideas of the Scrum Guide and Agile Manifesto to our entire Community and TeamSet.
  2. The table above includes information that is also effectively CWA’s.
  3. Because we believe in the Agile value statement of valuing “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools” and “Responding to Change over Following a Plan”, don’t ever be afraid to get some architects together in an ad hoc way to solve an architectural challenge — we can always retrofit those actions to our processes and tools later.
  4. We use the term “Tools” fairly broadly, to include essentially all architectural initiatives that require community approval or coordination.
  5. We don’t yet have any more special CWA’s on the Tools topic — most of what we record here is in the tool Matrix above.
  6. These tools have been considered to be “out of scope” for this community: Agile ALM Tool, Wiki Tool Choice, Test Driven Development, Peer review procedures, Test Automation techniques, Build Automation techniques, process compliance.

 

[TODO: Make Tables appear better]

The New Definition of Software Success

In a previous post on why large scale Agile and Scrum is 6X more successful than waterfall, I explain how Agile projects/products are so much more successful than waterfall based approaches like the Rational Unified Process.

What is also equally important to note, is that the Standish Group, an industry leader in the software project management survey field, has changed their definition of success.  According to Jennifer Lynch from the Standish Group:

The Standish Group has redefined project success as onTime, onBudget with a satisfactory result…we have seen many projects that have met the Triple Constraints [schedule/scope/cost]and did not return value to the organization or the users and executive sponsor were unsatisfied.

It’s important to note that this definition changed in 2015, and the new definition is applied equally across waterfall and Agile projects at The Standish Group.

A parallel development also captures this trend.  Scrum.org is an industry leading organization focused on improving the profession of software delivery through Agile approaches like the wildly popular Scrum approach (some 90% of software teams use Scrum). Scrum.org has now publicly released a new software success metrics model that they call “Evidence Based Management for Software Organizations(tm)“.  The approach is free to the public, and the metrics apply to both Agile and waterfall based software delivery.  Just knowing the basics of the approach can help any organization improve.  In it, Scrum.org has identified around 23 key software metrics that can be used to trend whether your software investment ROI is heading in the right direction or not.  What’s important to note is that these key metrics are all just more detailed derivative metrics of, you guessed it: schedule, scope, and customer/user satisfaction.

So, the clear trend from the above two developments from industry thought leaders is that we in the software industry should take notice on how we evaluate the success of software projects.  The data strongly indicates that we have been focused on the wrong success metrics for the past 50 years in our industry.  It appears that schedule/scope/cost is now passe in the industry. It’s time to begin focusing on value delivery via the key metrics of schedule/satisfaction/cost.

Large Scale Agile and Scrum vs. Waterfall: Agile is 6X More Successful, 1/4 the Cost, and 10X Faster Payback!

A pair of recent findings from the Standish Group confirm the astonishing success and cost savings of Agile approaches over waterfall.

In the “Chaos Report 2015“, Standish found that large Agile projects are 6X more successful than waterfall projects.  While Standish doesn’t get specific on what is a “large” project, it’s worth noting that “Large” is the biggest size category for projects and their data encompasses over 10,000 software projects.

In a new report called  The Money Pit, The Standish Group studied two very similar large software projects, done at two very similarly sized, mature companies.  One project was done with Agile, and one with Waterfall.  The astounding results they found:

  • The Agile project was 4X cheaper than the cost of the equivalent waterfall project, AND
  • The Agile project was “delivered with high user satisfaction,” while the waterfall project “had a watered-down critical function and the high-value feature was not part of the delivered application.”, AND
  • The Agile Project’s payback was “At the end of two years the application costs were fully paid back and the users were highly proficient” while the waterfall organization estimated the system payback would “break even in 20 years”
 
* Note that the activities depicted on the graph were done sequentially via waterfall, but iteratively via Agile.

It should also be noted that a survey from Forrester Research showed that of all companies attempting Agile, some 90% are using Scrum.

Just to re-iterate — 6X more successful, cost payback 10X faster, and 4X cheaper.  How is that for Better, Faster, Cheaper?

At AgileSoftwareTraining.com, we provide coaching, consulting, and training solutions to help your company achieve the astounding success of Agile and Scrum approaches.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

So, if you’re an organization that is doing waterfall or struggling with Agile, what are you waiting for?  The research is overwhelmingly in favor of Agile and Scrum approaches.  Get on the road to millions more in profit and cost savings.  No seriously, what are you waiting for?

A Response to Mike Cohns Comments on 64% of Software Features Rarely or Never Used

I have a saying.  “Scrum Trainers usually agree on 99% of Scrum, but they spend a lot of time debating the other 1%.”

Let me say this first.  I’m a huge fan of Mike Cohn.  I teach Scrum and Agile classes all over the country at Fortune 50 companies, and it is very rare for a class to go by that I won’t mention at least one of his awesome books on Scrum.  I also recommend him on my list of favorite Agile resources on one of our web sites.  In addition to all of this, I’ve had numerous personal interactions with Mike one on one, and he’s always been extremely nice to me, traded professional practice opinions/advice, and he even offered to let me attend one of his classes at a “trainer courtesy” discount one time.  Great guy!  In summary, I like the guy a lot personally, and I highly respect him professionally.  He’s done a ton for the software and Agile industry, and no one should forget that.

So, with that said, let’s get back to that 1% debate.  🙂

In his recent blog post, Mike reveals some little known details about the oft cited 64% of features that are rarely or never used in software systems.  His information is factual and likely true.  I’m ok with all of that.

What I don’t understand is, why bother broadcasting this?

This is one of the most credible studies available on the subject.  If you think hard about this data for a minute, you’ll realize why it is incredibly difficult to obtain… No company wants to admit that there is a TON of bloat in their software!  But, what percentage of Microsoft Excel/PowerPoint/Word features do you use and benefit from?  What percentage of Rally features do you actually use and benefit from?  Bloat bloat bloat, negative value, negative value, negative value.   In my recent articles on the New New Product Owner, I’ve talked about the need for the New New Product Owner to be a marketplace expert, so that they can maximize the value and profits from software development for their company.

Now, the value equation is way more complicated than “rarely or never used”, but still, I think we all know that there is a TON of negative ROI functionality in any non trivially sized application, and there is a TON of software teams with far too little focus on value and profits.  Anyone who has worked on the front lines of software development knows that.  The oft cited study just helps confirm some of our suspicions.  One of our Agile Metrics consulting services at AgileSoftwareTraining.com is helping to give company leaders even more transparency into how to extract more profits and cost savings out of all of their software development efforts, whether they be internal or external systems.  Give us a call if you’re interested.

What makes that limited study useful as a teaching tool is it gets people to think about value, and think about low value, low ROI features, and realize that value delivery is important, far too important to ignore.

Newer Study confirms the same idea!

Further, Standish again re-iterated this point in 2014, ostensibly from wider data: https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/Exceeding%20Value_Layout.pdf — “Standish Group research shows that 80% of features and functions have low to no value.”

There are other “studies” cited in our industry that are totally bogus, software leprechauns if you will, and I’m totally against relying on those.  Things like the “Cone of Uncertainty” and the so-called “Weinberg study” on task switching have shown to be totally made up.  However, the Standish Group study is real, with real data, and it is highly credible, even if somewhat limited in its scope.

So, Mike wants us to stop citing the study, or for us to caveat it with “in the weeds” details.  Of course, that will just confuse those new to Scrum and the teaching value would be lost.  And people would focus less on software value and profits.  I don’t think that’s good.  I’m totally open to hearing about a more credible public study, but I’m unaware of one. 

With all due respect to a friendly colleague, and one of the best Scrum trainers on the planet, I think ignoring or caveating the 64% study is bad for the industry.  Let’s just put this in the 1% bucket that we as Scrum trainers will agree to disagree on.  🙂

If you’d like to disagree with my contrarian view, feel free to sound off in the comments below!

Scaling Agile and Scrum to multiple teams: Great Overview of LeSS and Large Scale Scrum

If you’re like many companies out there, you’re trying to figure out a way to effectively get multiple Agile teams to work together to deliver more with less.  Well… Let me introduce you to LeSS — Large Scale Scrum.  Large Scale Scrum has been in practice since 2005.  The co-creators of LeSS, Certified Scrum Trainers in their own right, have just released a kick arse chapter from their new book on LeSS.  Their chapter, in my opinion, is the best introduction to LeSS for those who are not familiar with it.  I highly recommend you give it a read!

If you’re interested in learning more about Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), check out the LeSS class being held in Denver in late September. (Includes certification, SEU’s, etc)

Here is the link for the chapter introducing LeSS:  http://less.works/less/framework/introduction.html

The New New Scrum Master: Two Main Focus Areas

I’m going to take a break from talking about the New New Product Owner to talk about the New New Scrum Master now.

Preface:  In the last 4 years, the Scrum Guide has had two very significant updates, including updates to the Scrum Master Role. In this article and the series that follows, I attempt to describe “The New New Scrum Master” role in Scrum.

The Scrum Master role has not changed as much in recent Scrum Guide updates as much as the Product Owner.  In many ways, however, what has changed, is the number and higher frequency of misconceptions about the Scrum Master role.  This is, in my opinion, due to late adopters to Scrum who don’t take the time or money to attend proper and professional Scrum training.  Yes, this appears to be a completely self serving statement since I’m a Scrum Trainer.  However, the bigger, and more important reason this statement is true, is because Scrum is a much deeper topic than people think.  We often use the metaphor of the difference between a Chess player who knows how the different chess pieces move, and a Chess player that has extensive experience and knowledge about how to be excellent at the strategy and techniques of Chess.  There is a vast difference between those two ends of the spectrum, between knowing the rules and being able to excel at winning.  With Scrum, people and organizations vastly underestimate just how long that spectrum is.  All you have to do to confirm this is to witness or hear about a Scrum adoption that is horribly painful or not working.    So, my hope is that we can clear up some misconceptions for the New New Scrum Master and help reduce some pain and increase some profits!

The two main focus areas for the New New Scrum Master are:

  • Teaching and coaching the organization on how to achieve the benefits of Scrum, and
  • Removing impediments that are beyond the reach of the Development Team.

For brevity’s sake, we will shorten these to “teach/coach” and “remove impediments.”

All of the other Scrum Master focus and duties derive from the above two focus areas.

For a high quality class that focuses exclusively on the Scrum Master role(the course is also great for management), see our Professional Scrum Master class and contact us if you’re interested in one.

Teach/Coach

One of the main focus areas for the New New Scrum Master is teaching and coaching the organization on how to achieve the benefits of Scrum.  Let’s talk about how this might be done.

The New New Scrum Master knows the “Why’s” behind Scrum.
In my experience, Scrum Masters would do well to understand the benefits of Scrum on several levels, before worrying about specific teaching or coaching techniques.

First and probably foremost, the Scrum Master should understand and *be able to succinctly communicate* the *business* benefits of Scrum to the organization. It is important to to be able to communicate these benefits succinctly because, in the wider organization, the Scrum Master will very often be given 5 minutes or less to convey them.

Each Scrum Master should have their own such list of benefits memorized, but certainly some of them should be:

  • Faster time to market
  • Quicker ability to pivot to market opportunities and competitor threats.
  • Higher Customer Satisfaction
  • Higher Productivity
  • Higher Transparency
  • Better Predictability
  • Better alignment between the business and software teams
  • And the list goes on…

A good study of the 11 key metrics in “Evidence Based Management” will help you to be aware of some of the business benefits, but come up with some of your own.  Make it yours!

Being able to rattle a good handful of these off, and then being able to *explain succinctly* how different sub parts of Scrum support these goals should certainly be in the New New Scrum Master’s toolbox.  When facing an organization that has not been to proper Scrum Training, be sure not to use too much Scrum speak — keep it very simple and mostly devoid of Scrum terminology.  Also, definitely focus on the business benefits of Scrum that align with organizational desires and goals.  The more you can point to those higher organizational desires the more buy-in you’ll likely get from those higher in the organization!

The New New Scrum Master should also be able to communicate the benefits that will appeal more to those on and around the team, such as:

  • Benefits to Development Team members
  • Benefits to Business Stakeholders
  • Benefits to Product Owners

Again, the same advice as above, be ready to rattle off a list, be ready to explain how different parts of Scrum support each of the list items, and be ready to avoid Scrum terminology for those who haven’t had proper training.

Knowing the “Why’s” behind Scrum will help convince others of “why” to pay attention to your teaching and coaching.  Notice I said “help convince” — it will likely take much more than that, but knowing these benefits is a “must have” for those conversations.

Knowing the “Why’s” behind Scrum is just one aspect of “teach/coach.”  Don’t misunderstand me, teaching and coaching is actually more than just teaching and coaching — using those two terms is simply a way to oversimplify this focus area.  You might also want to mentor, advise, and facilitate at times.  But even those things can fall under “teach/coach.”  We’ll explore this more in future posts.

Removing Impediments

The second New New Scrum Master focus area is removing impediments that are beyond the reach of the Development Team.

There is a common misconception that the Scrum Master is responsible for removing *all* impediments for the Development Team.  While the Scrum Guide is a little vague on this subject, it is somewhat hard to articulate the fine balance between the Scrum Master’s duty to remove impediments, and the Development Team’s responsibility to self-organize. This misconception drives a lot of failure in Scrum implementations.  We’ll explore this more in future posts.

The metaphor I like to use here is “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”  When respecting and coaching on the Development Team’s obligation to self organize, it is important for the New New Scrum Master to realize when is the right to time to give the fish, and when is the right time to teach to fish.  The answer is usually the latter, but sometimes the former.

Remember:  Teach/Coach, and Remove Impediments

I have thought about this a lot, and have even conferred with my fellow Scrum coaches on this.  Pretty much all of the responsibilities of the New New Scrum Master boil down to the two focus areas of “teach/coach” and “remove impediments.”

In future articles, I will go deeper on each of these two focus areas.

In the meantime, do you think any Scrum Master duties cannot effectively fall under those two focus areas?  If so, what are they?  Sound off in the comments below!

In Scrum, Who are the Key Stakeholders that Should be Attending Every Sprint Review?

The Scrum Guide requires that the Product Owner ensure that “key stakeholders” attend the Scrum Sprint Review, but who are these “key stakeholders”?

According to the Scrum Glossary, a stakeholder is “a person external to the Scrum Team with a specific interest in and knowledge of a product that is required for incremental discovery. Represented by the Product Owner and actively engaged with the Scrum Team at Sprint Review.”

Typically, they fall into one of three broad categories:

  • The Users – The human people who actually use^1 the software product under development, to help them or the organization make more money or save money.

    • This could include a human compliance officer within a company, who is responsible for making sure that the software systems comply with government or financial regulations.
    • This could include the humans who support the operations or production support for the product.
    • Upstream/Downstream systems could also be considered “users” so long as we don’t forget the human end users of those systems. Don’t forget the humans!
      • Downstream reports are a good example of a downstream system” where you should definitely not forget the “human end user”, but there are other examples.
  • The External Customers (doesn’t exist for internal products — see below) – The people responsible for paying to use the software product.

    • Only applies to externally sold or externally developed products
      • By external here, we mean, outside the company doing the development.
    • In a “software development for hire” arrangement(externally developed product), the client who engages the team would be the External Customer.
    • Sometimes the External Customers and Users are the same people — take TurboTax as an example, or a software product whose human users also make the decision to purchase said product.
  • The Internal Customers – The people responsible for making the funding decisions for the software product development effort.

    • This is usually someone in Product Management(usually for external products) or someone in management in the Line of Business(usually for internal products) that is supported by the software product.
    • It could also be the CEO or CIO or similar roles at times.

There are probably exceptions to the above three broad categories. Also, don’t assume that the Product Owner can only consider “key stakeholders” as sources for requirements or good ideas. The Product Owner can work with anyone any time (possibly during Product Backlog Refinement and other activities) who can supply good ideas to capture more value for the product. Our discussion of key stakeholders here is just to understand how the “stakeholder” role in the Scrum Guide can be interpreted.

The key stakeholders are the people that receive a direct financial^2 benefit(helps them or the organization make more money or save money) from using the software.

One could also think of the management of the development organization as a stakeholder who should attend Sprint Reviews, certainly in replacement of any and all status reports and any and all other progress reporting for the Scrum Teams. If any Dev management asks for these things, the answer should almost always be something like “In Scrum, that information is communicated in Sprint Reviews, so let me get you on the invite list for that.” For Scrum “key stakeholder” purposes though, I’m not sure I’d call Dev management “key stakeholders.” or think of them as being “required” to be present(unless of course, they request status/progress reports).

In some cases, you’ll have so many “users” that it is not possible to have all of them in your Sprint Reviews. In those cases, try to get a representative sample of human users into your Sprint reviews(some companies pay for this kind of feedback from human users), and also utilize other feedback gathering mechanisms. (See “One PO Can Do it All!” in this product ownership article.)

Parting Words

I’m sure that there are exceptions to the above three broad categories, so feel free to let me know if you can think of some noteworthy ones, or maybe see if you can effectively place them under one of the three broad categories above. Talk to the Product Owner and make sure that they are ensuring that key stakeholders are are attending your Sprint Reviews, as their input is absolutely vital to the success of the product.

For a high quality class that focuses exclusively on the Product Owner role(the course is also great for key stakeholders!), see our Professional Scrum Product Owner class and contact us if you’re interested in one.

———-

Notes:

^1 Rare exception — note that sometimes a software development team acts as a “Production Support Engineer” user, but this should only apply to features actually in the product(support logging might be a good example) that help with production support. However, the modeling of a human user who is on the software development team should not become a guise for so-called “technical stories” or technical practices. That’s not a real “user”.

^2 Rare exception — If the organization developing the software is a non profit, government entity, or charity, then instead of “financial benefit” or “money”, we might say “the societal benefit” instead.

%d bloggers like this: