Agile User Story Slicing – An Alternative to the Vertical Slicing Metaphor for Valuable User Stories

Vertical slicing is a decent metaphor for how to ensure that User Stories are indeed valuable to users and key stakeholders. However, I’ve found it a little bit lacking for more complex systems, especially ones that also have upstream and downstream systems that the system under development interacts with. Cases where this model is especially useful is if your Scrum Team is doing internal software, /System Integration, Business Intelligence/Analytics, and web services(ReST, SOA, etc) or Microservices. Typical User Story practice encourages us to /create stories with INVEST qualities. The practices below will help you do so, and help you connect better with the “V” part of the story, the part that means that story is Valuable to users and /key stakeholders. It will also help you with the other letters in that acronym too. But we’ll focus on the V.

Rather than rely on the vertical slicing metaphor, I’m starting to teach more and more of my coaching and training clients the “System Boundary” view of story slicing. In this model, I tell them to draw a line around their system, and then consider the system boundaries, labeled SB1-SB4 below.

System requirements are best captured at the system boundary. As such, User Story Acceptance Criteria (and indeed their associated Acceptance Tests that are preferably automated) should document what happens at the system boundary, and no further.

Some Anti-Patterns
For instance, in my coaching travels, I have seen people creating “Analysis Stories”,”Technical Stories”, “Testing Stories”, “Back End Stories”, and “Integration Stories.” Nearly always, these are people who struggle with how to “slice the cake” to design a User Story that is truly Valuable, as in the INVEST acronym.

Sometimes, a team is very limited by the stories they can create because they are a component team, and are not able to create an end to end feature like feature teams can. In scaled Scrum implementations(several teams working on the same product/system), some organizations have remnants of waterfall still in their organizational design and team structure, such as a large organization composed almost exclusively of component teams. It’s important to keep an eye out for this “too many component teams” anti-pattern — it can be quite devastating to productivity and value delivery.
For more info see “WODA” in this article about the Top 10 Challenges to Scrum that Organizations face. But with that caveat out of the way…

Great Agile User Stories will hit the system boundaries at least TWICE!

The boundaries of the system(or product, as we say in Scrum) under development are shown in the graphic above. SB1-SB4 represent the system boundaries, where we interface with our key stakeholders (humans, as well as upstream and downstream systems, who have humans that represents the interests of those systems). A good Agile User story will hit those boundaries twice. For instance, the typical “vertical slice” in a typical software application with a GUI will hit system boundaries SB3 and SB4. Sometimes, upstream data will somehow get surfaced in one of a product’s GUIs — so it will hit system boundaries SB1 and SB4.

Example: System Integration (Vendor sold product that your org integrates into it’s internal systems)

Another example might even hit all 4 boundaries! These are pretty typical with /Scrum Teams that do System Integration. Some data could flow in from an upstream system(SB1), be presented in a product’s GUI(SB4) for some sort of approval or tweaking(SB3), then approved and sent to the downstream system(SB4). (But of course, this might be better split into 2 stories that each hit 2 boundaries each)

Example: Web Services

It’s important to note that in this model, the upstream system and downstream system could be the same system. Imagine your product is a back end payment system for a retail web site, and that your back end system had no real GUI, just web service endpoints (ReST, SOA, etc). In that case, the “upstream” system would send a payment service request to your system(SB1), and then your system would do some processing on it, and send it back to the (now considered) “downstream” system (SB2) with an approval or denial code or similar. Note that the upstream/downstream system might be in your org, or it might be external (what web services is really built for). It’s again important to note that if you have /”back end stories”, you probably have component teams. Again, not all component teams are evil, but having too many of them in your organization is pretty damaging in terms of agility and productivity. See “WODA” in this article about the Top 10 Challenges to Scrum that Organizations face.

One other related note is that if you’re implementing Scrum, the people that represent those upstream and to downstream systems(usually Dev Team members of those teams) should be involved in your Product Backlog Refinement and Sprint Reviews, so that they can collaborate about boundaries SB1 and SB2. In essence, these Dev Team members for the upstream/downstream systems are key stakeholders for your system.

In Summary
So, if your User Stories don’t touch the system boundaries at least twice, then strongly question whether you have sliced your story correctly to have “value” or not. Chances are, you haven’t — so look at other ways of slicing and dicing that User Story(see the links below for more help with slicing).

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.


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”.)


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.


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.


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 Matrix

Tool/Initiative Name

Being Proposed


For Experiment


For Use



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)
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.
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]

Metrics for Agile Teams — Evidence Based Management for Software Organizations

If you’re looking for metrics to report up or “status” to report up in your software organization, look no further than Evidence Based Management for Software Organizations from  The framework was just recently updated in 2018.  Note that these metrics are gathered at the Product level, not the team level.  If you plan to track metrics like this, and you try to track several teams on the same Product or in the same organization, what you will find is you will create an anti-pattern.  Once teams realize that they are competing against each other, they will stop helping each other!!!  So, don’t do that!  Instead, measure at the Product level, and have the teams retrospect both at the team level and at the product level on how they improve those metrics.  Also, remember that “not everything that counts can be counted”, and always consider subjective data in addition to objective data.  With all of those caveats, I highly recommend you click on the button at the bottom of the EBM page to download the “EBM Guide” as a PDF, and start measuring today!

How to Contact us for Scrum, Scaled Agile Coaching and Training

Contact us at ScrumCrazy to discuss tailoring a training or coaching program to align with your strategic goals. (We do work nationwide in the USA, as well as Internationally upon request.)

  • Email: service at ScrumCrazy dot com

Good Resources for Scaling Agile and Scrum

Good Resources for Scaling and Spreading Scrum and Agile

  1. Scaled Agile Framework
  2. Large Scale Scrum(aka LeSS) Resources
  3. Nexus Framework For “Scaled Professional Scrum” from
  4. My Presentation to Agile Denver Comparing LeSS, SAFe, and Nexus
  5.’s “Evidence Based Management for Software Organizations”
  6. Schwaber’s _The Enterprise and Scrum…_
  7. Cohn’s _Succeeding With Agile…_
  8. Kniberg’s “Scaling Agile at Spottify” (Free PDF)
  9. Schwaber’s _Software in 30 Days…_
  10. Larman/Vodde’s _Scaling Lean Agile…_ (Make sure you check out Resources in #1 above before reading #10/11)
  11. Larman/Vodde’s _Practices for Scaling Lean and Agile…_ (Companion book to the above)

ScrumCrazy My Preferred Agile, Scrum, and XP Resources

A friend recently asked me this question:

What would you recommend in terms of the best book(s) to learn about Agile (Scrum) with XP practices? That is, if you had a team of developers who were newbies to Agile, Scrum, and XP, what books/articles would you give them to bring them up to speed on what they should be doing and how they should be doing it?

My Answer

This question from my friend is a very tricky one, in that it is very broad and generic, and my friend gave me no extra team or organizational context to go on, so about all I can do is give a generic answer, and that is what I’ve done below.

My Preferred Resources

All below are in order of our recommendation in each category.


  1. The Scrum Guide (Only 16 pages, Must read for all)
  2. _Scrum: A Pocket Guide_ by Gunther Verheyen (Short book, Must Read for Scrum Masters, Management. Highly recommended for all others.)
  3. Chapter 1 of _Professional Scrum Development_ by Richard Hundhausen (Short read)
    • PDF download, see Chapter 1, which is a “must read” for all roles)
      • Don’t let the “Visual Studio 2012” part of the book cover fool ya — Chapter 1 is about Scrum and there is no tool stuff in Chapter 1.
  4. Doshi’s _Scrum Insights…_ (Short book, Must read for Scrum Masters)
  5. My article called “Scrum For Laypeople” (A good intro for total newbies or people who won’t be on the new Scrum Team. If you’re a manager or PO or someone interacting with the Scrum team, be sure to read #1 above if you haven’t already)
  6. Cohn’s _Agile Estimating and Planning_ (Must read for Scrum Masters, but note that some of the Scrum stuff is out of date, and some of the story stuff is more directed at the PO role)
  7. SSW’s video on the Product Owner Role (Must watch for new Product Owners — only 2 minutes!)
  8. Pichler’s _Agile Product Management…_ (Must read for Product Owners)
  9. Hundhausen’s _Professional Scrum Development_ (The book is a must read for Scrum Development Team Members)
      • If your team doesn’t use Microsoft tools, then just ignore the chapters in the book about the MS tooling.
  10. Cohn’s _Succeeding With Agile…_ (Must read for Scrum Masters once they have a few Sprints under their belts)
  11. Goldstein’s _Scrum Shortcuts…_ (Great read for Scrum Masters)
  12. Derby/Larsen’s _Agile Retrospectives_
  13. Any article, blog post, presentation, or other material on Roman Pichler’s web site.
  14. Our web site, of course!
  15. The web site (especially the articles and forums)
  16. The Scrum Alliance web site (especially the articles)

XP (Extreme Programming)

  1. Jeffries’ “What is Extreme Programming?”
  2. Jeffries’ _Extreme Programming Installed_
  3. Koskela’s _Test Driven…_
  4. Martin’s _Clean Code_
  5. Feathers’ _Working Effectively With Legacy Code_
  6. “The Rules of Extreme Programming”
  7. Wiki entry on XP Practices

Testing – Agile/XP

  1. Cohn’s “The Forgotten Layer of the Test Automation Pyramid”
  2. Martin Fowler’s Excellent article on Unit Testing
  3. Summary of Lisa Crispin’s Presentation to Agile Denver on Test Automation
  4. Cripin’s “Using the Agile Testing Quadrants”
  5. Crispin/Gregory’s _Agile Testing_
  6. Crispin/House’s _Testing Extreme Programming_
  7. Osherove’s _The Art of Unit Testing_

User Stories (which originated in XP)

  1. I co-authored this article, and I’m pretty pleased with our work — a great starting place for learning about User Stories.
  2. My “User Story Basics” article and all of the links at the bottom of that article
  3. Cohn’s _User Stories Applied_ (Book is VERY dated, and definitely the Scrum stuff is way out of date)
  4. Cohn’s _Agile Estimating and Planning…_ (Chapter 12: Splitting User Stories)
  5. Richard Lawrence’s “User Story Splitting Flowchart”
  6. My User Story Maturity Model (Has a list of User Story best practices)

Scaling and Spreading Scrum and Agile

  • Warning: Scaling Scrum is not for people or orgs new to Scrum. The first focus should be on doing “single team Scrum”. After that, when scaling, we strongly recommend getting Scrum Coaching help. The resources below, while all excellent, are dangerous and risky in the hands of people new to Scrum. We realize that this is a self serving statement since we provide coaching services, but we honestly believe it based on our own experiences of having to rescue companies from poor performing implementations. It costs much much less to get started on the right foot than to rescue an organization. Having said that, we love the challenge of rescues, so don’t be afraid to contact us!

This section has a page all it’s own now !

Dispersed, Distributed, Offshore, and Multi-Site Scrum (use only if applicable)

  1. Deemer’s “The Distributed Scrum Primer”
  2. Larman/Vodde’s _Practices for Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Large, Multisite, and Offshore Product Development with Large-Scale Scrum_
    • Especially Chapters 12-13.
    • Note: This book is not for Scrum Newbies, but neither is Large Scale, Multi-site, and Offshore Scrum. Hire a Scrum Coach, or maybe a dozen.
  3. Woodward et al’s _A Practical Guide to Distributed Scrum_
  4. Cohn’s _Succeeding With Agile…_
  5. Numerous teams have gotten a lot of value out of the “Toss the Microphone ” Daily Scrum Pattern, and not just for Daily Scrums. Some teams use it for Product Backlog Refinement, Retrospectives, etc.

Special Topics of Agile (use only if applicable)

  1. My article entitled “The Role of Managers In Scrum” and all of the links at the bottom of that article
  2. Agile Scrum Contracting Resources

Scrum For System Integration & Analytics Data Warehousing Teams

[TODO: Fix Links.  For more info, see: is Moving…]

–This article was co-authored by Professional Scrum

Trainers Charles Bradley and Mark Noneman.


Things to Think About When Using Scrum for System Integration Efforts

Vendor Platform: Think of something like SAP or SalesForce App Cloud Platform. The platform might have some out of the box functionality, but really, to get the major value out of the platform you need to hook in all of your company’s data sources (usually with the need to do data ETL type work on the incoming data to transform it into the target data model of the platform). You will also need to “configure” (tailor/enhance) the out-of-the-box functionality to your specific organization. For example, using your organizations language for labels, implementing workflows, identifying roles and permissions, adding functionality through scripts or software, etc. Some Business Intelligence platforms (Informatica, Business Objects, etc) also fall into this category (at least in how they affect Scrum).

Since Scrum’s earliest adopters were “vanilla software teams”, often doing full stack development where software programming is the primary activity, System Integration Scrum Teams tend to be late adopters. As such, they suffer from several typical problems that even vanilla software teams suffer from as late adopters to Scrum. See more about that in the Top 10 Challenges to Scrum Adoption. In addition, certain challenges present themselves to vanilla software teams regardless of whether they are late adopters to Scrum or not. Analogous challenges happen in System Integration Scrum Teams, so it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face.

Caveat: The term “vanilla software team” is just a term used for this article to distinguish System Integration Scrum Teams from your basic full stack development software team. Vanilla is not in any way meant to imply that “vanilla software” is easier or harder, only that it’s the more generic kind of software development. Having said that, System Integration, BI/DW, straight web development, and lots of other forms of software development are also extremely valid forms of software development. They’re just other flavors of software development that have some uniqueness about them.

When doing System Integration (SI), many teams like to use Scrum for this effort. Many SI Scrum Teams think that the challenges that they face when doing Scrum are unique to SI, but most of those challenges are not unique to SI at all. Having said that, there are some challenges that seem unique, or at least more accentuated, in SI efforts.

Challenges not Unique to System Integration

Here are some challenges that SIPV Scrum Teams perceive as being unique to them, but they really aren’t unique to SIPV Scrum teams at all.

  1. Due to the proprietary unknowns about how the Vendor Platorm(VP) works, SI Scrum teams feel the need to do more spikes, analysis and design when requirement gathering.
    1. Most VP’s, whether due to feature bloat or having to deal with such a wide variety of clients, have several ways to accomplish a particular business need, which prompts teams to do more analysis or design in order to come up with system requirements that describe application behavior. This is understandable. However, when compared to vanilla software dev, the # of ways to accomplish a business goal is infinite, so this should make the number of ways to accomplish a goal in SI teams fewer than in vanilla teams, right?
    2. Due to the vendor product proprietary bits that are hidden from the Scrum Team(think of the VP as a “black box” component), it might take more time for a SI team to figure out good paths forward(analysis/design/architecture). Hopefully this can be mitigated by good platform documentation, team experience with the VP, and/or support/professional services from the vendor.
    3. All of the aforementioned challenges happen in vanilla software teams too. See “Extensive Discovery/Market Research”, “3rd Party Component Analysis/Design,” and “Complex Business Domains” in the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face..
    4. In SI teams you tend to have a higher occurrence of situations where the dev work is small, but the number of User Story acceptance criteria (aka acceptance tests) is very large. The User Storry or effort can be said to be “lopsided.” This is sometimes due to the data heavy nature of SI, and sometimes due to the fact that once the data is in the VP, the VP GUI has numerous ways of viewing that same or similar sets of data. (Of course, the converse can also be a true — a whole lot of data manipulation, but it only shows up in one place in the GUI — that’s just lopsided in the opposite direction)
    5. VP’s usually require extensive configuration that will need to be tested against. This is really no different then finding the right balance of testing as mentioned in the points just above. This also happens in vanilla software teams when the system under development offers a ton of configuration choices. It’s another case where you might end up with lopsided stories.
    6. All of the above happens often in vanilla software teams too — see “Lopsided User Stories” in the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face.
    7. Much more frequent traffic (real time, daily feeds) and volume in those data interfaces, and
    8. Much less knowledge about and control over those data interfaces. (which increases analysis/requirements time/complexity as mentioned in #1 above)
    9. Much higher number and impact from external dependencies on 3rd parties in development coordination, release deployment coordination, and in production support coordination. This cannot be emphasized enough. This is a heavy complexity multiplier that results in less predictability of software schedules.
      1. Even MORE extra complexity and delays here when the 3rd parties are using waterfall.
    10. The upstream/downstream data source challenge happens often in vanilla software teams too. See “Upstream/Downstream Systems”, “Waterfall Organizational Design by Application(WODA), and “External Dependencies”in the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face.
  2. SI Scrum teams tend to have difficulties around writing poor User Story acceptance criteria
      1. This happens often in vanilla software teams too — see “Poor Acceptance Criteria” in the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face.
  3. SI Scrum teams tend to have discomfort around not having “stories” that account for the time spent in refinement, understanding requirements, analysis, and just enough of the design to create proper User Stories with the INVEST attributes.
    1. This happens often in vanilla software teams too — see “Massive Unknowns” in the Top 10 Challenges That Scrum Teams Face.

Challenges that are Mostly Unique to System Integration

Now, finally, here are the few challenges that the authors have seen that seem to be mostly unique to SIPV Scrum Teams.

  1. Test automation at the GUI level might be challenging since you may not have as easy access to the undercarriage or GUI of the VP GUI.
  2. SI Scrum teams tend to struggle with incorporating Vendor professional services personnel into their Scrum implementation
    1. This is especially difficult when the vendor is either not Agile friendly or when they want to matrix specialists in and out of the team rapidly like special forces (In Agile we call this “specialist silos”, and it’s waterfall thinking — we want T-shaped skills and long lived team members instead)
    2. Scrum Teams should get to interview and help choose new dev team members, but vendors usually don’t allow for this.
    3. Waterfall thinking in terms of fixed scope/fixed date vendor professional services contracts can misalign with Agile principles.
  3. There is an extremely low amount of “on point” Agile/Scrum literature about how to use Agile/Scrum practices for system integration type work. As we have shown above, many of the Scrum concepts transfer readily, but the literature almost always gives examples from vanilla software development. This can lead to further “snowflake”/ScrumBut thinking (see “The Snowflake Objection” in the Top 10 Challenges to Scrum Adoption)
  4. SIPV teams often feel that their tool is the “Golden Hammer” for all the work related to their domain. For instance, they might be able to solve a particular problem using 15 transformation steps, when they could have written 15 lines of custom code instead, possibly reducing a 6 week story into a 1 week story. This is not a direct threat to Scrum per se, but it can impact a team’s creativity and cause a dysfunction where stories are constantly carrying over from sprint to sprint. Also, it might be a sign that the team is not terribly cross functional, which can cause other complications with respect to Scrum. Last but not least, it could save 5 weeks of dev time and money! –Submitted by Professional Scrum Trainer Jesse Houwing
%d bloggers like this: