Most approaches to adopting Agile at scale involve frameworks. Proponents claim frameworks are flexible, but ignore one of their salient aspects
Instead of taking the pre-set starting point most frameworks require, toolkits look at effective practices from all over. In particular, Disciplined Agile teaches people why and how to choose their own way of working by doing some up front assessment and analysis. Arriving at a set of practices which are fit for purpose makes it simpler to adopt. People are
If you want to learn more, watch this webinar I'm doing tomorrow at 9am
I wrote this blog for those considering what approach they should take to improve their organization’s ability to create value for themselves and their customers. I believe that any approach to improvement has three main objectives:
By “better than random” approach, I mean something contextualized for your organization. Since there is no one size fits all, taking an approach with only one size is geared toward the average organization at best, certainly not yours. Your approach needs to both provide a way of assessing what you need and then enabling you to choose your way of working.
Most people learn best when they have frequent experiences that they recognize are opportunities for improvement. Lean’s learning method of explicit workflow and visibility facilitates this.
Finally, the heart of true change is Kaizen which literally means “good change” and is inferred to mean a series of small changes that result in improvement. Steps 2 and 3 work together by providing people with frequent, recognizable opportunities to make continuous improvement.
As a side note I do not mean to imply against doing
Two things they have in
Not adopting a pre-existing framework does not mean that they created their way of working from scratch. Most brought in training to learn how teams can work effectively. The real issue
The issues that have to
This is the essence of Disciplined Agile's approach to people choosing their own way of working.
Originally published 1/1/2011. I have some additional information at the end to bring it up to date.
Throughout the Agile movement, one acronym that has
The irony of Agile's (
This is not necessarily bad. It presents both opportunities and challenges. But the risk of using pre-determined roles is
The Lean/Kanban alternative is to first understand your current process and to gradually change it. You do this by creating visibility into it using a Kanban board which represents the value stream. You discuss your policies to make them explicit. You manage your work in progress to do step by step improvements to your work flow.
I am not suggesting that BCUF is always bad. There are times I've used it when there is a well identified problem with a clear solution and almost universal buy-in. However, not looking at whether a BCUF approach should be taken is dangerous. It's one of my complaints about consultants who have only one tool in their arsenal and why at Net Objectives we have several (Lean, Kanban, Scrumban, Scrum, hybrids even).
BCUF can be expanded beyond the team. It is common practice when adopting Agile methods to do a pilot project. But this is also a kind of BCUF. We assume that the change here (at the pilot) is the correct thing to do without understanding the nature of our true challenge. See How Successful Pilots Often Actually Hurt an Organization (blog and 4 minute video).
Bringing this blog up to date.
A few years after this blog was written, the Disciplined Agile approach came into existence. It suggests that we need to look at the current situations companies are in. This includes their culture and what the best approach for the organization at hand? is. This means not only to choose your way of working but to choose the way of implementing change.
One could also argue that always doing small change up front is also a problem. Sometimes started starting with a big change is what it takes to ensure the change will stick. Again, one has to have both a flexible approach and not insist on predetermined methods just because it's easier to train consultants to do this.
First, let me start out with what I mean by “simple.” I view “simple” as being “fit for
So how does Lean and Flow Thinking make things more “fit for
While virtually all approaches have accepted that Lean and Flow thinking is useful, most still define themselves around a framework that has a core of immutable roles, events, artifacts and rules. These core concepts can’t
This is one
The bottom line is providing choice when it makes things fit for purpose simplifies things. Forcing people to work a particular way complicates things.