The restructuring of an existing value stream represents the greatest possible tactical challenge that managers can face in the context of agile transformation. It directly impacts the organization’s ability to deliver and affects established social structures. It is also on the borderline between two domains: complicated and complex; some aspects of the target structure are known with a fair degree of certainty based on experience, but we cannot predict how the transformation process will proceed or be received by employees.
In this case study, we show how the right handling of constraints and practices allowed our client’s transformation team to handle complex and complicated questions to maneuver their organizations through this challenge.
Setting the Scene: The Challenge
The client introduced Agile working methods in 2022 and decided to restructure from component teams to cross-functional teams in the summer of 2023. The project involved over 100 developers across Europe.
This transformation was led by a core team consisting of the Chief Product Owner, a transition coordinator, and an internal and an external Agile coach. Additional support was provided by an extended core team including all Scrum Masters and Product Owners of the value stream, as well as the formal managers and leads.
The Four Phases of Transformation
The transformation process was divided into four phases, each presenting specific challenges for the transformation.
Phase 1: Kickoff and Preparation
The starting points for every successful change project, according to John Kotter’s Leading Change, are the ‘Sense of Urgency’ and the so-called ‘Guiding Coalition’. Of course, these also apply to the reorganization of a value stream. But beyond these important starting points, the core team also asked itself:
How do we approach this?
How do we want to position ourselves as a team?
How do we deal with resistance?
The first question can be answered by the Cynefin framework. Among other things, it distinguishes between known and unknown contexts and specifies how complicated or complex challenges can be overcome.
Complicated or Complex?
The Cynefin framework provides a good overview of the distinction between complex and complicated domains.
A situation is part of the complicated domain when causal relationships and the effects of an intervention are known in advance. In this domain, those involved are able to analyze the environment and understand it, and they can identify good practices that help to achieve a clear goal. Groups or organizations can be aligned towards the common goal through governance. (cf. ‘Governing Constraints’).
In contrast, complex environments are not known to the extent that causal effects can be predicted in advance; at best, they can be explained retrospectively. Since not all influencing factors are known, an in-depth analysis is not possible. Instead, an experimental approach and probing can be used to try to recognize and determine the influencing factors and make the procedure ‘repeatable’. In complex environments ‘enabling constraints’ allow a better understanding of the environment, and develop and adjust practices emergently based on new experiences. This allows a group or organization better understand the context and move forward.
For obvious reasons, it’s helpful to start a transformation with things that are relatively well-known and understood. Since the change was driven by the market, the reorganization was first examined by the Product Owners. Analyzing their market helped them to determine seven target groups that are served by the value stream. Each Product Owner picked a topic, which was then outlined in more detail. Scrum Masters were subsequently brought on board. Together with the Product Owners and the managers of the teams, they were to make a significant contribution to better understanding and addressing initial concerns.
Conclusion of the Kickoff
In addition to the common goal and the shared sense of urgency, the setup of the transformation team and the extended transformation team was key to later success. By the end of the kickoff, everyone involved had a common understanding of why we as a leadership team wanted to take the next step towards cross-functional teams. Regarding the timing, everyone was willing to try to see if we could achieve this by the end of the next major iteration, which was scheduled for a month and a half later. After two days of the kickoff, such an ambitious goal is certainly possible, but it cannot be set in stone. Nevertheless, the next tasks and responsibilities were clarified during the kickoff.
“Self-organization plays an important role. However, self-organization does not mean ‘everyone can decide everything’ nor ‘everyone decides everything together’. Leadership needs to provide an environment and constraints that allow teams to improve their capabilities to self-organize. This also includes clear responsibilities and a shared understanding of what teams can decide by themselves, what is management’s responsibility, and where we both need to align. Either way, the most important aspect of self-organization is a team’s capability and willingness to take over responsibilities. However, between a fully centralized and a fully decentralized organization, there is plenty of room for joint development of the organization.”
Lothar Fischmann, Senior Agile Coach at agile42
Phase 2: Dry Run
A week before the actual restructuring event, we had a dry run. The purpose of the dry run was to ensure everyone involved understood the staffing process and refine constraints. It was clear to everybody that narrowly defined rules may accelerate the staffing process but would impair the self-organization and motivation of the teams. Besides that, there was also a very practical need for a self-organized approach: well-balanced teams relied on numerous individual factors, including preferences and competencies that couldn’t be fully managed by one person alone.
A complex challenge ahead was how to assign teams to different locations, mainly because not all skills were available everywhere. This meant that teams with varying expertise couldn’t always work together in the same place. Everyone agreed it’s best to have ‘as few locations as possible per team’ and for each colleague to have a local partner to collaborate with. However, there’s no fixed number of locations per team that fits every situation.
Trying to find an ‘ideal number’ or measure distances between locations isn’t a solution because individual factors come into play. These factors included the following:
How comfortable would employees feel with a foreign language?
Who likes to start their working day earlier and can therefore work more easily with colleagues from earlier time zones?
How willing are individual employees to travel?
To address these or similar factors, representatives simulated and resolved a series of questions during the dry run. The key questions that emerged for discussion were:
What variables should employees consider when selecting a team/topic?
How does our organization handle diverse interests or potential conflicts?
Which ‘constraints’ can help us to shape the staffing process to everyone’s satisfaction?
Takeaways from the Dry Run
The dry run helped participants to explore complex questions by following a Cynefin approach of ‘Probing, Sensing and Responding’. This was applied to Product Owners’ presentations, where they received feedback, as well as the serious discussions that would prepare everybody for the staffing process. The dry run was characterized by open and honest discussions around different topics, such as the following:
What would it mean to have a joint goal for the staffing process? The value stream won’t succeed if one team gains the most senior and elite developers, but another one is not able to deliver anything.
What happens if developers choose the topic that interests them more vs. the topic they are more highly skilled in?
At the end of the dry run, there was a common understanding of constraints, ‘escalation levels’, and a positive ‘confidence vote’. All participants were certain that the staffing of cross-functional teams could be carried out satisfactorily in this way.
When introducing the ‘levels of escalation’ we emphasized that ‘escalating’ means lifting a discussion to another level. This has nothing to do with ‘drama’ or ‘what happened at a recent party’.
Phase 3: The Staffing Event
It would be unrealistic to create a rigid schedule for the first self-organized large group event and expect everything to unfold as planned. However, it is still possible to adequately prepare for such an event. In addition to establishing a shared understanding of collective goals, constraints, and escalation levels, various other influencing factors play a crucial role in the success of the staffing event. We’ll unpack them below.
Target Corridor
Insights from both intuition and past experiences shared by external coaches helped the value stream outline an estimated timeframe for the staffing process. The initial half-day was designated for introductions, background information, and topic presentations. Following this, the staffing activities were scheduled for approximately one-half to one-and-a-half days. This window provided flexibility for the leadership team to address any challenges that might arise, ensuring alignment with the shared goals. If it became apparent by the end of the first day that numerous unresolved issues remained, the extended transformation team stood ready to implement additional measures to introduce more containing constraints.
Shared Ownership
In the dry run and the opening of the staffing event itself, it was communicated that it was not about a single person or a single topic ‘winning’, but that the common goal must be that all products in the value stream can be delivered. The event can only be a success if all teams are confident that they can deliver value independently and overcome the challenges ahead.
Iterative Approach
The staffing process took place in several rounds, which were initially 45 minutes long but were later reduced to 30 minutes. At the end of each round, there was a synchronization with all participants in which teams gave updates on their progress or impediments they were facing. This increased involvement and gave everybody an overview of how they could contribute.
Personal Interaction
Product Owners and Scrum Masters were asked to prepare a ‘market stall’ for their colleagues, with a display showcasing their ideas, topics, and priorities. Developers walked around these stalls, browsing the teams’ displays, exchanging ideas with potential future teams, and getting to know colleagues and topics better. In addition to the restructuring process, the event also included a joint dinner and team-building exercises.
Make Priorities Explicit
Once the developers had walked around the stalls and informed themselves about the details of each of the future teams, they were able to make their priorities transparent. Each developer was asked to report on up to three topics. Knowing the individual priorities improved the moderation of conflicts of interest.
Dealing with Contingencies
Once it was decided that the future setup would contain one hardware and eight software teams, it was clear that not all teams would make decisions and give the green light simultaneously, and some issues would be resolved more quickly than others. To make good use of the event and the time together on site, a side program was created that teams could start if they finished earlier. The focus here was on things that could be done better while everyone was onsite’.
We’re Only Done Once Everyone is Done
For their orientation, all teams were given a ‘Definition of Done’ with quality criteria that had to be fulfilled. Based on this checklist, the teams received a ‘preliminary okay’ from the CPO and were able to join the side program. However, since staffing decisions elsewhere can also affect teams that were thought to be finished, the rule was “We are only done once everyone is done”.
Outcomes of the Staffing Event
By the end of day one, two roles still had to be filled. These were resolved by midday on the second day, which was right in the middle of the targeted time box.
Phase 4: Post-Match Time
The remaining question was: How could everybody, including stakeholders, management or coaches recognize whether the new teams work out?
The extended transformation team was able to rely on an indicator that is inherent to all Scrum Teams: Sprint Goals. These helped to answer the key questions:
Are the new teams able to independently set appealing Sprint Goals that add value to their stakeholders?
Are they able to pursue this target as part of an iteration? and
Do they develop a sense of how much they can promise and deliver over the next iteration?
The importance of Sprint Goals is not only due to their significance for stakeholders and management: pursuing a common goal also has a motivating effect on the entire team and catalyzes the team development process.
The Final Outcome
“In the next couple of weeks around half of the teams managed to take responsibility for their Sprint Goals independently or with a little support and develop a good feeling for the team’s performance. The joint and cross-team discussion on Sprint Goals helped us to generate initial successes. On the one hand, these pioneers naturally motivate other teams, and on the other, it also allows us to recognize where further coaching support can be targeted.”
In our latest webinar, Implementing Agility at Scale, hosted by Giuseppe de Simone and Lothar Fischmann, we explored the intricacies of scaling. The discussion offered valuable insights into the challenges involved in transitioning to Agile frameworks on a larger scale.
De Simone and Fischmann, seasoned experts in organizational agility, provided a comprehensive overview of three main approaches to scaling: pattern-led, principles-led, and practice-led. They shared that implementing agility at scale requires a holistic approach that integrates various perspectives, fosters open communication, and embraces adaptability. Organizations can pave the way for smoother transitions and more resilient operations by addressing challenges collaboratively and aligning strategies with business objectives.
Watch the full webinar below, or read on for six key takeaways.
Watch: Implementing Agility at Scale
1. It’s Important to Identify Your Scaling Goals and Challenges
As the webinar opened, De Simone defined the primary goal of scaling as enabling an organization to increase its capacity without necessarily increasing the headcount. This contrasts with the common misconception that scaling is solely about growing the team.
Participants voted in a poll to share the challenges they have encountered in scaling efforts. Some of these responses included resistance to change, operational issues, lack of strategic goals, leadership concerns, and bureaucracy.
De Simone emphasized that resistance to change often stems from top-down changes from leaders. This tends to occur when the reasons or benefits are unclear to teams. Organizations need to ensure that changes are meaningful and well-aligned with strategic objectives.
2. There Are Four Critical Choices to Make When Scaling Agile Teams
There are four interconnected choices involved in scaling. Each choice has implications for team structure, autonomy, coordination, and speed of delivery. By carefully considering these choices in alignment with their strategic goals and organizational context, organizations can make informed decisions to optimize their scaling efforts.
Product Breadth: There are many ways to define and understand a product. Most people think they have a clear definition of their product. But, De Simone mused, if you ask five people in your organization for that definition, you’ll likely end up with five different definitions – some of which may be very broad while others are specific. De Simone outlined the example of a banking product. At first, it may seem fairly broad and simple: the key product is the online banking service. But there are also insurance and loans, credit cards, the mobile banking app – and even within the app, there’s Android and iPhone. When you think about it, these could all be considered separate products. How you define their scope or breadth has implications for team structure, backlog management, and alignment with customer needs.
Components vs. Features: Organizations must decide how to structure their teams based on either component specialization or feature delivery. According to De Simone, component-based teams focus on specific layers or components of the system. Feature teams, on the other hand, have all the necessary skills to work on any component in the system. In addition, they can make decisions and implement features autonomously to deliver value to the customer. Each approach has advantages and challenges, including managing dependencies, autonomy, and collaboration.
Efficiency vs. Effectiveness: This choice pertains to team organization and resource allocation. Efficiency-oriented teams are specialized, with members dedicated to specific roles like programming, testing, or UX. On the other hand, effectiveness-oriented teams are cross-functional. According to De Simone, “They focus on delivering the most important item as fast as possible.” Organizations need to weigh the benefit of having specialized teams versus increasing the speed of delivery when implementing agility at scale.
Product Ownership: De Simone elaborates that organizations must decide whether to have one Product Owner per team or one Product Owner per product. Having a Product Owner per team can lead to increased autonomy, but may result in fragmented ownership and coordination challenges. Conversely, having a Product Owner per product reduces the cost of the time taken to coordinate the teams. However, this requires broader skills and may limit team autonomy.
3. There are Three Main Approaches to Implementing Agility at Scale
According to Fischmann, “We can distinguish between three main approaches to scaling agility: the first is pattern-led scaling; the second is principles-led scaling; and the third is practice-led scaling.”
Pattern-Led Scaling: This approach allows organizations to apply scaling based on the specific situation and context they face. In this approach, we understand the patterns of problems in our particular business context. Therefore, we can apply solutions that have already been proven to work well in this context. According to Fischmann, the advantage of using this approach is that we’re approaching the problem within the specific context of our business.
Principles-Led Scaling: In this approach, organizations align their behavior and decision-making with Agile principles and values. This approach fosters a strong Agile culture, but Fischmann notes, “If you only come from a principal perspective then it may be hard to relate agility to any specific business problems”.
Practice-Led Scaling: This approach involves implementing tactical practices and frameworks to drive agility at scale. It emphasizes hands-on learning and involves applying specific practices to gain a deeper understanding of underlying principles.
For a deep dive into Agile principles, check out our Agile Foundations e-learning course.
Fischmann elaborates that there are interdependencies between the three main scaling strategies: principles-led, pattern-led, and practice-led.
Principles-Led governs Pattern-Led and Practice-Led: This means that the principles and values of agility serve as the foundation for both pattern-led and practice-led approaches. Organizations rely on Agile principles to guide their decision-making and problem-solving processes, whether they’re identifying patterns or implementing specific practices.
Practice-Led helps us understand Principles-Led: “By practicing certain rituals, teams get a deeper understanding of why these rituals are important, and they will get a better understanding of the principles behind them,” Fischmann explains. Through practical application, individuals and teams internalize the core concepts of agility and how they translate into real-world scenarios.
Practice-Led is used to manage Pattern-Led: Organizations leverage practice-led approaches to address specific patterns or challenges they encounter. Practices serve as tools or techniques to manage and navigate complex patterns in the organization. For example, if an organization identifies a pattern of communication breakdowns, teams may implement practices such as Daily Stand-up meetings or Retrospective sessions. In doing so, teams can improve collaboration and transparency.
Overall, these relationships emphasize the importance of aligning principles, patterns, and practices when implementing agility at scale. Each approach complements the others, contributing to a holistic and sustainable Agile transformation journey.
4. Practice-led Scaling Has Three Sub-Categories
According to Fischmann, we can further categorize practices into framework-led, methodology-led, or toolbox-led approaches. Each of these offers distinct levels of structure and guidance.
Framework-Led Approaches: Fischmann explained that framework-led practices offer a minimal set of guidelines and processes to follow, allowing teams to be flexible and adapt based on their specific needs. Frameworks, such as Scrum or Kanban, outline key roles, events, and artifacts, providing a foundation for teams to organize their work and interactions.
Methodology-Led Approaches: Methodology-led practices involve pursuing knowledge, with clear instructions on how practices should be executed. This approach uses a pre-configured heavyweight external model. Contained within the model are many methods and practices describing how to perform all the activities. The model is then applied to your current organization. This is a popular approach as the methodology removes the need to make complex contextual decisions. It is often laden with risk for the same reasons. A key disadvantage is that it doesn’t take the individual organization’s context and challenges into account when scaling agility.
Toolbox-Led Approaches: Toolbox-led practices rely on tactical tools and techniques for addressing specific situations or challenges. Fischmann used the example of a tool that has been successful in one situation and proposes that it can be applied elsewhere in the organization to tackle similar issues. Instead of following predefined frameworks or methodologies, teams assemble a toolkit of practices based on their context and requirements. Organizations select and adapt these practices as needed to address their unique challenges and achieve their specific goals.
By understanding these distinctions, organizations can choose the most suitable practice-led approach for their scaling efforts. This decision takes into consideration factors such as complexity, organizational culture, and desired level of flexibility. Whether they opt for a structured framework, a comprehensive methodology, or a flexible toolbox approach, aligning practices with organizational goals is essential to successfully implement agility at scale.
5. Three Core Competencies Underscore Agile Scaling
Scaling/Engineering Skills: These include the technical expertise and capabilities required to scale Agile practices effectively within an organization. De Simone elaborated on this by saying that scaling/engineering skills are essential for designing scalable systems. These skills are also crucial for ensuring the smooth integration of Agile practices across teams and projects.
Organizational Culture:Organizational culture is crucial in scaling agility and driving successful transformation initiatives. It encompasses the values, beliefs, norms, behaviors, and practices that shape how people work together within an organization. “When you scale, you need to set up a kind of organizational culture that is prepared for scaled collaboration, cross-team collaboration, and customer collaboration,” De Simone concludes.
Change Management: Change management involves understanding the human side of change, addressing resistance, and ensuring smooth transitions during the transformation journey. De Simone highlighted that change management is a delicate change process. Therefore, it’s essential to be cautious with the approach you choose. You cannot simply create a goal, devise a grand plan, and expect to transform multiple teams instantaneously; it doesn’t work like that.
6. We Can Identify Three Principles Of Organic Scaling
Three principles provide a guiding framework for organizations seeking to implement agility at scale organically. By focusing on value delivery, making culture explicit, and validating change in small increments, organizations can cultivate sustainable growth.
Focus on Value Delivery: As De Simone advises, “focus on value delivery and removing unnecessary synchronization.” When you prioritize delivering value, your organization can streamline its processes. In doing so, the organization focuses on activities that directly contribute to customer satisfaction. This principle guides strategic choices, such as determining the number of Product Owners (POs) and feature teams. It also determines the size of the product itself.
Make Your Culture Explicit: Building on the foundation of value delivery, this principle highlights the significance of organizational culture in scaling agility. Organizations can foster an environment with clearly defined and shared values, norms, and behaviors across teams by making culture explicit.
Validate Change in Small Increments: As De Simone explains, the only way to scale agility is by using an Agile approach. Instead of implementing large-scale transformations all at once, organizations should adopt an iterative and incremental approach to mitigate risks, gather feedback, and make course corrections as needed.
Are you frazzledazzled, and need a quagmirequasher who loves a bit of collabracadabra to lift you out of a slump? Or perhaps you’re an outoftheboxian who can’t help but yonderize your agile practices? Or maybe you have no idea what we’re talking about – in which case, read on, dear reader! This is a glossary of the most agilicious new vocab to keep you from going kanbananas.
So buckle up those Leaderhosen, and let’s dive in!
We’ve been working with organizations for over 15 years and despite numerous existing frameworks and models, we’ve learned that there is no silver bullet when it comes to scaling Agile teams. Every context is different and complex. However, we believe that by applying Agile principles and some good practices, any organization can create a framework or model for scaling Agile teams: one that is best adapted to its respective environment and can grow organically. In this guide, we’ll describe a few best practices for scaling Agile teams.
The growth journey of the brain and nervous system begins the moment a fetus is nestled in its mother’s womb. Some of our functions take shape the moment we enter the world, while others unfold during the various stages of life, propelling us into growth and development. Contemporary research indicates that continuous learning supports our brain function well into old age. Even as you read this article and I pen these words, our brain’s neural networks are dynamically evolving, forging new connections and pathways.
A mentor is more than just a guide; they are the architects of aspirations, the sounding boards for our ideas, and the well of wisdom to help us grow and learn. But mentoring is a profound exploration of self, ambition, and the power of human connection. It’s not to be taken lightly. So, how do you find a mentor? How do you choose someone who will not only understand your goals and needs but also share your values and inspire your growth? This guide will help you with some practical tips to find the perfect mentor for your path to personal and professional greatness.
As the world becomes more interconnected, people now have job opportunities across the globe. A successful career is no longer about loyalty, climbing the ladder – or even a hefty paycheck and perks. So if money can’t buy you top-tier professionals, how exactly do companies attract and retain top talent?
Step with us into the world of Workplace Nightmares, where the horrors are real and the stakes are high. Dark secrets lurk behind office doors, and this spooky season, it’s up to you to save yourself. But you’re not alone. We have some tricks to help you survive as you face the ghouls and goblins of the corporate world.
In our recent webinar titled Humanizing the Workplace: The Key to Finding and Keeping Top Talent, experts Regina Martins and Birge Kahraman delved into the essential aspects of fostering a positive work environment. The discussion revolved around the challenges organizations face when transitioning to remote work and the importance of humanizing the workplace when it comes to attracting and retaining top talent. The speakers emphasized the importance of servant leadership, active listening, and the creation of purpose-driven goals to cultivate a healthy and happy workplace.
Abstract: Flexibility and the ability to make decentralized decisions, as well as a high degree of customer orientation, are core elements of an innovative culture. In addition to specificleadership behaviors, to be able to sustain an innovative culture you need to develop a dedicated toolbox. A project team at Siemens Digital Industries – Factory Automation – was able to lay the foundation for a customer-centric development of new products through a holistic leadership approach. The principles of ORGANIC agility® and the use of specific tools for innovative product development allowed them to verify product hypotheses rapidly and reflect those learnings into their business strategy.
Case Study: How to Increase Self-Organization in a Complex Environment
/by Lothar FischmannThe restructuring of an existing value stream represents the greatest possible tactical challenge that managers can face in the context of agile transformation. It directly impacts the organization’s ability to deliver and affects established social structures. It is also on the borderline between two domains: complicated and complex; some aspects of the target structure are known with a fair degree of certainty based on experience, but we cannot predict how the transformation process will proceed or be received by employees.
In this case study, we show how the right handling of constraints and practices allowed our client’s transformation team to handle complex and complicated questions to maneuver their organizations through this challenge.
Setting the Scene: The Challenge
The client introduced Agile working methods in 2022 and decided to restructure from component teams to cross-functional teams in the summer of 2023. The project involved over 100 developers across Europe.
This transformation was led by a core team consisting of the Chief Product Owner, a transition coordinator, and an internal and an external Agile coach. Additional support was provided by an extended core team including all Scrum Masters and Product Owners of the value stream, as well as the formal managers and leads.
The Four Phases of Transformation
The transformation process was divided into four phases, each presenting specific challenges for the transformation.
Phase 1: Kickoff and Preparation
The starting points for every successful change project, according to John Kotter’s Leading Change, are the ‘Sense of Urgency’ and the so-called ‘Guiding Coalition’. Of course, these also apply to the reorganization of a value stream. But beyond these important starting points, the core team also asked itself:
The first question can be answered by the Cynefin framework. Among other things, it distinguishes between known and unknown contexts and specifies how complicated or complex challenges can be overcome.
Complicated or Complex?
The Cynefin framework provides a good overview of the distinction between complex and complicated domains.
A situation is part of the complicated domain when causal relationships and the effects of an intervention are known in advance. In this domain, those involved are able to analyze the environment and understand it, and they can identify good practices that help to achieve a clear goal. Groups or organizations can be aligned towards the common goal through governance. (cf. ‘Governing Constraints’).
In contrast, complex environments are not known to the extent that causal effects can be predicted in advance; at best, they can be explained retrospectively. Since not all influencing factors are known, an in-depth analysis is not possible. Instead, an experimental approach and probing can be used to try to recognize and determine the influencing factors and make the procedure ‘repeatable’. In complex environments ‘enabling constraints’ allow a better understanding of the environment, and develop and adjust practices emergently based on new experiences. This allows a group or organization better understand the context and move forward.
For obvious reasons, it’s helpful to start a transformation with things that are relatively well-known and understood. Since the change was driven by the market, the reorganization was first examined by the Product Owners. Analyzing their market helped them to determine seven target groups that are served by the value stream. Each Product Owner picked a topic, which was then outlined in more detail. Scrum Masters were subsequently brought on board. Together with the Product Owners and the managers of the teams, they were to make a significant contribution to better understanding and addressing initial concerns.
Conclusion of the Kickoff
In addition to the common goal and the shared sense of urgency, the setup of the transformation team and the extended transformation team was key to later success. By the end of the kickoff, everyone involved had a common understanding of why we as a leadership team wanted to take the next step towards cross-functional teams. Regarding the timing, everyone was willing to try to see if we could achieve this by the end of the next major iteration, which was scheduled for a month and a half later. After two days of the kickoff, such an ambitious goal is certainly possible, but it cannot be set in stone. Nevertheless, the next tasks and responsibilities were clarified during the kickoff.
Phase 2: Dry Run
A week before the actual restructuring event, we had a dry run. The purpose of the dry run was to ensure everyone involved understood the staffing process and refine constraints. It was clear to everybody that narrowly defined rules may accelerate the staffing process but would impair the self-organization and motivation of the teams. Besides that, there was also a very practical need for a self-organized approach: well-balanced teams relied on numerous individual factors, including preferences and competencies that couldn’t be fully managed by one person alone.
A complex challenge ahead was how to assign teams to different locations, mainly because not all skills were available everywhere. This meant that teams with varying expertise couldn’t always work together in the same place. Everyone agreed it’s best to have ‘as few locations as possible per team’ and for each colleague to have a local partner to collaborate with. However, there’s no fixed number of locations per team that fits every situation.
Trying to find an ‘ideal number’ or measure distances between locations isn’t a solution because individual factors come into play. These factors included the following:
To address these or similar factors, representatives simulated and resolved a series of questions during the dry run. The key questions that emerged for discussion were:
Takeaways from the Dry Run
The dry run helped participants to explore complex questions by following a Cynefin approach of ‘Probing, Sensing and Responding’. This was applied to Product Owners’ presentations, where they received feedback, as well as the serious discussions that would prepare everybody for the staffing process. The dry run was characterized by open and honest discussions around different topics, such as the following:
At the end of the dry run, there was a common understanding of constraints, ‘escalation levels’, and a positive ‘confidence vote’. All participants were certain that the staffing of cross-functional teams could be carried out satisfactorily in this way.
When introducing the ‘levels of escalation’ we emphasized that ‘escalating’ means lifting a discussion to another level. This has nothing to do with ‘drama’ or ‘what happened at a recent party’.
Phase 3: The Staffing Event
It would be unrealistic to create a rigid schedule for the first self-organized large group event and expect everything to unfold as planned. However, it is still possible to adequately prepare for such an event. In addition to establishing a shared understanding of collective goals, constraints, and escalation levels, various other influencing factors play a crucial role in the success of the staffing event. We’ll unpack them below.
Target Corridor
Insights from both intuition and past experiences shared by external coaches helped the value stream outline an estimated timeframe for the staffing process. The initial half-day was designated for introductions, background information, and topic presentations. Following this, the staffing activities were scheduled for approximately one-half to one-and-a-half days. This window provided flexibility for the leadership team to address any challenges that might arise, ensuring alignment with the shared goals. If it became apparent by the end of the first day that numerous unresolved issues remained, the extended transformation team stood ready to implement additional measures to introduce more containing constraints.
Shared Ownership
In the dry run and the opening of the staffing event itself, it was communicated that it was not about a single person or a single topic ‘winning’, but that the common goal must be that all products in the value stream can be delivered. The event can only be a success if all teams are confident that they can deliver value independently and overcome the challenges ahead.
Iterative Approach
The staffing process took place in several rounds, which were initially 45 minutes long but were later reduced to 30 minutes. At the end of each round, there was a synchronization with all participants in which teams gave updates on their progress or impediments they were facing. This increased involvement and gave everybody an overview of how they could contribute.
Personal Interaction
Product Owners and Scrum Masters were asked to prepare a ‘market stall’ for their colleagues, with a display showcasing their ideas, topics, and priorities. Developers walked around these stalls, browsing the teams’ displays, exchanging ideas with potential future teams, and getting to know colleagues and topics better. In addition to the restructuring process, the event also included a joint dinner and team-building exercises.
Make Priorities Explicit
Once the developers had walked around the stalls and informed themselves about the details of each of the future teams, they were able to make their priorities transparent. Each developer was asked to report on up to three topics. Knowing the individual priorities improved the moderation of conflicts of interest.
Dealing with Contingencies
Once it was decided that the future setup would contain one hardware and eight software teams, it was clear that not all teams would make decisions and give the green light simultaneously, and some issues would be resolved more quickly than others. To make good use of the event and the time together on site, a side program was created that teams could start if they finished earlier. The focus here was on things that could be done better while everyone was onsite’.
We’re Only Done Once Everyone is Done
For their orientation, all teams were given a ‘Definition of Done’ with quality criteria that had to be fulfilled. Based on this checklist, the teams received a ‘preliminary okay’ from the CPO and were able to join the side program. However, since staffing decisions elsewhere can also affect teams that were thought to be finished, the rule was “We are only done once everyone is done”.
Outcomes of the Staffing Event
By the end of day one, two roles still had to be filled. These were resolved by midday on the second day, which was right in the middle of the targeted time box.
Phase 4: Post-Match Time
The remaining question was: How could everybody, including stakeholders, management or coaches recognize whether the new teams work out?
The extended transformation team was able to rely on an indicator that is inherent to all Scrum Teams: Sprint Goals. These helped to answer the key questions:
The importance of Sprint Goals is not only due to their significance for stakeholders and management: pursuing a common goal also has a motivating effect on the entire team and catalyzes the team development process.
The Final Outcome
Webinar | Implementing Agility at Scale
/by Giuseppe De Simone, Lothar FischmannIn our latest webinar, Implementing Agility at Scale, hosted by Giuseppe de Simone and Lothar Fischmann, we explored the intricacies of scaling. The discussion offered valuable insights into the challenges involved in transitioning to Agile frameworks on a larger scale.
De Simone and Fischmann, seasoned experts in organizational agility, provided a comprehensive overview of three main approaches to scaling: pattern-led, principles-led, and practice-led. They shared that implementing agility at scale requires a holistic approach that integrates various perspectives, fosters open communication, and embraces adaptability. Organizations can pave the way for smoother transitions and more resilient operations by addressing challenges collaboratively and aligning strategies with business objectives.
Watch the full webinar below, or read on for six key takeaways.
Watch: Implementing Agility at Scale
1. It’s Important to Identify Your Scaling Goals and Challenges
As the webinar opened, De Simone defined the primary goal of scaling as enabling an organization to increase its capacity without necessarily increasing the headcount. This contrasts with the common misconception that scaling is solely about growing the team.
Participants voted in a poll to share the challenges they have encountered in scaling efforts. Some of these responses included resistance to change, operational issues, lack of strategic goals, leadership concerns, and bureaucracy.
De Simone emphasized that resistance to change often stems from top-down changes from leaders. This tends to occur when the reasons or benefits are unclear to teams. Organizations need to ensure that changes are meaningful and well-aligned with strategic objectives.
2. There Are Four Critical Choices to Make When Scaling Agile Teams
There are four interconnected choices involved in scaling. Each choice has implications for team structure, autonomy, coordination, and speed of delivery. By carefully considering these choices in alignment with their strategic goals and organizational context, organizations can make informed decisions to optimize their scaling efforts.
3. There are Three Main Approaches to Implementing Agility at Scale
According to Fischmann, “We can distinguish between three main approaches to scaling agility: the first is pattern-led scaling; the second is principles-led scaling; and the third is practice-led scaling.”
For a deep dive into Agile principles, check out our Agile Foundations e-learning course.
Fischmann elaborates that there are interdependencies between the three main scaling strategies: principles-led, pattern-led, and practice-led.
Overall, these relationships emphasize the importance of aligning principles, patterns, and practices when implementing agility at scale. Each approach complements the others, contributing to a holistic and sustainable Agile transformation journey.
4. Practice-led Scaling Has Three Sub-Categories
According to Fischmann, we can further categorize practices into framework-led, methodology-led, or toolbox-led approaches. Each of these offers distinct levels of structure and guidance.
By understanding these distinctions, organizations can choose the most suitable practice-led approach for their scaling efforts. This decision takes into consideration factors such as complexity, organizational culture, and desired level of flexibility. Whether they opt for a structured framework, a comprehensive methodology, or a flexible toolbox approach, aligning practices with organizational goals is essential to successfully implement agility at scale.
5. Three Core Competencies Underscore Agile Scaling
6. We Can Identify Three Principles Of Organic Scaling
Three principles provide a guiding framework for organizations seeking to implement agility at scale organically. By focusing on value delivery, making culture explicit, and validating change in small increments, organizations can cultivate sustainable growth.
Scrum Alliance has launched Certified Agile Skills – Scaling 1 (CAS-S1). Sign up to learn more about the frameworks, methods, and principles behind Scaling.
Certified Agile Skills – Scaling 1 (CAS-S1)
€1,395.00Original price was: €1,395.00.€1,195.00Current price is: €1,195.00. (excl. VAT)The A-Z of Agile: Collabracadabra and the Joygility of Agilicious Teams
/by Lauren EdwardsAre you frazzledazzled, and need a quagmirequasher who loves a bit of collabracadabra to lift you out of a slump? Or perhaps you’re an outoftheboxian who can’t help but yonderize your agile practices? Or maybe you have no idea what we’re talking about – in which case, read on, dear reader! This is a glossary of the most agilicious new vocab to keep you from going kanbananas.
So buckle up those Leaderhosen, and let’s dive in!
Read moreScaling Agile Teams
/by Gregory KeeganWe’ve been working with organizations for over 15 years and despite numerous existing frameworks and models, we’ve learned that there is no silver bullet when it comes to scaling Agile teams. Every context is different and complex. However, we believe that by applying Agile principles and some good practices, any organization can create a framework or model for scaling Agile teams: one that is best adapted to its respective environment and can grow organically. In this guide, we’ll describe a few best practices for scaling Agile teams.
Read moreHere’s Why You Should Learn a New Skill This Year (It’s For Your Brain!)
/by Ebru YalçınkayaThe growth journey of the brain and nervous system begins the moment a fetus is nestled in its mother’s womb. Some of our functions take shape the moment we enter the world, while others unfold during the various stages of life, propelling us into growth and development. Contemporary research indicates that continuous learning supports our brain function well into old age. Even as you read this article and I pen these words, our brain’s neural networks are dynamically evolving, forging new connections and pathways.
Continue LEarningHow to Find a Mentor: Your Guide to Success
/by agile42A mentor is more than just a guide; they are the architects of aspirations, the sounding boards for our ideas, and the well of wisdom to help us grow and learn. But mentoring is a profound exploration of self, ambition, and the power of human connection. It’s not to be taken lightly. So, how do you find a mentor? How do you choose someone who will not only understand your goals and needs but also share your values and inspire your growth? This guide will help you with some practical tips to find the perfect mentor for your path to personal and professional greatness.
Continue Reading28 Ways to Humanize Work
/by agile42As the world becomes more interconnected, people now have job opportunities across the globe. A successful career is no longer about loyalty, climbing the ladder – or even a hefty paycheck and perks. So if money can’t buy you top-tier professionals, how exactly do companies attract and retain top talent?
Continue ReadingSix Workplace Nightmares That’ll Send Chills Down Your Spine
/by agile42Step with us into the world of Workplace Nightmares, where the horrors are real and the stakes are high. Dark secrets lurk behind office doors, and this spooky season, it’s up to you to save yourself. But you’re not alone. We have some tricks to help you survive as you face the ghouls and goblins of the corporate world.
Enter if you dareWebinar | Unraveling Workplace Dynamics: Insights from Humanizing the Workplace
/by agile42, Regina Martins, Birge KahramanIn our recent webinar titled Humanizing the Workplace: The Key to Finding and Keeping Top Talent, experts Regina Martins and Birge Kahraman delved into the essential aspects of fostering a positive work environment. The discussion revolved around the challenges organizations face when transitioning to remote work and the importance of humanizing the workplace when it comes to attracting and retaining top talent. The speakers emphasized the importance of servant leadership, active listening, and the creation of purpose-driven goals to cultivate a healthy and happy workplace.
Continue ReadingCase Study: How to Approach an Innovative Culture
/by Dennis Büscher, Lothar FischmannAbstract: Flexibility and the ability to make decentralized decisions, as well as a high degree of customer orientation, are core elements of an innovative culture. In addition to specific leadership behaviors, to be able to sustain an innovative culture you need to develop a dedicated toolbox. A project team at Siemens Digital Industries – Factory Automation – was able to lay the foundation for a customer-centric development of new products through a holistic leadership approach. The principles of ORGANIC agility® and the use of specific tools for innovative product development allowed them to verify product hypotheses rapidly and reflect those learnings into their business strategy.
Continue Reading