Check out our first video “Kanban Basics”.
Michael Badali is a Kanban expert with years of experience in Kanban and other Agile methods including nearly 2 years working as an internal coach at HP in China and the UK.
Retrospectives are a key part of continuous improvement in Agile teams. The retrospective techniques that a team uses should be adjusted to the needs of the team. In a Scrum team, for example, the ScrumMaster will often decide on the techniques to use based on the current issues facing the team and then facilitate the retrospective for the team. There are some great resources which give you collections of tried-and-true retrospective techniques including Esther Derby’s book “Agile Retrospectives” and the amazing online tool “Retr-o-mat“. As an active consultant and trainer, I am always looking for new techniques to share with my clients. Sometimes, I even create a new one (or at least new to me). The “What Did You Learn” technique is new: I’ve been using it and testing it for a few years now to refine it.
What Did You Learn?
By itself, this is a powerful question. As part of my work with OpenAgile, I’ve been helping teams and organization to focus on learning as an even broader category than continuous improvement. The Learning Circle and the processes in OpenAgile help with focusing on learning. The question “what did you learn?” is very open ended, and can certainly work as an extremely simple type of retrospective in OpenAgile or in Scrum or other Agile methods. Often people like to have a little more structure and guidance so the “What Did You Learn?” retrospective technique provides four categories of learning for people to think about, share, and discuss within a team.
Setup for this retrospective is very simple: a flip chart or whiteboard divided into four sections or columns works fine, along with a piece of paper for each person in the retrospective, divided up the same way, and sufficient markers and pens for everyone. Here is a downloadable PDF version of the handout for the “What Did You Learn” retrospective.
The facilitator will also participate at various points if they are a member of the team (e.g. a ScrumMaster). It is easiest to do this with a group in-person, but can also be done reasonably well with video or teleconferencing.
The facilitator introduces the retrospective with a welcome and, if necessary, a recitation of the Retrospective Prime Directive. Then, the process is described to the group. Each of the categories of learning is also explained as follows:
There are three main stages in the retrospective as follows:
This is an excellent retrospective for a team that is going through a significant transition such as starting a new project, a major change in business direction for a product, or as a wrap up technique for sharing lessons learned with other parts of an organization. It is not a good technique for a brand new team that hasn’t worked together before as there will be little common ground for deciding on the importance of peoples’ various shared learning.
The Real Agility Program is an Enterprise Agile change program to help organizations develop high-performance teams, deliver amazing products, dramatically improve time to market and quality, and create work environments that are awesome for employees.
This article is a written summary of the Executive Briefing presentation available upon request from the Real Agility Program web site. If you obtain the executive briefing, you can follow along with the article below and use it to present Real Agility to your enterprise stakeholders.
At Berteig Consulting we have been working for 10 years to learn how to help organizations transform people, process and culture. The problem is simple to state: there is a huge amount of opportunity waste and process waste in most normal enterprise-scale organizations. If you have more than a couple hundred people in your organization, this almost certainly affects you.
We like to call this problem “the Bureaucratic Beast”. The Bureaucratic Beast is a self-serving monster that seems to grow and grow and grow. As it grows, this Beast makes it progressively more difficult for business leaders to innovate, respond to changes in the market, satisfy existing customers, and retain great employees.
Real Agility, a system to tame the Bureaucratic Beast, comes from our experience working with numerous enterprise Agile adoptions. This experience, in turn, rests on the shoulders of giants like John Kotter (“Leading Change”), Edgar Schein (“The Corporate Culture Survival Guide”), Jim Collins (“Good to Great” and “Built to Last”), Mary Poppendieck (“Lean Software Development”) Jon Katzenbach (“The Wisdom of Teams”) and Frederick Brooks (“The Mythical Man-Month”). Real Agility is designed to tame all the behaviours of the Bureaucratic Beast: inefficiency, dis-engaged staff, poor quality and slow time-to-market.
Studies have proven that Agile methods work in IT. In 2012, the Standish Group observed that 42% of Agile projects succeed vs. just 14% of projects done with traditional “Bureaucratic Beast” methods. Agile and associated techniques aren’t just for IT. There is growing use of these same techniques in non-technoogy environments such as marketing, operations, sales, education, healthcare, and even heavy industry like mining.
Real Agility Basics: Agile + Lean
Real Agility is a combination of Agile and Lean; both systems used harmoniously throughout an enterprise. Real Agility affects delivery processes by taking long-term goals and dividing them into short cycles of work that deliver valuable results rapidly while providing fast feedback on scope, quality and most importantly value. Real Agility affects management processes by finding and eliminating wasteful activities with a system view. And Real Agility affects human resources (people!) by creating “Delivery Teams” which have clear goals, are composed of multi-skilled people who self-organize, and are stable in membership over long periods of time.
There are lots of radical differences between Real Agility and traditional management (that led to the Bureaucratic Beast in the first place). Real Agility prioritizes work by value instead of critical path, encourages self-organizing instead of command-and-control management, a team focus instead of project focus, evolving requirements instead of frozen requirements, skills-based interactions instead of roles-based interaction, continuous learning instead of crisis management, and many others.
Real Agility is built on a rich Agile and Lean ecosystem of values, principles and tools. Examples include the Agile Manifesto, the “Stop the Line” practice, various retrospective techniques, methods and frameworks such as Scrum and OpenAgile, and various thinking tools compatible with the Agile – Lean ecosystem such as those developed by Edward de Bono (“Lateral Thinking”) and Genrich Altshuller (“TRIZ”).
Real Agility acknowledges that there are various approaches to Agile adoption at the enterprise level: Ad Hoc (not usually successful – Nortel tried this), Grassroots (e.g. Yahoo!), Pragmatic (SAFe and DAD fall into this category), Transformative (the best balance of speed of change and risk reduction – this is where the Real Agility Program falls), and Big-Bang (only used in situations of true desperation).
Why Choose Transformative?
One way to think about these five approaches to Agile adoption is to compare the magnitude of actual business results. This is certainly the all-important bottom line. But most businesses also consider risk (or certainty of results). Ad-Hoc approaches to Agile adoption have poor business results and a very high level of risk. Big-Bang approaches (changing a whole enterprise to Agile literally over night) often have truly stunning business results, but are also extremely high risk. Grassroots, where leaders give staff a great deal of choice about how and when to adopt Agile, is a bit better in that the risk is lower, but the business results often take quite a while to manifest themselves. Pragmatic approaches tend to be very low risk because they often accommodate the Bureaucratic Beast, but that also limits their business results to merely “good” and not great. Transformative approaches which systematically address organizational culture are just a bit riskier than Pragmatic approaches, but the business results are generally outstanding.
More specifically, Pragmatic approaches such as SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) are popular because they are designed to fit in with existing middle management structures (where the Bureaucratic Beast is most often found). As a result, there is slow incremental change that typically has to be driven top-down from leadership. Initial results are good, but modest. And the long term? These techniques haven’t been around long enough to know, but in theory it will take a long time to get to full organizational Agility. Bottom line is that Pragmatic approaches are low risk but the results are modest.
Transformative approaches such as the Real Agility Program (there are others too) are less popular because there is significantly more disruption: the Bureaucratic Beast has to be completely tamed to serve a new master: business leadership! Transformative approaches require top-to-bottom organizational and structural change. They include a change in power relationships to allow for grassroots-driven change that is empowered by servant leaders. Transformative approaches are moderate in some ways: they are systematic and they don’t require all change to be done overnight. Nevertheless, often great business results are obtained relatively quickly. There is a moderate risk that the change won’t deliver the great results, but that moderate risk is usually worth taking.
Regardless of adoption strategy (Transformative or otherwise) there are a few critical success factors. Truthfulness is the foundation because without it, it is impossible to see the whole picture including organizational culture. And love is the strongest driver of change because cultural and behavioural change requires emotional commitment on the part of everyone.
Culture change is often challenging. There are unexpected problems. Two steps forward are often followed by one step back. Some roadblocks to culture change will be surprisingly persistent. Leaders need patience and persistence… and a systematic change program.
The Real Agility Program
The Real Agility Program has four tracks or lines of action (links take you to the Real Agility Program web site):
Structurally an enterprise using Real Agility is organized into Delivery Groups. A Delivery Group is composed of one or more Delivery Teams (up to 150 people) who work together to produce business results. Key roles include a Business leader, a People leader and a Technology leader all of whom become Real Agility Coaches and take the place of traditional functional management. As well, coordination across multiple Delivery Teams within a Delivery Group is done using an organized list of “Value Drivers” maintained by the Business leader and a supporting Business Leadership Group. Cross-team support is handled by a People and Technology Support Group co-led by the People and Technology leaders. Depending on need there may also be a number of communities of practice for Delivery Team members to help spread learning.
At an organizational or enterprise level, the Leadership Team includes top executives from business, finance, technology, HR, operations and any other critical parts of the organization. This Leadership Team communicates the importance of the changes that the Delivery Groups are going through. They lead by example using techniques from Real Agility to execute organizational changes. And, of course, they manage the accountability of the various Delivery Groups throughout the enterprise.
The results of using the Real Agility Program are usually exceptional. Typical results include:
Of course, these results depend on baseline measures and that key risk factors are properly managed by the Leadership Team.
Not every organization needs (or is ready for) the Real Agility Program. Your organization is likely a good candidate if three or more of the following problems are true for your organization:
Consider that list carefully and if you feel like you have enough of the above problems, please contact us at email@example.com. or read more about the Real Agility Program for Enterprise Agility on the website.
For a little while last year I was using a quiz in my Certified ScrumMaster courses that was deliberately designed to be super hard. Why? Because if anyone could answer it correctly before the end of the class, I would give them their certification early and allow them to leave. Not a single person out of several hundred was able to do it.
So… want to give it a try? I’ve got two files here. One is the quiz without answers. The other is the answer key. Let me know if you have any questions!!!
CSM Class Test – Super Hard! (PDF, 1 page)
(Please, give it a try before you even download this next piece!!!)
CSM Class Test – Answer Key (PDF, 1 page)
This test was first created by me and one of my close colleagues, Julien Mazloum from Outsofting. We were trying to make the CSM class something that the Chinese audience would really appreciate culturally. It worked well, up to a point. The main problem was that some of the questions were too subtle for people for whom English was their second language. That said, when I used it in my North American courses, still no one passed it! In fact, the best score I ever saw was 25 correct out of 30.
Thanks to my good friend Deborah Hartmann Preuss for showing me this great tool: Retr-O-Mat – Inspiration (and Plans) for Agile Retrospectives. It’s a great way of generating a plan for your retrospective if you’re feeling a lack of inspiration! Includes all five stages of a retrospective: set the stage, gather data, generate insights, decide what to do, and close the retrospective.
I am currently working with a relatively new Scrum team (5 Sprints/weeks young) that needs to rewrite their Personal Development Plans (PDPs) in order to better support Scrum and the team. PDPs are still the deliverables of individuals required by the organization and likely will be for some time. The organization is still in the early days of Agile adoption (pilots) and they are large. So, instead of giving them a sermon on why metrics for managed individuals are bad, I am going to help them take the step towards Agility that they are ready to take.
I’ll follow up with another post to let everyone know how it goes.
Scrum Team Members, excluding the ScrumMaster and Product Owner, must be completely open-minded to learning new skills. Skills can be technical, business, personal, tools-based, etc. A Team Member is sensitive to the needs of the Scrum Team and will learn skills by multiple means as the needs of the team evolve. A Scrum Team where people are not willing to learn new skills will suffer from bottlenecks, time pressure, quality problems, and often will become generally demoralized as the willingness of some people on the team turns into apathy and cynicism when others refuse to learn. In a team where everyone is willing to learn new skills, there will be a consistent raising of capacity and the team will be able to do more and more work more effectively. This attitude is a key requirement for the formation of high performance teams.
“I now can see why Corporations have such a hard time identifying the Scrum Master in their organizations. Scrum Masters basically don’t fit either category, yet most corporate hiring is done based on hiring of “leaders” and “managers”.”
For the complete text click here
We have delayed announcing our winter 2012 schedule until now because we have been working on a new platform for listing our courses and creating a community environment for people who have taken our courses. So, without further ado, I would like to offer to you: World Mindware!
Since we are agile ourselves, this site is still very basic. We have our list of courses and you are able to register for courses. However, we welcome feedback of all kinds including bug reports, suggestions for improvements or requests for assistance. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any feedback about the site.
I’ve recently joined Berteig Consulting Inc., and we are wrapping up our first cycle as a new team. The last two weeks has been an extraordinarily rich experience for me in a multitude of ways.
The time I’ve spent reviewing various online and published Agile reference materials, thinking deeply about the concepts in the Agile Manifesto and Principles, studying some in-house materials and portions of different books about agile coaching and retrospectives has been really useful to my deepening in the concepts surrounding the framework of Agile. Even more helpful though has been the fact that I have had the opportunity to complement this reading and studying with action and engagement with our clients, and that our team has been so open to the reflections I’ve shared and has shared their own. Previous experiences have taught me that familiarity with resources and guidance, without practical application, can be limiting and create an over-intellectualization of concepts that, when divorced from action, can create an artificial version of reality, and that makes me even more appreciative for the time I’ve been able to spend interacting with clients and thinking about what I’ve been reading about and how this would be applicable to their teams.
Our team regularly articulates and works to apply concepts we think are foundational to growth and transformation, such as truthfulness, consultation, and agility in thinking and action at the individual and group level. I’ve found that our ongoing communication in our team room and reflection throughout the day has been instrumental in creating a space that is open and forward moving for us.
I’ve also realized a lot of factors have contributed to the culture of learning we are continually developing in our team, including our openness and honesty during progress meetings, our efforts to use consultation as a guide and instrument when we’re trying to make decisions, the actions we take to complete a task, and our readiness to respond to change. I think we’re also all really aware in our team how important our approach to the process of learning is. I’ve found this manifested in different team members in different ways: experienced ones practice coupling expertise with humility, others display incredible levels of patience and servitude to the team, still others animate the group with high levels of joy and kindness.
We also each seem to have a very conscious appreciation for the new culture we are trying to create within our team, which will help us in accompanying other teams to develop as well. Personally, I am continually striving to transform my actions to reflect what I learn through each experience each day and feel that the individuals on our team are doing the same. We increase our understanding of how to transform our own actions and those of the team as a unit as we apply what we are learning simultaneously to areas and interactions beyond ourselves. From what I’ve seen so far, transformation is a key concept with every team we are engaged with, and I think that we can contribute to that process a lot more if we are also always trying as a team to do the same.
The spirit of collaboration I have experienced within our team and with our clients has been really uplifting to me and for that I thank each of you, my collaborators, for your contributions and all that we have been able to do and learn together.
The concept is simple: there are six levels of planning in an organization, often represented as layers of a metaphorical onion. In the agile planning onion, strategy is the outermost layer. This is meant to indicate that it is the driver of all the planning in the inner layers, which have shorter time horizons, down to the daily planning that occurs in the Daily Scrum or the Daily Standup of the agile teams.
Culture is Missing
The agile planning onion is a reasonable metaphor, but it has a serious limit: culture is missing. Many of you will have heard the quote “Culture eats strategy for lunch [or breakfast]” (attributed to quite a number of different people – I’m not going to sort out who was the original). How do we represent culture on the onion? Is it a seventh layer on the outside? Maybe, but for most organizations, culture is not planned.
Single Loop Learning
The main problem with the planning onion is that it gives no indication that the planning cycles deal with anything but the product / business side of the work. This implication of single-minded focus gives us permission to limit ourselves to improving our products. This is learning, but it is limited. It is sometimes referred to as “single loop learning”. We make improvements, but never question our underlying beliefs, habits or goals. All improvement (and planning) is within the narrow guard rails of a product mentality.
Double Loop Learning
Culture both surrounds the planning onion, and cuts right through it (nice way to extend the metaphor!) The problem with a visual metaphor that does not include culture is it means that culture remains unconscious. As individuals we might, from time-to-time, find that the organization’s culture clashes with our own expectations, habits or beliefs. But other than this occasional dissonance, we are like onions in dirt – completely unaware of the dirt, yet completely utterly dependent upon it for growth (couldn’t use “fish in water” because that would have introduced a different metaphor – I’m trying for consistency).
In the best agile transformations, individuals, teams and organizations become aware of their culture and consciously work to change it. This is usually due to a strong clash between their current culture, and the behaviors, norms and attitudes of a embryonic agile culture. In Scrum, we find impediments and remove them. In OpenAgile we look for learning about product, process and people. This is, again, roughly speaking, double loop learning… it is learning about learning and applying this to our belief systems, our habits and our attitudes.
Transformation vs. Adoption
Those who share the agile planning onion model, probably don’t realize its limits. I would like to strongly encourage those who use this model to consider re-framing it in terms of culture and organizational learning, rather than planning. I’m terrible at diagrams – I hope someone out there will consider creating a new compelling Agile Learning Onion diagram to show that agile is about Transformation, not merely adoption of planning practices.
Cross-posted from the personal blog of David D. Parker: A Changemaker in the Making
I have started composing a series of articles on my blog A Changemaker in the Making that are intended to briefly explain how to apply different agile practices to the work of social innovators, non-profits, charities and volunteer organizations.
The first article covers Self-Organizing Teams an important consideration for organizations that want to use their people resources more efficiently and to create a culture of empowerment.
The second article explores The Agile Workspace and ways to create an environment that is conducive to fruitful interaction.
A close associate, David Parker, has written a great little article about the use of agile methods in volunteer management.
Cross-posted from my personal blog: A Changemaker in the Making
For the past several weeks, I have been helping a small charity solve a dilemma. Because the charity is well-recognized for their good work, they regularly attract volunteers who want to help. Unfortunately, the two overworked staff members are too busy to recruit, train, and manage them. My approach has been to use OpenAgile, an open source system for delivering value to stakeholders, to implement a few simple techniques to help them.
There are several aspects of OpenAgile that fit very well for managing volunteers:
This means people “volunteer” for tasks instead of doing them based on a tightly defined role or having someone tell them what to do. This frees the staff from having to assign work. Instead, they identify priorities and rely on the volunteer’s creativity and personal motivation to do the task in their own way.
When there is more than one volunteer, they work in a team and share the responsibility for the workload. The team of volunteers discuss the priorities of the organization, and decide among themselves what tasks need to be completed. Then, they create and commit to a 1-2 week short-term plan that will deliver those results. Finally, they come back after the 1-2 week period and reflect on what they accomplished. This pattern of action, reflection, learning, and planning is one of the Foundations of OpenAgile.
This means that all people doing the work should be able to see what tasks needs to get done, what is in progress, and what tasks are done. One technique that co-located teams often use is simply posting tasks on a wall using sticky notes. (Check out my OpenAgile Task Wall Prezi) Another cool idea is Card Meeting which works on the same principle, but it can be useful for distributed teams.
The emphasis on learning is perhaps the most important aspect of OpenAgile that aligns with the needs of volunteer management. The Learning Manifesto states that “Learning is the key that unlocks human capacity.” Volunteers are drawn to an organization because of its vision but can get pushed away when they feel they’re underutilized or not able to contribute in a meaningful way. By making it explicit that the volunteer is primarily accountable for learning, the organization creates a safe space for experimentation and innovation.