 27% of the market and SAFe took 28%. So, to me that means Scrum is corrupted in 55% of the market at least. I thought it was 90%+. Maybe it is. The LeSS folks seem unworried by the drop from 4% to 3%. Let’s see if the partnership with Scrum Alliance gives LeSS a boost. And let’s lighten up this post with some good news.
“Take a bite” reminds me of Black Swan Farming.
There is an openness to the use of Toyota Kata to bring about evolutionary change, change that is part of the normal daily work. I already add it and I’m glad that’s encouraged.
System Modelling is a retrospective technique to attain a better common understanding. In fact, actions from retrospectives are not encouraged, perhaps because they become “shoulds” that simply won’t happen. My approach is to use mini-kaizen events during the retrospective time-boxes, as I picked up long ago that in “JFDI” cultures, actions don’t happen.
General management may want to “help” when change comes from the top. “Avoid people with little or no technical expertise”. For example, Bas might ask you which version control system do you use. If you don’t know the answer….
While multi-site and co-located teams are supported, dispersed teams are not supported.
Sprint length 4 weeks for COBOL and the likes, 2, weeks for Java and the likes, 1 week for Ruby, Python and the likes. No 3-week sprints, tongue firmly in cheek :).
Sprint planning is two separate meetings, part 1 and part two. Sprint goal is not part of LeSS but you’re free to use it. No joint commitment from Sprint Planning.
No concept of Development Team in LeSS. Instead, there are Teams.
Product Owner does not clarify requirements. The Teams talk directly to users and customers.
Product Owner acts as a matchmaker between customers and Teams, usually just for introductions. The Product Owner is less involved in follow-through conversations. LeSS Product Owner cannot become overwhelmed/over-worked, as that’s a road to perdition.
No solution to time zone problems, they “just suck”.
LeSS Scrum Masters cannot also be developers. Scrum Master is a full-time role. LeSS Scrum Master also coaches on engineering practices.
LeSS doesn’t minimize dependencies. Synchronous dependencies between Feature Teams are encouraged. However, minimization of asynchronous dependencies is encouraged.
“Component team organization is a waterfall organization” is the view of the LeSS inventors.
Delay learning until it’s needed instead of forcing learning early. I’m not surprised, but I still see trainers being asked to “sheep-dip” people in training to demonstrate progress with something:(.
Try “fake Product Owner” to start to avoid real Product Owner seeing a chaotic mess in the early days.
For LeSS all at once, one needs credibility. But LeSS Huge all at once is not recommended. 50 people approx. or one requirements area at a time is recommended.
No notion of epics or features, just PBIs, which are either finely grained or coarsely grained. If you have Jira, delete all issue types other than one for normal PBIs (call it “Item”).
Leave defects in the defect management system if you have one, don’t duplicate. We don’t want to make the PBL unmanageable.
Some really cool tips to simplify parental relationships between PBIs (ancestors) – go to the course to find out more.
If every requirements area optimizes its own performance it could be a disaster – aligns with my experience of the “Beer Game” so not such a light bulb, but worthy of comment.
Requirements Area are dynamic. It’s a scaling technique. Product Owner decides which areas teams work on, on an “as needs basis”.
“Get rid of QA department”. That was said I’m sure in light of “no role safety, just job safety”. Some of the best professionals I know are testers.
LeSS Huge “adoption” takes 5-10 years. Aggression depends on continuous integration / continuous delivery readiness.
With Products, we don’t know the scope. It’s a long-lived thing. Projects are harmful to products. A product portfolio is strategic, it is not a super batch of requirements like a programme/project portfolio.
Line management has the greatest influence on the “definition of done”. Scrum Masters have less impact of removing impediments to improving the “definition of done”. LeSS encourages (teaching & coaching as opposed to command & control) knowledgeable technical managers, like in Germany, where managers often know more than developers technically. Suggestion for two teams is one line manager, one Scrum Master.
Product Owner has the greatest influence on investment in test automation, continuous integration, continuous delivery. Don’t enhance DoD in all teams at the same time.
For LeSS Huge, expanding DoD beyond a Team is useful to force co-ordination.
Huge Product Owners rarely touch the Product Backlog. Area Product Owner is just a granularity of Product Owner; it is not a hierarchy.
Don’t be a nice Product Owner. But still be a nice person.
Continuous Integration doesn’t mean Jenkins, it means continuously integrating (not leaving code checked out for two weeks).
Write Product Backlog Items as Outcomes or Goals, not solutions.
Huge Product Backlogs can be split due to complexity but only once that complexity becomes painful. Filtering of the overall PBL to get an APBL should be the default option.
Priority of Feature in Requirements Area does not have to be the same as the priority of mother feature in overall Product Backlog.
Consider un-splitting PBIs to avoid polluting BL with too many details (making it unmanageable), e.g., immutable and mutable profiles instead of CRUD (create, view, update, delete). Un-splitting is APO responsibility.
Typical to use ancestor like splitting in Requirements Area Backlogs to make backlog more manageable.
LeSS estimates are in hours, as they’re less corrupt if gamed. If using points, use retrospective reference items that area already “done”. Use historic work all teams can relate to, to set sizing reference points. This overcomes ideal time’s/story points lack of correlation with lead time (without limited work in progress), as being historic hopefully we remember/track the actual lead time.
Release sprint is acceptable (“if a terrible idea”). The notion of an “undone department” is better.
Product Owner is allowed to overrule Team at Sprint Planning but if that happens it’s usually a sign that something is amiss.
UI/UX is in the sprint. There is no dual Scrum concept like say UI/UX working one sprint ahead.
No code branching. Integration multiple times per day drives co-ordination. “Communicate in code”.
Have bazaar style sprint reviews but schedule times so people don’t get half-updates or cause unnecessary disruption.
Co-ordination approach is “Just Talk”, supported by “communicate in code”, “travellers” (people who change Teams if accepted by receiving Team), scouts, and “component mentors”.
Must at least have gitlab & github. Mercurial is better for larger code bases.
Communities (with no authority to force a decision on the entire group) as opposed to communities of practice. Good representation is important. Line management needs to set expectations of 10% time allocation to communities. Bas is uncomfortable with communities presenting at the bazaar of the Sprint Review as it dilutes focus on the product.
LeSS rules can and should be broken. I say that with tongue firmly in cheek, but it’s funny because it’s (almost) true :).
In summary, I can tell that LeSS is ten years old as it is well thought through. It still lacks on the people front to my mind. I think that’s where my own agility change chef (and my competitors) work helps.
As I said earlier, I will support whatever the client decides, having educated the client on the options to the best of my ability, hopefully minimizing confirmation bias, with the client and I together considering the context.
I look forward to Craig’s course in July in Madrid. I hear it has a different style. Let’s see.
Qeexo Model Converter is an API service that optimizes existing tree-based machine learning models to run on Arm Cortex-M0 to Cortex-M4 platforms. Using...
Headquartered in Silicon Valley, Qeexo is the first company to automate end-to-end machine learning for Edge devices. Its Qeexo AutoML platform provides an intuitive UI that allows users to collect, clean, and visualize sensor data to automatically build machine learning models using more than 17 supported algorithms.
Delivering high performance, solutions built with Qeexo AutoML are optimized to have ultra-low latency and ultra-low power consumption, and an incredibly small memory footprint – so tiny it can run on a Cortex-M0+!
Since 2012, Qeexo has commercialized multiple machine learning applications with the world’s leading device manufacturers. Globally, over 400 million devices are equipped with machine learning solutions built by Qeexo.
The distance between Warsaw, Poland, and Simpsonville, SC, is more than 4,800 miles, and the cultural differences between Poland and