I’m really interested in transition war stories. I have a few companies for whom SAFe would be awesome, but they are a country mile from where they need to be! For example, they are frequently divided into skill-based teams. I’d love to hear stories about the transitionary phases along the road to SAFe.
I’d like to understand how others have leveraged SAFe and discuss the pros and cons of an ART quick start versus a more measured approach. In my current organization, our SAFe journey began as a grass roots effort and we did not launch our first ART until a few months after our first workshop. I’ve come to view the Leading SAFe workshop as a valuable instrument in the adoption of Lean and Agile values and many of the fundamentals from SAFe are evident in our org’s culture and behaviors.
Regarding the framework, I’d like to learn more about the plans to evolve Kanban at the various levels. For example, how do you integrate data science / insight work that is part of the product or software release?
On the Academy side, I would love to see the inclusion of more content for managing change. I think that there would be value in a module that calls out the systemic, organizational, technological, behavioral, procedural, etc. changes that may be encountered along the way while providing guidance on how to identify and work through each. Additionally, I have found that many of the managers, directors and executives that have come through Leading SAFe have a very limited understanding of Agile and Scrum. The team-exercise (counting pages, etc.) was a powerful way to get participants a taste of team success as well as the bitterness of an unavailable product owner. Having this exercise after the release planning sim prevents one from using this exercise to create a foundational understanding of team level roles and dynamics before working through how to scale.
@NickMcKenna, I have plenty of war stories that I’d love to share. While I don’t have the volume of experiences the consultants might possess, I have seen what happens before consultants are engaged as well as what can happen after they move on.
I’d really like to discuss and hear your experiences on introducing SAFe in organizations with a long history of component based organizations. Your strategies to moving them towards value-add or functional-add teams and of course a mixture of several dimensions.
How have ‘your’ organizations reacted and what are the most obvious, common arguments against such a change. Of course I’ll gladly add my share of stories and ideas, since this is currently a very active discussion at a client.
A current focus of mine is SAFe adoption in highly regulated environments (financial sector, health sector etc). In particular, how to evolve from using requirements specifications to using test cases as the statement of persistent requirement for auditing, impact analysis and compliance purposes. Epics, Feature and Stories are delta-based and transient so they are not really suitable and a lot of potential misinterpretation can occur. This is something that has been partially evolved in the white paper (available under SAFe guidance, here: http://www.scaledagileframework.com/guidance/), but I think the time might be right to go beyond that promising start?
I’m really interested in transition war stories. I have a few companies for whom SAFe would be awesome, but they are a country mile from where they need to be! For example, they are frequently divided into skill-based teams. I’d love to hear stories about the transitionary phases along the road to SAFe.
I’d like to understand how others have leveraged SAFe and discuss the pros and cons of an ART quick start versus a more measured approach. In my current organization, our SAFe journey began as a grass roots effort and we did not launch our first ART until a few months after our first workshop. I’ve come to view the Leading SAFe workshop as a valuable instrument in the adoption of Lean and Agile values and many of the fundamentals from SAFe are evident in our org’s culture and behaviors.
Regarding the framework, I’d like to learn more about the plans to evolve Kanban at the various levels. For example, how do you integrate data science / insight work that is part of the product or software release?
On the Academy side, I would love to see the inclusion of more content for managing change. I think that there would be value in a module that calls out the systemic, organizational, technological, behavioral, procedural, etc. changes that may be encountered along the way while providing guidance on how to identify and work through each. Additionally, I have found that many of the managers, directors and executives that have come through Leading SAFe have a very limited understanding of Agile and Scrum. The team-exercise (counting pages, etc.) was a powerful way to get participants a taste of team success as well as the bitterness of an unavailable product owner. Having this exercise after the release planning sim prevents one from using this exercise to create a foundational understanding of team level roles and dynamics before working through how to scale.
@NickMcKenna, I have plenty of war stories that I’d love to share. While I don’t have the volume of experiences the consultants might possess, I have seen what happens before consultants are engaged as well as what can happen after they move on.
I’d really like to discuss and hear your experiences on introducing SAFe in organizations with a long history of component based organizations. Your strategies to moving them towards value-add or functional-add teams and of course a mixture of several dimensions.
How have ‘your’ organizations reacted and what are the most obvious, common arguments against such a change. Of course I’ll gladly add my share of stories and ideas, since this is currently a very active discussion at a client.
A current focus of mine is SAFe adoption in highly regulated environments (financial sector, health sector etc). In particular, how to evolve from using requirements specifications to using test cases as the statement of persistent requirement for auditing, impact analysis and compliance purposes. Epics, Feature and Stories are delta-based and transient so they are not really suitable and a lot of potential misinterpretation can occur. This is something that has been partially evolved in the white paper (available under SAFe guidance, here: http://www.scaledagileframework.com/guidance/), but I think the time might be right to go beyond that promising start?