Project Management

Disciplined Agile

by , , , , , , , , ,
This blog contains details about various aspects of PMI's Disciplined Agile (DA) tool kit, including new and upcoming topics.

About this Blog

RSS

View Posts By:

Scott Ambler
Glen Little
Mark Lines
Valentin Mocanu
Daniel Gagnon
Michael Richardson
Joshua Barnes
Kashmir Birk
Klaus Boedker
Mike Griffiths

Recent Posts

Disciplined Agile: An Executive's Starting Point

Using Lean Agile Procurement (LAP) in complex procurement situations

Vendor Management in the Disciplined Agile Enterprise

Asset Management: What Types of Assets Might You Manage?

PMI and Disciplined Agile at Agile20Reflect

DA For Remote Agile Teams

Remote agile teams typically use more video conferencing and extra written communication than collocated teams to stay synchronized. While perhaps not as effective as direct face-to-face communication, these approaches make up some of what is lost from sitting together and provide the advantage of being easily recorded for later access.

This asynchronous access to information is especially valuable for globally remote teams that may not share the same work hours. By accessing content on-demand, people can contribute when works best for them and sync up with the rest of the team at preset events.

Remote Onboarding Challenges

Onboarding new team members can be a challenge for remote teams. Introducing team members, explaining agreed to norms around process and tools are traditionally done in-person. Writing all of this information down along with the justifications and discussions around the decision process is a significant undertaking.

GitLab, one of the most successful all-remote agile development organizations, has onboarding materials that would occupy over 8,000 pages if printed. As organizations transition to more remote-friendly structures, documenting how teams work is becoming more critical.

Disciplined Agile for Onboarding

Fortunately, Disciplined Agile (DA) can help. It contains a vast tool kit of approaches accompanied by industry vetted analysis of when they add value when they do not, along with the pros and cons of implementing them. Teams can use the DA tool kit as the starting point for describing their way of working.

Using the upcoming DA Profiler tool, teams can debate, discuss and decide on their ways of working. The tool captures the goals, decision points and trade-off tables of each selected process or technique. Then, when new team members join, they can be pointed to the saved profile representing the team’s way of working. This saves creating lengthy onboarding materials and descriptions of processes.

Of course, processes should not remain static but instead, continue to evolve as teams and businesses learn and develop. So, at regular intervals, teams are encouraged to review and update their way of working and create a new definition. DA provides a robust strategy to support this and the goal “Evolve Way of Working.”

Keeping it Real

A strength of DA is its realism and pragmatism towards how organizations work. Not all organizations are fully agile yet, nor perhaps want to be. So, if some traditional, serial practices are still in use, that is OK; DA supports it. If Team A uses Scrum with two-week Sprints, Team B uses Kanban with continuous flow, and Team C uses SAFe, that works too.

DA is approach agnostic and capable of supporting a variety of popular techniques along with custom hybrid solutions. It also embraces a set of principles that make building guidance for remote agile teams more successful. These include: “Be pragmatic,” “Context counts,” “Choice is good” and “Enterprise awareness.”  These principles provide practical advice teams can apply to define their remote ways of working.

Mind Your Toes

Returning to the GitLab onboarding process, they promote a fun principle called “Short toes,” which comes from when people join the company and frequently say, “I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.”

At GitLab, they aim to be accepting of people taking the initiative in trying to improve things. They recognize that as organizations grow, their decision-making speed often slows since more people are involved. However, this can be counteracted by having short toes and feeling comfortable letting others contribute to their domain.

Short toes is a great concept that is required if organizations are to scale and evolve successfully. It aligns well with another of DA’s principles, “Be awesome,” which is all about striving to be the best that we can and to always get better.

Summary

Adapting to the challenges of more remote team members and new all-remote teams creates the need for better onboarding resources.

DA provides great scaffolding to build onboarding handbooks that document how teams have selected to work without making manuals with thousands of pages.  It supports group-based discussion and selection of techniques, ongoing refinement and offline access. Perfect for onboarding today’s increasingly remote workforce.

Posted by Mike Griffiths on: December 01, 2020 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Disciplined Agile Foundation Layer

Disciplined Agile Foundation Layer

The Disciplined Agile (DA) tool kit is organized into four layers: Foundation, Disciplined DevOps, Value Streams, Disciplined Agile Enterprise (DAE).  This blog focuses on the Foundation layer, the purpose of which is to provide the underpinnings of the DA tool kit.  The foundation layer itself is organized into four distinct topics:

  1. The DA mindset
  2. Fundamental concepts
  3. People
  4. Choosing your WoW

 

The DA Mindset

The Disciplined Agile (DA) mindset is captured in the form of principles, promises, and guidelines. Disciplined agilists believe in the DA principles, so we promise to adopt these behaviours and follow these guidelines when doing so. There is a purpose for each aspect of the mindset:

  • Principles. The principles provide a philosophical foundation for business agility. They are based on both lean and flow concepts.
  • Promises. The promises are agreements that we make with our fellow teammates, our stakeholders, and other people within our organization whom we interact with. The promises define a collection of disciplined behaviours that enable us to collaborate effectively and professionally.
  • Guidelines. These guidelines help us to be more effective in our way of working (WoW) and in improving our WoW over time.

The Disciplined Agile Mindset

 

Fundamental Concepts

Disciplined Agile (DA) is a hybrid in that it adopts ideas and strategies from a wide range of sources. DA encompasses three categories of fundamental concepts:

  1. Agile. Agile is both a mindset and a skillset. As a mindset Agile is the manner in how you look at your environment; it is the desire to collaborate with and to learn from others; and it is the willingness to share your skills and knowledge with others.  As a skillset Agile varies based on the domain in which you operate.  For example, an agile skillset for a marketing professional may include experimental strategies such as minimum viable products (MVPs) and marketplace sensing strategies, whereas an agile skillset for a software professional may include test-driven development (TDD) and chaos engineering techniques. Agility is the ready ability to move with quick and easy grace to respond to changes in your operating environment.  
  2. Lean.  Lean produces value for customers quickly through a focus on reducing delays and eliminating waste which results in increased quality and lower cost. Lean philosophies and strategies infuse DA, and in fact much of the DA mindset reflects lean thinking. This includes ideas such as optimizing flow, making all work and workflow visible, keeping workloads within capacity, and attending to relationships throughout the value stream to name a few. 
  3. Serial. DA adopts great ideas from serial - often referred to as traditional, waterfall, or even predictive - ways of working (WoW). There are many strategies and concepts from the past which are critical to our success in the future, and DA chooses to leverage them where they make sense. For example, DA's project-oriented lifecycles have explicit, named phases which are clearly serial in nature. DA recognizes that inception efforts, sometimes called  project initiation or simply initiation activities, such as initial planning, initial scoping, and initial design can be critical to your success.  These efforts are very different than the construction/realization efforts that happen after this, and different yet again than the transition/delivery efforts that then follow, and different again than the operational efforts that bring actual realized value to your customers.

 

People

The people portion of the Foundation layer addresses two key aspects of agility:

  1. Roles (and responsibilities). The DA tool kit captures a wide range of roles that people may fill.  This includes common agile roles such as Team Lead/Senior Scrum Master, Product Owner, Architecture Owner, and others.  It also includes function-specific roles such as Program Manager, Financial Specialist, Governor, Security Engineer, Sales Manager, and many others.  All of these roles have associated responsibilities, and of course there are common rights and responsibilities that everyone has.
  2. Teams. Every team is unique and faces a unique situation.  As a result, DA supports several team structures which your teams can adopt and evolve to meet their needs.  There are suggested structures for small, medium, and large (program) teams.  There are team structures that support geographic distribution.  There are team structures that support learning teams such as communities of practice (COPs)/guilds and centres of excellence (CoEs), and structures that support common services teams.

 

Choosing Your WoW

A fundamental philosophy of agile is that teams should own their own process, or as we like to say in Disciplined Agile (DA) teams should choose their way of working (WoW). Of course this is easier said than done in practice. The challenge is that every team is unique and faces a unique situation – in other words, context counts. Furthermore, there are no “best practices,” rather, every practice has tradeoffs and works well in some situations and poorly in others. Worse yet, you really don’t know how well a technique will work for you until you actually try it out in your environment. Given all of this, how can a team choose its WoW?

While working with organizations to help them to learn how to improve their WoW, we’ve developed a technique that we call guided continuous improvement (GCI). GCI extends the kaizen-based continuous improvement approach, where teams improve their WoW via small incremental changes, to use proven guidance to help teams identify techniques that are more likely to work in their context. This increases the percentage of successful experiments and thereby increases your overall rate of process improvement.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: July 29, 2020 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Acceleration: An Agile Productivity Metric

Metrics

A common question that customers ask us is how do you measure productivity on agile teams. If you can easily measure productivity you can easily identify what is working for you in given situations, or what is not working for you, and adjust accordingly. One way to do so is to look at acceleration, which is the change in velocity.

A common metric captured by agile teams is their velocity. Velocity is an agile measure of how much work a team can do during a given iteration. Velocity is typically measured using an arbitrary point system that is unique to a given team or program. For example, my team might estimate that a given work item is two points worth of effort whereas your team might think that it’s seven points of effort, the important thing is that it’s consistent. So if there is another work item requiring similar effort, my team should estimate that it’s two points and your team seven points. With a consistent point system in place, each team can accurately estimate the amount of work that they can do in the current iteration by assuming that they can achieve the same amount of work as last iteration (an XP concept called “yesterday’s weather”). So, if my team delivered 27 points of functionality last iteration we would reasonably assume that all things being equal we can do the same this iteration.

It generally isn’t possible to use velocity as a measure of productivity. You can’t compare the velocity of the two teams because they’re measuring in different units. For example, we have two teams, A and B, each of 5 people and each working on a web site and each having two-week long iterations. Team A reports a velocity of 17 points for their current iteration and team B a velocity of 51 points. They’re both comprised of 5 people, therefore team B must be three times (51/17) as productive as team A. No! Team A is reporting in their point system and B in their point system, so you can’t compare them directly. The traditional strategy, one that is also suggested in the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), would be to ask the teams to use the same unit of points.  This might be a viable strategy with a small number of teams although with five or more teams it would likely require more effort than it was worth.  Regardless of the number of teams that you have it would minimally require some coordination to normalize the units and perhaps even some training and development and support of velocity calculation guidelines. Sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy that I would prefer to avoid. Worse yet, so-called “consistent” measurements such as FPs are anything but consistent because there’s always some sort of fudge factor involved in the calculation process that will vary by individual estimator.

An easier solution exists. Instead of comparing velocities you instead calculate the acceleration of each team. Acceleration is the change in velocity over time. The exact formula for acceleration is:

(NewVelocity – InitialVelocity)/InitialVelocity

For example, consider the reported velocities of each team shown in the table below. Team A’s velocity is increasing over time whereas team B’s velocity is trending downwards. All things being equal, you can assume that team A’s productivity is increasing whereas B’s is decreasing. At the end of iteration 10, if we wanted to calculate the acceleration since the previous iteration (#9), it would be (23-22)/22= 4.5% for Team A and (40-41)/41 = -2.4% for Team B.  So Team A improved their productivity 4.5% during iteration 10 and Team decreased their productivity 2.4% that iteration.  A better way to calculate acceleration is to look at the difference in velocity between multiple iterations as this will help to smooth out the numbers over time because as you see in the table the velocity will fluctuate naturally over time (something scientists might refer to as noise).  Let’s calculate acceleration over 5 iterations instead of just one, in this case comparing the differences in velocity from iteration 6 to iteration 10.  For Team A the acceleration would be (23-20)/20 = 15% and for Team B (40-45)/45 = -11.1% during the 5 iteration period, or 3% and -3.7% respectively on average per iteration.

Iteration Team A Velocity Team B

 

Velocity

1 17 51
2 18 49
3 17 50
4 18 47
5 19 48
6 20 45
7 19 44
8 21 44
9 22 41
10 23 40

 

Normalizing Acceleration for Team Size

The calculations that we performed above assumed that everything on the two teams remained the same. That assumption is likely a bit naïve.  It could very well be that people joined or left either of those teams, something that would clearly impact the team’s velocity and therefore it’s acceleration.  Let’s work through an example.  We’ve expanded the first table to include the size of the team each iteration.  We’ve also added a column showing the average velocity per person per iteration for each team, calculated by dividing the velocity by the team size for that iteration.  Taking the effect of team size into account, the average acceleration between the last five iterations for Team A is (1.9-1.8)/1.8/5 = 1.1% and for Team B is (5-5)/5/5 = 0.

Iteration Team A Velocity Team A Size Team A Velocity Per Person Team B

 

Velocity

Team B Size Team B Velocity Per Person
1 17 10 1.7 51 10 5.1
2 18 10 1.8 49 10 4.9
3 17 11 1.5 50 10 5
4 18 11 1.6 47 9 5.2
5 19 11 1.7 48 9 5.3
6 20 11 1.8 45 9 5
7 19 12 1.6 44 8 5.5
8 21 12 1.8 44 8 5.5
9 22 12 1.8 41 8 5.1
10 23 12 1.9 40 8 5

Similarly, perhaps there was a holiday during one iteration. When there are ten working days per iteration and you lose one or more of them due to holidays it can have a substantial impact on velocity as well.  As a result you may want to take into account the number of working days each iteration in your calculation.  You would effectively calculate average acceleration per person per day in this case.  Frankly I’m not too worried about that issue as it would affect everyone within your organization in pretty much the same way, and it’s easy to understand why there was a “blip” in the data for that iteration.

 

What Does Acceleration Tell You?

For how you use acceleration in practice, there are three scenarios to consider:

  1. Positive acceleration. This is an indication that productivity may be rising on the team, although it does not indicate the cause of that increase.
  2. Zero acceleration. This is an indication that the team’s productivity is remaining flat, and that perhaps they should consider doing retrospectives regularly and then act on the results from those retrospectives. Better yet they can “dial up” their process improvement efforts by adopting something along the lines of the Disciplined Agile Framework.
  3. Negative acceleration. If the acceleration is negative then productivity on the team is going down, likely an indicator of quality and/or team work problems.

Of course it’s not wise to govern simply by the numbers, so instead of assuming what is going on we would rather go and talk with the people on the two teams. Doing so you might find out that team A has adopted quality-oriented practices such as continuous integration and static code analysis which team B has not, indicating that you might want to help team A share their learnings with other teams.

 

Monetizing Acceleration

This is fairly straightforward to do. For example, assume your acceleration is 0.7%, that there are five people on the team, your annual burdened cost per person is $150,000 (your senior management staff should be able to tell you what this number is), and that you have two week iterations. So, per iteration the average burdened cost per person must be $150,000/26 = $5,770. Productivity improvement per iteration for this team must be $5,770 * 5 * .007 = $202. If the acceleration stayed constant at 0.7% the overall productivity improvement for the year would be (1.007)^26 (assuming the team works all 52 weeks of the year) which would be 1.198 or 19.8%. This would be a savings of $148,500 (pretty much the equivalent of one new person).

Another approach is calculate the acceleration for the year by comparing the velocity from the beginning of the year to the end of the year (note that you want to avoid comparing iterations near any major holidays). So, if the team velocity the first week of February 2015 was 20 points, the same team’s velocity the first week of February 2016 was 23 points, that’s an acceleration of (23-20)/20 = 15% over a one year period, for a savings of $112,500.

 

Advantages of the Acceleration Metric

There are several advantages to using acceleration as an indicator of productivity over traditional techniques such as FP counting:

  1. It’s easy to calculate. We worked through two common variations earlier, you’ll need to experiment to determine what works for you.
  2. It is inexpensive. Acceleration is based on information already being collected by the team, their velocity, so there is no extra work to be done by the team.  Assuming that the team hasn’t decided to take a #NoEstimates approach
  3. It is easy to automate. For example, most agile management tools (e.g. VersionOne, Rally, Jira, Microsoft TFS) calculate velocity automatically from their work item list/product backlog and do velocity trend reporting via their team dashboard functionality. This trend reporting is effectively a visual representation of the team’s acceleration (or deceleration as the case may be).
  4. You can easily adjust for changing team size.
  5. You can easily monetize this metric.
  6. It is unitless. The “units” are % change in points per iteration, or % change in points per time period depending on the way that you want to look at it. Because it’s a percentage you can use it as a basis of comparison.
  7. You apply this across a department. It is fairly straightforward to roll up the acceleration of project teams into an overall acceleration measure for a larger program or portfolio simply by taking a weighted average based on team size. However, this is only applicable to teams that are in a position to report an accurate acceleration (the agile and iterative teams) and of course are willing to do so.

 

Potential Disadvantages of Acceleration

Of course, nothing is perfect, and there are a few potential disadvantages:

  1. It can be gamed. Acceleration is derived from velocity which in turn is derived from manually-collected measures, and anything gathered manually can be easily gamed.
  2. Management must be flexible. For this to be acceptable senior management must be willing to think outside the “traditional metrics box”. Using a non-standard, simple metric to calculate productivity? Preposterous! Directly measuring what you’re truly interested in instead of calculating trends over long periods of time? Doubly preposterous!
  3. The terminology sounds scientific. Terms such as velocity and acceleration can motivate some of us to start believing that we understand the “laws of IT physics”, something which we doubt very highly that as an industry we understand.

We hope that you’ve found this blog post valuable.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: June 13, 2016 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An Exploratory

Categories: agile, DAD, Lean Startup, lifecycle, SDLC

One of the key philosophies of the Disciplined Agile (DA) toolkit is that it presents software development teams with choices and guides them through making the right choices given the situation they face.  In other words, it helps them to truly own their process.  Part of doing so is to choose the software delivery lifecycle (SDLC) that is the best fit for their context.  In this blog posting we overview the DAD Exploratory lifecycle which is based in part on Lean Startup strategies.

This lifecycle can be applied in two ways:

  1. As a replacement of the Inception phase of other lifecycles.  In the Inception phase we invest a short yet sufficient amount of time and effort to validate that the initiative being considered makes sense and to gain agreement on the stakeholders’ vision.  In a situation where the actual need and value of what is being proposed is in question this approach is a very good way to determine the true market need before scaling up the initiative and moving into the Construction phase.
  2. As the implementation approach in the Construction phase.  After applying the Exploratory approach to validate your vision, a decision needs to be made regarding which of the four DAD lifecycles to apply as we move into Construction. For instance, you may choose to use DAD’s Scrum-based basic agile lifecycle if there is sufficient confidence from the learnings in the Inception phase regarding the viability of the vision.  However, if there remains some uncertainty regarding the feature set to be delivered it may make more sense to continue using the Exploratory lifecycle to build out the product in Construction.

The following diagram overviews the DAD Exploratory lifecycle.  This lifecycle is followed by agile or lean teams that find themselves in startup or research situations where their stakeholders have an idea for a new product but they do yet understand what is actually needed by their user base.  As a result they need to quickly explore what the market wants via a series of quick learning experiments.

DAD Exploratory lifecycle

Now let’s describe how the Exploratory lifecycle works.  There are six activities to this lifecycle:

  1. Envision.  Your team will explore the idea and identify a potential implementation strategy for implementing it.  This could be as simple as getting a few people together in a room to model storm both the business vision and your technical options on whiteboard and paper.  You want to do just enough thinking to identify a viable hypothesis for what your customers actually want.  This hypothesis needs to be testable, which implies that you need to identify how you are going to measure the effectiveness of the new functionality that you produce.
  2. Build a little.  Your team should invest just enough effort to build a solution that tests the hypothesis.  In lean parlance you want to build what’s known as a minimally viable product (MVP).  The amount of effort will vary, from several days to several weeks – your goal is to make something available very quickly so that you can test your hypothesis.
  3. Deploy.  Once your current solution is ready it is deployed into an environment where you can test your hypothesis. This deployment may be to a subset of your customers, in many ways what used to be called an “alpha” or “beta” release, so that you can determine whether the solution is of interest to them.
  4. Observe & measure.  Once the solution is available in production you want to determine what aspects of it, if any, are of interest to your user base.  To do this you will need to instrument your solution so that it logs data regarding important events within it.  For example, you may decide to record when a screen/page is accessed, when a sale occurs, when certain business functions are invoked, and so on.  The idea is that you want to understand which functionality end users find useful, which functionality leads to customer retention, which functionality leads to greater sales, … whatever is important to you.  Generation of this data enables you to monitor, to observe and measure, how well the new functionality is received by your user base.  This in turn allows you to make a fact-based go-forward decision.  If the functionality is well received then you may choose to continue with the existing strategy and add more functionality.  Or your strategy may be so successful that you decide that you’re ready to productize the development of this solution. If the functionality wasn’t well received your team might choose to pivot and continue in another direction or even give up completely.
  5. Cancel.  Sometimes you discover that the product idea isn’t going to work out after all.  In fact, this is particularly common in research and development (R&D) environments as well as start ups.  The advantage is that if an idea is going to fail, then it is better that you learn that it’s a failure quickly so that you can devote your energies into other strategies.
  6. Productize.  After several iterations of building a little, deploying, and then observing & measuring that you’ve identifying a product that will be successful in the marketplace (or in the case of internal application development successful with your user base).  As described above, although you may choose to continue following this lifecycle, a common decision is for the team to adopt one of the other DAD lifecycles – such as the Scrum-based agile lifecycle, the Kanban-based Lean lifecycle, or the Continuous Delivery lifecycle – and effectively treat the time they spent following this lifecycle as their Inception phase.

To summarize, the DAD process framework takes a flexible, non-prescriptive approach to software-based solution delivery.  As a result of this philosophy DAD supports several development lifecycles, one of which is the Lean-Startup-based Exploratory lifecycle described in this posting.  This lifecycle is typically followed in situations where you are unsure of what your user base wants, and sometimes even when you are unsure of who your user base (your customers) will even be.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: April 25, 2014 05:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does your team own its process or merely rent it?

Process ownership

An important philosophy within both the agile and lean communities is that a team should own its process. In fact, one of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto is “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.” The idea is that teams should be empowered to choose their way of working (WoW), to "own their process," including both their team structure and the process that they follow, to meet the unique needs of the situation that they find themselves in. Teams that own their process will tailor it over time as they learn how to work together, adopting new techniques and tweaking existing ones to increase their effectiveness.

As with most philosophies this one is easy to proselytize but not so easy to actually adopt. When it comes to process improvement, teams will exhibit a range of behavior in practice. Some teams see process as a problem and actively seek to ignore process-related issues. Some teams are ambivalent towards process improvement and generally stick with what they’ve been told to do. And some teams see process improvement as an opportunity to become more effective both as a team and as individuals. This range of behaviors isn’t surprising from a psychology point of view although it can be a bit disappointing from an agile or lean point of view. It has led me to think that perhaps some teams choose to “own” their process but many more still seem to prefer to simple rent it.

The behaviors of people who rent something are generally different than those who own something. Take flats for example. When you rent a flat (called an apartment in North America) you might do a bit of cosmetic work, such as painting and hanging curtains, to make it suitable for your needs. But people rarely put much more effort than that into tailoring their rental flat because they don’t want to invest money in something that isn’t theirs, even though they may live in the flat for several years. It isn’t perfect but it’s good enough. When you own a flat (called a condo in North America) you are much more likely to tailor it to meet your needs. Painting and window dressings are a good start, but you may also choose to renovate the kitchen and bathroom, update the flooring, and even reconfigure the layout by knocking down or moving some walls. One of the reasons why you choose to own a flat is so that you can modify it to meet your specific needs and taste.

You can observe similar behaviors when it comes to software process. Teams that are merely “process renters” will invest a bit of time to adopt a process, perhaps taking a two-day course where they’re taught a few basic concepts. They may make a few initial tailorings of the process, adopt some new role names, and even rework their workspace to better fit the situation that they face. From then on they do little to change the way that they work together. They rarely hold process improvement sessions such as retrospectives, and if they do they typically adopt changes that require minimal effort. Harder improvements, particularly those requiring new skills that require time and effort to learn, are put off to some point in the distant future which never seems to come. Such behavior may be a sign that this “team” is not even be a team at all, but instead a group of individuals who are marginally working together on the same solution. They adopt the trappings of the method, perhaps they spout new terminology and hold the right meetings, but few meaningful changes are actually made.

Process owners behave much differently. Teams that own their process will regularly reflect on how well they’re working and actively seek to get better. They experiment with new techniques and some teams will even measure how successful they are implementing the change. Teams that are process owners will often get coaching to help them improve, both at the individual and at the team level. Process owners strive to understand their process options, even the ones that are not perfectly agile or lean, and choose the ones that are best for the situation they find themselves in.

The Disciplined Agile (DA) tool kit is geared for teams that want to own their process. The DA tool kit is process goal-driven, not prescriptive, making your process choices explicit and more importantly providing guidance for selecting the options that make the most sense for your team. This guidance helps your team to get going in the right direction and provides options when you realize that you need to improve. DA also supports multiple life cycles because we realize that teams find themselves in a range of situations – sometimes a Scrum-based life cycle makes sense, sometimes a lean life cycle is a better fit, sometimes a continuous delivery approach is best, and sometimes you find yourself in a situation where an exploratory (or “Lean Startup”) life cycle is the way to go.

You have choices, and DA helps guide you to making the choices that are right for you in your given context. By providing process guidance DAD enables your team to more easily own its own process and thereby increase the benefit of following agile or lean approaches.

Posted by Scott Ambler on: March 03, 2014 07:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
ADVERTISEMENTS

"Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be."

- Mark Twain