At Cegeka we've developed an Agile Transformation approach, based on my Agile Transformation model and on the Situational Coaching Model, developed by myself and Jan De Baere. We presented this on the 17 of November to a group of business leaders and agile leaders.
5. Agile TransformationApproach(*)
Care
Suppo
rt
Initiat
e
Sustai
n
Team of
Teams
TEAM
TEAM of TEAMS
ORGANISATION
Mindset, method, tools
Structures, systems
Culture, Leadership
Strategy
* ( cc - 2015, the Agile Transformation Approach (ATAp) designed by Franky Redant)
Foundations, goals, principles
Legend:
Teal Team = Transformation Team
Blue teams = management teams
Green teams = operational teams (dev-ops)
Transformation Team
Assessment of Agility
Assessment, readiness criteria
Care
Suppo
rt
Initiat
e
Sustai
n
Team of
Teams
Care
Suppo
rt
Initiat
e
Sustai
n
Team of
Teams
Team
Team of
Teams
Team
Team
Team of
Teams
Team of
Teams
Team of
Teams
AgileValues&principles
10. www.cegeka.com
Approach– The Transformationteam
Why ?
Who?
How? What?
Typically:
Sponsor of the agile transformation
Stakeholder from the pilot teams
Agile coaches
Lead the transition agilely
Inspire and coach
Role modeling
Understand progress
Encourage improvement
Maintaining backlog
Taking action
Regular alignment
Solve impediments
Provide active support
Find solutions
…
12. www.cegeka.com
The fourphasesofmaturity
Initiate Care
Stabilize output &
have predictable delivery
Support Sustain
Predictability is within
20% range for 3
successive sprints
For example:
• Teams setup
• Roles are clear
and assigned
• Trainings are
given
• Initial backlog
• Visualisation is
setup
Typical examples
- 30% less incidents
- Increase Output with
30%
- Predictability within
10% range
- Decrease deployment
cycle time with 50%
Typical examples:
- Faster time to market.
- Increased delivery of
business value
- Capacity utilization
- Feedback cycle time
- Design in process
inventory
Next phase when
All todo’s are done
(see list)
Install the basics
Find your team
grow
Objective(s)
Further growth and
realize results
Defined Objective(s)
has/have been reached
Predictability: planned
vs actual velocity,
throughput, cycle time
N/A
What?
Objective
13. Timingsof a coachingcycle
0 3 - 4 6+
Evaluate?
Time in months
%ofteams
to care
Timeboxes of 3 months
Evaluation after timebox
Transformation team decides
Simplicity or simplexity :
Basic models of flocking behavior are controlled by three simple rules:
Separation - avoid crowding neighbors (short range repulsion)
Alignment - steer towards average heading of neighbors
Cohesion - steer towards average position of neighbors (long range attraction)
With these three simple rules, the flock moves in an extremely realistic way, creating complex motion and interaction that would be extremely hard to create otherwise.
But the movement of the sparrows is unpredictable even if the ruleset is simple.
Team of Teams
- collaobation between teams
- interaction between groups of teams
- dependencies, processes, coordination between teams of teams
Dedicated : Focus, agreements and priorities.
Why ?
Who ?
How ? Meeting schedules, principles,…
What ? Transformation Backlog
0 – not started yet (Add awareness items)
1 – The basics
See transition backlog split with details for minimals
DevOps teams setup: S07.12, S07.15, S07.22, S07.23, S07.24, S07.30, S07.31, S07.32, S07.33, S07.34, S07.35, S07.38
Release train setup: S01.02, S01.03, S01.04, S01.05, S01.07, S04.35, S04.36, S04.37, S04.38, S04.52, S04.53, S07.06
All roles are filled and clear: S02.03, S02.08, S02.09, S04.06, S04.07, S04.08, S04.09, S04.10, S04.11, S04.12, S04.13, S04.14, S04.15, S07.03, S07.04, S07.05, S07.08, S07.10
2-
a. Stabilize feature output by measuring variance in the number of features (feature points) delivered (eg. Measure how many feature points a train delivers over time and if they become a stable in delivering it!)
b. Have predictability: Do we deliver the planned work – or do we deviate.
EG. Planned versus actual % graph
This is being done per type of work