Confessions of a SPC Cheating on the Scaled Agile Framework

I’ve developed a knot in my stomach. I feel like I’m about to cheat on one of my early Agile loves – SAFe. It’s just exploring, right? Well, maybe… maybe I’ll go back, but then again maybe not. I guess I won’t find out until I try, right?

I am a SPC, a Scaled Agile Framework Program Consultant, and I’m going to a Scrum@Scale class next month. Not just any Scrum@Scale class, but one taught by Jeff Sutherland. [insert giddy giggles…]

Jeff isn’t the only draw.

I’ve been a SPC for almost five years and was on the team that explored how we might be able to implement the Scaled Agile framework at a former employer. In fact, I may have been the very first Product Managers who was certified as a SPC. It was a big deal and I was very excited about it. Who doesn’t love the SAFe Big Picture?


That Big Picture was a huge draw for us to evaluate SAFe in the early days of our Agile transformation. It was a natural extension of what we had recently accomplished by adopting Scrum. There it was; a recipe book for how to build software at scale in our large, complex environment. For that reason, SAFe took hold in the organization.

As Jeff and the team at Scrum, Inc. have aptly pointed out, not all companies, and certainly not all Scrum implementations are the same. I would add that as you mature along your Agile journey, the recipe book that was once comforting might now feel a bit restricting. I’ve heard it from some of our customers, “…we really like parts A and C of SAFe, but D and F feel like overkill and unnecessary.”

Additionally, I have recently been working with Scrum teams that don’t build software, but need to scale beyond the single Scrum team. Although those smarter than me may disagree, SAFe doesn’t quite feel right in these instances either. Scrum has expanded beyond the domain of software, and we need to find ways to scale that fit.

And this is when I started to explore...

Let’s inspect and adapt not just how we apply Scrum and other Agile methods, but how and why we should scale. My interest in branching out as a consultant and coach, and even as a SPC, is to explore how we might help those that don’t quite feel that popular scaling frameworks like SAFe “fit.” The lighter weight, modular, fractal structure that we see in Scrum@Scale may be just the right approach to scale an organization.

Stay tuned. In about a month I’ll let you how it goes. Meanwhile, anyone want to cheat with me?  Scrum@Scale with Jeff Sutherland, November 8-9, Durham, NC

Registration Link
 

SatSSAFe.png

A Structure for Product Management Knowledge and Skills Acquisition

In the last two Certified Scrum Product Owner courses that I taught, people have asked, “What’s next?” A beautiful question indeed. My answer included a path to Certified Scrum Professional that Carlton Nettleton and I have developed, a series of advanced courses that Applied Frameworks offers, and the Scaled Agile Product Management course that we offer.

Let’s go much deeper in how people in the role of Product Owner and people in the software Product Management profession should think about levels of training and knowledge acquisition. I thank Luke Hohmann for the following structure that he attributes to Meiler Page-Jones.

1.     Innocent. You have not been exposed to a given area of knowledge and are unaware of its existence. In other words, you have absolutely no plans associated with the topic in your cognitive library, your preexisting set of solutions and experiences.

2.     Aware. You have been exposed to an area of knowledge (such as a new technique to organize your product backlog), perhaps by reading an article, and can see its relevance, but have not yet applied or used it. Your cognitive library may have one or two plans regarding the body of knowledge. These plans are rudimentary at best. You are still unable to use it for any useful purpose.

3.     Apprentice. You have had some formal training in the structures, processes, and outcomes associated with a topic, perhaps through a two or three day workshop. You have begun the task of creating and storing plans in your cognitive library. At this stage of learning, structures tend to be viewed as absolute, not to be violated. You can produce simple outcomes for well-defined problems, but require the assistance of more expert individuals to solve ill-defined or new problems.

4.     Practitioner. You are able to accomplish moderately difficult tasks without assistance. Your cognitive library is fairly well developed, but you must still rely on experts to accomplish very complex tasks.

5.     Journeyman. You regularly use the body of knowledge in your work, and begin to question and/or modify structures to suit your needs. At this stage your cognitive library is reasonably large. You begin to apply existing plans in novel ways. Individuals at levels 2 through 4 seek your guidance.

6.     Master. You have mastered the body of knowledge, and can effectively apply it in many different situations. Your cognitive library is quite well developed. It contains plans enabling you to solve well-known problems quickly and easily. You are adept at applying plans in novel ways. You can easily adapt or invent appropriate structures to aid in problem solving.

7.     Expert. With substantial expertise, you move beyond the master stage by extending the collective body of knowledge through lectures, writing articles and/or books, or applying the knowledge in new problem domains. The difference between a master and an expert is subtle, but important. Both possess extensive cognitive libraries, but the expert works at externalizing their library in a form suitable for use by others.

All of us at Applied Frameworks focus on how to assist you on your journey to the Expert level of product management in each of the frameworks you need to succeed and excel at your job.

We will help you assess where you are now and your path to the next level.  We absolutely value your input and specific feedback as we work through our minimum viable product to create a service that delivers value.