So here I am again faced with the observation, from a retrospective, that two weeks is too short for a sprint. The stories that are being developed are taking too long and the team don’t think enough is being completed in a sprint.
I’ve recently been alarmed at the number of examples I’ve encountered of “Agile as a Cargo cult” and have a growing concern of the impact of this.
This year's Agile Business Conference was the best yet. There was a great level of attendance with a good number of large enterprises attending. There were some great talks, from both Agile specialists and user companies.
The conference is a great platform for Agile and really demonstrates the increasing take up of Agile in businesses of all sizes in the UK.
We had two speakers - James Yoxall and Mike Robinson - and I thought it would be useful to bring together their talks and related material.
I was helping out at the IndigoBlue stand at the Agile Business Conference last week and we were giving away some our new story estimation cards. Nothing special there I hear you say, we get cards from any number of places already. The difference was we have created some cards that are a little different. Different enough to spark some great discussions with delegates.
This paper presents IndigoBlue’s approach to integrating Agile with PRINCE2®. It explains why the two approaches can be used together at a conceptual level, and follows with a discussion of the key differences and how they can be resolved. This paper assumes that the reader has a prior level of knowledge of the two approaches.
It is often supposed that Agile and PRINCE2 conflict directly with each other, and cannot be used effectively together. The basis of this view is that PRINCE2 is ‘process-heavy’, while Agile is ‘process-light’.
IndigoBlue’s governance framework was created in response to the lack of an adequate set of governance processes for Agile projects and programmes. The absence of good governance is particularly apparent on larger programmes or within organisations running a number of Agile projects.
Agile as a project approach enables value creation whilst also empowering sponsors and senior stakeholders to affect governance over the investment. However, this depends on effective mechanisms for translating the team view into a stakeholder view of progress, risk and opportunity. This paper identifies the challenges and solutions in achieving this translation.
I have recently been struck by how frequently poor supplier and / or client management is a major contributing factor to under performance of IT systems. This often manifests itself in incomplete implementations or a steady decline in the use of what the software was intended for - or both. Then the problem is exacerbated by the emergence of shadow systems often horribly constructed in Excel duplicating effort, introducing risk and wasting resources.
Products and services have the potential to transform customers, to change their behaviour. Henry Ford changed his customers into drivers, IKEA has changed their customers into assemblers of furniture and Ryan Air has created passengers willing to take their own sandwiches.
These are some of the examples from a recent Harvard Business Review webinar How IT Creates Customer Value featuring Michael Schrage.
Both Agile and Waterfall projects can fail due to poor debt management, however Agile process and techniques allow for finer grain management of debt. Unfortunately Agile debt has become synonymous with Technical Debt rather than a wider view of debt.
If you google Agile debt, you get around 2,980,000 results, if you google technical debt you get around 148,000,000 results, either way, in relation to the Agile domain, all the results relates to technical debt, that debt which leads to increasing cost of change to the software.