I started this series by discussing why managers didn’t perceive the value of agile coaches and Scrum Masters in Part 1, resulting in layoffs.) Then, in Part 2, I asked those unemployed agilists to review their functional skills, the skills people need to do a product development job well. While those skills are useful, they […]
You’re an unemployed agilist. And even if you can find an agile coaching or Scrum Master job, the pay is so terrible, you don’t want to take it. That’s because potential employers think these jobs are staff positions. Your previous managers and potential managers don’t see the value of someone in your position. That’s because
Every day, I hear more stories of agile coaches or Scrum Masters losing their jobs. Why? Several reasons: No manager cares about “agile” even if they care about agility. So, selling “agile” into the organization doesn’t create any traction for change. Agile coaches and Scrum Masters are staff positions, not “line” jobs. Worse, many agile
As a consultant, I create many kinds of information products: both writing and speaking. I use the ideas of experiments and finalization to decide what to ship and when. That allows me the most flexibility in my product development. However, too many organizations don’t differentiate between what they need to ship as experiments and when
Several of my clients are trying to do the impossible right now—plan their portfolio for an entire year. Or plan their product backlogs for eighteen months or longer. When I ask them how well that’s worked for them in the past, they often say, “Our planning works great. Our execution? Not so well.” That’s my
In How Centralization Decisions Create Friction, Increase Cycle Time, and Cost Money, Part 1, I discussed how removing support staff for departments and managers created longer cycle times. (And sometimes, increased friction so much that people could not easily do their jobs.) Removing those support staff was one indication the companies fell into the Economies
In the first post, How Centralization Decisions Create Friction, Increase Cycle Time, and Cost Money, Part 1, I explained how centralizing even relatively small decisions to centralize has high costs. Why do organizations centralize? To supposedly capitalize on “economies of scale.” That’s the problem of understanding the cost of work—but not the value of that
Some company is buying your company (or vice versa). Why? They claim it’s “Economies of scale,” and the combined organization will save money by centralizing “overhead” and flattening management. You know who that “overhead” is: the people who support the business, such as finance and HR. And, the managers. Worse, the new management asks managers
Several of my trusted advisor clients have asked this question, “Why do I need to choose between effectiveness and efficiency? Why can’t I have both?” A great question. I recommend they start with effectiveness. That occurs when they say yes to just the work they need now, to reduce the organizational WIP. Start with managing
When I saw the McKinsey report on “developer productivity,” I shuddered. First, that makes no sense in a collaborative team. Second, there’s no way to measure such a thing as developer productivity, despite what McKinsey says. (I’m not linking to the report, because the advice is so bad.) Then I read Lorin Hochstein’s brilliant assessment