Log in


This is the governing body for certification in Disciplined Agile.

Govern Delivery Team

  • 29 Oct 2018 6:25 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6877750 on 6660591
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    We just published an update to the excerpt.  We've acted on the advice that you've provide.  Biggest change is the addition of the Measure Team decision point that goes into strategies around metrics, in particular GQM and OKRs.  Would appreciate some feedback on that.
  • 05 Oct 2018 1:51 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 6709091 on 6660591
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    Valentin, great ideas.

    Some thoughts:

    • Pointing out how governance should be context-sensitive to be effective is very good insight.
    • Collaborating with other teams - Yes, can't believe we missed that.
    • Good points about DoR/DoD.
    • We need to think about your point about demos a bit more.  I think you're right, but need to think about how it fits in.
  • 22 Sep 2018 9:13 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6687363 on 6660591
    Valentin Tudor Mocanu

    Demo Strategy – different types of demos

    We should differentiate between various kind of demonstrations. This could be a huge problem in governance. Please note that only switching the term demonstration to demo could change the reader/listener understanding.

    My proposal is to mention:

    Depending on the demo purpose we should differentiate, for example, between demonstration for proving a feature realization or a solution approach and a demo used to communicate something and getting some early feedback.  There is a long range between an early small prototype and a production-ready demonstration and the differences are important from the governance point of view.  
  • 22 Sep 2018 8:56 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6687359 on 6660591
    Valentin Tudor Mocanu

    Provide Transparency – DoR, DoD motivation

    A colleague that was new in the industry but was a higher desire to learn has taught me how to teach. “Please tell us first WHY?”

    Why DoR? We will avoid some of the waste of waiting or waste of re-working where these wastes are producing big disturbances in governance.  

    Wy DoD? When it is properly applied (DA guidance about a consumable solution), the information about real progress is more reliable.  

    Both aspects are fundamental for a good governance.
  • 22 Sep 2018 8:43 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6687355 on 6660591
    Valentin Tudor Mocanu

    Motivate Enterprise Awareness – add proposal

    One of the roles of Enterprise Groups is to leverage the assets produced by different teams, enhance them and provide them to other teams. In fact, this is a goal (Enterprise level collaboration) that need to be governed with or without the Enterprise Groups.

    Proposal:

    Motivate Enterprise Awareness – Collaborate with other teams

    Different teams should co-evolve (!), even they are not working on the same release. They should share experience and knowledge by direct opportunistic collaboration and via enterprise groups.   
  • 22 Sep 2018 8:29 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6687350 on 6660591
    Valentin Tudor Mocanu

    Principles – update proposal

    Beyond the fact that we are intellectual workers, and we respond well to leadership, and less to management, this is the only effective/efficient WoW: we need to understand the needs and the context, and we will select & adapt our WoW. So, I propose a new principle, with this kind of content:

    Feasible, effective and efficient Governance

    Governance could be feasible, effective, efficient only if it is well integrated into a proper WoW. The development shall gather needs, context, and feedback from the stakeholders and should decide about WoW using this info while providing transparency over results and real progress. 
  • 18 Sep 2018 9:39 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 6674597 on 6660591
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    I just published an update.
  • 17 Sep 2018 5:09 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 6673535 on 6660591
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    @Aldo, some thoughts:

    1. Agree about DOR/DOD.  Will update accordingly.
    2. Interesting idea around source governance requirements.  I think the real issue is around the scope of governance (we had Figure 20.2 in the first book which captured this well) - security, data, finance, ...  After we put out this excerpt I realized that we hadn't covered that idea well, even though Enable Teams sort of got at it via the Whole governance and Specialized/siloed governance options.  Will add an updated 20.2 plus discussion around Enable Teams I believe.
    3. I like the discussion around making complexity visible.  Sounds like an advantage of information radiators.  Need to think a bit on that.
    4. Milestone review strategy - I like that idea.  That's basically what happens in Scrum (or should happen in Scrum) with the go-forward decision at the end of a Sprint.  BUT, I would want to experiment with that in practice in a more general sense than what Scrum does.  Having said that, something like "Regular go-forward decision" does seem like fair game.  Need to think about that a bit.
    5. Good catch on the funding issue.  Really should be "Increase/Reduce funding".
    Thanks!
  • 12 Sep 2018 8:35 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 6666968 on 6660591
    Aldo Rall

    Hi Folks

    had a scan through the objective. Some questions/ thoughts around "Provide transparency":

    1. I use DOR and DOD as well to make the work visible (not only for stories, but Epics, Features, Iterations, Releases, phases etc.). Would these two techniques/ tools assist with achieving the goal of providing transparency? 
    2. DOR and DOD also sets expectations to stakeholders that do not always understand the underlying amount of work involved. 
    3. In addition to that, I usually make sure that any governance requirements from the organisation is articulated on the DOR and DOD at its various levels. 
    4. Perhaps consider having a section called "Source governance requirements" that can include testing, coding standards, security standards, process standards, documentation standards, etc?
    5. I challenge teams/ architects to identify ways of making the complexity of work visible. For instance count number of interfaces impacted by a story/ feature/ epic. The more interfaces at play, the more complex. 
    6. Story points/ relative sizing is also another area to make things visible to teams and their stakeholders
    Then for "milestone Review Strategy":
    1. What about something linked to Rolling wave planning? Can one have milestone reviews occurring continuously? Perhaps review milestones during "sprint planning" for a "release" time-box?
    "Go-Forward strategy":
    1. I see the words "team funding" have been used. What about considering "product -" or "solution" funding?
    Hope this helps?

    Aldo
  • 08 Sep 2018 9:20 PM
    Quote
    Message # 6660591
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    We just published the Govern Delivery Team process goal.

    Looking forward to hearing your feedback.

© 2013-2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.

600 Crowfoot Crescent NW, Suite 340

Calgary, Alberta, CANADA  T3A 5A2

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software