This is the governing body for certification in Disciplined Agile.
It looks quite good to me. I saw a few possible typos and have just a few points for consideration.
Page 3, paragraph 1, sentence 8: “And of course we’ve seen teams of developers with decades of IT experience by very little experience doing so collaboratively.” ---experience but very little…
Page 4, DA Knowledge Makes…, 3rd sentence: “Understanding a larger library of proven strategies means that teams will make more better decisions and “fail fast” less …” Could rewrite as “teams frequently make better decisions…
Page 9, paragraph 1, sentence 2: A recent study covering 155 organizations… Could consider citing the study, the content in this paragraph is quite powerful.
Page 10, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “The value of DA is that it can guide you through this identification step by helping you to identify a new practice/strategy that is likely to address the challenge they’re hoping to address.” …switch in tense
Page 11 Figure 1.8 should be labeled as 1.9… 1.8 was used on page 10 for the Lean Change management cycle…
Page 12, figure 1.10… I like the content in this section as well as the graph. One thing you could consider, although it may add a paragraph or 2 would be to delve just a bit deeper with some examples and the corresponding raise on the improvement axis (of the dashed & solid lines). I think it would add value and also be an excellent reference.
An example I often use when providing some context in this situation with respect to say Scrum, is that the Scrum framework has one lifecycle that it prescribes. Once a team is proficient with that lifecycle, some of the stagnation in material process improvements (in comparison to the trivial that good teams eek out via fine tuning their Scrum process) is DA provides excellent options via its guidance for significant improvements through its lifecycle options. I think that the somewhat significant rise in improvement that the green lines indicate would need to come from a somewhat material change(s) in WoW, such as an evolution from the basic agile (scrum) lifecycle to the continuous delivery agile lifecycle…. I think that readers would respond to seeing what the red line is showing, an improvement to a certain level when adopting the prescriptive frameworks, and a good team will only be able to get so far with improvements within those frameworks no matter how much fine tuning they do. To get the next material increase in improvement, a good team needs to look to something like DA….
Page 14, paragraph 3, last sentence: “DA provides a lightweight toolkit for choosing and evolving your WoW, but you still need to skills and knowledge to apply this toolkit effectively.” ---“to” should be “the”?
Page 15, paragraph 1, sentence 4: Third, we coaches use DA to help fill in the gaps in their own experience and knowledge. ---reads a bit different than the first and second in this series of 3… should this also be “we often see coaches use”??
Page 15, bullets for light-weight options: could consider adding a url to a sample spreadsheet that already has all of the process goals, decision point and options. I still have the one I did for Diageo that has all of them in, would just need to do a quick pass to check for most recent updates you have done. Could be put on the DAC site?
Could also add in an option for just printing out the process goals from DAC, use a highlighter for decisions made and hand on wall…
Jaco, great points. Our thoughts:
1. Changing Fig 1.1 makes sense from a consistency point of view, but the layout as it is works much better from a book publishing point of view (it looks better on the page).
2. I can't believe we missed including the DA overview diagram. It's been added to make the point you brought up.
3. Just before we use the term CAS we pretty much provided the definition of it.
You use the term "complex adaptive system" in chapter one without describing anywhere I could see what you mean by it. This is further used in chapter 2 going forward. It might be worthwhile to spend a little time on explaining what you mean by it :-)
You are using "Figure 1.4. Your organization is a complex adaptive system (CAS)" to describe "Improvement Occurs At Many Levels" (the heading). Why not use the big picture http://www.disciplinedagiledelivery.com/ which depicts levels very nicely?
I would depict Figure 1.1. The DAD lifecycles as horizontal line as you have in the picture on http://www.disciplinedagiledelivery.com/.
Thanks everyone for your great feedback. We've made several significant improvements to the chapter based on it and have just released a new update to excerpt.
Keep your eye out for updated excerpts this coming week!
In the we should optimize flow bullet – could consider working in optimizing the whole as a team works within the team, with other teams, and other areas of an org…
Figure 1.4, not sure if intentional, but the graphic has all interaction with all teams passing through Enterprise Architecture. Could make the arrows from the various teams coming to the Enterprise Teams box itself.
Figure 1.8 on the solid line in the graph maybe consider adding in “Guided Continuous Improvement via DA” to bring focus to DA?
Appears to be missing “framework” or similar work:
We are constantly running into teams that have adopted a prescriptive agile method, very often Scrum or SAFe, that have plateaued because they’ve run into one or more issues not directly addressed by their chosen framework.
The word “approach” in this sentence seems like maybe a type?
Because the method doesn’t address the problem(s) they face, and because they don’t have expertise in that area, they tend to flounder approach– Ivar Jacobson has coined the term “they’re stuck in method prison.”
Last paragraph on this page, in the Process Tailoring Workshops section…. Could consider adding in that the work to do this is a few sessions that can be an hour or less?? Noted that on the next page in the bullets section approaches covered, but I as readers look to this, I think would be valuable to set expectation early in reading that it should not be a significant/lengthy effort to do this
Accept That There’s No Easy Answer – where is the complexity
“One of the most common laments that we hear about DAD, and DA in general, is that it’s complicated. Yes, it is, because it reflects the complexity that agile teams regularly face.”
I think could be useful to complement this part. Problem side is complex, finding a proper approach could be complex. The resulted process approach using DA guidance is not complex (!): a lean-agile approach is streamlined. The guidance will help you to make your work easy by making better choices faster, avoiding waste, reduce undesired complexity while being effective in your context and continuous improvement.
Note: that is explained in other sections but must be also explained here commenting the “complicated DA”.
as teams choose there WoW... it may be useful to recognize that some teams use a combination of scrum and lean. For lean, some teams may have an agreed way to handle new work arriving in the backlog. Some working agreements include that and other details regarding the definition of ready.
Just about to publish an update to the Evolve WoW process goal too. Lots of great changes there that impacted Chapter 1 (and vice versa).
© 2013-2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.
600 Crowfoot Crescent NW, Suite 340
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA T3A 5A2