This is the governing body for certification in Disciplined Agile.

Form Initial Team feedback

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • 22 May 2018 9:33 AM
    Reply # 6251645 on 5872683
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    @Jerry, we've included Product Manager as a "Scaling Role" in the article at https://www.disciplinedagiledelivery.com/agility-at-scale/disciplined-agile-roles-at-scale/.  More importantly the role appears on several diagrams, including ones at http://www.disciplinedagiledelivery.com/agility-at-scale/product-management/ 

  • 09 Apr 2018 6:45 AM
    Reply # 6053701 on 5872683

    Noted.

    I am seeing more and more organisations in the UK introducing the role of Product Manager. Acknowledged within DA that this is a Secondary Role. Perhaps the same way you made Independent Tester explicit to address scaling issues you could consider placing Product Manager in the roles image diagram which depicts the Primary and Secondary Roles. Whether this is done as a type of specialised role is dependent upon the framework. But having it in the roles diagram would be helpful as a consideration.

  • 08 Apr 2018 12:19 PM
    Reply # 6052805 on 5872683
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    @Tom: 

    Will update the discussion about geo distribution as you suggest.  Very important stuff.

    Always good to hear about typos!  But no, we explicitly meant to have both medium-sized teams start with 10.  Ans we explicitly mean to have overlap in team sizes too.  We'll add a mention of that 


    @Jerry

    For this discussion Product Managers are out of scope.  Product Managers are of course covered in the Product Management blade and do in fact show up there as a role.  BUT, I can't see having Product Manager as a primary role because that role doesn't appear on all agile teams.  It would come into play as needed as a Specialist role, which is secondary.

  • 16 Mar 2018 7:54 AM
    Reply # 5981918 on 5872683

    Since Product Management and in particular Product Managers is causing industry debate Product Managers v Product Owners. Is there a need to include / consider Product Managers as a Primary Role. If an organisation is running both Product Owners and Product Managers then it would be helpful to show this relationship on an updated roles diagram where you depict the primary and secondary roles. I think they should now be considered as a Primary Role.

  • 04 Mar 2018 2:32 PM
    Reply # 5888512 on 5885039
    Anonymous
    Scott W Ambler wrote:

    Regarding Geographic distribution

    @Tom, great point.  I'd actually argue there's three commingled issues here:

    1. Geographic distribution (as we have it right now).

    2. Organizational distribution. People work for different parts of our organization or for different organizations (contractors, consultants).  We call this out as a scaling factor but not in this goal.  So need to add.

    3. Time zone distribution - as you point out.  

    And there's overlap between the three in practice, hence the commingling that you're pointing out.  


    @Michelle, also a great point.  Regarding a combination of F2F on some days and partially dispersed on others there's nothing stopping you from combining options.  This is true for all goals of course, not just this one.


    Expect an update to this goal later today to address this!


    I like how this has evolved! This is probably the most comprehensive advice on team effectiveness logistics I've ever seen in one place! Love the addition of organizational separation. These are all things that are so easily glossed over but calling them out helps people realize the compromises they are making as they chase talent and/or cost savings.

    Some more tweaks to make it better:
    * It would be helpful to comment on the difference between people living close enough to come to work once in a while vs people being so far away coming together won't happen very often. Such as being in the same timezone or adjacent time zone but less than 1 or 2 hours drive, vs being in the same timezone but far way such as Brazil and the US. This is touched on in the "partially distributed" item, but it should be more explicitly called out there.
    * Maybe physical proximity of distributed teams should probably be added as another layer in the time zone section such as "same time zone, but close enough to meet face to face easily."

    Not sure you want to talk typos at this point, but I'm wondering if the team size numbers might need attention (they all seem to start with 10 when I suspect they are meant to start with progressively bigger numbers.)


  • 02 Mar 2018 3:34 PM
    Reply # 5885719 on 5872683
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    As promised, I have posted a new version of the excerpt.  I've acted on many of the great suggestions you've made and am looking forward to more feedback!

  • 02 Mar 2018 10:47 AM
    Reply # 5885116 on 5872683
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    Regarding Team Size

    @Michelle, great suggestion.  I'll add quantifications in the update.

    Also, seems to me that we need to distinguish between a single, medium-sized team and a medium-sized team of teams.

    I find that there's a lot of misunderstanding around the 7 +/- 2 rule, or the two-pizza rule.  This is a heuristic, not a hard-fast rule like some people want.  

  • 02 Mar 2018 10:01 AM
    Reply # 5885039 on 5872683
    Scott Ambler (Administrator)

    Regarding Geographic distribution

    @Tom, great point.  I'd actually argue there's three commingled issues here:

    1. Geographic distribution (as we have it right now).

    2. Organizational distribution. People work for different parts of our organization or for different organizations (contractors, consultants).  We call this out as a scaling factor but not in this goal.  So need to add.

    3. Time zone distribution - as you point out.  

    And there's overlap between the three in practice, hence the commingling that you're pointing out.  


    @Michelle, also a great point.  Regarding a combination of F2F on some days and partially dispersed on others there's nothing stopping you from combining options.  This is true for all goals of course, not just this one.


    Expect an update to this goal later today to address this!


    Last modified: 02 Mar 2018 10:44 AM | Scott Ambler (Administrator)
  • 27 Feb 2018 5:45 PM
    Reply # 5880627 on 5872683
    Anonymous

    Regarding geographic distribution, there is a lot of confusion around co-location and time zones, especially as companies feel so compelled to try to “off shore” work. I think you are conflating the two which doesn’t help. It’s quite nuanced, and I think the effect of time zones should be called out explicitly in more detail than you do in the “Distributed Subteams” row. 

    For example, I’d rather have a fully distributed team in the same time zone, than a partially distributed team across multiple time zones, even if it’s only 1 or 2 hours different. Another example, I’d rather have two sub teams with one in the US and one in India rather than each team split across the US and India regardless of whether the local members are co-located or distributed.

    Maybe you should consider adding a “time zone distribution” node something like this 

    Time zone distribution

    • Same time zone
    • More than 1 time zone with more than 5 hours of overlap
    • More than 1 time zone with less than 5 hours of overlap
    • More than 1 time zone with no overlap

    This will help call out the negative effect of time zone difference. Or you should at least provide more guidance about time zones in the detail tables.


  • 26 Feb 2018 6:37 PM
    Reply # 5878928 on 5872683
    Deleted user

    For geographic distribution options - is there an option in between face to face and partially dispersed?  Where on set days the team is together and the rest they work remotely?


<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 

© 2013-2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.

14 Campus Boulevard

Newtown Square, PA 19073-3299 USA

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software