What this session is about:
One very important property in Kanban is called "make process policies explicit". This includes well defined interfaces to upstream as well as downstream partners. Kanban tries to define these interfaces on a very abstract level, because Kanban is a change managent approach that wants to integrate with several possible project management approaches without making assumptions about them.
From software development, we know that it is good to describe the behavior of an interface as a form of contract between client and service, using example scenarios and assertions, deliberate discovery, behavior driven development, TDD, Design by Contract, whatever. Can this be done with process policies in Kanban, too?
In this session, I'd like to discuss questions like these:
What the session is like and what you can take away:
In a short presentation, I will challenge the usual expectations on a team, as described in literature or on the Net. I also ask whether teams typically agree to think about their interfaces. My proposition is that thinking in terms of contracts can help to improve a team's services over an extended period of time.
Both business and team can earn value from this:
Rightshifting simply means ‘improving the effectiveness of knowledge-work organisations’. The Rightshifting Chart quickly makes clear the origin of the term.
Some market-leading organisations are more effective than their peers by a factor of four or five. The majority of people spend the majority of their working lives in these ‘average’ organisations . So many folk never get to experience how life and work is fundamentally different in highly-effective organisations. They are unable to recognise ‘high performance’. Furthermore, many do not believe it is ever even possible for organisations to achieve performance levels higher than those they are used to.
This first session of two illustrates the fundamental differences in the nature of life and work between ‘average’ and ‘high performance’ organisations. Unsurprisingly, most organisations face huge challenges in making and sustaining non-trivial improvements to their effectiveness.
The Marshall Model of Organisational Evolution identifies the fundamental root condition underlying these challenges. This root condition explains:
•Why most Agile (and Lean) adoptions fail.
•The special behaviours of highly-effective technology organisations.
•Why all incremental improvement hits a brick wall, sooner or later.
•Why some incremental improvements work for some companies, at some times, and not others.
The companion session (see below) takes these ideas and explains practical measures for Rightshifting aspiring knowledge-work organisations.
This session identifies a range of behaviours that have proved successful in Rightshifting real-world organisations. There are, as we all recognise, no ‘silver bullet’ solutions. But Rightshifting principles open the gates to dramatic organisational transformation for the better.
Takeaways from this session will help participants identify where their organisation sit on the Rightshifting scale. They perhaps will explain why it is infeasible to make a single leap from chaos to chaordic behaviours. Participants will receive practical ideas for how they can approach their own Rightshifting challenges.
This session includes:
Changing minds: from Ad-hoc to Analytic
•What characterises the Ad-hoc organisation
•The tools available to the Ad-hoc organisation
•The fundamental lesson learned in moving from Ad-hoc to Analytic
Changing minds: from Analytic to Synergistic
•What characterises the Analytic organisation
•The tools available to the Analytic organisation
•The fundamental lesson learned in moving from Analytic to Synergistic
Changing minds: from Synergistic to Chaordic
•What characterises the Synergistic organisation
•The tools available to the Synergistic organisation
•The fundamental lesson learned in moving from Synergistic to Chaordic
3rd–4th October 2011