Given a set of constructs aligned to Value as a starting point for execution, specifically the constructs of Impact Definitions and Business Value Increments (see Value and Activity Distinctions), the next step is to highlight some specific characteristics of the corresponding executable framework to capitalize on those constructs. The discussion in this post will highlight characteristics of the System, Value, Granularity of Value Flow, and Organizational Considerations that align into an execution model for driving Value. Additionally, this execution model aligns into broadly recognized agile frameworks such as Modern Agile (Kerievsky, 2016) and others, so it may have broad applicability.
System
In order to clearly model and execute a framework that ensures Value-centric focus is maintained, a holistic system view of the following items takes on paramount importance. These items are sequenced below to step backward through the flow, beginning with the value-based outcome to be produced:
- what outcomes (impacts) need to be produced
- what guardrails exist for execution
- what inputs are valued as salient
- what metrics are salient for visibility
- how are interactions expected to occur
- what cadence is expected for alignment
- what parameters exist for adaptation
More specifically, for the incremental flow of value, the following topics are answered within the context of an Agile System of execution:
- what is valued
- how is the value impact is measured
- what is the created
- what is the (smallest) increment that can be defined, created, and consumed to provide the value
- what is produced
- what is measured
- what are the functional elements
- what interactions occur
- what are the functional properties of the interactions
- what characteristics are emergent
- what are the sensitivity functions
- what are the controls
- what forms of adaptation are viable
These characteristics particularly address the Impact Definitions and Business Value Increments, depending on the level of granularity chosen.
Value
Value is multi-faceted; each dimension includes the following characteristics to be uncovered or defined:
- payoff function (rules for payoff)
- capacity-based cycle time function
- outcome probability function
The characteristics of each Value dimension can be used for quantitative prioritization, ranking, and validation. Don Reinertsen is a thought leader and has published a very meaty book on this subject (see Reinertsen, 2009). Let’s take that as a future topic for discussion.
Granularity in the Value Flow
The Flow of Value has different perspective at various Levels of granularity (i.e., how detailed the descriptions are intended to be at the given perspective or Level). For clarity, let’s organize the level of granularity into three groups that drill into the details at increasingly greater detail:
| Strategy and metrics; this is the top level of granularity and mainly addresses the “Why” and “What”. |
| Architect and increments; this serves a mid-level of granularity and mainly clarifies the “What” and frames the sequence of “How”. |
| Details team; this serves the lowest or most detailed level of granularity; it mainly addresses the “How” details and provides feedback into the “How” sequence. |
Each of these levels have a flow to which they execute the creation, delivery, and validation of value. Additionally, there is a cascade of both “Align” and “Validate” across each level; that cascade provides for fluid feedback and continuous adaptation through Structured Feedback constructs. It is pertinent to note that active verbs are used for the middle step at each level rather than simply action verbs; active verbs reflect an ongoing nature for some duration, rather than action verbs that imply do once and complete.
Strategy and metrics (top level of granularity; mainly the “Why” and “What”):
- Align
- Defining “impact & measured by”
- Validate
Architect and increments (mid-level of granularity; mainly clarify the “What” and framing “How”):
- Align
- Shaping and architecting
- Validate
Details team (lowest level of detailed granularity; mainly elaborating the “How” details):
- Align
- Executing
- Validate
Organizational Considerations
To put this into action, a few considerations are relevant for what may be existing organizational structures:
- Hierarchical reporting structures in an agile organization can be used to serve an administrative function and preferably also provide mentorship (think craftsmanship journey and obstacle removal, rather than control of resources and reward sources); resource capacity allocation and rewards come directly from company (think NUMMI and Toyota perspectives wherein the employees may explicitly work for the company and explicitly not for “management”; Shook, 2010).
- Coaching office (or related group) – provides value in focusing primarily on “what do the teams need to learn, or learn by doing”, not what the teams simply need to do.
- PMO (or related group) – provides value in focusing primarily on “are the applicable teams aligned for execution toward what and when they need to execute?”, not explicitly governing or controlling the execution itself.
References:
Kerievsky, J. (2016). Modern Agile. Agile2016 Conference Keynote. see also ModernAgile.org
Reinertsen, D. (2009). The Principles of Product Development Flow. Celeritas Publishing.
Shook, J. (2010). How to Change a Culture: Lessons from NUMMI. MIT Sloan Management Review. Winter 2010. Vol 51. No 2. pp 63 – 68.