Value and Activity Distinctions

This post has a targeted focus for differentiating between “Activity” and “Value”.  Let’s begin with clarification of the terms:

• Activity is what is getting done
• Value is the impact that is being made

Let’s continue by acknowledging that an executive’s hope is the Activity and Value remain aligned throughout the lifecycle of value delivery.  That hope necessitates Value remain central to the overall focus as the scope of value increments progresses through iterative design and development methods, and through the corresponding progressive elaboration for execution, delivery, and consumption. Let’s recognize this particular value-centric focus often requires intentional guidance to help maintain explicit attention throughout the Nesting Dolls  progression of elaboration and execution.

Additionally, an executive expects to maintain some level of visibility and influence into the progressive flow of value delivery that is being created by their organization. However, experience highlights that without specific and intentional focus, Value and Activity often take on separate lives within the organization.  The executive’s challenge becomes fraught with complications both during the execution process (in translating activity updates into value progress) and at the conclusion of the execution process when attempts are made to reconnect Activities to Value.

More concretely, the following table depicts a drill-down model of constructs (terms and models) based on Value as compared to Activity.  The table is separated into columns of constructs that lend themselves to aligning with either Value or Activity, and into rows that depicts a progressively more detailed focus and scope.

Two initial notes are of key relevance at the outset of reviewing this table.

Note 1: Stories and Tasks can align into either the Value or Activity column, but that alignment depends on how they’re connected into the structure of focus and feedback. This is important because at the most detailed level of execution, the constructs of Stories and Tasks (or their equivalent) are what actually get created and delivered.  By default, the natural tendency is for Stories and Tasks to align with Activities rather than Value.  By intentionally aligning stories into the Value column (e.g., via “Chunks” and “MBIs”), the stories automatically rollup into Value.

Note 2: Features often lead to Activity focus, based on my observations and experiences, but that typically occurs by default rather than by intent.  When teams are struggling with the differentiation of Value and Activity at the execution level, it may help to omit the construct of Features and replace it directly with “Chunks” and “MBIs”.

Value	Activity
Vision
Impact Definitions (e.g., OKR*)
Business Value Increments (e.g., MBI**)
Chunks; Use Cases
	Features
Stories
Tasks

* OKR = Objectives and Key Results; OKR References:  Radical Focus (Wodke, 2016) and Stop using Waterfall Goals in Agile Practices (Castro, 2016)

** MBI = Minimum Business Value Increment; MBI References:  Shalloway and Sutton (2016) and Shalloway (2016).

 

This table and its corresponding constructs, particularly the Impact Definitions and Business Value Increments, form the basis of an execution model tied to Value.  That’s a topic for a future post.

 

---

References:

Castro, F. (2016). Stop Using Agile with Waterfall Goals. Agile 2016 Conference. see also http://leanperformance.com/en/ .

Shalloway, A. and Sutton, J. (2016). personal communications.

Shalloway, A. (2016). The Leanban Primer. NetObjectives. see also http://www.netobjectives.com/leanban

Sutton, J. and Middleton, P. (2005). Lean Software Strategies. Productivity Press.

Wodtke, C. (2016). Radical Focus.