Post on 16-Jun-2020
Scaling the Product Owner in a Distributed Scrum Environment
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
2
Ernesto Custodio
Ernesto CustodioEnterprise Coach and Trainer
PH. D. Candidate, MBA
https://www.agilegenesis.com/linkedin.com/in/ernestocustodio
3
Ernesto Custodio
Ernesto CustodioEnterprise Coach and Trainer
PH. D. Candidate, MBA
https://www.agilegenesis.com/ https://www.meetup.com/AgileOnline/linkedin.com/in/ernestocustodio
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
Scrum@Scale Framework
https://www.scrumatscale.com/scrum-at-scale-guide/
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
The MetaScrum: Aligning the Stakeholders
• Gathering of Key Stakeholders, Leadership, Product Owners, and Team members
• Run by Chief Product Owner
• Meets at least once a sprint
• Aligns enterprise around single backlog
• Examines validated learning and feedback to see if anything changes the strategy or priorities
• The forum for stakeholders to express preferences, remove blocks and provide resources needed (they should not try to alter product vision between MetaScrums)
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
6
Scaling the Product Owner
Product Owner • Team• Sprints• Validated Learning
Chief Product Owner• Multiple Teams• Roadmap• Coordinating
teams
Chief Chief Product Owner• Value Streams• Vision• Organizational
Priorities
PO
CPOTeam
PO
PO
PO
POPO
Executive MetaScrum
Team
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
• Time to make a decision is the primary driver of project failure and budget overrun
• Scrum pushes decisions down to the team and small teams reduce decision latency
• Strong, decisive, available Product Owner is critical to short decision latency
• Scrum of Scrums, Executive Action Team, and MetaScrum shorten decision latency
Decision Latency: Why Scrum WorksPatterns Shorten Decision Latency
18%
50%
32%
58%33%
9%
Decision Latency 1 hr
Decision Latency 5 hr
Standish Group 2013-2017Decision latency is directly related to Process Efficiency!
7
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
Backlog Flows to Stable Teams
T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT
Chief Chief PO’s Backlog
Chief PO’s Backlog Chief PO’s Backlog
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
PBIPBIPBI
Scrum Teams Backlog Scrum Teams Backlog
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
Cross-Team Communication
ProductLine PO's
Team PO's
PBI
DONE
Value Stream PO CCPO
CPO CPO CPO CPO
PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
Scaling Estimates Across Teams
T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT
CPO
The Really Big Epic
A Big Epic A Big Epic
140pts 230pts 180ptsUse StoryEstimates
550pts
80pts 105pts 640pts
825pts
1375pts
CPO CPO
PO PO PO PO PO PO
Aggr
egat
e th
e N
umbe
rs
© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.
11
Scaling Velocity Across Teams
T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT T TT
CPO
The Really Big Epic
A Big Epic A Big Epic
40pts 30pts 18ptsVelocity
88pts
12pts 21pts 30pts
63pts
151pts
CPO CPO
PO PO PO PO PO PO
Aggr
egat
e th
e N
umbe
rs
Burn down the aggregate
The Client
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
Initial Size of the initiative
Team Structure
Objective
Industry
Size of the overall
Locations
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
S
S
S
S
S
PO
Dev
Dev
PO
Dev
T 1a
T 1b
T 1c
T 2a
T 2a
T 2a
T 2d
Service 1
Service 2
CA , US TX , US NC , USA VA , US FL , US Bangalore , India Chennai , India
PO
PO
PO
Before
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
Dev(10)
M
Dev(10)
PO
Dev(10)
Dev(10)
Dev(10)
Dev(10)
Before
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
Pros
High autonomy Fast turnaround on urgent
items
Cons
Products received low attention
Slow new feature creation Lack of product ownership Solution incompatibility Unclear roles and
responsibilities Dissatisfied customers Competing tools Low visibility Siloed budgeting Unclear priorities
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
Before
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
01
04 900 Backlog Items
03 9% Defect Rate
02 6 Month Lead Time
01 ~15 Points / Sprint Velocity
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
S
S
S
S
S
PO
T 1a
T 2a
T 2a
T 2a
T 2d
CA , US TX , US NC , USA VA , US FL , US Bangalore , India Chennai , India
PO
Transition
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
Chief Product Owner
SMM
Dev(10)
SMM
Dev(20)
Dev(5)
Service 1
Service 2
Transition
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
Service 1
Pros
High velocity x2 Delivered iteratively (2
weeks) Low defects (5%)
Con
Used silo solutions
Service 2
Pro
High architecture stability
Cons
Low velocity (0) 0 Value delivery in 1 year High rate of defect (no
working product)
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
After
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
S
S
CA , US TX , US NC , USA VA , US FL , US Bangalore , India Chennai , India
Chief ProductOwner
Service 1
Service 2
P 1
P 1
M
SMPO
Dev(5)
Dev(10)
SOS
SMPO
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
SDS
SoSoS
SOS
SDS
After
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
S
S
CA , US TX , US NC , USA VA , US FL , US Bangalore , India Chennai , India
Chief ProductOwner
Service 1
Service 2
P 1
P 1
M
SMPO
Dev(5)
Dev(10)
SOS
SMPO
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
Dev(5)
SDS
SoSoS
SOS
SDS
After
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
04 90 Backlog Items
03 3% Defect Rate
02 1 Month Lead Time
01 ~45 Points / Sprint Velocity
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
04 900 Backlog Items
03 9% Defect Rate
02 6 Month Lead Time
01 ~15 Points / Sprint Velocity
Before
After
Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.
01
Pros
02
Cons
03
Lessons
• X3 Productivity• X6 Time to market • X3 Defect reduction• x10 Product backlog reduction
• Services integration was not achieved
• Start the SoS early in the transformation
• Add MetaScrums early on • Have co-located Product
Owners• Reduce management
intervention
04
Future
• Add a Chief Chief PO to own the SoSoS
• Establish an EAT to benefit teamswith similar challenges in the organization.
Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO
Thank You