scaling the product owner in a distributed scrum environment€¦ · scaling the product owner in a...

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

https://www.agilegenesis.com/

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

https://www.agilegenesis.com/

https://www.meetup.com/AgileOnline/

© 1993-2019 Jeff Sutherland & Scrum Inc.

Scrum@Scale Framework

https://www.scrumatscale.com/scrum-at-scale-guide/

https://www.scrumatscale.com/scrum-at-scale-guide/


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)


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


• 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


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


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


Scaling Estimates Across Teams


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


11

Scaling Velocity Across Teams


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


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


Dev(10)

M

Dev(10)

PO

Dev(10)

Dev(10)

Dev(10)

Dev(10)

Before


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


Before


01

04 900 Backlog Items

03 9% Defect Rate

02 6 Month Lead Time

01 ~15 Points / Sprint Velocity


S

S

S

S

S

PO

T 1a

T 2a

T 2a

T 2a

T 2d


PO

Transition


Chief Product Owner

SMM

Dev(10)

SMM

Dev(20)

Dev(5)

Service 1

Service 2

Transition


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)


After

Copyright © Improve Group All rights reserved.Case Study by ERNESTO CUSTODIO

S

S


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


04 90 Backlog Items

03 3% Defect Rate




04 900 Backlog Items

03 9% Defect Rate



Before

After


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.


Thank You

scaling the product owner in a distributed scrum environment€¦ · scaling the product owner in a...

Documents