I’ve recently been working with project teams who are attempting to remain effective after their organisation has chosen to adopt the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe).
I’m trying capture & refine the common patterns I’ve observed across several SAFe implementations that have helped those involved in the implementation remain effective after they have been left wondering where they fit.
I’m hoping it will help others who have been in touch with me who are trying to understand what it means to be a practitioner in their newly formed SAFe organisation.
Several projects I am working on within my organisation are adopting SAFe in order to build software solutions, so I thought I should perform some SAFe testing!
With my Agile background, I am able to provide a lot of value in helping the teams follow an iterative development lifecycle (predominantly Scrum), but I have little experience of processes outside of the development teams themselves.
I also seem to struggle to get my message across to senior stakeholders within my organisation who are new to Agile & SAFe.
This is the 2nd post in my series on Truth. It builds on the first post by hopefully demonstrating how my opinions on truth & “Living Documentation” have changed after some research into what is truth.
This research was done in preparation for the fabulous MEWT conference. Here is a link for the slides of my “Single Source Of Truth Is A Lie” talk – this post aims to follow the structure of that talk.
Requirements gathering & refinement gets little love in the testing matrix. I want these activities to get more representation in the matrix, so using the language I already there I’ve coined a term “Stakeholder Tests”
This is the 3rd in a series of posts where I dig into the Agile Testing Quadrants after a coaching session I had with James Bach. This post focuses on the left & right sides of the matrix; the columns.
James Bach helped me to break down the quadrants in order to get a deeper understanding of what each quadrant meant. It was during this conversation I realised I had a very shallow understanding of the model & I was effectively diluting (& even twisting?!) the message the quadrants were trying to get across.