A write up of some exciting and astonishing discussions experienced in the Meetup "Dare the impossible: Cross-functional teams with end to end ownership" of the Agile Munich group.
(Missunderstood) Stances of a Scrum Master
In recent years a body of research has revealed another, more nuanced benefit of workplace diversity: nonhomogenous teams are simply smarter. Working with people who are different from you may challenge your brain to overcome its stale ways of thinking and sharpen its performance. Let’s dig into why diverse teams are smarter. [button url=”https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter” target=”_blank” size=”small” icon=”external-link”]Open Article[/button]
Tools and processes stand in the middle of agile history. But over time it turned out that there is much more about agile. Today agile is to be seen as instrument for a learning organisation, which requires practices, principles, values, and in the end the right mindset of everyone working in an agile organization. from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-agile-simon-powers/
“The Stacey Matrix was developed to help managers determine the complexity of their environment and adapt their style of decision-making. For software development, the Matrix is often plotted along different axes; ‘Requirements’ and ‘Implementation’ (or ‘Technology’). The former is determined by the obviousness to which we know what we need to build (like the product) and what features to implement (‘What?’), whereas the latter is determined by the obviousness of what is needed to get there on in terms of implementation/technology (‘How?’). It should be noted that this adaptation does not really fit with Stacey’s original Matrix. But it does offer a similar conceptual approach to understand complexity within the…
Trust is like a paper – once it is crumbled it can’t be perfect again.
One of the challenges product teams encounter, is how to decide which features should be included in their products. Identifying the user needs, helps teams to focus on what a product should deliver to address a certain type of user. In time, teams develop many ideas on how to address these needs. The Kano model (proposed in the 80s by Noriaki Kano) offers a way to differentiate these features by focusing on customer satisfaction. This article provides an alternative approach using the Kano model to answer the question: “Which features should be included in the Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?” [button url=”https://brokenrhythm.blog/prioritizing-product-features-with-kano-model” target=”_blank” size=”small” icon=”external-link”]Open Article[/button]