Agile Coaching - Agile Doctor

9 June, 201627 June, 2016

The Five Attributes of a Good Scrum Team

One of the best experiences I can have as an Agile Coach is presenting Agile and Scrum to people with little or no experience. It grounds me and after many years of living Agile, keeps me from falling into the Curse of Knowledge cognitive bias. Between these presentations and my daily coaching practice, I am reminded yet again at the importance of forming a good scrum team. This, along with proper backlog compilation and maintenance, can make the difference between success and endless frustration. In my experience, proper scrum team formation is the area where companies who are unsuccessful in Agile transformations fail most often.

Over the years, with the help of my teams and the many knowledgeable colleagues that I have worked with, I have distilled everything I have learned and come up with five attributes of a good scrum team. I use it much like a mantra. Those attributes are: Small, Co-Located, Dedicated, Stable and Cross-Functional. That is not to say that a good scrum team will not have other elements or that you can’t witness improvement without all five, but like the sculptor who is only done when there is nothing left to take away, these five represent an ideal essence of a good team. None of these five things can be removed without real consequences to the success of the team.

Small

I write about size at length (and mention the five attributes) in a previous post, When it Comes to Software Development – Size Matters, so I encourage you to read it for some eye-opening account of a major study that confirms this fact. Suffice it to say that Software Development is about communication and collaboration. It is complex knowledge work. In a physical, manufacturing model, adding a person to the effort would result in the expected proportional increase in productivity. In software development, however, adding an additional person merely exponentially increases the number of communication channels whereby any expected increase in productivity is quickly overtaken by the number of communication channels created. There is a reason Agilists recommend small teams. Basically, you can save money because your cost per unit of productive (and quality) work decreases.

Co-Located

Co-Location seems to be an issue with all of the companies that I consult for. We know that the best software developers can be 10 times or more productive than the least. We know that face-to-face communication is multiple times better than any of the substitutes we employ when that mode is not available. We all laugh at the You Tube video “A Conference Call in Real Life”. We know that the unacknowledged creation of technical debt will cause us financial havoc for years to come. Not convinced, I encourage you to check out my blog on the High Cost of Low Cost Software Development. And yet we still continue to source our software development to low bidders around the globe. Here’s the really interesting thing. For many years I have asked a simple question – does it work? I get two answers. The majority shake their head, laugh, and provide a solid “No”. The optimists of the group say that “We have found a way to make it work.” I also see a great deal of blogs that are titled “How We Found a Way to Make Offshore Work”, but it takes little research skills to uncover the author as someone employed by a company that works offshore. Never is there an enthusiastic “Yes.” Most would bring the work back if they could, but it appears that there is a mysterious formation in many software development organizations that continues to think they are doing the right thing by piece-mealing work to various locations. I can only guess it is accounting, but I have yet to meet anyone whom I respect who actually understands software development who would recommend it.

Dedicated

I often rail against the project-centric focus of many software development organizations. For more information, I encourage you to check out my blog “Why Project Focused Mentality is Killing Software Development”. The problem is that in projects we build teams around projects so that one, especially a key employee, will be spread over multiple concurrent projects. There are a number of very serious negative effects to doing this. First, context shifting means that every time a developer must change their concentrated area of focus they will lose 15 minutes minimum. If I am working on two different projects concurrently, there is not a huge loss, assuming that I might work on one in the morning and one after lunch, but many developers are bounced from thing to thing like so many pinballs with context shifting throughout the day. Hours each day are wasted and no project gets the attention it deserves. A better way is to create a small, co-located scrum team around a product backlog and bring the work of these multiple projects to the team via their backlog. The ability for individuals on the team to not fall prey to context shifting will allow them to focus on their work, even at times leading to a state called Flow in which developers (and athletes, artists, etc) are at their peak performance. For those interested, I refer you to the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

Stable

Project-centric thinking also results in teams that are short-lived. We put the team together for a particular period (sometimes relatively short) of time. When the project is done, the team is disbanded. This causes a number of issues. First, every team goes through a period of “storming, norming, and performing.” This is easy to see visually when you plot the velocities of multiple teams on a timeline. You can visually see the storming period as teams learn to work together as a team instead of a collection of individuals, through very low (if non-existent) velocity. In my experience, I have come to the conclusion that I expect nearly nothing from a brand new team for the first couple of iterations. It is not until they reach iterations 3, 4 or even 5 that they will reach what is their performing velocity. Therefore, every time I break up a team, I have a very high overhead associated with the team’s “storming and norming.” Another benefit of keeping the same people on teams for a longer period of time is by simply learning how to better communicate with each other over time. Since software development is about communication and collaboration, the more time we spend together, the more effective we become in communicating. I remember reading about the notion of “hyper-productive” teams from Scott Downey and Jeff Sutherland. The interesting thing is that their “hyper-performance” did not manifest until after the team had been together for some time.

Cross Functional

In some respects, cross functionality of people is a by-product of the fact that team size should be kept small. If there are 15 things I need to do to get my code into production, I obviously will not be able to do so if there needs to be an expert for each piece. The creation of “silos” is great if your goal is to create a MDD (mortgage driven development) environment. It is bad for the flow of the product. Silos create queues. Queues, if you want to deliver something quicker, are bad. I highly recommend the book Principles of Product Development Flow by Don Reinersten for a deeper understanding of queuing theory and the damage that out-of-control queues can have. This book talks about the concept of generalizing specialists. In my experience, developers are more motivated by status and mastery of new technology and ideas than any other group of people I have worked with. Creating an environment where developers are expected to know more than a single specialized domain is not only good for moving the software through the system quicker, but it also leads to greater developer engagement. A team should be responsible for all aspects of the software product and the development cycle. This cannot be accomplished without having team members who are cross functional.

Final Thoughts

An old African proverb states, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” In order to be successful in software development we need to understand teams and team dynamics. My many years of experience working with what I would estimate around a hundred development teams has led me to conclude that there are five basic attributes for an optimal development team – small, co-located, dedicated, stable and cross functional. I hope that these five attributes help you as you continue your quest for agility.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

3 March, 201630 June, 2016

Cooks, Chefs and Agile Scaling Models

A few years back my doctor gave me some somber news. He told me my cholesterol was too high and I must get it lower. It was then that I decided I would make changes to my less than stellar diet. At the time, we had a large family in the house – seven including my father and mother-in-law. My mother-in-law had become the default cook for the family and, while she made some very tasty dishes, it was not exactly healthy fare. I knew that if I were to reach my goal of a better diet I would have to become the new cook for the family.

Originally I thought that my mother-in-law would be upset if I banished her from the kitchen, but if she was, she did a good job of hiding it. That aside, there was only one more small problem – I had not the first clue about how to cook, let alone cook healthy. Obviously I needed help and what does someone do to find help these days? That’s right. I googled it. I found my salvation on a website that not only had thousands of recipes, but each had a rating and comments. I could print out a list of ingredients, create a shopping list, scale recipes to my large family. Most important, I could choose recipes by food type (in my case – healthy foods, low in sodium and cholesterol). Without the internet my plans to eat healthy would have died in infancy.

While I went into this quest as one who was not even a functional cook, I was able to read and follow directions well enough to create some very tasty dishes that the family enjoyed. The plan paid off. My cholesterol and blood pressure went down, as well as other family members including my mother and father-in-law. Over time I even became a functional cook. However, I never became a chef (and to this day I am still not).

The difference between a cook and a chef can be summed up in conversations I would have from time to time with my wife. She would ask, “Can you make this dish without this or that? Or maybe substitute this with this.” My response would always be the same. “Sorry honey. I wish I could help you, but I am not sure what this ingredient does and not sure what would happen if I don’t follow the directions to the letter.” I was a cook. What she was looking for was a chef; someone who had a deep culinary knowledge that would allow them to not only modify recipes, but someone with the ability to create new dishes from scratch or show creativity with existing ingredients. I could not do this. I got very good at the motions and following a recipe, but I never cultured a deeper understanding of the why behind the individuals ingredients and actions. I could not “see the big picture.”

I am often reminded of the difference between a cook and a chef in my agile practice. I have used this story numerous times with developers to explain agile development practices. Like me, it seems that some developers will always be cooks. While there are some who don’t know the difference, I have even run into some that prefer to be cooks instead of chefs. Not that there is anything wrong with choosing to be a cook, but it helps when one is aware of the choice and makes a conscious decision to be one.

I was reminded of this again recently when I went to a talk on scaling agile. The presentation was supposed to last about an hour, but ran long because of the numerous questions and comments from the crowd. It wasn’t until the following day when I was explaining the presentation to a group I was coaching that I realized why the presentation was peculiarly long. The crowd at the presentation were novices with respect to this scaling model and the questions they asked were ones that we would expect cooks to ask. They wanted to know a prescriptive recipe for scaling and wondered how it could be applied to their unique circumstances. Without having the deeper knowledge of a chef, the scaling model recipe didn’t make a great deal of sense to the crowd.

Of course, this phenomenon has been observed and named the Dreyfus Model of Skills Acquisition. In this model, “cooks” could best be mapped to the “Novice”, “Advanced Beginner” and maybe even the “Competent” categories while “chefs” are referred to by the name of “Proficient” and “Expert”. The Dreyfus Model helps us understand one of the biggest problems facing Agile scaling models today. The scaling models I have some experience with present the world with software development recipes. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals being presented these recipes are cooks (“novices”) and not chefs (“experts”). While one can function adequately as a cook by merely following directions, software development is much too complex. People trying to do Agile scaling are too new to scaling concepts to make successful adaptations should their “ingredients” not match exactly with the Agile scaling “recipe”.

There are a number of Agile scaling models including SAFe, LESS, Nexus, DAD. Since there appears to be quite a bit of money in creating scaling recipes, training people on the recipes and certifying that people have been given and understand the recipes, I expect to see many more in the coming years. Each scaling model claims to have many companies successful in using their model. I am dubious because I have seen overlap among the companies claimed to be successes with the different scaling models (“the usual cast of characters” a person said to me once). I would guess the companies where success is claimed are merely the ones where people paid for the training and certification. What actually happens vis-à-vis scaling models is probably far from what the proponents claim. I expect over time many of these scaling models will be spectacularly unsuccessful. It may be the luminaries of agile have created the perfect scaling “recipe”, but there are too many cooks and not enough chefs for lasting success.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

9 February, 201618 February, 2016

Hit Rock Bottom? Maybe Now You’re Ready for Agile

One of the things I enjoy most about my work is meeting other Agile practitioners and coaches and sharing war stories. Recently I was at an Agile Coffee with people who had various experience with Agile, ranging from complete neophytes to folks with many years of experience. The topic chosen was “What are the preconditions for a large company to be successful implementing Agile?” – a very pointed, yet valid, question to be sure. All of the answers were ones that one might expect; support from upper management, learning culture, etc. except for one. The lone unobvious answer was provided by someone whose opinion I respect. I was somewhat surprised at the time and it has reverberated in my mind ever since, “one precondition for a company to be successful in an Agile transformation is they have failed miserably and have hit rock bottom.”

The term “rock bottom” is most commonly used by folks in NA and AA (Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous). I found the following definition of rock bottom on a website for alcohol addiction:

… often used to describe a point … when they are finally willing to seek help. Things are now so bad for them that it is impossible to deny their problem anymore. Hitting rock bottom may result due to a particular event, or it can be a slow decline over time. This is a subjective term because some … will be willing to suffer a lot more … than others.

I first came in contact with Anonymous groups through my work in healthcare (nearly a lifetime ago when I was a licensed Health Care Administrator) and have more than one commented on how Agile transformations remind me of some of the twelve steps – with the first step being to admit one has a problem.

So when my friend mentioned that a good indicator for agile transformation success was a company had hit rock bottom I knew exactly what he was referring to. In this particular case he used the examples of the FBI Sentinel Project and Healthcare.gov website debacle. In both cases, it wasn’t until each was a total disaster that Agile was actually tried with any seriousness and rigor and in both cases the results were amazing.

The total spend of these [two] failed [Waterfall] attempts to replace the ACS system was $597m and wasted 10 years. The Agile project, which is now delivering a solution, will only cost $114m for a three-year long project.

In another recent talk I went to on Agile a gentleman explained how Agile helped with an ad agency. He was only brought in AFTER the agency blew millions on a website that never made it to production. After losing millions I would guess this agency hit “rock bottom”. The good news was that Agile was able to help them to change and allowed them to produce high quality software with a much better time to market (than never).

In my agile coaching practice I have had more than one conversation with enlightened management that has acknowledged our Agile transformation wasn’t working as good as hoped and, barring a complete meltdown, most folks were happy to continue along a non-optimal path. In fact, relative success is a particularly sticky barrier to change as people often confuse the ability to get something done with the ability to get something done optimally. Bill Gates has often remarked, “Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.” Sometimes what we mistakenly call “failure” is a much better teacher. Sometimes the lesson is more important than the perception of relative success or failure.

Just this morning I was listening to my local NPR station as they were having a fund drive. Like many others, I couldn’t wait for the drive to be over so I could no longer had to feel the shame and guilt of being a “free rider”. Fortunately, it was the last day of the pledge drive and my mind was only half listening to the chatter of the announcers when they introduced Shankar Vedantam who does segments on the Hidden Brain (which I enjoy immensely). His topic was why people donate (or don’t donate) to pledge drives. He talked about humans’ tendency to pay more attention to emergencies and crisis than what is important. Being the last day of the pledge he hoped what was merely important (donating) would now also be given the status of an emergency because time was running out.

My mind went immediately back to the concept of “rock bottom” and why this is one good indicator of where Agile can be successful. Sometimes it is only when we hit rock bottom that the importance of being Agile begins to align with the immediate crisis of having to be Agile. It is then, and unfortunately for some, only then when Agile gets the attention and focus it deserves. It is my hope companies realize becoming an Agile organization is essential to their long term survival (at least in organizations that rely heavily on software development), seek the help they need to transition and actually carry out the transition before they hit rock bottom. In the meantime, if you have hit rock bottom (are you listening Yahoo!?), please seek out Agile help.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

26 January, 20161 February, 2016

The 3Ps of Agile Software Development

I am often faced with explaining the various aspects of Agile to people new to Agile and I have come up with a very simple way to remember (and explain) Agile. I present to you now the “3Ps of Agile Software Development” with the hope you find this useful to your own understanding and an aid in your ability to explain Agile to others.

Philosophy

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” – Albert Einstein

At the core of Agile is the Manifesto. A few years back, I even took the time to create business cards that contained the four values and twelve principles. When I heard people say that this is or is not Agile, I could hand them a card and say, “This is Agile.” This is where I start in explaining (and training) Agile because without the philosophical underpinnings one is most certainly lost. I couldn’t give an exact number, but I do know that a high percentage of companies trying to move to Agile are unable to fully embrace and promote the philosophy behind Agile. I wrote my first book, Understanding The Agile Manifesto: A Brief & Bold Guide to Agile, because I have witnessed firsthand the struggle companies are having with adopting the Agile Manifesto. I have seen companies rewrite the Manifesto to omit or change things that they find too difficult to embody and watched good people punished for having the temerity to post the Manifesto at their workplace. The philosophy is the base upon which the other two Ps rest.

Process

“This strange dichotomy, this agonising gulf between the ought and the is, represents the tragic theme of man’s earthly pilgrimage.” – Martin Luther King

It is not enough to have the basic philosophical understanding of Agile, we must find ways to embody the principles. There have been a number of ways to embody this philosophy over the years. Take for example, Scrum. Technically it is a framework, but it contains ceremonies (actions) that allow us to realize the Agile philosophy. Why do we do retrospectives? Because the last of the Agile principles state, “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.” While Scrum has claimed a high level of mindshare, there are numerous other processes and frameworks that also help organizations embody the philosophy of Agile (Kanban, DSDM, Crystal, etc.). In fact, Agile’s history is one of empiricism with people “uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it.” This means it was actually Process (and the 3^rd P) which came first. It is Agile Processes that help us to realize the philosophy of Agile.

Practices

“Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.” – Vince Lombardi

Sometimes when we classify things, people can certainly disagree with our classifications, but when I explain the term “Practices” I am referring specifically to software development practices that are done within the processes and frameworks. It is into this category that I would put things like Extreme Programming (XP) practices as well as something like BDD. What separates these things (which could be argued to be processes) is there more technical nature and the needed expertise of software development professionals (developers and QA) to implement. Processes are things that embody the Agile philosophy which any intelligent individual could understand and facilitate. For example, though it might be optimal for a scrum master to have a development background, one could be successful as a scrum master without it. On the other hand, one could not be successful in performing code review or test driven design (TDD) without knowledge of coding. Why do agilests do BDD? Because through BDD we can realize (among others) the principle that states, “Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project”. It is Agile software development practices which also help us to realize the underlying Agile philosophy.

While any system of classification subject to interpretation, I have found that speaking to the 3Ps of Agile Software Development has provided a simple and understandable way to introduce people to Agile. If you get a chance to present this, please let me know if it helps you as well.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

11 January, 201612 January, 2016

Project Manager/Scrum Master: A Cry for Agile Help

Over my time as an Agile Coach I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been approached by recruiters for a position as a Project Manager/Scrum Master. My coaching colleagues and myself often joke about this particular job title saying, “we like the title Project Manager/Scrum Master because it helps us know which jobs and companies to avoid.” Why would we avoid such positions? For better or worse, by using the title Project Manager/Scrum Master we are able to quickly infer a great deal about the company and their experience with Agile – most of it not positive.

The first thing we notice about a company using this title is that they usually have little or no understanding of Agile and Scrum. The duties of a Project Manager and Scrum Master are quite different. Not only do the two roles perform different functions, but they represent a fundamental different in the way they view the world. Project managers in Waterfall try to control projects. Scrum Masters work with Agile Scrum teams to facilitate. In Waterfall, Project Managers have responsibility. Scrum Masters, on the other hand, do not have direct responsibility as the responsibility for success shifts to the development team and Product Owner. Since the Product Owner decides the sequence of the work, a Product Owner is the closest thing to a Project Manager in Scrum. A simple Google search of “project manager versus scrum master” can provide more information on this for those who are curious.

This particular problem manifests when a company desires the potential benefits of Scrum without really understanding Scrum. Without a good understanding, people attempt to map their existing roles with those of Scrum. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The role of Scrum Master is unique to Scrum and any attempt to map it to existing roles will only result in confusion, frustration and less than optimal outcomes. As coaches, if given the choice of coaching a complete novice as scrum master or “retrofitting” a project manager as a scrum master, we chose the former. It is not that project managers cannot become good scrum masters because many have, but in order to properly train one as a scrum master there is a great deal of work in “unlearning” much of what has been previously trained. With novices the time spent “unlearning” is non-existent.

This is why I believe that companies recruiting for Project Managers/Scrum Masters are actually making a very public plea for help. If a company truly wants the benefits of Agile, it is essential that they actually take the time to truly understand that becoming Agile through the use of the Scrum framework is a serious commitment. People must gain a better understanding of software development and how knowledge workers differ, change their fundamental thinking around projects and products, pursue organizational change and realign people around properly configured scrum teams, work with recruiters who understand the difference between project managers and scrum masters and work as partners to recommend better solutions to underlying organizational needs.

For those seeking Project Managers/Scrum Masters, I hear your cries for help. As an Agile Practice Director I would love to help you to better understand your real Agile needs, to help you reorganize your work and people to take advantage of Scrum (other Agile frameworks, methodologies and development techniques), to optimize your organization so that you can deliver high quality software in a shorter time. I am available anytime to provide the help you need. If not me, please reach out to another Agile professional so we can rid the world of Project Manager/Scrum Master for good.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS

30 December, 201531 December, 2015

Wagerfall

The end of the year is upon us and, like most, I have begun to reflect on the year that was 2015. It was a great year for me both personally and professionally. Earlier this year I was given the opportunity of a lifetime to help build an Agile practice and continue my work as an Agile coach. As I looked back on 2015 I could not help but notice the really big news in the world of Agile was the concept of scaling. There has been a proliferation of scaling frameworks. Time will tell which, if any, will be beneficial, but it did get me to wondering if maybe there wasn’t room for just one more.

What follows is a satirical press release for the newest of Agile scaling frameworks. My purpose was not to offend or disparage, but to amuse. My apologies if I missed the mark. I wish you all a happy and prosperous new year!

“Wagerfall” – A New Way to Scale Agile

Agile Scaling Society announced today a new framework for scaling Agile called “Wagerfall”. This new lightweight framework trumps all others in an increasingly crowded field for the ease of its implementation.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK (PR FILE) DECEMBER 30, 2015

You might be familiar with Agile scaling frameworks like SAFe, DAD, LeSS and the like and today a new scaling framework has joined the list, Wagerfall. Wagerfall is the brainchild of Steven Anderson of the Agile Scaling Society. According to Anderson, Wagerfall is different in that it represents the easiest of all the scaling frameworks.

“The beauty of Wagerfall is in its simplicity. The framework is nothing more than the name Wagerfall because the name explains it all. You start with your current waterfall and sprinkle in a little agile somewhere in the middle. The “g” in the middle is for represents the Agile part,” asserts Anderson. When asked why not the “ag” for agile, Anderson mumbled something about it not being mandatory and holy wars.

The announcement today also coincided with another press release detailing Wagerfall certification. In the spirit of lean and reduction of waste, the Agile Scaling Society has done away with any mandatory training or testing to get certification. “Why go to the trouble of pulling someone out of their job for two days?,” asks Anderson. “Send us your money and we will send you a lovely (and very fancy) certificate you can hang on your wall and you too can say that you are Wagerfall certified. Doesn’t it make sense if your company is not going to change anyway?” When asked why certification cost so much, Anderson replied, “science has taught us the more money we invest in something, the more value we place on it.”

There are already a great number of clients joining the ranks of Wagerfall. Donald Love, CIO of Great Big Company, credits Anderson and Wagerfall for their successful Agile transformation. “I can’t tell you how refreshing it was to work with Wagerfall. We transitioned to Agile immediately without the messy process of organization change, with all the training and thinking that comes with it. I can now check this one off my list and get my big fat bonus.”

It is not just the C-suite that has fallen in love with Wagerfall; the frontline workers have embraced it as well. Vijay Patel, a software developer, credits Wagerfall with allowing him to go about his business as he always done. “We’ve tried other Agile transitions, and I believed in them. I put myself out there and honestly tried to change. When the truth surfaced and us developers found out it was just lip service, we were crushed. Our morale is still low under Wagerfall, but we know Wagerfall is just lip service, so we got that going for us.”

In addition to the framework and the certifications, Anderson has a cadre of Wagerfall coaches. Anderson states, “The problem with most Agile coaches is that they are either not competent or too earnest. Wagerfall deals with these two problems head on. Since there is no recognizable change, competency is not an issue. Furthermore, our coaches provide a patina of credibility without pestering people to change their existing behavior. We often refer to what we do as ‘homeopathic agile.’”

While other scaling frameworks have detailed flowcharts, organizational structure documents, etc., Wagerfall avoids such complexities. Mindy Minter, Head Architect at Great Big Company, praises Wagerfall for its simplicity. “We are big believers in the KISS principle. You can’t get more KISS than Wagerfall. Pay your fee. Get your certification. Claim you’re Agile.”

According to Anderson, perhaps the most valuable aspect of Wagerfall is in the ability to roll back should the transition not work out as planned. “Just imagine, run a global search and replace on all your process documentation. Voilà. Wagerfall is turned back to Waterfall and you can go about your business as if nothing ever changed.”

About Agile Scaling Society

The Agile Scaling Society, headquartered in New York (to give it legitimacy), was founded on the belief that most companies want to be Agile without the hard work of actually changing their culture, philosophy or business processes. They provide certifications, training and coaching to allow companies to claim to be Agile while operating exactly as they always have. They claim that literally hundreds of major companies are currently following the Wagerfall framework and are in litigation with many of them for infringing on their trademarked Wagerfall process.

About Steven Anderson

Steven Anderson has been described as a “jack of all trades” with experience in selling homeopathic medicine, street preaching and HVAC. While new to Agile, he recognized the opportunity to make money and has embraced it. He once owned a PC and wrote some excel macros. He has parlayed this experience into a successful consulting company and has recently founded the Agile Scaling Society.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS