In a more mature agile organization, this should be easier to identify sine product team will be established and devops resources should be already engaged with the team.

“...true and right...” the antithesis of the last 4 years.

John incorrectly summarized the point here, I think. I believe “Chris” was emphasizing the fact that western science isolates components trying to identify that one thing that does the body good, when nature actually puts many components together to get the benefit, and one component by itself is not effective or even detrimental.

This is an important point. Also contains a typo, “adequate less” should be “adequate rest”

Value Stream benefits:

1. faster learning
2. shorter time to market
3. higher quality
4. higher productivity
5. leaner budgeting mechanisms

I would like to see a citation for this. I believe a 2010 or 2011 State of Agile report (VersionOne) said something like this, but I only heard that anecdotally.

Traditional Approach practice 4, Centralized planning Traditional Approach practice 6, project based funding and control Traditional Approach practice 7, Waterfall milestones

Traditional Approach practice 5, work-breakdown structures Traditional Approach practice 2, Project overload Traditional Approach practice 1, centralized control

Traditional Approach practice #3, detailed project plans

Traditional Approach practice 6, Project-based funding and control; practice 7 Waterfall milestones

Traditional Approach practice #6, project-based funding and control

Traditional Approach practice 2, Project overload

Traditional Approach Practice 4, Centralized planning

This is the key statement that underlies the confusion. How do you know you are ready to act on it, i.e. build an MVP? A lot of work goes into getting to the point where you/your company is ready to act. The customer research is huge - before building anything. Refining the problem down to something simple and singular (one problem). Using data to decide when and what to add is genius.

Push decision making to the people who know best, the front line. Importance of the principle of decision latency, a la scrum@scale.

Note that agile methods and customer acquisition / full alignment of interests (product management? Innovation?) are multipliers / accelerators.

Should be singular, not plural

Should be singular, not plural

This is important - it is only a coordination meeting. If the team sees themselves as separate individual contributors then it won't understand the value of coordination - but even then, build and test suite coordination is valuable.

What does this mean in practice? When creating the "backlog items" for each sprint, is there no discussion of acceptance criteria? and does this mean there is little knowledge of exactly what is needed? Acceptance criteria is key to BDD/Test First mindset.

"We just do" is so antithetical to Agile - scrum.. That is so much like saying, "can't change that impediment, that's just the way it is." Read on... rough design is agreed to based on the team's accepted standards.

I agree that deferred defects should not be a concept in Software. Why not call it what it is: "technical debt". And as the article suggests, they should be fixed. In true Agile form, if they are not important enough to fix, then they are dropped out as requirements (or dropped to the absolute bottom of the backlog, and eventually refined off the backlog as no longer relevant).

This is the bottom line.

Product owner is part of the team. Team succeeds or fails together. Product owners need to be in the retrospective, part of the team. Root cause analysis of defects in retrospectives, so learning how to avoid in the future.

Full circle to the point later about retrospective considers the defects - how did they manifest, what was missed (product, UX/Software design, etc.)

This is critical for financial services, given the intensity and frequency of regulations this millenia (2002 on). Having an organization that is agile, in addition to having infrastructure that is agile. Imagine a mortgage company that can consume new regulations by reading, analyzing and implementing in operations, compliance (tracking, attestation, reporting) with relative ease - massive competitive advantage. Now imagine a mortgage company that innovates and is ahead of regulations and is ensuring that they are competitive through efficiencies and innovative products without introducing unnecessary risk to customers or to themselves through questionable practices. Possibly unstoppable?