Tech Organization Velocity #

It's important to note that this writeup isn't about Agile, Scrum or any other specific approach. What I've found is that they all attempt to get to the same outcome in different ways: continuously building and maintaining velocity.

If you've spent a long time mired in the minutiae of kanbanning, ticketing, and story point poker, it's possible the term velocity leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It's easy to forget that all of these things are tools that are supposed to solve specific problems.

If they are all applied holistically, rather than surgically, it's highly likely that the output one is looking for will be throttled despite 'doing everything right'. If this sounds familiar, taking a step back and doing a mental reset might be valuable.

Defining velocity #

I think of velocity as the rate of transformation from opportunity to value capture.

Put plainly, how quickly a need can go from being identified to being fulfilled. There are a few important aspects to velocity that I want to highlight:

1. Velocity must be organizational - top line KPIs won't be moved by applying methodology to any specific group. Broadening the idea of software delivery to include all elements of the organization is key.

2. Velocity measurement is hard, and often ineffective - prioritize setting organizational targets and hitting them, using velocity metrics as a diagnostic tool as needed. If you let the metrics become the target, you will get what you measure: inevitably great low level numbers even as the company's goals are not met.

3. Velocity is not speed - moving as quickly as possible sacrifices the future for the now. If your approach to velocity doesn't prioritize sustainable change you will hit a cliff where value capture is no longer possible. Maintaining velocity is how companies win (tortoises, too).

4. Velocity comes down to people processes - much of what I have seen make or break an organization's ability to deliver results has been the result of leadership, organization design, workload management, and well moderated tool useage. The tools and technologies themselves can factor, but rarely can a change in that area compare to a change in any of the others.

The Scorecard #

To that end, I've compiled a scorecard of organizational velocity indicators that I've realized over time. None of them require specific methodologies, tooling, or team structures. I noticed that they formed into 4 subdomains that are all key aspects of velocity.

Agility #

Agility is the ability to implement change quickly and with a high success rate.

• Strong agility increases velocity by enabling rapid iteration and tightening feedback loops. It reinforces coordination in response to change, so that no lagging components impact the success of the initiative or future ones.
• Weak agility decreases velocity by introducing hurdles and friction within workflows. When co-dependent parties or components aren’t capable of the same rate of change, value is lost while delivery becomes unstable and unpredictable.

Indicators:

• [ ] Able to deploy change quickly, stably, and with high confidence
• [ ] Adjustment to existing systems produces a minimal changeset in dependent systems
• [ ] Change within each area is visible holistically and subscribe-able
• [ ] Change is planned so that all dependent parties are aware and roles coordinated
• [ ] Automation is in place to support frequent workflows

Consistency #

Consistency is the ability to create repeatable, scalable results.

• Strong consistency increases velocity by reducing cognitive overhead when trying to navigate complex systems, and promotes re-usability and systematic thinking. Decision-making happens faster and with better accuracy.
• Weak consistency decreases velocity incrementally over time as the knowledge of an increasing number of concepts and approaches has to be maintained and taught. Unmitigated complexity management from overlapping tooling and techniques increases maintenance and instability.

Indicators:

• [ ] Changes are delivered with alignment to existing approach and style
• [ ] Work leverages or extends common libraries and concepts
• [ ] Tool and technology usage is intentional, with little to no overlap in purpose
• [ ] Information is stored centrally and kept current or archived when it becomes stale
• [ ] Changes to standards are communicated holistically
• [ ] Deprecated standards are identified where they were historically applied

Confidence #

Confidence is the ability for individuals or groups to be intentional and act decisively.

• Strong confidence increases velocity by reducing the time taken to reach consensus or pick a path forward. When the outcomes and side effects are well known, and risks are identified and mitigated, change can be implemented quickly and effectively.
• Weak confidence decreases velocity by adding unproductive feedback loops and uncertainty, both of which can produce hesitation, stall outs, and unpredictable delivery. When the value or expectations are unclear, course correction to capture the full value of effort becomes slower and less certain.

Indicators:

• [ ] Team members know the urgency and expected outcome of their work
• [ ] The impact of initiatives is clear for the individual, their stakeholders, and the organization
• [ ] Changes can be made without fear of failure, both individually and systematically
• [ ] The state of systems is known and knowable at all times

Focus #

Focus is the ability for individuals and groups to plan, deliver, and iterate efficiently.

• Strong focus increases velocity by creating continuity of context, allowing communication overhead to be managed and optimized, and ensuring that the necessary work to capture maximum value continues until it’s been achieved.
• Weak focus decreases velocity by adding multiple layers of context switching and lines of communication. Multitasking increases the risk of missed work and miscommunication. Competing focuses cause initiatives to be cut short of achieving their value in the name of balancing priorities.

Indicators:

• [ ] Team members have a single priority at any given time
• [ ] Team members have areas of ownership over an intentional period of time, ex. the lifespan of an initiative
• [ ] Team members are retained for fast-follow iterations on delivery of initiatives
• [ ] Tooling and processes allow for asynchronous discovery of current information
• [ ] Initiatives have explicit operational states and transitional periods with clearly defined handoff processes and expectations

In Summary #

These indicators cannot possibly capture the full depth and nuance of all the things that can go wrong or right on a day to day basis, but the all point to the same thing - much of velocity is about creating an environment that empowers individuals, democratizes information, and removes uncertainty.

The big question is: how do you achieve these things? The answer is likely already within your teams. Consider polling for how groups would self-organize given a chance, and reflect on which of these indicators their changes are solving for.