Types of Framework

The term Framework is deliberately vague. We have observed many types of framework ranging from loosely defined (e.g. Kanban) through lightweight but well-defined structures (Scrum) through to heavy duty, detailed, process proscribed models.

The only meaningful judgement that can be applied to a framework is how well it supports the agile mindset in the context in which it is being used. Arguably, heavy duty models will always be deficient because they constrain the autonomy of at least some teams to decide how they should work.

Another caution with Frameworks is they encourage a focus on practice rather than mindset. Even where the framework positively advocates for the agile mindset - the Scrum Guide, for example - many adopters ignore this strong advice and opt for doing over being.

 
...start with a capable leader. Without effective leadership, Scrum and Kanban can quickly devolve into form over purpose and fail to actually become Agile.
— Dick Dowdell - CTO NuVisum

Considerations

  • An important way of classifying frameworks is to consider whether they are driven by a cadence (schedule) or by occurrences (events). Scrum is an example of a cadence driven framework. Teams decide on the length of a Sprint and the scheduling of the key sprint events. Events occur because they appear in the team’s schedule.

  • Kanban is an example of an occurrence driven framework. The execution of the Kanban activity stopping the line is triggered by the occurrence of an escaped defect. As a team, we must be able to identify that there is an escaped defect. Then we must work out how to respond. Finally we must implement and evaluate our response.

  • There is a belief that occurrence driven frameworks are more effective for teams to adopt than cadence driven frameworks. We would argue that occurrence driven frameworks require greater rigour and discipline on the part of the team. Adhering to a cadence is relatively easy. The events are booked in the team’s calendar.

    In contrast, to respond to an occurrence the team must have sufficient rigour and discipline. It must identify the occurrence, then define, perform and measure its response.

    This appears to be a more capable level of rigour and discipline than following the schedule defined by a cadence. Using the idea of shu-ha-ri, we might suggest that teams new to agility start with a cadence-based approach. They can change to an occurrence-based approach as their capability increases and if the change would improve their work outcomes.

  • Scaling is a requirement for many organisations. Effective agile teams are typically small. To deliver capabilities at scale we will need multiple teams. Now we need to face into the challenge of coordinating the work of the teams.

    The need to coordinate imposes constraints on the autonomy of teams. To the extent that a scaled approach requires teams to adopt shared practices, the ability of teams to choose their own practices is removed. Lightweight scaled frameworks will impose fewer constraints on autonomy because they impose fewer shared practices.

  • Teams grow in maturity and capability. As they grow they outgrow the constraints of their chosen framework. The process the team uses evolves beyond the definition of the framework. This is the concept of shu-ha-ri in practice.

Available Frameworks

  • SAFe

  • Scrum@Scale

  • Nexus

  • Disciplined Agile

  • SRE