Skip to content
academia.sh
tr
Log in

Course Intermediate

Process, Team and Delivery

By the end of this course

Start course

01

Process Models

Choosing the shape of the workflow: waterfall, V, spiral, and incremental lifecycles are compared by feedback delay and rework, the common structure of iterative delivery frameworks, the effect of limiting work in progress on flow time, the coordination-round price of multi-team coordination, and the effect of continuous integration and pair programming on feedback delay.

  1. 01 Lifecycle Models Running waterfall, V, spiral, and incremental lifecycles on the same eighteen work items: handoffs, waiting at the gate, feedback delay, and rework are counted, and what each model loses where it wins is written down.
  2. 02 Agile Frameworks The common structure of iterative delivery frameworks and a scan of iteration length: at every length from one week to six weeks, flow time, feedback delay, rework, time spent in ceremony, and half-done work items are counted.
  3. 03 Flow-Based Management Measuring work-in-progress limits and flow metrics: lead time, cycle time, and throughput are defined in the same run, the WIP limit is scanned from one to sixteen, and idle capacity below the limit is counted against work effort lost to switching above it.
  4. 04 Scaled Frameworks Counting the price of multi-team coordination: the same twenty-four people and twenty-four modules are split across one to twelve teams, and coordination rounds per dependent work item, the number of shared channels, the coordination layer's delay, and the cost of a joint planning round are all measured.
  5. 05 Engineering Practices Measuring feedback delay: how many steps and how many hours separate the step a defect is born in from the step it is found in, and how this delay, rework, and total work effort — including pair programming's two-person cost — change as integration frequency is scanned from two hours to forty hours and pairing ratio from zero to one.

02

Team and Delivery

The relationship between the team boundary and the architectural boundary: how communication structure maps onto module structure, comparing stream-aligned team arrangements by handoff and waiting, the margin of error in estimation under uncertainty, the rework that scope change creates in the flow, and the delegable and non-delegable items in the responsibility contract between development and operations.

  1. 01 Conway's Law Measuring how communication structure maps onto module structure: overlaying two separate team splits on the same module graph, counting teams per module and the module bonds that cross the team boundary, the distribution of those bonds by communication distance, finding the bonds that stand between teams with no communication path, and the handoff, waiting, and rework counts the same set of work items produces under each split.
  2. 02 Team Topologies Measuring stream-aligned team arrangements: the same module graph and the same set of work items are run through three team arrangements — component-aligned, stream-aligned, and hybrid; cognitive load per team, external demand, duplicated expertise, and the shared component turning into a bottleneck are added alongside the handoff, waiting, and rework counts.
  3. 03 Estimation and Planning Estimating work item duration under uncertainty: comparing estimates produced in three stages against the flow time that actually occurred, separating the margin of error from the bias, the stage-by-stage narrowing of the uncertainty cone, how many items the plan built on the estimate held for, and explaining the difference between a single-item estimate and a total estimate by whether the errors cancel each other out.
  4. 04 Change Management Change control of scope: the same request writes 0 rounds of rework at analysis and 8 at validation, moving the item from 12 rounds to 39; on the same six requests the accept-on-arrival policy takes two and produces 8 rounds of rework while the batch-at-boundary policy takes four and keeps the request waiting 30 rounds on average; once control is removed, the plan holds for one of eight items by the second request, and a change that falls outside the team boundary delivers the same item in 28 rounds instead of 23.
  5. 05 Operations Handover The responsibility contract between development and operations: twenty of twenty-eight responsibility items are handed over and eight stay with development for lack of information, tooling, or a runbook; the same fourteen events close in 3.8 rounds under shared on-call versus 5.0 under full handover, while the interruption cost pulled from the development flow rises from 37 to 54 and rework from 9 to 20; once three undocumented runbooks are written, escalations fall from 8 to 5 and the flow end from round 94 to 84.

Start typing to search.

↑↓ ↵ Esc navigate · open · close