Easy Agile Podcast Ep.23: How to navigate your cloud migration journey

TL;DR

Henrik Kniberg, the agile coach behind Spotify's model, discusses how AI is fundamentally transforming software development. Key takeaways: AI tools like Cursor and Claude are enabling 10x productivity gains; teams should give developers access to paid AI tools and encourage experimentation; coding will largely disappear as a manual task within 3–4 years; teams will shrink to 2 people plus AI; sprints will become obsolete in favour of continuous delivery; product owners can now write code via AI, creating pull requests instead of user stories; the key is treating AI like a brilliant intern – when it fails, the problem is usually your prompt or code structure, not the AI. Bottom line: Learn to use AI now, or risk being left behind in a rapidly changing landscape.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping how software teams work, collaborate, and deliver value. But with this transformation comes questions: How do we maintain team morale when people fear being replaced? What happens to code quality when AI writes most of the code? Do traditional agile practices like sprints still make sense?

In this episode, I sit down with Henrik Kniberg to tackle these questions head-on. Henrik is uniquely positioned to guide us through this transition – he's the agile coach and entrepreneur who pioneered the famous Spotify model and helped transform how Lego approached agile development. Now, as co-founder of Abundly AI, he's at the forefront of helping teams integrate AI into their product development workflows.

This conversation goes deep into the practical realities of AI-powered development: from maintaining code review processes when productivity increases 10x, to ethical considerations around AI usage, to what cross-functional teams will look like in just a few years. Henrik doesn't just theorise – he shares real examples from his own team, where their CEO (a non-coder) regularly submits pull requests, and where features that once took a sprint can now be built during a 7-minute subway ride.

Whether you're a developer wondering if AI will replace you, a product owner looking to leverage these tools, or a leader trying to navigate this transformation, this episode offers concrete, actionable insights for thriving in the AI era.

About Our Guest

Henrik Kniberg is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur whose work has shaped how thousands of organisations approach software development. He's best known for creating the Spotify model – the squad-based organisational structure that revolutionised how large tech companies scale agile practices. His work at Spotify and later at Lego helped demonstrate how agile methodologies could work at enterprise scale whilst maintaining team autonomy and innovation.

Henrik's educational videos have become legendary in the agile community. His "Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell" video, created over a decade ago, remains one of the most-watched and shared resources for understanding product ownership, with millions of views. His ability to distil complex concepts into simple, visual explanations has made him one of the most accessible voices in agile education.

More recently, Henrik has turned his attention to the intersection of AI and product development. As co-founder of Abundly AI, he's moved from teaching about agile transformation to leading AI transformation – helping companies and teams understand how to effectively integrate generative AI tools into their development workflows. His approach combines his deep understanding of team dynamics and agile principles with hands-on experience using cutting-edge AI tools like Claude, Cursor, and GitHub Copilot.

Henrik codes daily using AI and has been doing so for over two and a half years, giving him practical, lived experience with these tools that goes beyond theoretical understanding. He creates educational content about AI, trains teams on effective AI usage, and consults with organisations navigating their own AI transformations. His perspective is particularly valuable because he views AI through the lens of organisational change management – recognising that successful AI adoption isn't just about the technology, it's about people, culture, and process.

Based in Stockholm, Sweden, Henrik continues to push the boundaries of what's possible when human creativity and AI capabilities combine, whilst maintaining a pragmatic, human-centred approach to technological change.

Transcript

Note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Maintaining Team Morale and Motivation in the AI Era

Tenille Hoppo: Hi there, team, and welcome to this new episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. My name is Tenille Hoppo, and I'm feeling really quite lucky to have an opportunity to chat today with our guest, Henrik Kniberg.

Henrik is an agile coach, author, and entrepreneur known for pioneering agile practices at companies like Spotify and Lego, and more recently for his thought leadership in applying AI to product development. Henrik co-founded Abundly AI, and when he isn't making excellent videos to help us all understand AI, he is focused on the practical application of generative AI in product development and training teams to use these technologies effectively.

Drawing on his extensive experience in agile methodologies and team coaching, Henrik seems the perfect person to learn from when thinking about the intersection of AI, product development, and effective team dynamics. So a very warm welcome to you, Henrik.

Henrik Kniberg: Thank you very much. It's good to be here.

Tenille: I think most people would agree that motivated people do better work. So I'd like to start today by touching on the very human element of this discussion and helping people maintain momentum and motivation when they may be feeling some concern or uncertainty about the upheaval that AI might represent for them in their role.

What would you suggest that leaders do to encourage the use of AI in ways that increase team morale and creativity rather than risking people feeling quite concerned or even potentially replaced?

Henrik: There are kind of two sides to the coin. There's one side that says, "Oh, AI is gonna take my job, and I'm gonna get fired." And the other side says, "Oh, AI is going to give me superpowers and give us all superpowers, and thereby give us better job security than we had before."

I think it's important to press on the second point from a leader's perspective. Pitch it as this is a tool, and we are entering a world where this tool is a crucial tool to understand how to use – in a similar way that everyone uses the Internet. We consider it obvious that you need to know how to use the Internet. If you don't know how to use the Internet, it's going to be hard.

"I encourage people to experiment, give them access to the tools to do so, and encourage sharing. And don't start firing people because they get productive."

I also find that people tend to get a little bit less scared once they learn to use it. It becomes less scary. It's like if you're worried there's a monster under your bed, maybe look under your bed and turn on the lights. Maybe there wasn't a monster there, or maybe it was there but it was kind of cute and just wanted a hug.

Creating a Culture of Safe Experimentation

Tenille: I've read that you encourage experimentation with AI through learning – I agree it's the best way to learn. What would you encourage leaders and team leaders to do to create a strong culture where teams feel safe to experiment?

Henrik: There are some things. One is pretty basic: just give people access to good AI tools. And that's quite hard in some large organisations because there are all kinds of resistance – compliance issues, data security issues. Are we allowed to use ChatGPT or Claude? Where is our data going? There are all these scary things that make companies either hesitate or outright try to stop people.

Start at that hygiene level. Address those impediments and solve them. When the Internet came, it was really scary to connect your computer to the Internet. But now we all do it, and you kind of have to, or you don't get any work done. We're at this similar moment now.

"Ironically, when companies are too strict about restricting people, then what people tend to do is just use shadow AI – they use it on their own in private or in secret, and then you have no control at all."

Start there. Once people have access to really good AI tools, then it's just a matter of encouraging and creating forums. Encourage people to experiment, create knowledge-sharing forums, share your own experiments. Try to role-model this yourself. Say, "I tried using AI for these different things, and here's what I learned." Also provide paths for support, like training courses.

The Right Mindset for Working with AI

Tenille: What would you encourage in team members as far as their mindset or skills go? Certainly a nature of curiosity and a willingness to learn and experiment. Is there anything beyond that that you think would be really key?

Henrik: It is a bit of a weird technology that's never really existed before. We're used to humans and code. Humans are intelligent and kind of unpredictable. We hallucinate sometimes, but we can do amazing things. Code is dumb – it executes exactly what you told it to do, and it does so every time exactly the same way. But it can't reason, it can't think.

Now we have AI and AI agents which are somewhere in the middle. They're not quite as predictable as code, but they're a lot more predictable than humans typically. They're a lot smarter than code, but maybe not quite as smart as humans – except for some tasks when they're a million times smarter than humans. So it's weird.

You need a kind of humble attitude where you come at it with a mindset of curiosity. Part of it is also to realise that a lot of the limitation is in you as a user. If you try to use AI for coding and it wrote something that didn't work, it's probably not the model itself. It's probably your skills or lack of skills because you have to learn how to use these tools. You need to have this attitude of "Oh, it failed. What can I do differently next time?" until you really learn how to use it.

"There can be some aspect of pride with developers. Like, 'I've been coding for 30 years. Of course this machine can't code better than me.' But if you think of it like 'I want this thing to be good, I want to bring out the best in this tool' – not because it's going to replace me, but because it's going to save me a tonne of time by doing all the boring parts of the coding so I can do the more interesting parts – that kind of mindset really helps."

Maintaining Code Quality and Shared Understanding

Tenille: Our team at Easy Agile is taking our steps and trying to figure out how AI is gonna work best for us. I put the question out to some of our teams, and there were various questions around people taking their first steps in using AI as a co-pilot and producing code. There are question marks around consistency of code, maintaining code quality and clean architecture, and even things like maintaining that shared understanding of the code base. What advice do you have for people in that situation?

Henrik: My first piece of advice when it comes to coding – and this is something I do every day with AI, I've been doing for about two and a half years now – is that the models now, especially Claude, have gotten to the level where it's basically never the AI's fault anymore. If it does anything wrong, it's on you.

You need to think about: okay, am I using the wrong tool maybe? Or am I not using the tool correctly?

For example, the current market leader in terms of productivity tools with AI is Cursor. There are other tools that are getting close like GitHub Copilot, but Cursor is way ahead of anything else I've seen. With Cursor, it basically digs through your code base and looks for what it needs.

But if it fails to find what it needs, you need to think about why. It probably failed for the same reason a human might have failed. Maybe your code structure was very unstructured. Maybe you need to explain to the AI what the high-level structure of your code is.

"Think of it kind of like a really smart intern who just joined your team. They're brilliant at coding, but now they got confused about something, and it's probably your code – something in it that made it confused. And now you need to clarify that."

There are ways to do that. In Cursor, for example, you can create something called cursor rules, which are like standing documents that describe certain aspects of your system. In my team, we're always tweaking those rules. Whenever we find that the AI model did something wrong, we're always analysing why. Usually it's our prompt – I just phrased it badly – or I just need to add a cursor rule, or I need to break the problem down a little bit.

It's exactly the same thing as if you go to a team and give them this massive user story that includes all these assumptions – they'll probably get some things wrong. But if you take that big problem and sit down together and analyse it and split it into smaller steps where each step is verifiable and testable, now your team can do really good work. It's exactly the same thing with AI.

Addressing the Code Review Bottleneck

Tenille: One of our senior developers found that he was outputting code at a much greater volume and faster speed, but the handbrake he found was actually their code review processes. They were keeping the same processes they had previously, and that was a bit of a handbrake for them. What kind of advice would you have there?

Henrik: This reminds me of the general issue with any kind of productivity improvement. If you have a value stream, a process where you do different parts – you do some development, some testing, you have some design – whenever you take one part of the process and make it super optimised, the bottleneck moves to somewhere else.

If testing is no longer the bottleneck, maybe coding is. And when coding is instant, then maybe customer feedback – or lack of customer feedback – is the bottleneck. The bottleneck just keeps moving. In that particular case, the bottleneck became code review. So I would just start optimising that. That's not an AI problem. It's a process problem.

Look at it: what exactly are we trying to do when we review? Maybe we could think about changing the way we review things. For example, does all code need to be reviewed? Would it be enough that the human who wrote it and the AI, together with the human, agree that this is fine? Or maybe depending on the criticality of that change, in some cases you might just let it pass or use AI to help in the reviewing process also.

"I think there's value in code review in terms of knowledge sharing in a large organisation. But maybe the review doesn't necessarily need to be a blocking process either. It could be something you go back and look at – don't let it stop you from shipping, but maybe go back once per week and say, 'Let's look at some highlights of some changes we've made.'"

We produce 10 times more code than in the past, so reviewing every line is not feasible. But maybe we can at least identify which code is most interesting to look at.

Ethical Considerations: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

Tenille: Agile emphasises people over process and delivering value to customers. Now with AI in the mix, there's potential for raising some ethical considerations. I'm interested in your thoughts on how teams should approach these ethical considerations that come along with AI – things like balancing rapid experimentation against concerns around bias, potential data privacy concerns.

Henrik: I would treat each ethical question on its own merits. Let me give you an example. When you use AI – let's say facial recognition technology that can process and recognise faces a lot better than any human – I kind of put that in the bucket of: any tool that is really useful can also be used for bad things. A hammer, fire, electricity.

That doesn't have so much to do with the tool itself. It has much more to do with the rules and regulations and processes around the tool. I can't really separate AI in that sense. Treat it like any other system. Whenever you install a camera somewhere, with or without AI, that camera is going to see stuff. What are you allowed to do with that information? That's an important question. But I don't think it's different for AI really, in that sense, other than that AI is extremely powerful. So you need to really take that seriously, especially when it comes to things like autonomous weapons and the risk of fraud and fake news.

"An important part of it is just to make it part of the agenda. Let's say you're a recruitment company and you're now going to add some AI help in screening. At least raise the question: we could do this. Do we want to do this? What is the responsible way to do it?"

It's not that hard to come up with reasonable guidelines. Obviously, we shouldn't let the AI decide who we're going to hire or not. That's a bad idea. But maybe it can look at the pile of candidates that we plan to reject and identify some that we should take a second look at. There's nothing to lose from that because that AI did some extra research and found that this person who had a pretty weak CV actually has done amazing things before.

We're actually working with a company now where we're helping them build some AI agents. Our AI agents help them classify CVs – not by "should we hire them or not," but more like which region in Sweden is this, which type of job are we talking about here. Just classifying to make it more likely that this job application reaches the right person. That's work that humans did before with pretty bad accuracy.

The conclusion was that AI, despite having biases like we humans do, seemed to have less biases than the human. Mainly things like it's never going to be in a bad mood because it hasn't had its coffee today. It'll process everybody on the same merits.

I think of it like a peer-to-peer thing. Imagine going to a doctor – ideally, I want to have both a human doctor and an AI doctor side by side, just because they both have biases, but now they can complement each other. It's like having a second opinion. If the AI says we should do this and the doctor says, "No, wait a second," or vice versa, having those two different opinions is super useful.

Parallels Between Agile and AI Transformations

Tenille: You're recognised as one of the leading voices in agile software development. I can see, and I'm interested if you do see, some parallels between the agile transformations that you led at Spotify and Lego with the AI transformations that many businesses are looking at now.

Henrik: I agree. I find that when we help companies transition towards becoming AI native, a lot of the thinking is similar to agile. But I think we can generalise that agile transformations are not really very special either – it's organisational change.

There are some patterns involved regardless of whether you're transitioning towards an agile way of working or towards AI. Some general patterns such as: you've got to get buy-in, it's useful to do the change in an incremental way, balance bottom-up with top-down. There are all these techniques that are useful regardless. But as an agilist, if you have some skills and competence in leading and supporting a change process, then that's going to be really useful also when helping companies understand how to use AI.

Tenille: Are you seeing more top-down or bottom-up when it comes to AI transformations?

Henrik: So far it's quite new still. The jury's not in yet. But so far it looks very familiar to me. I'm seeing both. I'm seeing situations where it's pure top-down where managers are like "we got to go full-out AI," and they push it out with mixed results. And sometimes just completely bottom-up, also with mixed results.

Sometimes something can start completely organically and then totally take hold, or it starts organically and then gets squashed because there was no buy-in higher up. I saw all of that with agile as well. My guess is in most cases the most successful will be when you have a bit of both – support and guidance from the top, but maybe driven from the bottom.

"I think the bottom-up is maybe more important than ever because this technology is so weird and so fast-moving. As a leader, you don't really have a chance if you try to control it – you're going to slow things down to an unacceptable level. People will be learning things that you can't keep up with yourself. So it's better to just enable people to experiment a lot, but then of course provide guidance."

AI for Product Owners: From Ideation to Pull Requests

Tenille: You're very well known for your guidance and for your ability to explain quite complex concepts very simply and clearly. I was looking at your video on YouTube today, the Agile Product Ownership in a Nutshell video, which was uploaded about 12 years ago now. Thinking about product owners, there's a big opportunity now with AI for generating ideas, analysing data, and even suggesting new features. What's your advice for product owners and product managers in using AI most effectively?

Henrik: Use it for everything. Overuse it so you can find the limits. The second thing is: make sure you have access to a good AI model. Don't use the free ones. The difference is really large – like 10x, 100x difference – just in paying like $20 per month or something. At the moment, I can particularly strongly recommend Claude. It's in its own category of awesomeness right now. But that of course changes as they leapfrog each other. But mainly: pay up, use a paid model, and then experiment.

For product owners, typical things are what you already mentioned – ideation, creating good backlog items, splitting a story – but also writing code. I would say as a PO, there is this traditional view, for example in Scrum, that POs should not be coding. There's a reason for that: because coding takes time, and then as PO you get stuck in details and you lose the big picture.

Well, that's not true anymore. There are very many things that used to be time-consuming coding that is basically a five-minute job with a good prompt.

"Instead of wasting the team's time by trying to phrase that as a story, just phrase it as a pull request instead and go to the team and demonstrate your running feature."

That happened actually today. Just now, our CEO, who's not a coder, came to me with a pull request. In fact, quite often he just pushes directly to a branch because it's small changes. He wants to add some new visualisation for a graph or something in our platform – typically admin stuff that users won't see, so it's quite harmless if he gets it wrong.

He's vibe coding, just making little changes to the admin, which means he never goes to my team and says, "Hey, can you guys generate this report or this graph for how users use our product?" No, he just puts it in himself if it's simple.

Today we wanted to make a change with how we handle payments for enterprise customers. Getting that wrong is a little more serious, and the change wasn't that hard, but he just didn't feel completely comfortable pushing it himself. So he just made a PR instead, and then we spent 15 minutes reviewing it. I said it was fine, so we pushed it.

It's so refreshing that now anybody can code. You just need to learn the basic prompting and these tools. And then that saves time for the developers to do the more heavyweight coding.

Tenille: It's an interesting world where we can have things set up where anyone could just jump in and with the right guardrails create something. It makes Friday demos quite probably a lot more interesting than maybe they used to be in the past.

Henrik: I would like to challenge any development team to let their stakeholders push code, and then find out whatever's stopping you from doing that and fix that. Then you get to a very interesting space.

Closing the Gap Between Makers and Users

Tenille: A key insight from your work with agile teams in the past has been to really focus on minimising that gap between maker and user. Do you think that AI helps to close that gap, or do you think it potentially risks widening it if teams are focusing too much on AI predictions and stop talking to their customers effectively?

Henrik: I think that of course depends a lot on the team. But from what I've seen so far, it massively reduces the gap. Because if I don't have to spend a week getting a feature to work, I can spend an hour instead. Then I have so much more time to talk to my users and my customers.

If the time to make a clickable prototype or something is a few seconds, then I can do it live in real time with my customers, and we can co-create. There are all these opportunities.

I find that – myself, my teams, and the people I work with – we work a lot more closely with our users and customers because of this fast turnaround time.

"Just yesterday I was teaching a course, and I was going home sitting on the subway. It was a 15-minute subway ride. I finally got a seat, so I had only 7 minutes left. There's this feature that I wanted to build that involved both front-end and back-end and a database schema change. Well, 5 minutes later it was done and I got off the subway and just pushed it. That's crazy."

Of course, our system is set up optimised to enable it to be that fast. And of course not everything will work that well. But every time it does, I've been coding for 30 years, and I feel like I wake up in some weird fantasy every day, wondering, "Can I really be this productive?" I never would have thought that was possible.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Agile Teams

Tenille: I'd like you to put your futurist hat on for a moment. How do you see the future of agile teamwork in, say, 10 to 15 years time? If we would have this conversation again in 2035, given the exponential growth of AI and improvements over the last two to three years, what do you think would be the biggest change for software development teams in how they operate?

Henrik: I can't even imagine 10 years. Even 5 years is just beyond imagination. That's like asking someone in the 1920s to imagine smartphones and the Internet. I think that's the level of change we're looking at.

I would shorten the time a little bit and say maybe 3 or 4 years. My guess there – and I'm already seeing this transfer happen – is that coding will just go away. It just won't be stuff that we humans do because we're too slow and we hallucinate way too much.

But I think engineering and the developer role will still be there, just that we don't type lines of code – in the same way that we no longer make punch cards or we no longer write machine code and poke values into registers using assembly language. That used to be a big part of it, but no longer.

"In the future, as developers, a lot of the work will still be the same. You're still designing stuff, you're thinking about architecture, you're interacting with customers, and you're doing all the other stuff. But typing lines of code is something that we're gonna be telling our kids about, and they're not gonna believe that we used to do that."

The other thing is smaller teams, which I'm already seeing now. I think the idea of a cross-functional team of 5 to 7 people – traditionally that was considered quite necessary in order to have all the different skills needed to deliver a feature in a product. But that's not the case anymore. If you skip ahead 2 or 3 years when this knowledge has spread, I think most teams will be 2 people and an AI, because then you have all the domain knowledge you need, probably.

As a consequence of that, we'll just have more teams. More and smaller teams. Of course, then you need to collaborate between the teams, so cross-team synchronisation is still going to be an issue.

Also, I'm already seeing this now, but this concept of sprints – the whole point is to give a team some peace of mind to build something complex, because typically you would need a week or two to build something complex. But now, when it takes a day and some good prompting to do the same thing that would have taken a whole sprint, then the sprint is a day instead. If the sprint is a day, is there any difference between a sprint planning meeting and a daily standup? Not really.

I think sprints will just kind of shrink into oblivion. What's going to be left instead is something a little bit similar – some kind of synchronisation point or follow-up point. Instead of a sprint where every 2 weeks we sit down and try to make a plan, I think it'll be very much continuous delivery on a day-to-day basis. But then maybe every week or two we take a step back and just reflect a little bit and say, "Okay, what have we been delivering the past couple of weeks? What have we been learning? What's our high-level focus for the next couple of weeks?" A very, very lightweight equivalent of a sprint.

I feel pretty confident about that guess because personally, we are already there with my team, and I think it'll become a bit of a norm.

Final Thoughts: Preparing for the Future

Henrik: No one knows what's gonna happen in the future, and those who say they do are kidding themselves. But there's one fairly safe bet though: no matter what happens in the future with AI, if you understand how to use it, you'll be in a better position to deal with whatever that is. That's why I encourage people to get comfortable with it, get used to using it.

Tenille: I have a teenage daughter who I'm actually trying to encourage to learn how to use AI, because I feel like when I was her age, the Internet was the thing that was sort of coming mainstream. It completely changed the way we live. Everything is online now. And I feel like AI is that piece for her.

Henrik: Isn't it weird that the generation of small children growing up now are going to consider this to be normal and obvious? They'll be the AI natives. They'll be like, "Of course I have my AI agent buddy. There's nothing weird about that at all."

Tenille: I'll still keep being nice to my coffee machine.

Henrik: Yeah, that's good. Just in case, you know.

---

Thank you to Henrik Kniberg for joining us on this episode of the Easy Agile Podcast. To learn more about Henrik's work, visit Abundly AI or check out his educational videos on AI and agile practices.

Subscribe to the Easy Agile Podcast on your favourite platform, and join us for more conversations about agile, product development, and the future of work.

"I had an inspiring conversation with Renae around the benefits of leaping out of your comfort zone and aligning team behaviour " - Chloe Hall

Chloe Hall- Marketing Coordinator at Easy Agile is joined by Renae Craven - Agile Coach, Agile Trainer, Scrum Master Coach and QLD Chapter Local Leader at Women in Agile.

Join Renae Craven and Chloe Hall as they discuss:

• Renae’s journey to becoming an Agile Coach and Agile Trainer
• Taking a leap out of your comfort zone
• The importance of taking time to gather feedback and reflect
• Building a team environment where everyone feels safe to contribute
• Aligning team behaviour and how prioritising learning impacts team delivery
• Why sitting all day is bad for you and how to bring movement into your work routine
• + more

Transcript

Chloe Hall:

Hello and welcome back to the Easy Agile Podcast. I'm Chloe, Marketing coordinator at Easy Agile, and I'll be your host for today's episode. Before we begin, we'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land from which we broadcast today, the people of the Dhuwal speaking country. We pay our respects to elders past, present, and emerging, and extend that same respect to all Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders and First Nations people joining us today. Today we have a very exciting episode for you. We will be speaking to Renae Craven. Renae is an Agile coach, Agile trainer, scrum master coach, BASI Pilates instructor, and runs her own Pilate Studio.

Renee is also a chapter local leader at Women in Agile Brisbane and is the host of the podcast The Leader's Playlist alongside David Clifford. Renae's passion in life is to help people to be a better version of themselves by raising your awareness of areas they wish or need to improve them and to support them in their learning and growth through these areas. According to Renae, coaching is not about telling people what to do. It is about questions to allow them to dig deeper, uncovering realizations and their desire for change. Welcome to the podcast, Renae. Thank you so much for coming today. Really appreciate it and very excited to unpack your story, your journey, and all the success you have achieved, which is amazing. How are you today anyways?

Renae Craven:

I'm all, I'm good. Thank you, Chloe. It's Friday, so I'm always a bit wrecked on a Friday. Looking forward to sleeping in on the weekends and things like that. So yeah, Friday I'm already, always a little bit dreary, but other than that I'm fine.

Chloe Hall:

Well, that's good. Friday afternoon definitely can always do that to you. I'm very pumped for a sleep in as well. I think let's just get straight into it. So some of that I wanted to start was I just want to unpack you as a person, Renae, and kind of your story, who is Renae and the journey you've taken to become so successful today. So if you wanted to provide a little bit of background about yourself.

Renae Craven:

How far back do I go? So I did IT at uni, Information Technology at uni. So I started my career out as a graduate developer, software developer, pretty crap one at that.

Chloe Hall:

Surely not, I don't agree with that. I can't see it.

Renae Craven:

I knew enough to get by, but it was definitely not going to be something that I was going to do for the rest of my life. But back then I was 20 and kind of just was doing things that you were supposed to do when you grow up. You're supposed to go to school and you're supposed to do well in grade 12 and go to uni and get a degree and then get a job.

Chloe Hall:

Definitely.

Renae Craven:

So yeah, I ticked all those boxes and found myself with a degree in a job in a good organization. And I was in that development job for a couple of years and then I kind of moved more into team leadership and I was a team leader for a while and then I became a scrum master back in 2010. So that was when I discovered Agile.

Chloe Hall:

Okay. Yup.

Renae Craven:

And I think the rest is kind of history. So when I discovered Agile, things started to make more sense to me. Talking to people, having teams, working together, collaborating together, solving problems together, getting multiple brains onto a problem. That kind of thing was one thing that I never made sense to me when I was a grad straight out of uni. And I'm like, "What do you mean?" Because even during my university, I was a little bit different and I was remote. I did university remotely years ago and with a group of four others, there were four others, it was a group of five. We did everything together, we did all our group assignments, we studied together, we ate lunch together, we just kind of did.

Chloe Hall:

So with the exact same group?

Renae Craven:

Yeah. All the way through uni. I went from that kind of group setting to working and more of an individual on my own like if I've sat in a cubicle with walls that were higher than me, I didn't have to speak to anyone else if I didn't want to. And that never really sat well with me. It was never kind of who I was. So when Agile was, Scrum specifically was here's all these people we're going to throw together in a team and here's all of the problems and you work out together how you're going to solve it.

Someone's not going to tell you what to do or how to solve it, you've got to figure it out as a team, it was a much more, cool this is what makes sense, this works better. Why wasn't it always like this? So yeah, that's kind of where my Agile journey started and it kind of progressed as I did scrum mastering for quite a few years in different organizations, different scenarios, different contexts. And then I guess I was able to comfortably call myself an Agile coach I would say maybe 5, 6 years ago. I mean, there's nothing really that you can do that you go tick, Oh, I'm an Agile coach now.

Chloe Hall:

There's no kind of straightforward degree or certification.

Renae Craven:

No, it's really just experience. And I had experience around and people were telling me, "You can call yourself a coach, an Agile coach now, you've got plenty of experience". I'm like, "Yeah, but I feel like there's so much more that I need to know or that I could learn". So I don't really feel comfortable. But I was working for a consultancy, so that was just how I was being marketed anyway. So that was kind of 5, 6, 7 years ago that that started to happen. And then I do other things as well, like Agile training. I love training people, I run training courses, do the coaching as well. And then I've got my Pilates as well.

Chloe Hall:

Just an all rounder, a lot going on, that's for sure. I think as well, I just want to unpack, you had that transition when you were a graduate developer and you found it quite isolating. And then you came into this concept of Agile when you are working in teams. Was it when you started doing that Agile, did that kind of spike like a passion, a purpose of yours and that's what led you down that Agile training, Agile coaching road?

Renae Craven:

I think, I mean purpose, I still don't know if I know what my purpose is in life. Passion. I think what it helped me understand about myself is where some of my strengths were. And my strengths aligned with what was needed to be a scrum master and a coach later on. So the ability to facilitate, that's a big part of being a scrum master, a big part of being one of the key things about being a coach. And that was just something that I was kind of naturally able to do, but I didn't know until I started doing it, if that kind of makes sense.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. I feel like, isn't that always the way, It's like you don't know something or you don't really know your strengths until you just step into it. You've really got to get out of your comfort zone and just try new things, experience new things. Otherwise, you're never going to know.

Renae Craven:

Yeah, exactly. So yeah, can't trying to create that equal participation in a room or in a workshop from a facilitation and facilitating a group of people from different walks of life to an outcome and just letting it kind of flow and let the conversations flow. But still, you've got to get to this outcome by the end of the day or end of the workshop. That was something that I was naturally able to do. And I mean, my first workshop, how I facilitated that, I don't even remember what it was, but I'm sure how I facilitate now is very, very different. But it was still something that I loved doing, that I enjoyed doing. And the training part of it, it's funny because at school I used to hate public speaking. I used to hate.

Chloe Hall:

You sound like me.

Renae Craven:

Yeah. All of that, how I used to get up in English and do an oral exam and things like that. I hated all of that stuff. I was very happy to just hide in the background and never answer a question or never cause any trouble or be disruptive or whatever. Except in maths class I was a little bit disruptive in math class.

Chloe Hall:

I am resonating so much with you right now because I was literally the exact same. And I've always had a bit of a passion for math. So in maths I was super outgoing, would ask so many questions. But in English my biggest fear was public speaking. I just could not stand up for the life of me. It was the worst. I was always so nervous, everything about it. And I think that's really interesting to see how far you've come today from what you thought back then. Was there any type of practices, lots of work that you had to do on yourself to get to this point today?

Renae Craven:

I think similar to what you said before, you got to get out of your comfort zone. And I think, especially early on in my career, that being pushed out of my comfort zone. There's a few leaders that I was working for at the time that, well a handful of people that over the years have pushed me out of my comfort zone. And in the earlier days where I wouldn't have done that for myself. So doing that for me or I didn't really have a choice because I was a good girl and I followed orders back then. It was just something that I went, "Oh okay, well that's cool". I'm glad in hindsight, I'm glad he did that because I wouldn't be where I am right now if I wasn't thrown into the pilot team, the pilot agile team. So yeah, there's things like that where I've been pushed into my comfort zone and just had a go and found out that, oh, it wasn't so bad after all.

Maybe I could do that again. And then you start to build your own kind of resilience, you go, well I've did this before so that's not much harder. I reckon I could do that. Or it's kind of thinking about it like that, but it's also changing. It was shifting my mindset to be you've got to get out of your comfort zone, you've got to screw up to learn. The way that it was at school where you got rewarded for being correct, you got rewarded for doing the right thing. And that's not how I learn. That's not how a lot of people learn. You have to screw up to then go.

Chloe Hall:

Definitely.

Renae Craven:

Okay, well next time I do that I'll do this instead.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, definitely.

Renae Craven:

Or getting that feedback of how you did this, well next time maybe you could do this or whatever it is. Just getting that feedback. Whereas, I never got any of that at school. It was always Renae's perfect angel child, whatever it was.

Chloe Hall:

Still, nice though, but yeah.

Renae Craven:

Nice for the parents. Can we have more of Renae's in our class, nice for mom and dad. But in hindsight, it didn't really do much for setting me up for how.

Chloe Hall:

For reality.

Renae Craven:

Yeah

Chloe Hall:

Really.

Renae Craven:

Exactly.

Chloe Hall:

Especially because I've recently gone through that transition from graduating uni into a full time job and working for Easy Agile, I'm always being pushed out of my comfort zone in a good way. Everyone's so supportive, they're always like, "Oh Chloe, try this, try that". And I'm just like, "okay, yep, I can do it". And if it doesn't go amazingly well that's okay. I've learned something and I can do it better next time.

Renae Craven:

Yeah.

Chloe Hall:

You can't just sit in your comfort zone forever, you don't get that feeling of when you do something outside of your comfort zone, you just feel so good after and you're like, oh, prove to myself I can do this.

Renae Craven:

Yep. And I think the big part of that is acknowledging the learning is sitting down. So one of the things we do, I do as a coach is one of the key times for a team or an individual to learn is to actually sit down and reflect back and then what was good, what was bad, and what am I going to do differently the next time. And I coach teams to do that, but I have to do that myself as well. So kind of realizing that as a practice, that's something that I have to do is sit down and when I do these things I would need to gather feedback and then I have to sit down and reflect on how it went. What I think I can do better or do differently the next time around I do something like this so that I am also myself improving in the things that I do. So it's really having that time and that practice to learn to sit down and what did I learn?

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, I do. And I agree with that. You need to take the time to understand, reflect, realize what you have learnt. Otherwise, life is so busy and you just keep going and going and going and you can just completely forget and it's good to take that moment. I really like how that's something that you do in your Agile coaching as well. What else do you do when you're coaching teams? What other elements are there?

Renae Craven:

Some of the stuff I've already spoken about, having that equal, trying to get that equal participation, equal voice. Trying to, the buzzword is psychological safety, but trying to make, trying to build an environment for a team where everyone feels safe to ask a question or to voice their opinion or whatever it is. And when we've come from, as a coach, what we're doing is usually coaching teams, people, organizations, through a shift from a certain way of working to an Agile way of working. And that means that the whole telling people what to do and when to do it and how to do it is gone. That's gone. And now you want to build that capability within the team itself. So creating that safe space so that the

team can ask questions and understand what they have to do so that they can collectively deliver something as opposed to someone just telling them what to do.

So it's using your brain, using the collective group brain as well, instead of just having, not using your brain really, just waiting to be told what to do and then you'll know what to do, you just do it. But collectively solving a problem together as a team and then figuring out as a team how we're going to solve that or how are we going to deliver that is something that is quite, that's the bit I love as a coach, working with teams, building that kind of environment where they do feel safe to ask the dumb questions and things like that.

Chloe Hall:

And not have to be like, I think this is a silly question, but you definitely want to remove that.

Renae Craven:

And I think the other part is the learning still, it's exactly the same. It's taking the focus, trying to get the focus off, we must deliver and then we'll do some learning stuff if we get time trying to flip that around so that your, "No, no, no, you need to learn in order to get better at delivery". So take that focus, because a lot of teams will just say, we've got all these deadlines, all of this delivery pressure, we have to get this stuff done. We don't have time to sit down and think about what we've learned or how we can get better as a team. They're never going to get better as a team if they just keep in this endless delivery cycle. Making the same kind of time wasting things over and over and over again. So it's kind of flipping the mindsets of the teams as well to go, "No, hang on, we need to do this otherwise we're not going to get better as a team".

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, definitely. And I think that's where the Agile retrospective fits in perfectly. And I know I actually just came out of my retrospective with my team and we do that weekly and it's so good to come out of that with action items too. And it's like, okay, next week this is how we're going to get better. This is how we're going to advance, this is our focus and there's also no hidden problems because it comes up every Friday, we talk about it. So you're not going into Monday the next week with a grudge or you're annoyed about something with the workflow of the team. You've addressed it, you've left it in the last week, you've brought the action with you obviously, and hopefully it's going to get better from there.

Renae Craven:

Yeah, absolutely. And that's the key. It's the whatever we've decided in our retrospective of what we're going to do differently, we're doing that differently the next day or Monday in your case. It's not something we talk about and then we just kind of ignore it and we just talk about it again in two weeks time or whatever it is. It's the putting into practice the decisions you make as a team and those retrospectives all of the time. They're not massive actions either. They're just little tweaks here and there.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, there's small things.

Renae Craven:

They just kind of build up over time.

Chloe Hall:

And that's the thing, it's like if you do it on a regular occurrence, they are small things, but if you are not doing it regularly, then that's when they build up and they become big things, big problems and massive blockers within the team as well.

Renae Craven:

Yeah, absolutely.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. So I'm wondering too, Renae, when you do your Agile coaching and your Agile training, so you do that on an individual basis as well as teams. Do you think there's an aspect of the mindset, the agile mindset there, and does each individual need to come to work with that agile mindset for the team to be able to flow better?

Renae Craven:

Mindsets. If everyone had the same mindset then it would be robots or.

Chloe Hall:

True.

Renae Craven:

The world would be very boring.

Chloe Hall:

Very good point.

Renae Craven:

I think that's a bit, for me when I think about a team, an agile team, as long as there's some alignment on how the team behaves, why they exist, what their purpose is and how they treat each other and how they solve problems together, then the mindsets of the individuals within that team, they can be different. And that's fine as long as there's that agreement amongst everyone of this is how we are going to behave. I come up against people all the time who have been forced to work in this agile way. So their mindset's definitely not in the mindset that you need for an agile team, but if they're in an agile team and there's people in that team that have got the mindset or the behaviors that you need to have in order to deliver in an agile way, over time it kind of balances out.

And over time those the mindsets will start to shift as well as they see how other people in their team are behaving, how their leaders are behaving, things like that. So I kind of always think of it as more of a behavioral thing than a mindset thing. How do we make decisions, like I said, how do we treat each other, how do we approach problems, who are our customers, all of that sort of stuff. It's more that behavior that I like to, instead of me thinking, oh, they don't have the mindset, they don't have the mindset, I just kind of look at how they behave. Because at the end of the day, you can't force that

mindset. But as a team, when they start humming to working together as a team, they're going to be delivering what they need to deliver. And they all just, that's the whole cross-functional part of it. You're bringing together different minds, different backgrounds, different experiences, different skills, all of that stuff.

Chloe Hall:

Definitely.

Renae Craven:

You're putting them in a team together so that they can use their skills. They're all those different pieces to solve these problems.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, no, definitely. I think the way people behave, it has a lot to do with it as well. And I think on that too, you can be in the right type of mindset, you can behave in the right way. And that has a lot to do with the way you're showing up at work as well. It's the way you come to work. If you're had a bad morning, then that's going to impact how you are that day. Or if you've waking up that morning and you have kind of a set morning routine that gets you into that good routine for the day, that good mindset and behavior, then it can help a lot. And I think as well, this is something I'd love to chat to you about too, because you've got the background of Pilates, you're in your own studio and you've been a instructor for how many years now?

Renae Craven:

It'll be a year and a half since I qualified.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. Nice. Yeah, so I'm also an instructor. I've been teaching I think for about six months now. But I'm just wondering too, so you've got your two passions, Pilates studio owner and then also an Agile coach. Is there that element of setting yourself up for the day in the morning, do you think if someone, they meditate have the type of morning routine they exercise, can they behave better at work essentially? What are your thoughts on that?

Renae Craven:

Yeah, I think definitely the better you feel in yourself or the way feel within yourself, definitely has a direct correlation to how you come across how you behave at work. So yeah, if you've had a rushed morning or a traffic was crap on the way to work or whatever it is, then definitely you're going to be quite wound up by the time you get to work.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, definitely.

Renae Craven:

It's going to impact the way that you respond to questions or respond to people or respond to your team or whatever it is. Yeah, absolutely. But myself, I don't really have a set routine in the morning. I go to gym but I don't go to gym every day. But the mornings that I do go to gym, I never feel like going because no, I just want to sleep.

Chloe Hall:

It's early. Yeah.

Renae Craven:

Yeah. But I have to go in the morning or I won't go to gym. Gym's something that, it's a bit of a love hate relationship. I know I have to do it, but I don't like doing it.

Chloe Hall:

Not even after? That feeling after?

Renae Craven:

Afterwards is good. It was like, but from, oh thank God that's done.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah.

Renae Craven:

Tick I'm done for the day.

Chloe Hall:

Out of the way.

Renae Craven:

If it was in the afternoon, if I went to gym in the afternoon I wouldn't go. It would just be, "Nah, it's too hard or I can't be bothered, I'm too tired". So getting up first thing in the morning, I set my alarm 15 minutes before my gym class starts.

Chloe Hall:

Wow. That is effort.

Renae Craven:

I know.

Chloe Hall:

That is good.

Renae Craven:

I race to get there but I have all my clothes set out the night before so I don't even have to think. I just get out of bed, I put my clothes on and I get in the car and I drive to the gym and.

Chloe Hall:

I do the same thing.

Renae Craven:

I do my class, I haven't had time to talk myself out of it just yet. But afterwards it's like, oh yes, excellent. That's done for the day. And yeah, it is nice to know that you have done that for the day as you start your work day as well. So on my gym days, that's probably my routine to get myself ready for work. But other days they're a little bit more relaxed I guess. I think if anything having a coffee is my, I cannot deal with the world without coffee. So whether I'm at home or I'm in the office, the first thing I'll do is if I get to the office I'll get a coffee on the way in. So I'm drinking coffee as I walk into the office. So yeah, I guess that you could call that my routine.

Chloe Hall:

No, I think a lot of people, a lot of listeners as well will be able to resonate with that. And I used to be like that and then it just, coffee wasn't sitting well with me. I found it was just really triggering my nerves for the day and everything. So it was so hard. I went from drinking two to three coffees a day to getting off it and now I'll drink like a matcha instead. But that was such a big part of my morning routine as well and getting off it was one of the hardest things I've had to do.

Renae Craven:

Yeah, I did that once. I detoxed for one of those health retreat things years and years ago and I had to detox off coffee and everything actually.

Chloe Hall:

Oh really?

Renae Craven:

Before two weeks leading up to it and yeah, coffee was hard.

Chloe Hall:

Yes.

Renae Craven:

Very, very hard. Because I love the taste of my coffee. I just have it straight, I don't have any milk so I love the taste of my coffee.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, wow. Okay.

Renae Craven:

But maybe it's also the other benefits of not wanting to kill people that coffee does to me as well. I can deal with the world now. I've had my coffee.

Chloe Hall:

You're like okay, all right. Who needs coaching now? Who needs training? And I'm ready to rock and roll.

Renae Craven:

Yeah, I'm good now.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. Nice. Yeah. Well the reason as well why I wanted to talk about the whole exercise correlation with work was because I did read your article on LinkedIn about what sitting all day is doing to your body and you're saying how Pilates can help with that. The section that I think resonated really well with me was when you said, when COVID-19 shut down the world and confined everyone working from home, those people who were working in the office environments, you found yourself sitting bent over a PC at home all day and it's back to back virtual meetings, you don't really have that chance to get up, have a break, go for a walk around and everything. And I think, I'm sure a lot of our listeners will be in that reality and even after COVID it is still the case. So I think just for the sake of everyone listening, is there any tips or anything to get you up, get you moving so you're not experiencing that on the daily.

Renae Craven:

I think the other difference is before COVID, sure you were sitting at your desk all day at work but you are also walking to the office and walking to meetings and walking to the kitchen and walking to go and buy your lunch and things like that. And you weren't kind of back to back meetings either. So you had that chance and if you were walking from room to room so you were getting up. Whereas at home it's just back to back meetings and I don't know about you but I run to go to the bathroom in between meetings.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. I do. I actually do. Yesterday actually bit triggered by that.

Renae Craven:

I did that too yesterday actually. And even at the height of COVID, the back to back meetings were so bad. I didn't even have a lunch break. I was working, I was making my lunch in meetings and daylight saving as well. It always throws things because Queensland stays where they are and it throws everything out so. So in my article actually, it was more of a paper that I had to submit as part of my instructor course.

Chloe Hall:

Oh cool. Yeah.

Renae Craven:

And as well as my 600 hours of practice and.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. I can relate, I didn't have to do the article though.

Renae Craven:

So I kind of just pulled bits out of that and because I thought this is still relevant and maybe it will resonate with people and especially the people that I'm linked, LinkedIn is the audience, right? So that just things that happen from sitting, sitting down's bad for you, full stop. Where you're working or sitting on a couch all day, whatever it is, sitting down's bad for you. And the longer you sit, the more kind of slouched you get. The more your spine is always kind of in the rounded state, the less you are using your back muscles, your back extensors, the more you're sitting down your pelvis, your hip flexes are shortening because you're always sitting down and that kind of tightens your lower back. And then you've got your, even just using your mouse, you've got that shoulder that's doing extra stuff or backwards and forward stuff constantly. And then your neck as well and your traps, everything gets kind of tight.

So things that you can do. I wrote a, my article's got an example class plan to undo the effects of sitting down all day in an office job. But that class plan uses all of the apparatus. So there's things you can do on the mat or the reformer or the Cadillac or under chair. But I run a few online classes after work and they started during COVID and they're still going. And I designed those specifically to undo, I know those people have been sitting down all day. So my classes are very much unraveling everything that they've done the all day.

Chloe Hall:

The body.

Renae Craven:

I mean my classes, my math classes anyway, they're usually focused around, I mean tips for people not actually coming to a class but undoing, you're doing the opposite of what you've been doing all day. So if you sit all day, stand up, walk around, at least listen to your smart watch when it tells you take a break. Stand up and take a break. And walk out to the letter box and get some sunshine at the same time, if you're lucky there's not much suns around these days.

Chloe Hall:

If it's out, make a run for it.

Renae Craven:

Doing kind of shoulder rolls and neck stretches and hip flexors stretches so that you, like I said, just undoing, doing the opposite of what you do when you're sitting. So think about the muscles or the tendons or whatever they're, even if you're not familiar with what they are, you know there's some at the front of your hip. And when you're sitting you can imagine that they're not being used, they're just being stuck there. So straighten them. Stretch them. If you're rounded all the time in your spine, then press roll your shoulders back, press your chest for and use your back muscles. And I don't even know if people are that familiar with back extensors. I don't know if people understand that. Because you've got your spine and then you've got these muscles that they're twisted that run either side of your spine. I can't remember the scientific name for them right now.

Chloe Hall:

No. Me neither.

Renae Craven:

We just call them back extensors. And when you straighten in your spine, they're working and you're switching them on. It's just working your bicep, strengthening that muscle when you straighten your spine and you can even go past straight and go kind of backwards. You are using those back muscles and you're strengthening those back muscles and it'll stop you being like a rounded.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, just bent over in the computer all day.

Renae Craven:

Hunched over.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah. That's it. You don't want that.

Renae Craven:

So it's really just doing the opposite or yeah. Joining online classes. I can put you through some exercises.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, well we'll definitely share that article as well with this podcast so people can see that program or might be something that helps. For me at work we're very fortunate that we have a standing desk and I think that that is just so amazing. Because if I work from home, I don't have a standing desk and I can feel the difference. My body just feels, you just don't feel right and I feel more fatigued and yeah, I just need to get up and move more often.

Renae Craven:

Yeah. If you stand all day, it's the same thing. You've got to sit as well. You've still got to do the opposite. Standing is like, because you can get slouch when you stand as well, so you can still over time get tired and kind of slouch over or you're still kind of tense in your shoulders and things like that. So you can kind of need to still be aware of your posture when you're standing and just self-correct or still go for walks, still give everything a chance to move the way it's supposed to move not stand still all day.

Chloe Hall:

Yeah, definitely. On that, Renae. Yeah. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. Really enjoyed this chat with you. I think there's a lot that our listers will get out of it and I definitely want to continue more of this Pilates conversation too.

Renae Craven:

Thank you Chloe. Thanks for having me.

Chloe Hall:

No worries, thank you.

"Rebecca is an absolute gold mine of knowledge when it comes to SAFe, can't wait to continue the conversation at SAFe Summit 2022!"" - Tenille Hoppo

In this episode, Rebecca and Jasmin are talking:

📌 The value of the Scaled Agile Framework, who it’s for & who would benefit

📌 The Importance of having a common language for organizations to scale effectively

📌 When to connect the Scaled Agile Framework with your agile transformation

📌 Is there ever really an end state?

+ more!

📲 Subscribe/Listen on your favourite podcasting app.

Thanks, Jasmin and Rebecca!

Transcript

Jasmin Iordandis:

Hello, and welcome to the Easy Agile podcast, where today we're chatting all things Scaled Agile with Rebecca Davis, SAFe Fellow, SPCT, principle consultant and member of the SAFe framework team. Rebecca is passionate about teamwork, integrity, communication, and dedication to quality. And she's coached organizations on building competitive market-changing products at scale while also bringing joy to the work, for what is work without joy. Today, we've chatted all things Scaled Agile implementations, challenges, opportunities, and also the idea around optimizing flow, which Rebecca is hosting a workshop at the SAFe Summit in Denver in August this year. Hope you enjoy the podcast.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Hello everyone, and welcome to the Easy Agile podcast. I'm your host Jasmin Lordandis, product marketing manager here at Easy Agile. And today, we are delighted to welcome Rebecca Davis from the Scaled Agile framework. Welcome, Rebecca, and thanks for joining us.

Rebecca Davis:

Thanks. I appreciate being here. I'm excited.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Me too, especially because we are counting down the days before we get to meet you face to face, in person, at the SAFe Summit over in Denver, Colorado. And before we kick off our conversation, I just want to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land from which we broadcast our podcast today. The people of the Djadjawurrung speaking country. We pay our respects to elders past, present and emerging, and extend that same respect to all Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders and First Nations' people joining us today. So before we kick off, Rebecca, can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your role within Scaled Agile?

Rebecca Davis:

Sure. I'm actually relatively new to working for Scaled Agile. So I've been there a little over 90 days now, and I'm a member of the framework team, which means I help actually create the Scaled Agile framework and future versions of it. Prior to that, I led LACE at a company called CVS Health, and I've worked at a bunch of different kind of healthcare organizations across my years implementing or organizing agile transformation and digital transformation. And I think one of the reasons that Scaled Agile was interested in me joining the team is just a lot of different experiences across business agility as a whole outside of technology, in addition to within technology. So marketing transformations and HR transformations, legal transformations. But I love being at Scaled Agile and being part of the framework team. It's really exciting to help more organizations, and just the one I'm at, really understand how to bring joy to their workplace and bring value out to the world.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah, cool. And you've given a little bit of information there around why Scaled Agile was interested in you. What attracted you to Scaled Agile, and did you use the Scaled Agile framework in these previous roles that you've just described?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. Those are great questions. I think I'm going to try to answer both of them together. But the reason I have always been drawn to the Scaled Agile framework is I ran a few different organizations, both as owning my own company and then also working in startups and working with larger organizations, where I knew that agility was important. But I was struggling as a change leader to find a way to really bring connectedness across large amounts of people. And to me, that's what Scaled Agile does for us, is after a certain size, it's a lot easier to create this common language and this common way to move forward and produce value with the framework. I also really enjoy it because there's a lot of thought that's already kind of done for you.

Rebecca Davis:

So if you're in an organization and you're trying to create change or change leadership, I'd much rather be leading the conversations and my context and making sure that I have a pulse on my particular cultural environment and pull from all these pieces, from the framework, where the thought's already been done about what are the right words and what do we do next, and what's the next step. So I've just found it an invaluable toolkit as a change leader.

Rebecca Davis:

I joined the framework team for a few reasons. One, I'd led so much change in so many different areas that, it's not that I wasn't challenged anymore, but I was really looking for something larger and different, and I've always had a belief that I really want to be the change that I want to see in the world. And I think being part of the framework team gives me access to things like this and all over the world to really help connect the humanness of people alongside with all the great techniques that we've learned, and hopefully expand it and just create a better place to be in.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. Cool. And you kind of touched on that in your response, but if we had to say, who is the Scaled Agile framework for and who would it most benefit, what would you say to that?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I guess my opinion on that is I believe the Scaled Agile framework is for people who believe that their organizations have it in them to be better, both internally inside of themselves, as well as have this gigantic potential to go help the customers they serve and may be struggling right now, to really realize that potential. So I don't really see the framework as it's for a specific role necessarily. I think it's for people who believe in betterness. And those people, I found, live across an organization and across multiple different roles, and the framework just really helps you align that.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. And I think one thing that's evident from SAFe, once you learn how all the different practices and ceremonies work together, is exactly as you've said around connectiveness. And you also touched on having a common language. How important is that, when we're talking really large organizations with multiple different functions who, let's be honest, it's quite common for different functions to fall into different silos and things to break down. So how important is that connectivity and that common language, so that an organization as a whole can scale together?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I don't even know how to state the amount of importance that is. I guess, specifically the organization I just came from, had over 400,000 people that worked there. And the last thing I want to is to debate what the word feature means, because that doesn't actually end up within a conversation where we have an understanding of why we want to feature or why we want this particular outcome, or how this outcome relates to this other outcome, if we're spending so much time just choosing word choice and having a conversation instead about what does the word even mean.

Rebecca Davis:

So I like it mostly because it gives us all this common framework to debate, and we need to be able to do that in really transparent and open ways across all of our different layers. So I don't even know how to quantify how much value it brings just to have this ability to bring stability, and the same language across the board, same word choice, same meaning behind those word choice, so that we can have all those debates that we need to have about what's the best possible thing we could be doing, since everything that we can do is valuable, but some things we have to decide are more valuable than others.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. And I think that really talks to what you were saying about helping an organization to reach its potential. It sounds like getting bogged down in what you call things or how you discuss things. And to be able to align on a common meaning in the end, you kind of need that common structure or that common language. And you're only going to get in your own way if you don't have it. So it makes total sense that the framework could really enable organizations on that journey. And in your experience, because it's implied in the name, it's about scaling agile. And I guess when we think of the Scaled Agile framework, we think of all those organizations of such a large size as the one you just mentioned, 400,000 employees. In your experience, what's a good time to introduce the Scaled Agile framework? Does it need to be right from the beginning? Does it need to be those organizations that are 400,000 people strong? Where is the right time to intersect the framework with an agile transformation?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I think that's a really fascinating question, and my answer has changed over the years. I originally started researching Scaled Agile, because it was my first big transformation alongside of a large organization, and I knew there had to be some solutions out there to the problems I was seeing, and I discovered SAFe. But thinking back, I started my own startup company right out of high school actually. And I really wish that I would've had something to pull from, that gave me information about lean business cases, and speaking with my customer and getting tests and getting feedback. So I feel like the principles and the practices and the values are something that could be used at any size.

Rebecca Davis:

I think the part about scaling, the part about deciding like, "Hey, I'm going to do PI planning," I don't personally feel like you need to do PI planning if you have four people at your organization, because the point is to get teams across different groups to talk. You should definitely plan things 100%. So I think part of the idea is like, "When do I implement a train," or, "When do I have a solution train," or, "When do I officially call something LPM," versus just having discussions because my company is so small that we can all have discussions about things. I think those are a different part of implementing the Scaled Agile framework than just living and believing in the principles and the values and the mindset from whatever size or get-go you're at. Does that make sense at all?

Jasmin Iordandis:

That does make sense. And I guess then the question becomes, where do you begin and what would the first step be in implementing SAFe? And taking from your own experience, where do you start with this framework?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I love that you asked that, as I've honestly seen this happen to me as well as some other change agents, where Scaled Agile gives us this thing called the implementation roadmap, and it has all the steps that you can start with. And it's proven, and companies use it and it works. And what I've found in my own change leadership is when I skip a step or I don't follow that because I get pressure to launch a train, instead of starting with getting my leaders at the right tipping point or having that executive buy in, it causes me so much pain downstream.

Rebecca Davis:

So if I were to give advice to somebody, it's, "Look, pull that map down the implementation roadmap from the SAFe site and follow it. And keep following it. And if you find that you..." I think that, back when I look back and do my own retrospective, the moments where I've decided to launch a train without training my people or launch or start doing more product management practices without actually training my people, it causes me a world to hurt later on with coaching and with communication, with feedback. So it's there for that reason. Just follow it. It's proven.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. And that's really good advice. And I think when people look at the roadmap for SAFe, there's a lot on there. But when we are talking agile transformations, necessarily there is going to be a lot that could get you there. So it kind of makes sense when all the thinking is been done for you and all those steps have been done. Just trust the process, I guess, is the message there, and following through on all of that. And I think it's really interesting, because the first step with SAFe is, as you say, getting your leaders on board. And often, we might be attracted to doing the work better. So let's start with those ceremonies. Let's start with all those things that make the day to day work better. How important it starting with the leaders of an organization?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I've run the grassroots SAFe implementations where you start with the bottom and then you kind of move up. And personally, and this is a personal opinion, I'd much rather take the time and the efforts to get the communication right with the leaders and get the full leadership buy-in than be in that place again, where I'm trying to grassroot to move up and I hit the ceiling. The one thing I used to kind of tell the coaches that reported to me, and something I believe in deeply, is what we're trying to do with transformation is a journey. It's not a destination. So because we want to start that journey healthy and with a full pack of food and all those things, we need to take the time to really go and be bold and have conversations with our leaders, get their buy-in to go to Leading SAFe.

Rebecca Davis:

If they're not bought in to coming to a two-day course, then why would we believe that they're going to come to PI plannings and speak the way that we hope they will and create the change that they need to really lead? So I think that's one of the most important things, if not the most important thing from the very beginning, is be bold as that first change leader in your organization, go make those connections.

Rebecca Davis:

It may take a while. I've been in implementations or transformations where it started with just me discovering issues that senior leaders or executives were having, and going and solving some of those, so that there was trust built that I was a problem solver. So I could ask for the one hour executive workshop, which really should be a four to six-hour executive workshop, to get to the point where I could do the four to six-hour executive workshop, to get to the point where I could do PI Leading SAFe. And if that's what it takes to gain you that street cred to go do it, then, man, go do it, because that's where you get full business agility, I think, is getting that really senior buy-in and getting that excitement.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. That's really interesting. And I think building that level of understanding and building that foundation, we can't go past that. And I guess on that as well, from your experience, you've kind of hinted at one there, but what have been some of the challenges that you've experienced in implementing SAFe or even just in agile transformations more broadly, and as well as some of those opportunities that the framework has helped to unlock? So let's start with the challenges. What's some of the hard things you've experienced about an agile transformation and even implementing the framework?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah, I'll give some real examples, and this first thing is going to sound a little wishy washy, but I also believe it, is the biggest challenge to transformation is you. So what I've discovered over the years, is I needed to step up. I needed to change. I think it's really easy to be in an organization and say, "My leaders don't get it," or, "Some won't understand," or, "It's been this way and I can't change it." And I think that the first thing you have to decide is that that's not actually acceptable to you as a person. And so you as a person are going to go fight. Not you're going to go try to convince somebody else to fight, but you are going to go fight. So I think that personal accountability is probably the biggest challenge to wake up every single day and say, "I'm going to get back in there."

Rebecca Davis:

I think from an example point of view, I've definitely seen huge challenges when the executive team shifts. So when we've got a set of leaders that we did the tipping point, we've gone through Leading SAFe, we've launched our trains. And then the organization, because every organization is going through a lot of change right now, and people are finding new roles and retiring and all that, there's a whole new set of executive leaders. And I think one of the things to discover there is there are going to be moments where it sucks, but you have to go and restart that implementation roadmap again, and reach that tipping point again, because there are new leaders. And that's hard. It really is, and it drains you a little bit, but you've just got to do it.

Rebecca Davis:

I think other challenges I've run into is there's a point after you've launched the trains and after you have been running for a while, where if you don't pay attention, people will stop learning, because you're not actively saying like, "Here's the next thing to learn. Here's the next new thing to try." So I do think it's the responsibility of a change leader, no matter if you're a LACE leader or not, to pay attention to maintaining excitement, pay attention to the continuous learning culture and really motivate people to get excited about learning and trialing and trying.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. That's an interesting point. How have you done that?

Rebecca Davis:

Hmm. So I think a few things. One, I had big lessons learned that there's a point inside of a transformation where, as an SPBC or as a change leader, that transformation is not yours anymore. So I had kind of a painful realization at one point that I had in my head the best next thing for the organization, and I was losing pulse of the people who are actually doing the work. So I think what I've discovered after that is, to me, there's a point where your LACE members and your change leaders and your SPCs need to start coming from a lot more areas. And honestly start to be made up of people who are not, at the moment, excited about the SAFe implementation, so you can hear from the pulse of the people.

Rebecca Davis:

And then I think if you can get those people and invite in and say like, "I'm inviting you to share it with me what's frustrating, what's good, what's bad, what's great, as well as I'm inviting you to tell me all the things that you're discovering out there in webcasts or videos that seem you'd like to try them, but we're not trying yet, and start giving back the ability to try new things and try things that you feel are probably going to be anti-patterns, but they need to try them anyway." So kind of a scrum master would do with a team of like, "Yeah, go try and then we'll retrospect." I think you have to do that at scale and let people get excited about owning their own transformation.

Jasmin Iordandis:

And what's the balance there between implementing the framework and taking all the good stuff that the framework says is good to do, and then letting people experiment and try those things, as you say, that may be anti-patents? Where's that sweet spot to allow that autonomy and that flexibility and that experimentation with still maintaining the integrity of the framework?

Rebecca Davis:

So I think the interesting thing is they are not actually different. So in the framework, we say hypothesis first, test first. So what I found is a layered kind of brain path where there're the steps in the framework and make sure we have teams and balance trains and all the principles and the values, and if you can live those principles and values all the time, while you're testing new things. So you test first like, "Hey, I want to try having my train off cadence from the other trains. I think it would be helpful for us." "Cool. Test that." And what we have to test it against is are we still living our principles? Are we still applying our values? Are we still applying the core fundamentals of agility and lean throughout that test and also as proof points?

Rebecca Davis:

So do we have an outcome where," Hey, I just made my train into a silo," or do we have an outcome where, "Well, now we have two different PI plannings within the overall PI cadence that one of them we merge with all the other trains and the other one is shorter because our market cadence is faster." Well, that's a beautiful win. So I think the key is it's not different, but one of the test points is make sure to check in on those principles and values.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. Have you ever seen that work well? The example that you just provided with the PI cadence, that makes complete sense, and it doesn't seem like it's going against the grain with anything that SAFe is there to help you achieve.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah, I think that. This was kind of a little bit of what my summit talk was on last year, is during COVID, there were some trains. We had, I don't know, 30 trains. Two of them were having daily new requirements emerging from all the different states across the United States and emerging from the government and emerging from everything. Those trains were making sure everybody could get vaccinated across the United States. That's really darn important. And they needed to re-plan sometimes daily. It just didn't make sense to say, "Now we're just going to stop and go into PI planning for three days," when there wasn't any way that they could even think about what the next day's requirements could be. Since then, they still have a faster market rhythm. Then there are other trains that are working on, have a set unknown. There are trains that know that these holidays are when we need to release something or end of year is when we need to make sure that we've got something ready.

Rebecca Davis:

COVID is still in a reactive state. So what they've emerged into this year is those trains are still doing PI planning from my knowledge, I'm not there anymore, but from my knowledge. But they do eight a year instead of four a year. And four a year are on the same cadence and the other four are not, and it meets both needs. So I do think that key is test, and don't test just for the sake of it just because something feels dry or you get a new leader, and they haven't gone through Leading SAFe, but test because something actually doesn't feel right about, "We're not meeting our principles or values right now. We think that we could meet them better in this way. We think we could accelerate the flow of value in this way. Let's try it."

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah, cool. And on that, what are some of the red flags that you've seen in practice where those values aren't being met to be able to say, "Hang on a sec. This isn't working. We need to switch course"?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. Some of the things I've seen are the whole fun around when people are prioritizing their hierarchy or their piece of the organization over the enterprise value. So I've definitely seen people come to me and say, "Hey, I'd like to do his test." And when I ask the reasons why, a lot of the reasons are like a thinly veiled, "Because I would like more control."

Rebecca Davis:

So I think back to the values piece is that, "Okay, what's your why? Let's start with why. Why would you like to try something? What does that trial outcome achieve?" And, A, if it's really hard to articulate, probably there might be a bad thing going on, or if it is articulated and it actually goes against agility or lean practice and or diminishes flow or creates a silo, that's an initial gut. I think throughout testing, it's important to, the same way that we would do with iterations, have check-ins and demos, not just of what's the product being produced, but what is the change producing? So figuring out what those leading indicators would be and treat it the same way as we would treat a feature hypothesis or an epic hypothesis. We have some outcome we believe we could achieve. We're 100% open to being proven wrong. These are the things that we want to see as leading indicators as success and be really open with each other.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah, cool. And it sounds like what's key to that though is having some concept of what that intended outcome is as a result of that experiment. It's not just going in for, as you say, the sake of doing an experiment. You want to have an idea of where you want to end up, so you can see if we're actually getting there or not.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah.

Jasmin Iordandis:

That's really fascinating. And I think experimentation and iterative improvement, it kind of goes together. It's not just blindly following something because that's what you are supposed to do. It's preserving the values. That's a really interesting concept. And I think in that, would also come enormous opportunity. So in your experience as well, going back to the times where you've brought SAFe to an organization, or you've been going through an agile transformation, what are some of those opportunities that you've seen the framework unlock for enterprises or organizations that you've been leading those transformations within?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I always was drawn to this idea of true value flow and business agility. So for me, what Scaled Agile helped unlock in a few of my organizations is, I always targeted that, like I'm not trying to make my thing better, I'm trying to make everything better. And with that mindset, really pushing for anybody should be able to take a class. Anybody should be able to take any of the classes. And these days, the enterprise subscription helps with that a lot. When I first started, we didn't have that. So it was also like anybody can take a class, and there should be creative ways of getting it paid for it.

Rebecca Davis:

But through that kind of invite model of really anybody, I had a nurse come take one of my SAFer teams classes, just because she was curious and she saw something about it on my blog, which ended up with her being more excited and getting to do agile team coaching for a set of nurses who were highly frustrated because their work on an individual basis was ebbing and flowing so much, and they felt like they weren't giving good patient care to coaching them on Kanban and having them all get really excited because they got to nurse as a team and whoever was available took the next patient case, and the patients were happier, and just being able to invite in and then say yes to coaching all of these roles that are so meaningful and they're so excited and they're something different.

Rebecca Davis:

And that same model ended up going from nothing to having a marketing person randomly take one of my Leading SAFe classes, which then turned into them talking to the VPs of marketing, which then turned into an 800-person marketing implementation. So I think the key is be open and spend time with the curious. And it doesn't matter if they're in your org. It's not like that's what I was paid to do, it's just really fun. So why not? If somebody wants to talk to you about agile, talk to them about agile. It's really cool.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah, cool. And I think what I love about that is often agile may be associated just as software development teams. But as someone who's in marketing myself, I love the benefit and the way of thinking that it can provide to very traditional challenges, but the way that it can unlock those challenges in ways that not have not been approached before. And I think that there's something to be said in that too, around what you were saying earlier around maintaining excitement. And I feel like this question's already been answered, because often it's discussed, "Okay, we are scaling agile, we're going through a transformation." And it implies that there's this end state where it's done. It's transformed or we've scaled agile, but it doesn't sound like that's the case at all.

Rebecca Davis:

No, I don't think at all. I think mostly the opposite of... If you look at even yourself as a human, your whole life, you're transforming in different ways. Everything's impacting you. The environment's impacting you, whatever happens in your life is just this whole backpack that you carry around and you're transforming all the time. And the exact same thing, I think, for an organization and company. Today's age is nuts. There're updates all the time, there's new technology all the time. You and I are doing a talk from completely different countries, and there's change literally everywhere.

Rebecca Davis:

So yeah, I think part of transformation is helping your organization feel comfortable or as comfortable as possible with the rate of change happening and all the people within it, and not see change as a bad word, but as a positive thing where we can make betterness out there. And it's forever. It's a journey. It's not done. I really like Simon Sinek when he talks about that infinite game. I just feel really close to that of, we're not in it to win this moment or this year, we're in it to make a better future for ourselves and our children, and that's going to take forever. The people are in it right now and they've got to be excited about that.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. And I think that's that balance of delayed gratification, but constant improvement. So you'll feel and experience the improvement along the way. It's not like it'll be way out in the future where you won't feel the benefit of what you're doing, but it's something that's going to be built up and happen over time.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. And I think you reminded me just from saying that. I did that marketing transformation, and I just deeply remember a call with one of the marketing VPs who, after four or five iterations, I did a check in with her. And she's like, "My team is so happy. Is this because of agile? Is this what agile is, is happy with [inaudible 00:32:17]?" "Yes."

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah, joy at work, right?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Isn't that what it's all about? That is so cool. And yet the goal initially is never to go out and make people happy. It's just one of those bonus kind of side effects, a happy side effect.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Awesome. And I think I really want to talk about this idea, because you've mentioned it a couple times, you've even just mentioned then marketing, nursing. But then when you're in these larger organizations, you've got all these different functions. And I think it raises this idea around organizing around value. So I want to make sure we talk a bit about that, because value doesn't just happen from one function, or it's not delivered from just one function or one team. It's something that many people across an organization may have a hand in delivering. But I really want to get your take around this concept of organizing around value. What does that mean and what does that look like?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. I think there's a base concept that is also in that implementation roadmap around what happens first. So how do we first organize around value, because organizations tend to be organized around hierarchy. I am a VP of marketing and I have marketing all the way down. And so there's that first step of identifying what the value is that you produce as an organization. So being able to articulate it to begin with, which is not always an easy conversation. Sometimes it takes a bit of time, and then organizing all the different types of roles around what that value is. So I think that's your first thing in what most organizations implementing scaled agile start with, is just identifying it, forming around it, which ends up being what your trains end up being.

Rebecca Davis:

My experience is, because of that same rapid market change, the world changing so far, it's really important to re-evaluate how you've organized around value over time. So in my experience, one of the really healthy things that we used to do is, at the end of each year, give a chance to look at the different train structures and look at how we've organized and say, "Is this still right? And what's our strategy for next year? Where are we trying to head for our consumers and our users? And is there a different way to organize, that helps us with that?" And I say give a chance because in some years, we'd be like, "No. 80% of our portfolio is actually good to go. Things are flowing. We're doing okay." 20% of it has an entirely new strategic shift that's going to hit them, or, "Last year felt not good. We had too many dependencies. We didn't have the right people on the right trains," all those things.

Rebecca Davis:

And so at least take a pause and look at it, and see if our value still mean the same thing as it did a year ago or two years ago. Do we need to reorganize? What does that mean? What does the change leadership around it if we do need to, so that we're always focused on value, and it's not a definition that we gave ourselves five years ago and just stopped realizing that the world has changed.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. A living definition because it changes depending on what's going on in the world, but also what's going on within the organization and coming back to that idea of experimenting as well, like if you've tried out a new way of working, and that's gotten in the way. But even something that you said there really stood out is, "Okay, it didn't feel good. We might have had too many dependencies." And that brings up the idea of, "Well, how does that flow of value happen?" Oh, that sounds like there's a stifle to the delivery of value. So how do you optimize that flow particularly when there may be multiple people delivering that value?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. And I think Scaled Agile gives us some tools for that. So I think one of them is that first session I talked about, value stream and down vacation, so that you can really do a process for talking and discussing with the right blend of people. What is the value and how can we organize around that? I think past that point, there's another tool that I see used far less than I would think it would be, which is value stream mapping. So after we've identified it, now can we actually map what's happening? From concept to cash, which teams are doing pass offs? How long does it take to get an answer on an email? How long is it taking from testing to all the way to release?

Rebecca Davis:

So doing a lot of intentional measurement. Not measurement because we're judging people, but intentional measurement of, we organize this way, this is where all the pieces are connecting, and how long things are taking, as well as how people feel inside of their steps, like does it feel silo? Does it have an outcome? Did we put all of the designers and HR people and engineers on a train, but we made them separate teams, and so it still doesn't feel connected? That's what mapping's for. And those maps and also the program boards that actually visualize like, "Here's the dependencies," versus, "At the end of the PI, this is what those dependencies actually ended up being."

Rebecca Davis:

It's not that dependencies are bad, but they should be adding value, not restricting flow. So I think those connected stories as well as things like employee survey scores and just employee happiness are really good inputs, to, are we delivering flow. And it is a blended view. Some of it's qualitative and some of it's quantitative. But are our own internal things showing us good, bad and different, as well as how are our customers. So do they feel like they're receiving value or that they're receiving bits and pieces and they're unsure about the connected value? I think all of those are indicators.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. And would you say you'd need to have an idea of what those indicators are beforehand, so you can keep an eye on them as the PI progresses? So for example, you've done your value stream mapping, you've built your art. At that point, do you identify what those measurements of flow ought to be and keep an eye on them, or is it more retrospectively where you see these kind of things getting a little bit stuck?

Rebecca Davis:

I think there's both. So definitely those metrics that we indicate inside of the framework are healthy, good for teams and trains and solution trains and portfolio. So I think there is a set of metrics that you should and can utilize. Retrospectives are key, because retrospectives create action. So while we measure, then what's the conversation we have about them? Because what we don't want is vanity metrics. And my personal way of defining vanity metrics is any metric that you do nothing with.

Rebecca Davis:

So I think a key is use them to hold conversations and create outcomes, and create actions and make sure that you're prioritizing those actions. I think there's another piece of just understanding that this is not just about team and train. So teams and trains definitely do need to improve and measure themselves, but so does the portfolio, so does the enterprise, so do the pieces that connect to each other across different trains. So I do think if you over focus on, "Let's just make our teams go faster," you may be missing the whole point of how do we make our organization flow better, which may or may not equate to moving faster right away.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. Yeah. And team and train don't exist in a vacuuming within that organization like whole bunch of-

Rebecca Davis:

No, [inaudible 00:40:43].

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. Well, I think we've touched on some really, really interesting concepts, and just I can't wait to hit the SAFe Summit, which is a really good segue to the fact that the next time we meet, Rebecca, it will be in person. And you're hosting a workshop at SAFe. Can you give us any sneak peek of what we can expect to be excited about at the summit?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. First of all, when we meet each other in person, I'm very short. So I think I'm maybe five foot. So that'll be exciting. So Harry, on the framework team and I, are running a workshop about flow. So we'll be doing a flow workshop. I can't talk about all of it yet, because some of it we're going to announce inside the summit, but I'm really excited. So I think if you do sign up for our workshop, you're going to get active advice, and be able to work also alongside other organizations and other people, really understanding flow, and how to apply improvements to flow and how to identify blockers to flow and what to do about it. So we're really focusing on why do certain things matter and what can you specifically do about it, whether you're at the team level or the train level or solution level or the portfolio level.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Cool. That sounds exciting.

Rebecca Davis:

And we [inaudible 00:42:08] a lot of other workshops, but definitely come to ours.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Well, we've just spoken about the importance of flow, so it makes sense. Right?

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Awesome. Well, I personally am really looking forward to coming to SAFe and coming to Colorado and to get to chat with you a little bit more. But thank you so much for your time and joining us and sharing your expertise and experience on agile transformations, scaling agile and the SAFe framework itself. Thank you so much for your time, Rebecca.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah, I appreciate it. And I look forward to maybe one day being able to do this in person with you in your own country. So that'll be really awesome.

Jasmin Iordandis:

Yeah. Cool. That would definitely be awesome. Thanks a lot.

Rebecca Davis:

Yeah. Thanks.