An summary of the results of companies scaling agile with a heavy-weight framework and companies migrating to a heavy-weight off-the-shelf platform.
Both FitBit and Volvo Cars, for about two years, went through an Agile transformation to scale Agile using a heavy-weight scaled agile framework.
YNAP and Co-Op Insurance both tried to migrate their core systems developed internally to a heavy-weight off-the-shelf platform.
Heavy-weight scaled agile framework here is intended, for example, as one with a guide of several hundred pages (instead of few tenths), that requires configuration and tailoring-down (instead of being simple and partially incomplete to fit loosely to leave room for adaptation and manoeuvre), with roles that increase the depth of the hierarchy and the hands-over (instead of flattening the hierarchy and supporting self-organisation).
Heavy-weight off-the-shelf platforms and out-of-the-box configurable white label products here is intended, for example, as overcomplicated and rigid third-party products that end-up requiring significant rewriting work, huge and complex data migration, and are hard and difficult to customise to fit the always changing and evolving market requirements.
For FitBit, YNAP and Co-Op Insurance this had very tangible and negative impacts for their business. No tangible impact can currently be measured at Volvo Cars (it is too early to say).
FitBit and Volvo Cars case studies don’t show signs of a strong focus on tech excellence. The technical approach at YNAP and Co-Op was shattering.
None of the four companies shows any sign of alignment to the Agile mindset, that is considered a fundamental ingredient of any successful Agile adoptions, or any sign of autonomy of teams.
Read the full account with all the sources: https://www.smharter.com/blog/the-mixed-results-of-companies-scaling-agile-with-a-scaled-framework/