Convener: Arto Eskelinen
Convener: Arto Eskelinen
Convener: Iain McKenna
List of Participants: Andrew Lefrancq, Gergana Georgieva, Stephen O’Malley, Martin Tecjeby, Dave Edwards, Steven Olds, Paul Exley, Paul Whelan, Klaus Lindemann
Discussion: There is a need to do some work before the first Sprint starts. This includes defining the vision and goals, putting together a development team, creating an initial Product Backlog, refining the initial Product Backlog to understand enough work for the first Sprint – which also informs starting state architecture and design. This work should be accomplished in the shortest time possible so that the team can start to get feedback on real software. As this work in itself does not deliver a potentially shippable product increment, this can not be a Sprint as one of the fundamental rules of Scrum is that each Sprint produces a potentially shippable increment of the product. Calling this pre-sprinting activity a Sprint is not just a matter of language as it sets a precedent early on with people that Sprints do not have to deliver potentially shippable increments of the product. There were also some examples given of teams using multiple Sprint Zeroes (0.1, 0.2… up to 0.14) and how this just perpetuated Big Up Front Design which everyone agreed was a bad thing.
The discussion also covered Product Backlog Refinement in order to ensure common understanding and then diverged onto release planning and how that can be done simply and quickly using velocity and the Product Backlog but also the need to revise the release plan at the end of every Sprint.
Recommendations: Activities that are done in order to get ready for the first Sprint should not be called Sprint Zero. They can be called anything other than a Sprint but people should be clear about what they need to achieve before they can start sprinting.
Convener: Suzanne Daigle email@example.com
List of Participants:
· Vincent Lasalle – firstname.lastname@example.org
· Georgana Georgieva – email@example.com
· Stefano Lucantoni – firstname.lastname@example.org
Discussion Highlights :
In the US, Massive number of baby boomers who are heading towards retirement but who may not be retiring (in the US, about 78 Milllion); Almost an equal number of Millennials (ages 21 to 34) coming into the workforce with a much smaller number of Gen X (ages 35 to 48); Similar trends in other countries though not all. In 7 years in the US, Millennials will represent 51% of the workforce. Massive transitions ahead and we are unprepared.
Some companies (i.e. Microsoft are seriously looking at this). Many misunderstanding between the two generations: Baby Boomers and Millennials. For example, parents and leaders will often say: “Why do you spend so much time on Facebook?” Leaders are mostly baby boomers, they don’t understand the way the younger generation thinks and works. Often managers will say they are not “management potential”. People will seek to hire others who are like them.
The world has changed. Job security does not exist, unlikely that young people today will have a pension at retirement age. Rather than doing jobs that don’t use their talents and skills or because there are not enough jobs, many young people staying in school, doing internships. In France, internships are quite segregated; work is more project base so the opportunities to interact with a broader side of the business are diminished.
The Financial Crisis of 2008 is forcing a workplace revolution, companies need to operate differently; need to look at networks and flatter organizations. If companies are to succeed, they need to attract the talent doing some of the things that Google is doing, providing discretionary time to be involved in creative projects that provide meaning at work.
Scary now to look at mainstream companies, to see the clash in the 2 generations (Baby Boomers and Millennials). We are losing a lot of knowledge by not interacting with each other directly NOW. It’s important that the 2 generations learn from each other; we need to explore new ways of doing things.
Father “What do you want to do with your life? That’s not a job that will provide security over the long term. “
Son: “Want meaning and purpose. There is no security and most likely there won’t be retirement when I grow old.”
New companies are reinventing work; younger people more adaptive to change and the environment. They are used to change.
We need strategies to bring the two generations together. Millennials want to provide their perspectives on the strategy. Hard to do when there are 12 layers of management. We never get to talk to those making the decisions. For people who have been doing their work the same way for a long time, it is difficult for them to see it differently. They also look to hire people who like them.
We can expect a big crash ahead. At some point the number of Millennials will shift the pyramid with leadership now sitting at the top.
Ironic that baby boomers created the globalized world but they don’t have the tools to manage and lead it.
We don’t have the space to integrate our different points of view. When baby boomers come into positions of power, they then project their own view of the world. In the future, these books will be totally rewritten. If the dialogue does not begin to happen, chances are we will also not be interacting with our grand-children because this will not have happened between us now.
It is normal that people become more tired and more conservative when they are older; they are typically less open, more risk averse. There are still ways to remain creative.
We are seeing anthropological shifts; it is not possible for older people to maintain control as they have done in the past. The young people have many more ways to approach problems and seek out opportunities.
In the past, you achieved control through knowledge. Now that knowledge is available to everyone.
Unfortunately young people don’t have all the knowledge and wisdom. Right now because of the hierarchy and lack of interaction, we are losing theoretical and even specialized technical knowledge. This is not being shared. It will create major problems in the future.
Other issues is that Millennials will have less children. In some countries, poorer countries, the opposite is happening; people have many more children. It has been shown that with greater wealth, couples have few children. Many from other countries are becoming highly educated also. More competition for jobs.
The Youth use the Law of 2 Feet a lot. Don’t stay in jobs that don’t have purpose or meaning. Need for more critical thinking. Through the lack of dialogue and collaboration, we are also losing the values that our parents had. In young people, there is a sense of entitlement. We want things to happen right away. If the values are there, Youth is willing to work hard. At the same time, there is a feeling of being rushed. There is so much that is broken, so much to be done.
Question: How do you make our organizations value having these conversations…together? We need to “force” these conversations to happen.
At our open space we had the lovely Torguy Andersson, Doug Scherbarth, Lloyd Mitchell, Kristi Nigulas, Tom Howelett, Adrian Potter, Vincent Lassalle, Suzanne Dougile, John Chadwell, Enrico Braganje, Ranouf Abrougui, Dav Tsal Sela, Stefano Lucantoni and many more butterflies and bees who came and settled around the edges, who I am sorry I did not manage to capture the names of.
"I have to do this 20th thing today, right now, because if I don't… The world will end." It can feel like that a lot of the time for the teams I work with. We're an environmental charity and like most charities we're strapped for money, people and time to do all the things that it might take to fulfil that one mission that is on forever scope creep(?) – changing the world for the better.
Here are some of the ideas both practical and profound that came from our open space:
Where's the problem really at?
1) It's over-commitment for every individual, but one that is ingrained in existing culture of always seeking to do more, give more and the pride that can come from that as part of the organisational and personal identity.
2) Is failing really the issue? We're failing to get things done all the time, but its not really seen as failure.
3) Is it less about each person and more about the interactions between the team and others. You always saying "yes" to that extra request, knowing in your heart it really is a "no" but too polite/scared/used to saying yes? What's the "why" behind this and can it be challenged
4) Move the the stand-ups. At the moment the team flat-out refuses to a daily 15 mins, but ad-hocs do happen around a desk quite often. So how about taking a stand-up to them. Designate a desk and at certain time, pick-up the rest of the team (the team-train :P) and do it round the desk.
5) They love to talk. Another reason why 15 min commitment is never 15 mins and the fear of meetings. So try 5 mins to start. Take a stop-watch, start with 1 minute each. There can always be extra time at the end if people want to hang back. Don't label it a 'meeting' or some grand process thing.
6) Really work harder on the definition of done making sure it shows the value and do it together. Ask the question for every task, "what would it mean for it to be done"
7) When the hesitation comes to moving something into done. i.e. Want to add another layer of we could do 1 more thing, instead add it as an extra task, then add these as new things to be prioritised rather than allowing continual progress, but no completion.
8) Make more of DONE. So that success and progress is celebrated with this as the key focus. Visual prompts, anything to recognize and shift pride in the done rather than the constant doing. Can we make 'done' more fun.
9) Recommended Ted Talk "Power of vulnerability". Find the space to talk openly, challenging the always saying 'more' or 'yes' and examining the why behind habits.
The mission is big and gets bigger each time we look at it and the urge is to run full pelt at it, all day, everyday. Perhaps we need to recognize that it's not a sprint at all. Or lots of sprints that we need, but a marathon. We need the grit and pace to keep going.
Perhaps the courage needed isn't about failure, but courage to call 'it' done, to accept 'it' won't be perfect and to be courageous enough to admit we only have so much we can give. To know what we are capable of.
Thanks to all participants, who came and contributed or just listened in. It was incredibly useful to delve into the agile values and how these rub up in reality against the ones in non-profit teams. Love the ideas for sneaky stand-ups and other creative ideas, as well as making an effort to go back and challenge the team to be more open with each other to break some old habits.
It was fun and full of energy. I'm ready to go back and try them out!
I'm sure I didn't manage to scrawl down all the great insights and range of discussion that was had. If there's something key I missed, further thoughts or would like to keep in touch you can find me at @startmyquest or linked in Wendy Yuen.
Photo of Final Participants' Names & Their Recommendations attached:
From: Kris Philippaerts
Date: 25 September 2013 12:57:32 CEST
To: David Hicks
Subject: Notes SAFe
- Structured, disciplined
- Scripting the critical moves
- Same cadanse for different projects
- Synchronized plannings
- ScrumXP is basic building block
- Designed for different programs, each containing 50+ people
- Fractal: practices are reused on all levels
- Something youncan start doing now
- Red versus blue: architecture features versus business features
- Leffingwell is just a frozen state of SAFE
- Bad image:
- Very commercial
- Highly polished
- Built on the house of lean
- Try to work with feature teams
- Roadmap built-in: how to get there (??)
- Good place to start, but need to be climbing up
- PO is on project level, Product Manager is higher level PO, scaled vision
- SAFE speaks in business language where Scrum does notLevel 3: team
- Strong on XP practices: you cannot scale crappy code
- Is actually Scrum, but goes away from the "ideal" picture: an imperfect pragmatic version
- HIP sprints:
- hardening sprints, sort of program increment.
- no coding, hardening practices, integrated ci
- somewhat fuzzy, no eal agreement
- Can be seen as celebration moment, sort like hackathonLevel 2: program coordination
- New roles
- System working, integration, …
- Architectural runway: framework in advance of dev teams
- Agile release train: over level 1 and 2:
- 2 day release planning
Level 1: portfolio
- Based on kanban approach
- Investment themes
- System of epics, business and architecturalOther frameworks: LESS and DAD
- Less is more scrum oriented: keep to minimum
- Safe is more described as broad and deep
- DAD: good on diagram method, nice, on the way, pragmatic. But for the details, might be too rigid, like RUP.
Convener: Steve Carter
Participants: Stefanie Marinelli
I described a situation with a very small team and a large bduf specification. Work items are typically urgent and prio 1 and bigger than one sprint. This model was a caricature of my real world situation.
Many suggestions were forthcoming, not all of which were within my sphere of influence, but also some basic violations of scrum were found that are within my power to fix.
I came away with a good clear idea of many lines of attack for the problem and will take first steps on my return.
We had a good session on testing with some great contributions. The big take outs were:
1) How much testing to automate and how much overhead to maintain.
a) the automaton strategy needs to be defined up front and managed across the team. This is not necessarily the QA manager.
2) Metrics to capture
a) keep them simple and few
b) refer to them and check the trends to make sure you are going on the right direction
3) Important to keep testing within the sprint and avoid the temptation to have testing sprints as this results in finding bugs later.
4) The trend seems to be towards QA manager roles rather than more traditional Test Manger roles with a focus on coaching and mentoring rather than organising all test activities.
Convener: Pentti Virtanen
Talking points (flaps):
Initial ideas when we started.
Release planning creates business value
Is release planning a separate activity?
Who is doing release planning?
Reality or a dream
It is not a commitment
Releases planning is good but release plans are useless
Product owner is responsible
Release plans are not commitments
Sent from my HTC
sweden is even further
Focusing on the user needs in Scrum
Med vänliga hälsningar
Participants: Sabine, Zvonimir, Shen, and another three
Discussion: What are the conflics between agile and Controlling? How can we resolve them? What are your experiences about this topic?
We can get rid of the Controlling at enterprise level totally. Some of the Controlling are necessery. The Managers have to controll the project Töne, budget and deadline. The core of the agile and scrum is human, is trust. When there are more and more trust, we don’t need to make so many reportings. The reporting overheads and comunication overheads schuld be reduced. We should provide more tranceparency to give our managersmore save feelings. Such as through sprint reviews, providing scrum artifacts, and so on.
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
Convener: Scott Duncan
Participants: (probably had twice as many people attending but the
following are the only ones who identified themselves through signup sheet
or business cards): Scott Cothrell, John Gouveia, Ari Brown, Cliff Oliveira, Marc Story, Rahil Patel, Ryan Garcia, Jerry Lathem, Eric Yang
Focused mainly on scaling and team distribution and little on the complexity of the software.
With a large number of teams, where do all the Scrum Masters come from if they are to be ”just” Scrum Masters.
Agile can make distributed teams harder due to the assumption regarding direct contact between people. On the other hand, the emphasis on communication encourages not falling back on “document passing” as the default (and only) assumption for contact.
A key outcome was to collect contact information from people who wanted to continue discussion on this topic after the Gathering. Anyone else interested in such a “community” can contact me at email@example.com.
Also collected the following “data” from some attendees:
#Teams Company Domain
160 Intergraph “CAD”
50-65 DoD/VA iEHR
~20 Jack Henry financial
12 network platform
500? Adobe design, docs, analytics
2 NASA simulation
10 AMDOCS carrier billing
220 Splubk big data/OI
12 Cisco security
300 Vanguard financial services
The following is a list of topics discussed:
15- create a community outside of the conference
2- have some conversations/ connections
10- learning, supporting, mentioning
2- young women have it harder
5- how do we attract more women to scrum
20- encourage women to come forward and be visible
3- women on the board
3- no women keynote
4- blog more
0- get voices heard
#?- help people stay engaged when life happens
1- how do we observe scrum as women
Ideas for potential ways to stay connected (This will be organized by Leslie going forward with help from others)
Thoughts – we for sure want to be inclusive and grow but we wanted to keep it small until we get our feet under ourselves (1 month?) and then expand it. The idea is to grow but we don’t know what we are yet…
(In the Group’s words) Get the book!
Tool for Product Owner Lean Canvas [Tool to represent the business model and experiments]. Find quickest way to test assumptions.
Lean is geared towards product analysis.
Lean vs Scrum
Minimum Viable Product (MVP) Impact analysis
Lean Startup concepts help a Product Owner be a better Product Owner
Lean Start is for Product Owner
Convener: M. Kelley Harris
List of Participants: Andrew Kallman, Kevin Graves, Moonie Lantion, Robert Morris, Lynn Winterboer, Vivtek Malhotra, Bernd Klupp, Sateesh Nagilla, Vinay Nagarnj, Harry Nieboer, Ran Nyman, Pavel Dabrytski, Janet Figueroa, Rob Spieldenner
Convener: Bill Slocum
Participants: (See below)
The purpose was to do some collaboration on how to get team members more excited about Agile so they want to do more. They need to understand that this is not just another passing fad. Key points were captured and are attached here. High level summary: We know that motivation is not easily solved. There are many factors that affect ones motivation, and what works for some teams may not work for others. Affecting factors range from external sources (such as management and others) to personal reasons for the individual themselves (some will never be motivated). A short summarization of our discussion on possible ways to increase ones motivation; through the use of continuously sharing the measurable benefits, incentives, anonymous input from the team for retrospective (on people/reasons causing motivational issues), reminding team there is not much to fall back to (waterfall is worse), small celebrations during sprint on progress (can be a simple ‘woo hoo’), and team self evals to name some. Thanks to all for their input! This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation
Organised by: Harry Nieboer (firstname.lastname@example.org) about.me/harrynieboer
Setting: my company in the Netherlands sends out employees to conferences (like the Scrum Gathering) and training. But how good are we performing anyway, and does investing in learning really help? How do you actually find out how good you are at agile? We started the discussing with three questions:
1. Who cares? Is this something management should care about? (at least according to the developers) Is this something the Scrum Master should be held accountable for? (she is the one with the mission of making the team work well together) Is this something the Team should be held accountable for? (could well be part of self organizing)
2. How would you assess your current agile capability? Should you use independent audits? Could you let your teams fill out the Scrum Checklist from Henrik Kniberg? (http://www.crisp.se/gratis-material-och-guider/scrum-checklist)
3. And then? Publish the results, to encourage competition? Act on the impediments? We discussed the above three questions and concluded the Why was missing. If you know what you want to accomplish, you can than derive what you should measure.
* For my company mostly doing projects for external clients, we are aware that we need to become a more agile company. More agile meaning being able to start up new projects fast, having environments and complete oiled agile teams available within days. The general understanding was that all should care. There were additional suggestions on how to do the assessments: surveys, 12questions (used at Nokia) and (free) checklists at http://scaledagileframework.com . There were suggestions on metrics to look for:
* How long does it take to get an idea to production
* Bug response time
* Ratio between value delivered and failures
* Business value
* Waste due to waiting (measured in queue length or total queing time)
* Cycle time Especially, you would like to measure leading indicators (and not lagging), helping you to change directions when necessary. And what to do with the outcome?
Publishing results can be risky (people might nog want to be open in answering questions the next time), although transparency was considered important. An other outcome would also be to change teams (transfer your best developer to a team having issues in this area, so they can pair and the team can grow).
Participants were: Sami Lilja, Gil Nahmias, Erin Jostes, Boris Jurcic, Oliver Gommer, Paul McGregor, Remi Kok and David Kane, and some ten others whose names we did not get.
Convener: Charlene Cuenca
List of Participants: Charlene Cuenca, Becky Redeker, Frank Balogh, Don Macintyre, Scott Cothrell, John Duque, John Gouveia, David Kane, Tom Mellor
The acquisition process is known to be a cause of problems in agile development. There is an ongoing effort within the government to make the acquisition process more agile. As of today the process change has slowed but has the backing of several key members in the agile community. Discussions and recommendations: This was a collaborative round table discussion focusing on the issues within Agile projects in the government space. It was noted that different branches of the military could have different issues implementing agile processes due to the core differences in the military branches themselves. A participant stated that the Marines in general seem to be more agile – they are tasked with a problem and work as a team to resolve it out in the field. Those higher in the Marine structure will let the team form and solve the issue. In other branches, there may not be that level of cooperation. The traditional command and control structure within the government seems to hamper the agile development effort. The grassroots effort going on within the DoD seems to stall when reaching the middle management level . The acquisition process was also discussed as a reason for the slow transition to Agile processes.
Several resources were shared that were related to Agile within the Government. One was the adapt group. Also a video link was shared featuring Teri Takai.
Overall the session was useful and it was interesting to discuss the various ways that projects are implemented in various branches of the government.
Title: No Estimates: Alternatives to Estimates
Convener: Woody Zuill
Participants: There were approx. 45 participants
Discussion: We asked the question: Why do we think we need estimates?, and collected post-it notes with the reasons we “think we need estimates”
We then grouped them, and found the following groupings:
1 – Predictability (about 3/4 of the notes collected)
2 – “Go or No Go” decisions
3 – Prioritization
4 – “Fill” a Sprint with work
This led to a second rhetorical question: Why do we need predictability?
- We decided that a “5 whys” exercise should be done to get down to the bottom of the real reasons we insist that estimates are needed. We discussed the idea that MUCH of the training in the Agile field is about estimates, prioritization, sprint planning, release planning and so on, and yet there is nothing in the Agile Manifesto that points to the idea that estimates or this type of planning is needed or important. At this point we asked for discussion on possible alternatives to estimates.
A few were discussed:
- Pull discrete pieces of work
- Early and often delivery of working software
Some time was spent addressing the idea that “we still have to do estimates to be able to make software”.
Conlusion: While there are some people working without estimates, there are still many unanswered questions about how to go about doing that. It was observed that there are many different environments and while “no estimates” might work in some, it might not work in others. In other words, we had no “conclusion”, but we did have a lot of ideas we can explore when we get back with our teams and daily work.
Convener: Woody Zuill
Participants: Approx 10 people
Discussion: We shared ideas about how we’ve been finding ways to encourage learning collaboratively on our teams. The basic idea: Learning together as a team can be a way to identify the things we need to learn, and at the same time accelerate our learning. I shared a few ideas that I have seen (such as Evan Gardner and Willem Larsen’s work on accelerated group learning for language fluency), coding dojos, and other shared learning experiences. As the group discussed various experiences they have had, we captured this list and discussed each one to get the basic ideas:
- Pair programming
- Code dojos
- Actually do stuff together
- Guilds (across team sharing at “role” level)
- ”Pair” coaching
- Coaching Circle
- Coaching dojo
- Observer, both as Learning and as Master
- Expose ideas using “What I did in a similar situation” wording
- Have a “Daily Focus” each day
- like continuous integrations, TDD, etc.
- Rahil R. Patel (@freemarket)
List of Participants
- I had about 40 – 45 folks in the room
- I screwed up and didn’t take attendance.
Discussion and Recommendation:
Initial 10 minute monologue from me about our journey from the Early days of metrics centered around task hours and capacity planning through the ‘middle ages’ of metrics and then what we do today. We had an engaging conversation on what others are doing in their organization, and what’s working for them. We also discussed Metrics in the tactical context (Sprint Metrics) and the backlog context. We did run out of time to be able to discuss more on what does not work with participants and their organizations. A lot of great ideas surfaced and were discussed. I’ve provided my email to participants to feel free to contact me to continue discussing and give them examples (screen shots) of metrics that help us. I’m going to post my voice file later as I’m facing technical challenges with the file.
Convener: Gary Moore
List of participants: Tuyen Tran; Niloufar Dasti; Ian L.; Aleks Gill; Alex Kidd; Charles He; Raoul Kaiser; Jeremy Perdue; Charlene Cuenca; John D.; Mimi Sulfridge; Dimitri De Nil; Grant Meyer; Jimmy Strobe; Dave Limbaugh; Merland Halisky; Elaine Bulloch; Tom Cagley; Jadish Karira; Carmen MacKinnon; Vivek M.
The session began with Gary sharing his observations at the company he is working with: In an effort to be more successful, the development organization adopted Agile/Scrum and self-organized into 12 teams. For several reasons, the Project Management Office resisted the necessary change for Agile to thrive and became more stronger over time. The Agile development organization has suffered since because of this. For the next ~30 minutes the attendees that were experiencing similar challenges at their companies shared with the other attendees. A small number of attendees that have had positive experiences shared during the last ~15 minutes.
Some observations from the discussion:
o Some level of change needed to occur in the PMO for Agile to thrive and it happened over a long period of time (2-3 years) o Strong upper management support was needed to allow Agile teams to be respected by the PMO
o In the absence of this, some deception was necessarily (e.g. a “second set of books” with PMI metrics were derived from Agile metrics) in order to communicate project status to the larger organization
o A strong definition of roles needs to be communicated and understood so PMs/POs/SMs don’t work at cross purposes
Session Host: Andreas Schliep, Certified Scrum Coach & Trainer & Friends
Session members: [many]
About: Information and insights on how to become a Certified Scrum Coach.
Brief introduction to the CSC program, application prerequisites and process. More information: http://www.scrumalliance.org/pages/certified_scrum_coach http://www.scrumalliance.org/pages/become_a_csc
Discussion focused around what folks are doing in terms of ceremonies at a scrum of scrums level. Most folks had some form of daily/weekly meeting of scrum of scrums, however having planning, demo, and retros at that level was much rarer.
Convenor: Peter Hundermark
Participants: Not recorded (did include Tommi Johnstone, Rafael Sabbagh, Mark Summers)
The problem statement:
Newly minted Scrum Masters returning from a 2-day CSM class have a 1% probability of transforming their organization to Agile. We know organizations that get (good) coaching have a high probability of succeeding with their transformation. We wanted to discuss ideas for bridging the gap between these two extremes.
I gave a brief presentation to the class of my idea and the MVP I plan to execute with a group of fellow coaches and mentors in South Africa.
The basic idea for an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) to test the market is:
- A class of ~16 Apprentice leaders sign up for a semester programme.
- A group of at least 4 Mentors (facilitators, we have 6 in our case) formulate the programme and a potential core curriculum.
- The whole class meets face-to-face with the mentors on a monthly cadence.
- The initial meeting is 2 days to do group chartering and to co-create the learning objectives and course curriculum, using what the mentors provide as input.
- The final meeting is two days including assessments for each apprentice and a celebration. All mentors attend the initial and final meetings.
- The interim meetings are 1 day each. Two mentors facilitate on a rotational basis to provide continuity.
- The total class face time is 8 days over 20 weeks.
- In parallel with this programme each apprentice is assigned a personal mentor. Mentors have up to 4 apprentices. Apprentices get 1-2 hours/week of personal mentoring. Mentors also meet for supervision.
- Apprentices, their Sponsors and Mentors form a three-way contracting relationship to assure that value is provided and obtained. Sponsors are most likely to be the line managers of the Apprentices.
The flip charts tell more of the story.
I’ve also included my presentation slides from an Ignite talk I gave at KLNA13 in Chicago a week ago.
Some attendees shared their own experiences — see the flip charts.
There was a discussion around the challenge of valuing and selling this programme: Notionally we agreed that a CSM class will cost ~$1000 and coaching could cost $10000 to $100000+. Calculations for our MVP suggest a cost of $8000 for the programme.
The participants showed interest in the concept. Some who shared their opinions thought $8000 to be ‘cheap’. I will try to find a way to report back to the community the outcome of our MVP, which is planned to run from July to November 2013.