Agile Education Case Study

Case Study

Summary: Enhancing Agile Workflows with Shorter Planning Cycles

The Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), an educational non-profit specializing in educational assessments, faced significant challenges in scaling its Agile processes. The engineering department, with 19 Scrum teams spread across four value streams, required a way to manage interdependencies and provide visibility to stakeholders. Three years prior, NWEA implemented a scaled Agile planning framework that revolved around quarterly planning cycles. These cycles were meant to align all teams, identify risks, and establish a roadmap for the coming three months. However, the lack of flexibility and responsiveness inherent in this system began to clash with the evolving demands of product development. To address these challenges, Heidi Nibouar and her team introduced a shorter planning cycle and a Product Value Workflow. The goal was to foster greater iteration, involve Scrum teams earlier, and increase the frequency of value delivery. This case study explores the difficulties NWEA encountered, the solutions they tested, and the results achieved.

Challenges

Mismatch Between Planning and Work Types:

• Predictable vs. Unpredictable Work: The quarterly planning process worked well for predictable, well-defined projects where technology and scope were known. This “known work” could be meticulously planned out and scheduled with clear dependencies. However, for “unknown work”—projects where the scope evolved, technology was new, and feedback was needed as the team progressed—the quarterly planning model created conflicts. Teams handling unknown work found it nearly impossible to commit to three-month timelines, leading to constant struggles during planning sessions.
• Rigid Structure: This rigid approach highlighted a major flaw. Unpredictable work couldn’t adapt within the quarterly constraints, causing stress and disruptions in execution. Teams felt bound to unrealistic commitments, which constrained their ability to be Agile and responsive.

Morale and Ownership Issues:

• Pressure to Commit: Teams felt pressured to commit to a fixed three-month timeline without having a clear understanding of what the work entailed. This pressure was especially pronounced among teams dealing with unknown work, where requirements and technology choices evolved as the project unfolded.
• Imbalance in Responsibility: Although upstream roles like product management, UX, and architecture were involved earlier in the process, Scrum teams still bore the brunt of creating and executing the three-month plans. Understandably, this imbalance made the development teams feel overburdened and led to a lack of ownership and accountability among other roles.
• Impact on User Experience: Initially, the three-month cycle hampered the teams’ ability to incorporate user feedback during development. This delay sometimes resulted in delivering solutions that did not fully meet user needs, lowering user satisfaction.

Missed Dependencies and Scheduling Issues:

• Coordination Challenges: The quarterly planning process often led to unforeseen scheduling issues when dependencies emerged mid-cycle. Teams working on unknown work frequently discovered critical dependencies on other teams after planning was locked in. Undoubtedly, this created a domino effect. Many teams were blocked by others, forcing them to wait for the next planning cycle to accommodate changes.
• Missed Deadlines: This lack of visibility into mid-cycle dependencies caused teams to miss delivery commitments, further stressing the already strained planning model.

Approach

Introducing Accelerated Planning Intervals and the Increment Check-In:

• Shorter Planning Cycles: First, to improve flexibility, Heidi and her team proposed shorter planning cycles, shifting from three months to one month. Straightaway, this shorter cycle allowed teams to adapt more quickly, accommodating emerging information and shifting priorities without sacrificing alignment.
• Focus on Initiatives: Next, the teams decided to focus on a single “initiative” or major goal per month, akin to a large “epic.” This would allow for deep concentration on critical areas without the distractions of multiple competing priorities.
• Cross-Functional Involvement: The team expanded the planning process to include all relevant stakeholders, not just the Scrum teams. Specifically, they brought product managers, UX designers, architects, and other contributors into the planning process earlier.  This helped to establish shared understanding and collective ownership of initiatives.

Monthly Review and Realignment:

• Structured Monthly Meetings: Each month began with a meeting involving all key stakeholders, including business, product, research, design, and the Scrum team. The agenda covered strategy updates, user feedback, past accomplishments, planned work, and retrospectives. Significantly, this structure ensured that everyone had a clear view of the work being done and allowed for a quicker pivot if priorities needed to change.
• Continuous Feedback Loop: After each monthly meeting, participants provided feedback through surveys and debrief sessions to assess the value and effectiveness of the meetings. They made monthly adjustments to refine the format, agenda, and participants to increase the event’s value.

Tracking and Adapting Based on Results:

• Pulse Surveys: A feedback mechanism was established to regularly gauge team morale, alignment, and stakeholder satisfaction. These insights were used to continuously iterate on the check-in model. Heidi and her teams addressed any concerns and ensured the process was beneficial for all involved.
• Scaling Experiment: Initially, the experiment began with one Scrum team and one initiative. Over six months, as success metrics indicated improvement, the experiment expanded to include additional teams and initiatives, scaling up the approach.

Outcomes and Key Results after Implementing Condensed Planning Timelines

Higher Morale and Reduced Pressure:

• Pressure to Commit Reduced: With the shorter planning cycle, 70% of development team members reported less pressure to commit to unknown work, as they could adjust plans monthly based on the latest information.
• Increase in Employee Engagement: The employee engagement score, which had been negative (-16%), jumped to 60% within six months. Certainly, while other factors were at play, the shift to a more flexible and inclusive planning approach was a significant contributor to this improvement.

Enhanced Ability to Pivot and Deliver Value due to Shorter Planning Cycles:

• Better Responsiveness to Feedback: 84% of team members confirmed that the new monthly check-ins allowed them to shift directions based on user feedback, eliminating prior cases of delivering unfit MVPs.
• Zero Non-Viable MVPs: Under the new process, there were no instances where teams delivered MVPs that couldn’t be released due to unmet user needs—a stark contrast to the challenges faced under the quarterly cycle.

Improved Collaboration and Dependency Management:

• Better Upstream-Downstream Collaboration: 65% of participants noted an improvement in collaboration, reporting that the new model fostered a more unified approach between upstream (planning, UX) and downstream (development) activities.
• No Missed Deliverables: After the first six months, with the addition of a second team to the monthly check-ins, there were no more instances of missed deliverables due to unidentified dependencies. Certainly, this was a testament to the improved visibility and alignment.

Successful Scaling and Adaptability:

• Scalable Model: The monthly increment check-in proved adaptable and scalable. As the experiment expanded to include more teams, the positive results persisted, validating the effectiveness of the shorter planning cadence.
• Increased Quality of Deployments: Teams were able to deploy higher-quality solutions due to increased feedback cycles and more frequent retrospectives. Overall, this iterative approach significantly improved the overall user experience and product reliability.

Conclusion

NWEA’s journey to evolve its planning model highlights the challenges of balancing predictability and adaptability in Agile environments. The rigid, quarterly planning process clashed with the dynamic needs of unknown work, prompting Heidi and her team to innovate. By pulling in affected team members and experimenting with shorter planning cycles, NWEA was able to establish a more flexible and iterative approach. This transformation not only improved morale and engagement but also led to better collaboration, higher-quality deployments, and more frequent delivery of value. The case emphasizes the importance of maintaining agility within Agile processes and shows how involving the right people at the right time can yield substantial, measurable improvements in organizational outcomes.

About Heidi Nibouar

Heidi Nibouar is an Agile Coach and Registered Scrum@Scale Trainer™. She is a results-oriented web development professional with vast experience increasing profitability within organizations. Heidi has served a Scrum Master, Product Owner, and Agile Coach, and has extensive experience in Product and Project Management. She has proven strengths in enhanced usability, process conception and implementation, statistical analysis, and adaptive communication.

More Scrum@Scale Case Studies