Capability vs. Maturity: Transforming Agile Team Performance in Software Development
In the realm of software development, there’s been a paradigm shift from questioning, "How mature is my Agile team?" to "How capable is my Agile team?" This shift is crucial as we consider the evolution of Agile practices within the industry. In her influential book "Accelerate," Nicole Forsgren advocates for a capabilities-based model rather than a maturity-focused approach to assess and improve software development practices.
The crux of the discussion often centers around tools like Lean Agile Intelligence, which is designed to measure the depth of an Agile team's practices through surveys derived from industry-specific literature. While initially perceived as a tool for maturity assessment, it actually aligns more closely with capability models, such as CMMI, emphasizing continuous improvement and adaptation.
In this discussion, we distance ourselves from promoting any specific tool and instead concentrate on how the principles underlying the CMMI model can enhance DORA metrics—a set of key performance indicators for software development. This approach aligns with Forsgren's perspective, which cautions against viewing technology transformation as a destination to be reached. Instead, she underscores the importance of viewing it as a journey marked by ongoing progress and the development of key capabilities.
Maturity Models vs. Capabilities: A Journey, Not a Destination
Forsgren's insights shed light on the limitations of maturity models in a constantly changing field. Maturity models, like CMMI, are based on reaching levels of maturity, which can inadvertently suggest a finish line. While they outline a path to process refinement and efficiency, they might imply an end state—a point at which an organization has 'arrived'. This concept, however, is at odds with the nature of technology, which is perpetually in flux. The goalposts are always moving, and what constitutes 'success' evolves as swiftly as the technology itself.
Conversely, capabilities focus on continuous improvement. They offer a direction rather than a destination, acknowledging that there is no finality in the technological sphere. There is no 'arrival'; there is only progression, adaptation, and enhancement. Aligning with the principles of DORA metrics, the capabilities approach ensures that organizations remain in a state of constant evolution, always iterating always advancing.
领英推荐
?Intersecting CMMI Principles and DORA with a Capability-Focused Approach
Integrating the principles of the progression model of CMMI with the real-time feedback of DORA metrics while adopting a capability-focused approach can lead to a powerful framework for ongoing improvement. As teams navigate the CMMI levels, DORA metrics should reflect the incremental enhancements in performance. This continuous loop of feedback and development aligns perfectly with the capabilities approach, encouraging perpetual growth rather than resting on the laurels of a maturity level reached.
This continuous improvement paradigm echoes the ethos of martial arts, where practitioners are in an endless pursuit of refinement and mastery. Similarly, in software development, the blend of structured growth from CMMI and empirical insights from DORA metrics, when taken through the lens of capabilities, directs teams to become more competitive, secure, and reliable.
?Conclusion: A Dynamic Future for Software Development
?The future of software development is not static, nor should the models and metrics we use to gauge success. Forsgren's advocacy for a capabilities model over maturity models is a call to action for organizations to embrace the relentless pace of technological advancement. Maturity might indicate where you are, but capabilities emphasize where you can go—and in the digital age, that's an infinite landscape of possibilities. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, informed by both CMMI and DORA metrics, organizations can ensure that they are not just reaching for the next belt level but are also prepared to adapt to the new challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
Robert Legatie , Thank you for the conversation that led me to put some pen to paper.
Value Creation Strategist - Transformation | Agile | Measurement| Change Management | Flow | AI
1 年Very refreshing James....and a reminder "why" I placed a big bet on my hypothesis that enabling teams to align improvements to outcomes would be a tremendous value add to organizations, with the building of Lean Agile Intelligence Inc. six years ago.?? My resilience has undoubtedly been tested:) I have seen many organizations choose out-of-the-box maturity models instead of a customized measurement strategy offered by LAI to empower teams to improve capabilities that will lead to desired outcomes. At one point, I was ready to say "uncle, I guess the joke is on me." A mentor of mine once told me that the idea/product was ahead of its time. I was floored; who wouldn't want to align improvements to outcomes?? Turns out he was right...we have now seen those companies that opted for the out-of-the-box maturity model return to LAI to develop the capabilities that matter to them. Oh, and so that they can save some cash on those expensive consultants who were touting those maturity models:)?? So it is safe to say, we at LAI are also starting to see this shift.??We are stoked because we truly believe it will lead to happier teams, customers, and shareholders!
CTO | AI & Enterprise Digtial Transformation Technology Leader | ￡21M+ Operational Modernizer | 40%+Efficiency Driver | Global Keynote Speaker | DevOps Author
1 年All models are wrong some are useful - George Box (1976), Capability and Maturity go hand-in-hand. CMMI, Maturity models, frameworks, etc..., if they make us think about and act on how we can drive value to our customers sooner by improving the system, then let's embrace them for what they are. Of course, tracking them and adding them to our workflow using tools like LAI, automation and good guidance from experts who are helping organizations become self-sufficient rather than stuck paying for high-priced powerpoints from XYZ consultants. That is why I like CMMI+dozens of other great ways of working :) Thanks for the article; CI (continuous improvement) has no final destination, just great goals and milestones with PDSA (Plan, do, study, act) along the way. Tactec Strategic Solutions Inc. ??
Leadership | Agile | Project Management | Operational Excellence | Business Process Improvements
1 年Great perspective! Thanks for sharing!
Continuous Improvement Manager at Vanguard
1 年A very nice piece of writing, James. Thanks for sharing it and for furthering the conversations that drive improvement.
Product Management Executive | Product Strategist | Innovation-Minded | Successful P&L Leader | Client Engagement Evangelist | Culture of Continuous Improvement Leader | Product Operations
1 年Great discussion point James! As a leader who firmly believes in facilitating a culture of continuous improvement, I am always amazed by the inevitable push-back by those who feel they are already at the ideal destination. Staying on the path to continuous improvement is hard work and requires constant vigilance. At a team level, you need to be armed with data, you need to constantly look at the data and everyone needs to determine how to make improvements -every sprint. The retrospective is the key ceremony! When you take your eye off the data to drive improvements, then you are really consciously deciding to leave the path. Sometimes that is necessary to leave the path for a short time, but leadership needs to be there to help get everyone back on the path. Incidentally, this is the reason I am a firm believer in capacity-based sprint planning over velocity-based sprint planning. The latter provides very little data that the teams can use to help find areas of improvement. The use of velocity-based sprint planning is usually justified in the "we have always done it this way" or "our teams are mature enough to run it that way", both of which hold little water in reality.