The Dark Side of the Scaling Frameworks

Scaling frameworks help us handle complexity but don't make us reduce it.

Dancing with Dependencies:

How to Balance Agile Scaling Frameworks and Organizational Complexity Reduction

Imagine trying to synchronize a massive, intricate dance involving 10, 20, or even 30 teams, all working towards a single, harmonious goal. Sounds like a scene straight out of a Broadway production, right? Well, that's what it's like when you have a colossal product, and you're trying to align multiple teams to work seamlessly together on the same code base.

Enter the world of Agile Scaling frameworks - LeSS, SAFe, Scrum@Scale, Nexus, the mythical Spotify model, Flight levels, and many, many others. These frameworks promise to teach us the choreography we need to make our teams dance in sync, aligning trains to value streams and streamlining features through Kanban.

But wait! There's a twist in this dance. While these frameworks help us handle organizational complexity and dependencies, they don't really lead us to reduce that complexity or remove the dependencies. They may even add some extra steps to the dance, making it more challenging to get back to the simple elegance of small, independent teams with true agility.

So, why do organizations choose to adopt these frameworks instead of investing in reducing complexity?

Because it's like getting a quick-fix, short-term dance lesson instead of investing in long-term, professional training. Implementing a scaling framework is often cheaper and easier in the short run, but it can leave us with organizational debt, similar to technical debt in software.

And here's the real kicker: Conway's law states that a solution's design will evolve to mimic the organization's design, meaning that our complex dance will eventually be reflected in the complexity of our product. We end up in a vicious circle where organizational debt turns into technical debt.

Should we ditch the frameworks and stick to the basics? Not exactly. These frameworks can be helpful, but we need to approach them with caution and a long-term strategy.

First, choose a minimalist framework that closely resembles your current organizational state and can easily be adapted to your dream state.

Second, have a plan for reducing technical and organizational complexity. Develop best practices, guidelines, and standards, and constantly invest in removing organizational debt and refactoring your organization along with your solution. Take advantage of Conway's law by reducing technical complexity, which will lead to reduced organizational complexity.

Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.

You'll need to invest time, effort, and resources into reducing dependencies and complexity, just as you would with tech debt. The good news is that the return on investment will come back incrementally, allowing you to enjoy the fruits of your labor sooner than you think.

Finally, embrace the dance. When deciding between adopting frameworks or investing in reducing complexity, always go back to the core principles. Find the balance between short-term gains and long-term goals, and you'll be well on your way to a more agile and efficient organization.

Scale principles, not practices.

In conclusion, keep dancing with dependencies, but don't forget to simplify your steps along the way. Scale principles, not practices. That way, you'll be able to strike the perfect balance between using Agile Scaling frameworks and reducing organizational complexity, ensuring a harmonious performance for your entire organization.