FAST Agile and Scrum

And Fluid Scrum Teams as the best of both?worlds

Recently, I read about FAST Agile. It struck me that this approach is promoted as the true answer to complexity, contrary to Scrum:

“Fluid Scaling Technology (FAST Agile) fills the gap for a purely complex agile method.” — Ron Quartel

The writers of the FAST Guide (version 2.1)* state Scrum isn’t suited for complex challenges. According to them, Scrum is a “boundary transition technique between complex and complicated”.

This sparked my interest. What is their argument to state Scrum isn’t suited for complex environments? What makes FAST Agile so different? Would they be able to convince me of these statements?

I decided to put my observations forward in this article. As it turns out, I began to like FAST Agile more and more. But didn’t agree with all the arguments against Scrum. I also like to combine the best of both worlds. I call it Fluid Scrum Teams.

What is FAST?Agile?

FAST Agile is a solution for software, product development and agile at scale. It claims to be suited for complex environments where collaboration is key.

“FAST is ideally suited for business environments or challenges that show complexity, rapid change, or where there is a need for innovation.” — FAST Guide 2.1 2021

FAST Agile works with a group of people up to 150. If a group grows too far past this number, it should split in two. It is based upon Open Space Technology. On top of that, it has roles, artefacts and one event. I will discuss these and by doing so share more insights on how FAST Agile works.

FAST Event

FAST Agile has only one event, the FAST Meeting. It opens and closes the Value Cycle. The Value Cycle is a period in which the Tribe is working towards specific goals. FAST Agile recommends a two-day cadence for a Value Cycle. But there’s no prescription for a length or a rhythm.

The FAST Meeting has three parts:

Phase 1 — Closing the current Value Cycle — Each team shows what they have been doing, what value they have delivered and what discoveries they made. After this, the Value Cycle is closed.

Phase 2 — Starting the next Value Cycle — The Product Director may choose to set priorities or directions for the Value Cycle.

Phase 3 — Emerging Work & Self-Selecting into Teams — People are self-organizing around the objectives and form fluid teams for one Value Cycle. Every fluid team will set a goal to achieve.

When the meeting is over, the work starts. The fluid teams work towards their goals until the new FAST Meeting. Then phase 1 of the next cycle will begin and the fluid teams will dissolve the tribe.

“FAST is a facilitation process for dynamically assembling teams around emerging work.” — FAST Guide?2.1

FAST Roles

In FAST Agile, a tribe is a group of people that organize around work. Key aspects of a tribe are autonomy, shared purpose, mastery, technical excellence, collaboration and self-organization.

The following roles exist:

Product Director — This person approaches the group as a leader and product manager and communicates a clear vision.

Tribe Member — This is a T-shaped person, having expertise in one area. They also have the capability to collaborate on other aspects. The Tribe Member is committed to delivering and collaborating. Amongst other things.

Team Steward — This is a Tribe Member with a natural leadership role to steward a part of the work in a Value Cycle. This is a fluid role, as the teams are fluid too.

FAST Artefacts

Artefacts represent and are used to track complex work. I will list them below with a brief explanation. For in-depth information, I suggest reading the FAST Guide.

Opportunity Map — Opportunity mapping is an extension of Story Mapping. It differs from Story Mapping as it focuses on the high-level elements only. Tribes use it to visualize the big picture.

Discovery Tree — This is a technique to discover the work required to address a high-level item. It helps to track the progress.

Marketplace Board — This board shows what is happening in the current Value Cycle and who is on which fluid team.

Tribe Agreements — This artefact has the rules and mechanics of tribe self-management. They exist to create and protect harmony and psychological safety.

Also

FAST Agile has many recommended practices involving leadership in complex environments and self-organizing teams. Examples are:

• Open Space Technology
• Lean Startup
• Wisdom of Crowds

I will not cover these. It would make my article too long and it wouldn’t help to better explain FAST Agile. But I mention the existence because FAST Agile is more than roles, artefacts and the Value Cycle.

What do the writers of FAST Agile claim about Scrum (and are they correct)?

The writers of the FAST Guide claim their approach does work in purely complex environments while Scrum doesn’t.

This is a bold claim. Especially because Scrum has always been designed for complex environments. I use the FAST Guide and this article from Ron Quartel to discuss these claims.

Claim 1 — “Scrum isn’t for purely complex environments”

I will write a separate article about this to assess the nuances. It wouldn’t serve the clarity of this article if I did that deep dive here. But it boils down to the statement that Scrum would not work for purely complex systems (of the Cynefin model).

Ron Quartel states Scrum is suited for the border area between Complex and Complicated domains, Dave Snowden refers to this as ‘Liminal’ which I describe below).

Agile methods mapped onto the Cynefin Model — Ron Quartel

I believe this depiction doesn’t do Scrum justice. I agree many teams and organizations are using Scrum as if their environment is in the liminal zone between complex and complicated. But there are two caveats:

1 — The liminal zone between complex and complicated is in the complex domain. It is wrongly depicted in Ron’s article and the picture above.

2 — Many Scrum teams try to cling to practices from the complicated domain. In doing so, they ignore the complexity of their environment. They don’t use the full potential of Scrum.

Here is how I view the positions of Scrum and FAST Agile:

Based upon the Cynefin model from Dave Snowden — WJ Ageling

When you compare the two pictures, from Ron and me, you can see I disagree with the claim. Scrum IS suited for a complex environment. That said, I do see how FAST Agile has a better answer than Scrum to the more complex environments. The reasons are the fluid teams and fluid iteration length.

FAST Agile takes into account that the types of issues to tackle and types of goals to achieve can vary every Value Cycle. It acknowledges that this requires a different group of people every time.

Claim 2 — “FAST scales in and by itself. Scrum needs something else to?scale”

It is untrue that Scrum needs something else to scale. It is one of my favourite topics to debunk. But this time, I gladly recommend Sjoerd Nijland’s article about this very topic.

Claim 3 — “Lower cost of ownership compared to Scrum. No agile master per team required just one coach per?tribe”

Scrum doesn’t state every team needs a different “Agile Master”/ Scrum Master. The situation as depicted for FAST Agile fits perfectly within Scrum.

Claim 4 — “FAST Agile is resilient to command and control and micromanagement imposition.” (Scrum is?not)

In theory, both Scrum and FAST Agile are anti command and control. Scrum, sadly, is often misused to have command and control. Who’s to say this won’t happen with FAST Agile?

As an example: suppose a manager determines the team compositions at the start of a Value Cycle. This is not what FAST Agile is about. Just like the many examples we see with Scrum of using it in a different way than “prescribed”.

Claims about Scrum?debunked

When you create a new concept, I understand why you would compare it to Scrum. Especially when you bring it as an alternative for Scrum. As I see it, FAST Agile serves a different purpose. It aims to tackle topics that are very complex, even bordering the chaos area.

But the above claims about Scrum are false. And this revelation changes the dynamic between FAST Agile and Scrum and opens new opportunities.

FAST Agile and Scrum: Fluid Scrum?Teams

The fluid teams of FAST Agile is a concept I recognized immediately. I have worked with larger Scrum teams that organized around different objectives for every Sprint. They worked on these objectives in smaller teams. Each smaller team focused on their own objective during a Sprint. These are essentially Fluid (Scrum) Teams.

I wrote about it earlier here. At the Sprint Planning, the Product Owner can propose a number of objectives. The developers of a fluid team organize themselves around their objectives. They determine who does what. Here’s an example of how it can work.

After publishing my articles about Fluid Scrum Teams, many have approached me with examples of how they have also worked like this. Some felt bad about it because “you should always strive for stable Scrum Teams”. Others decided to work like this, believing they deviated from Scrum doing so. I believe Fluid Scrum Teams are a good and natural thing and they match with Scrum.

One step further: can FAST Agile and Scrum go hand in?hand?

So, Fluid Scrum Teams is an inspiring concept that allows for more flexibility to address complex topics in Scrum. But can FAST Agile and Scrum go hand in hand?

To understand the possibilities, let’s look at how the practices compare.

FAST Agile Roles vs Scrum accountabilities

The description of the Product Director resembles a Scrum Product Owner. The Tribe member is equivalent to a Scrum Developer. The Team Steward has a lot of similarities to a Scrum Master.

Sure, there are specifics to the roles in FAST Agile that you don’t see prescribed in Scrum. A FAST Team Steward, for instance, can be a different person every Value Cycle. Scrum doesn’t discuss this for a Scrum Master. But it is absolutely possible to apply it like this in Scrum too. A FAST Product Director is a leader in Product Management. This could also be the case for a Scrum Product Owner.

FAST Agile Artefacts vs Scrum Artifacts

The Opportunity Map is a type of Product Backlog. FAST Agile is specific in the kind of techniques to use. Scrum is intentionally leaving this to the team.

The Discovery Tree and Marketplace Board are ways to depict a Sprint Backlog. Also here, Scrum doesn’t prescribe the technique and FAST Agile does.

Scrum can be supplemented with all FAST Agile artefacts without conflicting with Scrum.

FAST Agile Events vs Scrum?Events

The Value Cycle is not an event in FAST Agile. But it resembles a Sprint. There’s a major difference: Value Cycles have no prescription for a length or a rhythm. Sprints do have a fixed length. Also, Value Cycles are very short. Two days is recommended. It is very short and Scrum Sprints are typically longer. But two-day Sprints can work in Scrum.

The FAST Meeting is similar to a combination of a Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospectives and a Sprint Planning.

FAST Agile does not have Daily Scrums. But having these would not disrupt that framework.

Verdict: two different approaches, but many?options

FAST Agile and Scrum are both frameworks to address complex environments. The major difference between FAST Agile and Scrum is that the iteration in FAST Agile can vary length every time. Scrum has iterations of fixed lengths. This means we are looking at two different approaches.

But FAST Agile has events, roles and artefacts that fit perfectly well in Scrum too. Everything fits, except for the traits of a Value Cycle.

I highly recommend checking out FAST Agile. It may fit you better than Scrum. For example, when your environment is close to chaotic.

You could also use the concept of fluid teams in Scrum: Fluid Scrum Teams. This brings additional adaptability to address a variety of work.

The least you will gain from checking out FAST Agile is that you gain a better understanding of working in complex environments.

Do you want to write for Serious Scrum or seriously discuss Scrum?

*The writers of FAST Guide 2.1 are Ron Quartel, Ardita Karaj, Dafydd Reis, Quinn Gil, Pablo Delgado, Jeff (Cheezy) Morgan, Paige Watson, Sam Higham