Shape at the right level of abstraction

Shape in a separate track

Address risks upfront (rabbit holes)

Six-week cycles

Small integrated teams

Uninterrupted time

The circuit breaker

Make teams responsible for projects, instead of tasks (Variable scope)

One piece at a time & scope mapping

You can set an appetite, but without uninterrupted time, this appetite means little

At the betting table, you bet what appetite you want to spend

Shaping would distract the teams during the cycle

If we were to run six-week cycles back to back, there wouldn’t be any time to breathe and think about what’s next.

The highest people in the company are there. There’s no “step two” to validate the plan or get approval. And nobody else can jump in afterward to interfere or interrupt the scheduled work.
This buy-in from the very top is essential to making the cycles turn properly.

Make teams responsible for projects, instead of tasks.(Variable scope)

Shaping at the right level of abstraction, creates freedom for the engineers and designers to handle a project, instead of execute predefined tasks.

A variable scope, without an appetite can lead to runaway projects. Appetite guides team with the variability of scope

If you don't take away the biggest risks, you are setting up your team for failure and they risk spending way too much time

The boundaries act like guard rails. They channel the team’s efforts, making sure they don’t build too much or wander around.

Six weeks is short enough that everyone can feel the deadline looming from the start, so they use the time wisely.

In a modular approach, can't hand over entire projects. Will need other teams as well

The circuit breaker motivates teams to take more ownership over their projects. As we’ll see in the next chapter, teams are given full responsibility for executing projects. That includes making trade-offs about implementation details and choosing where to cut scope. You can’t ship without making hard decisions about where to stop, what to compromise, and what to leave out. A hard deadline and the chance of not shipping motivates the team to regularly question how their design and implementation decisions are affecting the scope.

Scope mapping, helps teams be succesful when they have to manage their own projects. Instead of get predefined tasks

Nobody wants to raise their hand to management and say “I don’t know how to solve this problem.” This causes teams to hide uncertainty and accumulate risk. The moments when somebody is stuck or going in circles are where the biggest risks and opportunities lie. If we catch those moments early, we can address them with help from someone senior or by reworking the concept. If we don’t catch them, the unsolved problems could linger so far into the cycle that they endanger the project.The hill chart allows everybody to see that somebody might be stuck without them actually saying it.

If all the tasks are already predefined, it doesn't make sense to do one piece at a time (scope mapping)

Can't do 1 piece at a time if your team isn't integrated. A modular team implies a handover happens

Can't do one piece at a time, and scope mapping, if the tasks have already been predefined. This requires the freedom of a variable scope

"These concepts form a virtuous circle. When teams are more autonomous, senior people can spend less time managing them. With less time spent on management, senior people can shape up better projects. When projects are better shaped, teams have clearer boundaries and so can work more autonomously."

Does Y help do X?