Pea Pods & Connecting the Upstream
@martinaziz@fer_cuenca
Fernando A. Cuenca, KCP Martin Aziz, KCP
fernando.a.cuenca@gmail.com martinaziz@gmail.com
The Case for Organizational Flow
Companies need to pay attention to end to end flow.
Local optimization will only offer you temporary relief in
solving your business challenges.
Punctuated Equilibriums. A multi-year journey of
transformation and emerging maturity.
Punctuation
Points
At Equilibrium
Managed Projects
Some consistent
process
Heroics
Inconsistent
Outcomes
Scrum
Consistent
Outcomes
Teams & Tribes
Scrum
All Teams
No projects
No managers
Business needs
unmet.
2016 ->2014-2015< - 2013
Equilibrium
Time
Need
something
more!
5 to 7 Months
Releasable FeaturesPea pods.
From Years to Months – Highly Stable
But still
not fit.
Give up point.
Committed demand
with an expired
opportunity
Soup Kitchens.
Overburdening & Over Servicing
Why is this happening to us?
Customers
Products &
Services
A company responding to the
environment
Dedicated
ScrumMasters
Dedicated
Product Owners Cross-
functional, small
teams
Decentralized Control & Capacity
Management
Customers
Product
Owners
Customers have expectations of
performance & delivery.
Tribal Identifies, Inward-looking local
optimization
Where is my
stuff?
What am I
going to get
at the end?
Why does it
take this long?
Seems to work
for me….
End to End Measurement for
Fitness
Comes from
different sources
Comes in different types,
requiring different
processing
It has different
frequencies of
arrival
It has different
levels of urgency,
Importance, and
cost of delay It has different
perceived value
Cost of Delay and Heterogeneous
demand
Is the teams local
agenda an issue?
+
Local
Improvement
Effort
Complexity
of Problem
+
+Number
of Teams
Tribal
Behaviour
How does this impact
Lead Time and Fitness
for Purpose?
‐
Complexity
of
Problem
+?
Lead
Time
Fit for
Purpose
Senior
Stakeholder
Customer
Commitment
Push
Queue
Commitment, Push and
Overburdening
What is the effect of a
disconnect between
commitments and capacity?
Potential for overburdening
Implicitness of
Commitment
Point
Distance
between Teams &
Commitment
Point
Overburdening
+
+
White Spaces, Revealed Complexity
& Batch Sizes
Delivery “chains”
Shared team
members
Internal “shared
services”
Person with
very specialized
skills “floating”
around teams
“External” team
members
Overburdening
and white spaces.
Have we found the
link to Fitness?
+
‐
‐
Over-
burdening
Coordination
effort +
White Space
‐
‐
Number
of
Teams
Flow
Efficiency
Lead
Time
Fit for
Purpose
What about batch sizes?
Reinforcing relationship to
transaction costs. Feeds
Dark Matter. Amplifies lead
time.
+
+
Transaction
Cost
+Lead
Time
Batch
Size
Decomposition
Recognizability and
Transaction Costs
Some stay the
same
Some are re-
aggregated and
batchedSome describe
business
functionality
Some are purely
technical tasks
Some have
internal
dependencies
Some are sent
to other team’s
backlogs
Where does
decomposition
take us?
Loss of Customer
Recognizability.
Losing your link to
the customer.
Number
of Teams
Tribal
Behaviour
+
+
Decomposition
+
Customer
Recognizability
Flow
Efficiency
‐
Batch Size
Local
Improvement
Effort
+
+
Lead
Time
Fit for
Purpose
‐
Implicitness of
Commitment
Point
Distance
between Teams &
Commitment
Point
+
Overburdening
‐
+
Complexity
of Problem
Coordination
effort +
White Space
+
‐
‐
+
+
+
+
+
+
‐
+
Transaction
Cost
‐
Decomposition
Customer
Recognizability
Sprints are predictably 
delivered every 2 weeks but 
not exploitable
5 to 7 Months
Releasable Features
DARK MATTER arrives
or is revealed during a long batch. Unrecognizable 
by customer
Batch has high 
transaction 
costs. 
Understanding the Pea Pod
Changing the System
Number
of Teams
Tribal
Behaviour
+
+
Decomposition
+
Customer
Recognizability
Flow
Efficiency
‐
Batch Size
Local
Improvement
Effort
+
+
Lead
Time
Fit for
Purpose
‐
Implicitness of
Commitment
Point
Distance
between Teams &
Commitment
Point
+
Overburdening
‐
+
Complexity
of Problem
Coordination
effort +
White Space
+
‐
‐
+
+
+
+
+
‐
+
Transaction
Cost
‐
Constraints
‐ ‐
Explicit
Commitment
‐
Pull
Policies
Measurement
‐
‐
Service
Orientation
+
System level
changes for the
organization.
Service
Orientation
Constraints
Explicit
Policies Pull
Policies
Measure-
ment
1. Constraints
2. Service Orientation
3. Measuring
4. Pull
5. Policies
Number
of Teams
Tribal
Behaviour
+
+
Decomposition
+
Customer
Recognizability
Flow
Efficiency
‐
Batch Size
Local
Improvement
Effort
+
+
Lead
Time
Fit for
Purpose
‐
Implicitness of
Commitment
Point
Distance
between Teams &
Commitment
Point
+
Overburdening
‐
+
Complexity
of Problem
Coordination
effort +
White Space
+
‐
‐
+
+
+
+
+
+
‐
+
Transaction
Cost
‐
Sense
& Promise
Push
Stories
Scrum
Team
Scrum
Team
XP
Team
Story
Accumulation
FeaturesIdeas
Kanban
Team
Customers
Delivery
Customers
Doing
White spaces between teams
sources of greatest delays.
Work hard to recognize by
customers
Unconstrained demand
Early
Commitment
without
connection to
capability
Key challenges of the
system
Linking Upstream Flow to
Downstream Capacity
Sense
Pull
Features
Option
Do Next
Ideas
CustomersDelivery
Customers
Options
Do
Options
Good
Constrained delivery
pipeline
Upstream Downstream
Progress Customer
Recognizable. No
longer expressed
as a team property.
Delivery Improvements
aligned to optimize for
value delivery
Work is pulled into delivery
pipe automatically as
capacity becomes
available. Push is avoided
to prevent overburdening.
Shaping Demand
Board for Enterprise Flow. 3 levels of Constraints
Shaping
Uncommitted
Options
Maintaining
Recognizability
in the
downstream.
F4P
Feedback
Loop to
improve
selection
and delivery
Work
Stream
pull
Eliminating pea pods.
Look
beyond
teams
Constrain
throughout
the enterprise
Maintain
Customer
Recognizability
at all times
Commit
based on
capacity
signals
How to reach us to keep the conversation going
@martinaziz@fer_cuenca
fernando.a.cuenca@gmail.com martin.aziz@loyalty.com

Pea Pods & Connecting the Upstream - Lean Kanban North America 2018