Rethink Your Understanding

Transforming Software Delivery

philc

We Have Metrics. Now What?

by

6 min read

A Guide for Legacy-Minded Leaders on Using Metrics to Drive the Right Behavior

From Outputs to Outcomes

A senior executive recently asked a VP of Engineering and the Head of Architecture for industry benchmarks on Flow Metrics. At first, this seemed like a positive step, shifting the focus from individual output to team-level outcomes. However, the purpose of the request raised concerns. These benchmarks were intended to evaluate engineering managers’ performance for annual reviews and possibly bonuses.

That’s a problem. Using system-level metrics to judge individual performance is a common mistake. It might look good on paper but often hides deeper issues. This approach is for senior leaders adopting team-level metrics who want to use them effectively. You’ve chosen better metrics. Now, let’s make sure they work as intended. It risks turning system-level signals into personal scorecards, creating the dysfunction these metrics are meant to reveal and improve. Using metrics this way negates their value and invites gaming over genuine improvement.

To clarify, the executive’s team structure follows the Engineering Manager (EM) model, where EMs are responsible for the performance of the delivery team. In contrast, I support an alternative approach with autonomous teams built around team topologies. These teams include all the roles needed to deliver value, without a manager embedded in the team. These are two common but very different models of team structure and performance evaluation.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen senior leaders misuse qualitative metrics, and it likely won’t be the last. So I asked myself: Now that more leaders have agreed to adopt the right metrics, do they know how to use them responsibly?

I will admit that I was frustrated to learn of this request, but the event inspired me to create a guide for leaders, especially those used to traditional, output-focused models who are new to Flow Metrics and team-level measurement. You’ve picked the right metrics; now comes the challenge: using them effectively without causing harm.

How to Use Team Metrics Without Breaking Trust or the System

1. Start by inviting teams into the process

  • Don’t tell them, “Flow Efficiency must go up 10%.”
  • Ask instead: “Here’s what the data shows. What’s behind this? What could we try?”

Why: Positive intent. Teams already want to improve. They’ll take ownership if you bring them into the process and give them time and space to act. Top-down mandates might push short-term results, but they usually kill long-term improvement.

2. Understand inputs vs. outputs

  • Output metrics (like Flow Time, PR throughput, or change failure rate) are results. You don’t control them directly.
  • Input metrics (like review turnaround time or number of unplanned interruptions) reflect behaviors teams can change.

Why: If you set targets on outputs, teams won’t know what to do. That’s when you get gaming or frustration. Input metrics give teams something they can improve. That’s how you get real system-level change.

I’ve been saying this for a while, and I like how Abi Noda and the DX team explain it: input vs. output metrics. It’s the same thing as leading vs. lagging indicators. Focus on what teams can influence, not just what you want to see improve.

3. Don’t turn metrics into targets

When a measure becomes a target, it stops being useful.

  • Don’t turn system health metrics into KPIs.
  • If people feel judged by a number, they’ll focus on making the number look good instead of fixing the system.

Why: You’ll get shallow progress, not real change. And you won’t know the difference because the data will look better. The cost? Lost trust, lower morale, and bad decisions.

4. Always add context

  • Depending on the situation, a 10-day Flow Time might be great or terrible.
  • Ask about the team’s product, the architecture, the kind of work they do, and how much unplanned work they handle.

Why: Numbers without context are misleading. They don’t tell the story. If you act on them without understanding what’s behind them, you’ll create the wrong incentives and fix the bad things.

5. Set targets the right way

  • Not every metric needs a goal.
  • Some should trend up; others should stay stable.
  • Don’t use blanket rules like “improve everything by 10%.”

Why: Metrics behave differently. Some take months to move. Others can be gamed easily. Think about what makes sense for that metric in that context. Real improvement takes time; chasing the wrong number can do more harm than good.

6. Tie metrics back to outcomes and the business

  • Don’t just say, “Flow Efficiency improved.” Ask, what changed?
    • Did we deliver faster?
    • Did we reduce the cost of delay?
    • Did we create customer value?

If you’ve read my other posts, I recommend tying every epic and initiative to an anticipated outcome. That mindset also applies to metrics. Don’t just look at the number. Ask what value it represents.

Also, it’s critical that teams use metrics to identify their bottleneck. That’s the key. Real flow improvement comes from fixing the biggest constraint.

If you improve something downstream of the bottleneck, you’re not improving flow. You’re just making things look better in one part of the system. It’s localized and often a wasted effort.

Why: If the goal is better business outcomes, you must connect what the team does with how it moves the needle. Metrics are just the starting point for that conversation.

7. Don’t track too many things

  • Stick to 3-5 input metrics at a time.
  • Make these part of retrospectives, not just leadership dashboards.

Why: Focus drives improvement. If everything is a priority, nothing is. Too many metrics dilute the team’s energy. Let them pick the right ones and go deep.

8. Build a feedback loop that works

  • Metrics are most useful when teams review them regularly.
  • Make time to reflect and adapt.

We’re still experimenting with what cadence works best. Right now, monthly retrospectives are the minimum. That gives teams short feedback loops to adjust their improvement efforts. A quarterly check-in is still helpful for zooming out. Both are valuable. We’re testing these cycles, but they give teams enough time to try, reflect, and adapt.

Why: Improvement requires learning. Dashboards don’t improve teams. Feedback does. Create a rhythm where teams can test ideas, measure progress, and shift direction.

A Word of Caution About Using Metrics for Performance Reviews

Some leaders ask, “Can I use Flow Metrics to evaluate my engineering managers?” You can, but it’s risky.

Flow Metrics tell you how the system is performing. They’re not designed to evaluate individuals. If you tie them to bonuses or promotions, you’ll likely get:

  • Teams gaming the data
  • Managers focus on optics, not problems
  • Reduced trust and openness

Why: When you make metrics part of a performance review, people stop using them for improvement. They stop learning. They play it safe. That hurts the team and the system.

Here’s what you can do instead:

  • Use metrics to guide coaching conversations, not to judge.
  • Evaluate managers based on how they improve the system and support their teams.
  • Reward experimentation, transparency, and alignment to business value.

Performance is bigger than one number. Metrics help tell the story, but they aren’t the story.

Sidebar: What if Gamification Still Improves the Metric?

I’ve heard some folks say, “I’m okay with gamification; if the number gets better, the team gets better.”

I get where they’re coming from. Sometimes, gamifying a number can move. But here’s the problem:

  1. It often hides the real issues.
  2. It encourages people to optimize for appearances, not outcomes.
  3. It breaks the feedback loop you need to find the real constraints.
  4. It builds a culture of avoidance instead of learning.

So, while gamification might improve the score, it doesn’t constantly improve the system and rarely as efficiently as intentional, transparent work on the problem.

If the goal is long-term performance, trust the process. Let teams learn from the data. Don’t let the number become the mission.

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?.

Let’s talk: [email protected]

A Self-Guided Performance Assessment for Agile Delivery Teams

by

10 min read

This article started with a conversation.

One of my engineering managers pointed out a troubling pattern. Teams continued to deliver even when builds failed or tests flaked, and they did so without pausing or showing any curiosity.

“The pipeline is failing, but no one’s looking at it.”

He noticed some engineers weren’t following their code after it went into production. They weren’t checking logs or using observability tools. Meanwhile, others followed through, checking metrics, monitoring logs, and validating behavior. Then he asked:

“We do performance reviews for individuals; why not for teams?”

And it struck me: we don’t, not in any meaningful, structured way. We hold individuals accountable for how they show up, but teams,  the unit that delivers value, are too often assessed only by their outputs, not their behaviors.

This article isn’t a proposal. It’s a prompt.

A Reflection More Than a Framework

This isn’t a manager’s tool or a leadership scorecard. It’s a guide for teams looking to improve how they collaborate with purpose. It’s for delivery teams that value their habits just as much as their results.

Use it as a retro exercise. A quarterly reset. A mirror.

Why Team Reflection Matters

We already measure delivery performance. DORA. Flow. Developer Experience.
But those metrics don’t always answer:

  • Are we doing what we said mattered , like observability and test coverage?
  • Are we working as a team or as individuals executing in parallel?
  • Do we hold each other accountable for delivering with integrity?

This is the gap: how teams work together. This guide helps fill it , not to replace metrics, but to deepen the story they tell.

What This Is (And Isn’t)

You might ask: “Don’t SAFe, SPACE, DORA, or Flow Metrics already do this?”
Yes and no. Those frameworks are valuable. But they answer different questions:

  • DORA & Flow: How fast and stable is our delivery?
  • DX Core 4 & SPACE: How do developers feel about their work environment?
  • Maturity Models: How fully have we adopted Agile practices?
  • For organizations implementing SAFe, SAFe’s Measure and Grow evaluate enterprise agility in dimensions such as team agility, product delivery, and lean leadership.

What they don’t always show is:

  • Are we skipping discipline under pressure?
  • Do we collaborate across roles or operate in silos?
  • Are we shipping through red builds and hoping for the best?

But the question stuck with me:
Shouldn’t we do the same for teams if we hold individuals accountable for how they show up?

What follows is a framework and a conversation starter, not a mandate. It’s just something to consider because, in many organizations, teams are where the real impact (or dysfunction) lives.

Suggested Team Reflection Dimensions

You don’t need to use all twelve categories. Start with the ones that matter most to your team, or define your own. This section is designed to help teams reflect on how they work together, not just what they deliver.

But before diving into individual dimensions, start with this simple but powerful check-in.

Would We Consider Ourselves Underperforming, Performing, or High-Performing?

This question encourages self-awareness without any external judgment. The team should decide together: no scorecards, no leadership evaluations, just a shared reflection on your experience as a delivery team.

From there, explore:

  • What makes us feel that way?
    What behaviors, habits, or examples support our self-assessment?
  • What should we keep doing?
    What’s already working well that we want to protect or double down on?
  • What should we stop doing?
    What’s causing friction, waste, or misalignment?
  • What should we start doing?
    What’s missing that could improve how we operate?

This discussion often surfaces more actionable insight than metrics alone. It grounds the assessment in the team’s shared experience and sets the tone for improvement, not judgment.

A Flexible Self-Evaluation Scorecard

While this isn’t designed as a top-down performance tool, teams can use it as a self-evaluation scorecard if they choose. The reflection tables that follow can help teams:

  • Identify where they align today: underperforming, performing, or high-performing.
  • Recognize the dimensions where they accelerate and where they have room to improve.
  • Prioritize the changes that will have the greatest impact on how they deliver.

No two teams will see the same patterns, and that’s the point. Use the guidance below not as a measurement of worth but as a compass to help your team navigate toward better outcomes together.

The 12-Dimension Agile Team Performance Assessment Framework

These dimensions serve as valuable tools for self-assessments, retrospectives, or leadership reviews, offering a framework to evaluate not just what teams deliver, but how effectively they perform.

  1. Collaboration & Communication
  2. Planning & Execution
  3. Data-Driven Improvement
  4. Code Quality & Technical Health
  5. Observability & Operational Readiness
  6. Flow & Efficiency
  7. Customer & Business Focus
  8. Role Clarity & Balanced Decision-Making
  9. Business-Technical Integration
  10. Engineering Discipline & Best Practice Adoption
  11. Accountability & Delivery Integrity
  12. Capabilities & Adaptability

These dimensions help teams focus not just on what they’re delivering but also on how their work contributes to long-term success.

Quick Reflection Table

This simple table is a great way to start conversations. It works well for retrospectives, quarterly check-ins, or when something feels off. Each category includes a key question and signs that may indicate your team is facing challenges in that area.

Collaboration & Communication
Reflection Prompt: How do we share knowledge? Are we aligned?
Signs of struggle: Silos, missed handoffs, unclear ownership.

Planning & Execution
Reflection Prompt: Do we plan realistically and deliver what we commit?
Signs of struggle: Reactive work, missed goals, poor forecasts.

Data-Driven Improvement
Reflection Prompt: Are we learning from our metrics?
Signs of struggle: Metrics ignored, retros skipped or repetitive.

Code Quality & Technical Health
Reflection Prompt: Is quality a first-class value for us?
Signs of struggle: Bugs, manual processes, growing technical debt.

Observability & Operational Readiness
Reflection Prompt: Can we detect and understand issues quickly?
Signs of struggle: No alerts, users discover issues first.

Flow & Efficiency
Reflection Prompt: How well does work move through our system?
Signs of struggle: Bottlenecks, context switching, unfinished work piling up.

Customer & Business Focus
Reflection Prompt: Do we understand the “why” behind our work?
Signs of struggle: Features misaligned with outcomes, limited feedback loops.

Role Clarity & Decision-Making
Reflection Prompt: Do we decide together and share ownership?
Signs of struggle: Decisions dominated by one role, unclear priorities.

Business-Technical Integration
Reflection Prompt: Are we balancing product delivery with long-term tech health?
Signs of struggle: Short-term focus, ignored debt, rework needed later.

Engineering Discipline
Reflection Prompt: Are we consistently applying best practices?
Signs of struggle: Skipped testing, unstable releases, fragile systems.

Delivery Integrity & Accountability
Reflection Prompt: Can we be counted on, and are we transparent about risks?
Signs of struggle: Missed deadlines, surprise failures, hidden blockers.

Capabilities & Adaptability
Reflection Prompt: Are we equipped to handle what’s coming?
Signs of struggle: Skill gaps, delays, high dependency on other teams.

How this appears in table format:

Detailed Assessment Reference

For teams looking for more detail, the next section breaks down each reflection category. It explains what “Not Meeting Expectations,” “Meeting Expectations,” and “Exceeding Expectations” look like in practice.

Collaboration & Communication

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Team works in silos; poor knowledge sharing.
  • Meeting Expectations: Team shares knowledge openly and communicates effectively.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Team drives cross-role collaboration and creates shared clarity.

Planning & Execution

  • Not Meeting Expectations: No planning rhythm; commitments missed; reactive delivery.
  • Meeting Expectations: Regular planning practices; predictable and consistent delivery.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Clear, realistic planning; consistently meets and adapts with agility.

Data-Driven Improvement

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Rarely reviews metrics; decisions based on opinion.
  • Meeting Expectations: Regularly uses metrics to inform retrospectives and improvements.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Metrics drive experimentation and continuous learning.

Code Quality & Technical Health

  • Not Meeting Expectations: High defect rates; test automation and refactoring ignored.
  • Meeting Expectations: Code reviews and basic testing in place; some debt is tracked.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Quality is a shared team value; sustainable architecture and coverage prioritized.

Observability & Operational Readiness

  • Not Meeting Expectations: No monitoring; users report issues first.
  • Meeting Expectations: Monitoring and alerting in place; incidents reviewed post-mortem.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Observability is embedded; teams detect issues early and improve proactively.

Flow & Efficiency

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Work blocked or idle; slow feedback loops.
  • Meeting Expectations: WIP is controlled; team tracks and removes some blockers.
  • Exceeding Expectations: The team optimizes flow across stages; constraints are resolved quickly.

Customer & Business Focus

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Features shipped without validation or connection to outcomes.
  • Meeting Expectations: Team understands business goals and loosely connects work to them.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Customer value drives prioritization; teams iterate based on delivery results.

Role Clarity & Decision-Making

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Decisions are top-down; no shared ownership.
  • Meeting Expectations: Product and engineering collaborate and plan together.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Teams co-own decisions with transparent tradeoffs and joint accountability.

Business-Technical Integration

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Tech health is deprioritized or ignored.
  • Meeting Expectations: Technical and business needs are considered during planning.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Resilience, scalability, and future value are built into every delivery conversation.

Engineering Discipline

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Testing, security, and deployment planning are skipped.
  • Meeting Expectations: The team follows most standard practices, even under pressure.
  • Exceeding Expectations: Best practices are applied consistently; technical health is never optional.

Delivery Integrity & Accountability

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Team misses commitments and avoids responsibility.
  • Meeting Expectations: Most commitments are met; blockers are raised early.
  • Exceeding Expectations: The team demonstrates high integrity and owns outcomes, not just tasks.

Capabilities & Adaptability

  • Not Meeting Expectations: Gaps in skills go unaddressed; team lacks coverage.
  • Meeting Expectations: The team has the necessary skills for current work and knows when to ask for help.
  • Exceeding Expectations: The team evolves proactively, cross-trains, and adapts with resilience.

How this appears in table format:

These tools are meant to start conversations. Use them as a guide, not a strict scoring system, and revisit them as your team grows and changes. High-performing teams regularly reflect as part of their routine, not just occasionally. These tools are designed to help you build that habit intentionally.

How to Use This and Who Should Be Involved

This framework isn’t a performance review. It’s a reflection tool designed for teams to assess themselves, clarify their goals, and identify areas for growth.

Here’s how to make it work:

1. Run It as a Team

Use this framework during retrospectives, quarterly check-ins, or after a major delivery milestone. Let the team lead the conversation. They’re closest to the work and best equipped to evaluate how things feel.

The goal isn’t to assign grades. It’s to pause, align, and ask: How are we doing?

2. Make It Yours

There’s no need to use all twelve dimensions. Start with the ones that resonate most. You can rename them, add new ones, or redefine what “exceeding expectations” look like in your context.

The more it reflects your team’s values and language, the more powerful the reflection becomes.

3. Use Metrics to Support the Story, Not Replace It

Delivery data like DORA, Flow Metrics, or Developer Experience scores can add perspective. But they should inform, not replace the conversation. Numbers are helpful, but they don’t speak for how it feels to deliver work together. Let data enrich the dialogue, not dictate it.

4. Invite Broader Perspectives

Some teams can gather anonymous 360° feedback from stakeholders or adjacent teams surfacing blind spots and validate internal perceptions.

Agile Coaches or Delivery Leads can also bring an outside-in view, helping the team see patterns over time, connecting the dots across metrics and behaviors, and guiding deeper reflection. Their role isn’t to evaluate but to support growth.

5. Let the Team Decide Where They Stand

As part of the assessment, ask the team:
Would we consider ourselves underperforming, performing, or high-performing?Then explore:

  • What makes us feel that way?
  • What should we keep doing?
  • What should we stop doing?
  • What should we start doing?

These questions give the framework meaning. It turns observation into insight and insight into action.

This Is About Ownership, Not Oversight

This reflection guide and its 12 dimensions can serve as a performance management tool, but I strongly recommend using it as a check-in resource for teams. It’s designed to build trust, encourage honest conversations, and offer a clear snapshot of the team’s current state. When used intentionally, it enhances team cohesion and strengthens overall capability. For leaders, focusing on recurring themes rather than individual scores reveals valuable patterns that can inform coaching efforts rather than impose control. Adopting it is in your hands and your team’s.

Final Thoughts

This all started with a conversation and a question: “We do performance reviews for individuals, but what about teams?” If we care about how individuals perform, shouldn’t we also care about how teams perform together?

High-performing teams don’t happen by accident. They succeed by focusing on both what they deliver and how they deliver it.

High-performing teams don’t just meet deadlines, they adapt, assess themselves, and improve together. This framework provides them with a starting point to make that happen.

Related Articles

If you found this helpful, here are a few related articles that explore the thinking behind this framework:

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?.

Let’s talk: [email protected]

How Value Stream Management and Product Operating Models Complement Each Other

by

7 min read

“The future of software delivery isn’t about process versus structure; it’s about harmonizing both to deliver better, faster, and smarter.”

Next month, I am invited to meet with a senior leader from a large organization, who is also a respected industry figure, to discuss their Product Operating Model. I initially saw it as a good opportunity to prepare and share insights. Instead, it sparked an important realization.

In late 2020, I introduced Value Stream Management (VSM) to our organization, initiating the integration process in 2021. At the time, this marked the beginning of my understanding of VSM and our first attempt to implement it. Since then, we’ve gained more profound insights and valuable lessons, allowing us to refine our approach.

Recently, when asked about Value Stream Management (VSM), I explained that it helps make our Agile, Lean, and DevOps investments visible.
Now, with our VSM 1.5 approach, I highlight that it also makes our investments in Agile, Lean, DevOps, OKRs, and Outcomes more transparent.

Today, we are evolving our Value Stream Management (VSM) practices into what we now call VSM 1.5 (assuming we started at 0.9 or 1.0).

We took a more logical approach to redefining our Value Streams and aligning teams. We’ve also improved how we focus on metrics and hold discussions while requiring the anticipated outcomes of each Initiative or Epic to be documented in Jira. I outlined a strategy for leveraging team-level OKRs to align with broader business outcomes. I’ve also briefly touched on this concept in a few other articles.

As I prepared for this upcoming meeting, I came to a surprising realization:

We weren’t just implementing Value Stream Management, we were organically integrating Product Operating Model (POM) principles alongside it.

It wasn’t planned initially, but it’s now clear we weren’t choosing between two models. We were combining them, which became the foundation for our next level of operational maturity. This evolution reflects our commitment to continuously improving and aligning our methodologies to deliver greater customer and business impact.

Value Stream Management and the Product Operating Model

In software engineering, a value stream refers to the steps and activities involved in delivering a product or service to the customer. Value Stream Management (VSM) is the practice of optimizing this flow to improve speed, quality, and customer value.

A Product Operating Model (POM) serves as the blueprint for how a company designs, builds, and delivers software products. It ensures that teams, processes, and investments are aligned to maximize the customer’s value, driven by clear anticipated outcomes.

At first glance, Value Stream Management and the Product Operating Model are separate approaches, each with its terminology and focus. But when you look deeper, they share the same fundamental spirit: ensuring that our work creates meaningful value for customers and the business.

Despite this shared purpose, their emphasis differs slightly:

  • VSM focuses primarily on optimizing the flow of work, identifying bottlenecks, improving efficiency, and making work visible from idea to customer impact.
  • POM focuses on structuring teams and organizing ways of working, ensuring that ownership, funding, and decision-making are aligned to achieve clear, outcome-driven goals.

Together, they are not competing models but complementary disciplines: one sharpening how work flows, the other sharpening how teams are structured to deliver purposeful outcomes.

The key difference is where they start:

  • VSM starts with flow efficiency and system visibility.
  • POM starts with structure and ownership of the business outcome.

Why Combining POM and VSM Creates a Stronger Operating Model

Structure without optimized flow risks bureaucracy and stagnation.

Flow optimization without clear ownership and purpose risks fragmentation and, worse, the acceleration of delivering the wrong things faster.

Without aligning structure and flow to meaningful business and customer outcomes, organizations may become highly efficient at producing outputs that ultimately fail to drive real value.

Together, they provide what modern digital organizations need:

  • Product Operating Model (POM): Clear ownership, accountability, and alignment to expected business and customer outcomes.
  • Value Stream Management (VSM): Optimized, visible, and continuously improving flow of work across the organization.
  • Both combined: A complete operating model that structures teams around value and ensures that value flows efficiently to the customer.

When combined, POM and VSM offer a holistic view, structuring teams with purpose and optimizing how that purpose is realized through efficient delivery.

Industry Research: Reinforcing the Shift Toward Outcomes
Recent research reinforces the importance of this convergence. Planview’s 2024 Project to Product State of the Industry Report 1 found that elite-performing organizations are three times more likely to use cascading OKRs and measure success through business outcomes rather than output metrics. They are also twice as likely to regularly review Flow Metrics, confirming that outcome-driven practices combined with flow efficiency are becoming the new standard for high-performing organizations.

“Structure gives us ownership. Flow gives us visibility. Outcomes give us purpose. The strongest organizations master all three.”

Our Journey: VSM 1.5 as a Harmonization of POM and VSM

As we’ve matured our approach, it’s become clear that many of the practices we are implementing through VSM 1.5 closely align with the core principles of the Product Operating Model:

  • Clear Value Stream Identity:
    Using Domain-Driven Design (DDD) to define real business domains mirrors POM’s emphasis on persistent product boundaries.
  • Outcome Ownership:
    Mandating anticipated and actual outcomes aligns directly with POM’s shift from measuring outputs to business impacts.
  • Cross-functional Accountability:
    Structuring teams around value streams, not just skills or departments mirrors the cross-functional empowerment central to POM.
  • Flow Visibility and Metrics:
    Monitoring flow efficiency, team health, and quality reflects VSM’s original intent and POM’s focus on systemic improvement.
  • Customer-Centric Thinking:
    Closing the loop to validate outcomes ensures that teams remain connected to customer value, not just internal delivery milestones.

In short, without realizing it at first, VSM 1.5 evolved into a model that harmonizes the structural clarity of the Product Operating Model with the operational discipline of Value Stream Management.

Recognizing Our Current Gaps

While VSM 1.5 represents a significant step forward, it is not the final destination. There are important areas where we are still evolving:

  • Mid-Level OKR Development: While we have mandated anticipated outcomes at the initiative level, consistently translating these into clear, mid-level OKRs and connecting team efforts explicitly to business outcomes remains a work in progress. Strengthening this bridge will be critical to our long-term success.
  • Funding by Product/Value Stream: Today, our funding models still follow more traditional structures. Based on my experience across the industry, evolving to product-based funding will require a longer-term cultural shift. However, we are laying the necessary foundation by focusing on outcome-driven initiatives, clear value stream ownership, and understanding the investment value of teams.

These gaps are not signs of failure. They prove we are building the muscle memory needed to achieve lasting, meaningful change.

The Practical Benefits We Are Seeing and Expect to See

  • Stronger alignment between Product, Architecture, and Delivery.
  • Reduced cognitive load for teams working within clear domain boundaries.
  • Clearer prioritization, alignment, and purpose based on customer and business value.
  • A cultural shift toward accountability not just for delivery but for results.
  • Faster, better-informed decisions from improved visibility and flow insights.
  • Sustained operational efficiency improvements through retrospectives, insights, and continuous experimentation.

Something to Think About for Leaders

If you’re leading digital transformation, don’t limit yourself to choosing a Product Operating Model or Value Stream Management.

The real transformation happens when you intentionally combine both:

  • Structure teams around customer and business value.
  • Optimize how work flows through those teams.
  • Hold teams accountable not just for delivery but for real, measurable outcomes.
  • Continuously learn and improve by leveraging data insights and closing the feedback loop.

The future of software delivery isn’t about process versus structure. It’s about harmonizing both to deliver better, faster, and smarter.

What We’ve Been Building

Preparing for this meeting has helped crystallize what we’ve been building: a modern operating model that combines ownership, flow, and outcomes, putting customer and business value at the center of everything we do.

While our journey continues, and some cultural shifts are still ahead, we have built the foundation for a more outcome-driven, operationally efficient, and scalable future.

While there’s still work to be done and cultural changes ahead, we’ve laid the groundwork for a future that is more focused on outcomes, efficient in operations, and ability to scale.

I’m looking forward to the upcoming conversation, which will walk through the Product Operating Model, learn from their approach, and explore how it aligns with, replaces, or complements our evolution with Value Stream Management. It’s a conversation about methods and how organizations are shifting from tracking outputs to delivering actual business impact.

Let’s keep the conversation going:
How is your organization evolving its operating model to drive outcomes over outputs, combining structure, flow, and purpose to create real value?

Related Articles

  1. From Feature Factory to Purpose-Driven Development: Why Anticipated Outcomes Are Non-Negotiable, April 12, 2025. Phil Clark.

References

  1. The 2024 Project to Product State of the Industry Report. Planview.

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?.

Let’s talk: [email protected]

From Scrum Master to Agile Delivery Manager: Evolution in the Age of Flow

by

6 min read

This post was inspired by a LinkedIn post shared by Dave Westgarth.

In 2025, we formally changed the title of Scrum Master to Agile Delivery Manager (ADM) in our technology division. This renaming wasn’t a rebrand for the sake of optics. It reflected a deeper evolution already happening, rooted in the expanding scope of delivery leadership, the adoption of Flow Metrics and Value Stream Management, and our real-world shift from strict Scrum toward a more customized Kanban-based model.

It was this year that the name finally clicked. After assigning Value Stream Architect responsibilities to our Scrum Masters and giving them ownership of delivery metrics, team-level delivery health, and collaboration across roles within their Agile team, I realized the title “Scrum Master” no longer fit their role. I even considered Agile Value Stream Manager, but it felt too narrow and platform-specific.

That’s when Agile Delivery Manager stood out, not only as a better label but also as a more accurate reflection of the mindset and mission.

I’m not alone in this. My wife, a Scrum Master, noticed a rise in Agile Delivery Manager roles. These roles are emerging as a natural evolution of the Scrum Master role, broader in scope but still grounded in servant leadership and Agile values. This shift is becoming more common across industries.

Why We Made the Change

This wasn’t an overnight decision—it was the culmination of years of observing the gap between traditional agile roles and modern delivery demands. I’ve written extensively about the evolving nature of delivery roles in the modern product and engineering ecosystem. In “Navigating the Digital Product Workflow Metrics Landscape,” I highlighted how organizations that have matured beyond Agile 101 practices shift their attention upstream toward value creation, flow efficiency, and business impact.

In that article, I shared:

“Organizations that have invested in high automation, eliminated waste, and accelerated CI/CD cycles are now shifting left—seeking broader visibility from idea to operation.”
– Navigating the Digital Product Workflow Metrics Landscape

Similarly, in “Dependencies Are Here to Stay,” I discussed why frameworks couldn’t box delivery leadership in:

“We can’t measure agility in isolation. Dependencies are part of the system, not a failure of it. Leadership roles must evolve to manage flow across those dependencies, not just within a team board.”

This evolution is what our former Scrum Masters were doing. They were coaching teams and guiding delivery conversations, navigating delivery risks, managing stakeholder expectations, and tracking systemic flow. The title needed to grow with the responsibility.

The Agile Role That Connects It All

Agile leadership roles and responsibilities vary across organizations. Some have Scrum Masters or Agile Leaders, while others use titles like Technical Project Manager or Agile Coach. In some cases, responsibilities shift to Engineering or Product Managers, and some companies distribute these duties among team members and eliminate the role entirely. Despite these differences, we believe a dedicated Agile leadership position is valuable. This role plays a key part in improving team performance, delivery efficiency, and optimizing workflows.


The Agile Delivery Manager role is unique in that it is the only role on the team not incentivized by a specific type of work.

  • Product Managers focus on growth and prioritize new features.
  • Technical Leads concentrate on architecture and managing technical debt.
  • Information Security leaders work to reduce security risks.
  • QA teams ensure defects are identified and fixed.

The Agile Delivery Manager operates at a higher level, overseeing workflow across the distribution of work types, including features, technical debt, risks, and defects. It fosters continuous team improvement while ensuring that deliveries consistently drive tangible business value.

Inside the Agile Delivery Manager Role

It’s worth clarifying: In our model, Agile Delivery Managers remain focused on their assigned Agile team or teams. While the title may sound broader, the role is not intended to operate across multiple delivery teams or coordinate program-level work. Instead, ADMs guide and improve the delivery flow within their own team context—coaching the team, optimizing its workflow, and partnering with product and engineering to ensure value is delivered efficiently.

Here’s how we now define the Agile Delivery Manager in our updated job description:

“As an Agile Delivery Manager, you’ll lead strategic transformation, champion Flow Metrics and VSM, and shape how teams deliver real business value.”

Key responsibilities include:

  • Agile Leadership & Flow-Based Delivery
    Coaching teams while enabling clarity, cadence, and sustainability in customized Kanban-style systems.
  • Team Collaboration & Dependency Management
    Collaborating with Product, QA, InfoSec, and Engineering roles within the team to resolve blockers, ensure quality, and maintain delivery flow.
  • Flow Metrics & Value Stream Optimization
    Leading metric reviews using Flow Time, Load, Efficiency, and Distribution to drive better delivery outcomes.
  • Value Stream Architecture
    Acting as system-level delivery architects, not of code, but of how work flows from concept to value.
  • Strategic Reporting & Outcome Alignment
    Building quarterly delivery reports that tie execution to business value, supporting leadership visibility and continuous improvement.

This role no longer fits the narrow scope that Scrum once offered. It combines delivery leadership, agile stewardship, and flow optimization.

What This Means for Scrum Masters

If you’re a Scrum Master wondering what’s next, you’re not alone. You’re likely doing many things, but this role demands time to widen the lens.

As Dave Westgarth shared on LinkedIn:

“You’re using the same core competencies: facilitation, servant leadership, coaching, and team empowerment. They just get applied at different levels and from different perspectives.”

This evolution isn’t about abandoning Agile. It’s about scaling its intent.

Many of our ADM team members still value their strong Scrum foundation. However, they’ve broadened their focus to improve delivery efficiency, enhance team coordination, manage delivery risks, and ensure smooth team workflows across competing work types and stakeholder needs.

If you’re already guiding delivery beyond team ceremonies, influencing system flow, and navigating complexity, this evolution is your next chapter.

Final Thoughts

The shift to an Agile Delivery Manager reflects a modern reality: frameworks alone don’t scale agility; people do. The ADM role honors the coaching mindset of the Scrum Master while embracing the delivery complexities of today’s hybrid, platform-heavy, and outcome-driven organizations.

For our division, the name change signaled to our teams and business stakeholders that delivery leadership had evolved. More importantly, it gave our people permission to grow into that evolution.

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?.

Let’s talk: [email protected]

Beyond Frameworks: The Real Weight of Leading Transformation at Scale

by

9 min read

A leadership case study for those carrying the weight of transformation, when the change is working, but the friction won’t quit.

This isn’t about criticizing an organization; it’s about honoring the complexity of leading through change, even in highly successful environments.

Transformation fatigue: Is there light at the end of the tunnel? Yes, but just as things begin to brighten, change strikes again, and the path might grow dim once more.

This article was sparked by a quiet but revealing moment: a leader hesitated to define expected outcomes in Jira1. It reminded me that transformation fatigue doesn’t come from stalled progress but from something slower and more dangerous: the erosion of alignment when leadership philosophies diverge over time.

This article connects with thoughts shared by Willem-Jan Ageling, whose work I came across shortly after drafting this piece. Ageling highlights that team autonomy can only succeed when leadership supports it with genuine trust, demonstrated through actions, not just words. Building on that, I want to ask: What happens when the right frameworks are in place, the transformation progresses, yet trust begins to erode? Not because of outright failure but due to ongoing, subtle friction at scale.

You may know the feeling if you’re a senior leader navigating Agile, DevOps, or product transformation. The structures shift. The frameworks are adopted. But the mindset? That’s where the real work lives.

I’m incredibly proud of our organization’s transformation over the past decade. It’s not just a success story; it’s industry-leading in many respects. We’ve gone from legacy delivery models to empowered, product-focused teams aligned around value. We’ve modernized our technology stack, redefined our operating model, and adopted practices many organizations still strive to implement.

But let me be clear: I didn’t say perfect.

Transformation is not a box you check. It’s a system you nurture. And it’s a mindset you must defend, especially as leadership shifts, ownership changes, and misalignment creeps in.

One of the hardest lessons I’ve learned is that not everyone on the journey is aligned on the destination or how to get there. Some leaders have been at my side for years, yet comments or decisions occasionally reveal a superficial sense of agreement rather than true shared understanding. And those moments? They’re not setbacks. They’re opportunities to rethink, reconnect, and improve how we deliver work together.

This article isn’t a playbook. It’s a reflection. A case study. My own.

Willem-Jan Ageling recently wrote about the importance of trust in team autonomy. His article, Team autonomy only works when leadership shows trust 2, highlighted how quickly things can go off track when a leader reverts to control or bypasses key Agile roles. I see this all the time, not just in isolated teams, but in entire systems. One of the hardest parts of leading transformation is defending that trust across layers of leadership, especially when new leaders join the organization carrying different philosophies. Trust doesn’t scale automatically. Alignment doesn’t hold itself. And fatigue? It rarely comes from a lack of progress. It comes from the constant effort of holding it all together.

It’s what happens when the transformation is fundamental, yet the friction remains.

If you’ve felt that weight, you’re not alone.

Transformation doesn’t end. It evolves.

As organizations grow, so does the complexity of sustaining alignment. When you’re small, a startup, or a few hundred people, it’s easier to rally around shared goals, maintain tight communication loops, and stay close to your delivery model. But as headcount scales, layers are added, and teams diversify, the fatigue risk rises.

We aim for growth, but it’s a mixed blessing; it magnifies your strengths and weaknesses.

Fatigue is no longer isolated to individuals or pockets of teams. It becomes systemic when leadership philosophies diverge, alignment fades, or superficial agreement masks deeper disconnects.

Over the past decade, I’ve helped lead our organization from waterfall delivery to modern, empowered, product-focused teams. We’ve adopted Agile, DevOps, Lean, and Value Stream Management. We’ve moved from outputs to outcomes. We’ve rearchitected our application and modernized our platform.

And we’ve made real progress.

But no framework prepares you for the repetition, the re-explaining, and the relitigation of decisions you thought were long settled.

New executives arrive. Stakeholders change. Strategic direction pivots.

Fatigue doesn’t come from the frameworks but from the effort required to protect them when leadership philosophies keep shifting.

When done correctly, the effort doesn’t end. Transformation is not a one-time project; it’s a continuous journey and a mindset of leadership.

Even years in, the friction returns

By 2020–2021, we were six years into our transformation and hitting our stride. Then, leadership changed. A new technology leader arrived with a more hierarchical approach to Agile, rooted in functional oversight and centralized control. It wasn’t wrong; it was simply misaligned with the autonomous, cross-functional team structure we had built, grounded in Team Topologies 3, Team of Teams 4, and Turn the Ship Around! 5.

Where we embedded all roles necessary to deliver value in one team, this leader expected delivery to be driven by an Engineering Manager-led model, one where the EM managed both delivery and people. Both models are valid, but they are fundamentally different philosophies.

Around the same time, our private equity firm introduced the idea of tracking individual productivity units, a shift back toward legacy thinking like lines of code and activity-based metrics.

Fortunately, I had already introduced Value Stream Management and Flow Metrics, which emphasize outcomes, not output, especially not at the individual level.

We educated. We realigned. We defended the system.

We succeeded. But it was exhausting.

I’ve been that legacy leader

Earlier in my career, I led the traditional way: resource plans, Gantt charts, and command and control. Even as I started reading Agile literature and implementing new ceremonies, I hadn’t changed my thinking. I was doing Agile but not leading through it.

My fundamental shift came during a quiet moment of clarity when I realized I was in the way. That moment was the precursor to Rethink Your Understanding, not just a phrase but a mindset I committed to living and leading through. It’s been my compass ever since.

Resistance doesn’t always yell, it nods

The hardest resistance I’ve faced hasn’t been loud. It’s been polite, strategic, and sometimes even supportive on the surface.

One of the longest-running tensions came from a senior product leader I respect for product decisions. He believed in strong direction and centralized control. I believe in empowerment and team ownership.

He would express agreement in executive sessions, but the structures remained top-down. Product managers were not empowered. Roadmaps were handed out rather than co-created. And teams, even years into our transformation, still hadn’t been trained in Agile principles.

Not wrong, just not aligned.

And the cost? Quiet drag. Misunderstood roles. Fatigue.

A moment that made it clear

After our acquisition and the departure of our former CEO, I asked that same colleague for his thoughts on how our division’s executive team might change, a team I’ve been part of for the past few years.

“We’ll be focused on operations. We’ll bring in some senior managers from the business. I’m not sure this is the best use of your time.”

That moment hit hard, but it wasn’t personal. It was clarifying.

He still didn’t see engineering as strategic, and he still didn’t view my technology leadership as part of operational decision-making.

That’s when I realized that fatigue doesn’t come from open disagreement but from the illusion of alignment.

I’ve been writing this story for years

Many of my articles have tried to name this tension:

These weren’t rants. They were reflections, a way to process what it means to lead inside a transforming organization, even when not everyone is transforming with it.

Post-acquisition, two paths emerge

Today, I report to a senior leadership team that believes in transformation through a different model. They emphasize Engineering Managers embedded within teams, hands-on principal-level leadership, and individually oriented career frameworks built quickly based on experience.

It’s not a bad model. It’s simply different from ours, focusing on cross-functional autonomy, long-term capability building, and outcome orientation over individual output.

Neither approach is wrong. But this team operates from very different assumptions.

And reconciling them, that’s where the fatigue returns.

Industry conversations keep me grounded

Outside the walls of my org, I don’t need to explain why value streams matter or why DevOps is more than automation.

When I connect with other leaders at conferences or through advisory boards, I am reminded that I am not alone.

These conversations bring clarity, encouragement, and strength when the internal friction gets heavy.

And yes, sometimes I want to be right

Inside my team, we joke about “Phil Fridays,” when my conviction tends to spike after a week of hard conversations…

It’s not about ego. It’s about care.

I want to build the best teams on the field.

I want to give people purpose, clarity, and ownership.

I want to lead in a way that leaves systems better than I found them.

Others feel the same. And that’s why this isn’t about who’s right or wrong.

It’s about alignment and the emotional toll when it’s missing.

Agile isn’t failing. Leadership is

You’ve heard it: “Agile is failing.” “DevOps didn’t deliver.”

But it’s not the frameworks that fail; it’s how they’re implemented and, more specifically, how they’re led.

When Agile is used to mask command and control, or DevOps becomes just a reporting layer, don’t blame the model. In most cases, blame leadership, blame the mindset.

Leading transformation means choosing clarity, again and again

Top 5 Triggers of Leadership Friction

  1. Leadership turnover or strategic pivots that deprioritize transformation values.
  2. Conflicting ownership philosophies (e.g., empowerment vs. control).
  3. Introduction of metrics or standards that contradict autonomy.
  4. Rhetorical alignment masking structural or behavioral misalignment.
  5. Organizational scaling that stretches philosophical consistency.

As organizations scale, the stakes grow higher. Alignment becomes harder, and systems become more complex. That means transformation fatigue doesn’t just linger; it compounds. What once felt like a collaborative push for change at a smaller scale can start to feel like a grind as your influence spans more teams, departments, and philosophies.

Growth is a sign of success but also magnifies misalignment if we’re not actively checking for it. It’s not just the number of people that changes; it’s the number of assumptions.

Here’s what I’ve learned:

  • When you sign up to lead transformation, you’re not signing up for a framework. You’re signing up for a lifetime of rethinking your beliefs and inviting others to do the same.
  • You’re signing up for fatigue, not because you’re weak, but because the work is real.
  • You’re signing up for friction, not because people are bad, but because philosophies differ.
  • You’re signing up for progress, not perfection.

And if you’re still showing up, holding the line, listening, and learning while advocating for the path you’re leading.

And that’s the work.

Let’s be transparent and honest and stop pretending we’re aligned when we’re not. For those leading transformation: Don’t confuse alignment with agreement. Keep asking. Keep listening. Keep showing up.

References

  1. Clark, Phil (April 12, 2025). From Feature Factory to Purpose-Driven Development: Why Anticipated Outcomes Are Non-Negotiable. rethinkyourunderstanding.com.
  2. Ageling, Willem-Jan (April 06, 2025). Team autonomy only works when leadership shows trust. https://medium.com/@WJAgeling/team-autonomy-only-works-when-leadership-shows-trust-2ab59182f350.
  3. Skelton, M & Pais, M. (2019). Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow. IT Revolution Press.
  4. McChristal, S. (General) & Collins, T. & Silverman, D. & Fussell, C. (2015). Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. Portfolio.
  5. Marquet, David L. (2015). Turn the Ship Around! Penguin publishing.

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?

Let’s talk: [email protected]

From Feature Factory to Purpose-Driven Development: Why Anticipated Outcomes Are Non-Negotiable

by

9 min read

Connect the dots: Show how engineering efforts drive business impact by linking their work to key organization metrics and outcomes. Highlight their value and contribution to overall success.

When Sarcasm Reveals Misalignment

Last week, one of my Agile Delivery Leaders brought forward a concern from her team that spoke volumes, not just about an individual, but about the kind of tension that quietly persists in even the most mature organizations.

She asked her team to define the expected outcome for a new Jira Epic, a practice I’ve asked all teams to adopt to ensure software investments align with business goals. However, it seems they struggled to identify the anticipated outcome. On top of that, a senior team member who’s been part of our transformation for years dismissed the idea instead of contributing to the discussion. She found herself in a difficult position, torn between the leader’s authority and her own responsibilities. He commented something like:

“Why are we doing this? This is stupid. Phil read another book, and suddenly we’re all expected to jump on board.”

When I first heard that comment secondhand, I felt a wave of anger; it struck me as pure arrogance. This leader chose not to share his perspective with me directly, perhaps for reasons he deemed valid. But as I thought more about it, I realized it wasn’t arrogance at all, but ignorance. Not malicious ignorance, but the kind that comes from discomfort, uncertainty, or an unwillingness to admit they no longer understand or align with where things are going. Comments like that are often defense mechanisms. They mask deeper resistance, reveal a lack of clarity, or quietly question whether someone still fits into a system evolving beyond their comfort zone.

This wasn’t about rejecting change or progress; it was about pushing back against how we’re evolving. Moments like this remind us that true transformation isn’t just about forging ahead; it’s about fostering belief and alignment in mindset and actions as we move forward.

Purpose-Driven Development: My Approach to Sustainable Alignment

I asked teams to define anticipated outcomes not to add overhead but to protect the integrity of the way we build software.

Over the past decade, I’ve worked hard to lead engineering our teams and organization out of the “feature factory” trap, where the focus is on output volume, velocity, and shipping for the sake of shipping. Through that experience, I developed Purpose-Driven Development (PDD), my definition of this term.

Purpose-driven development might sound like a buzzword, but it’s how we bring Agile and Lean principles to life. It ensures delivery teams aren’t just writing code; they’re solving the right problems for the right reasons with clear goals and intentions.

PDD is built on one core idea: every initiative, epic, and sprint should be based on a clear understanding of why it matters.

Anticipated Outcomes: A Small Practice That Changes Everything

To embed this philosophy into our day-to-day work, we introduced a simple yet powerful practice:

Every Epic or Initiative must include an “Anticipated Outcome.”

Just a sentence or two that answers:

  • What are we hoping to achieve by doing this work?
  • How will it impact the customer, the Business, or the platform?

We don’t expect perfection. We expect intention. The goal isn’t to guarantee results but to anchor the work in a hypothesis that can be revisited, challenged, or learned from.

This simple shift creates:

  • Greater alignment between teams and strategy
  • More meaningful prioritization
  • Opportunities to reflect on outcomes, not just outputs
  • Visibility across leadership into what we’re investing in

Who Might Push Back and Why That’s Okay

When we ask teams to define anticipated outcomes, it’s not about creating friction; it’s about creating focus. And this shouldn’t feel like a burden to most of the team.

I believe engineers will welcome it. Whether they realize it at first or not, this clarity gives them purpose. It ties their daily work to something that matters beyond code.

The only two roles I truly expect might feel frustration when asked to define anticipated outcomes are:

Product Managers and Technical Leaders.

And even that frustration? It’s understandable.

Product Managers often experience pain from not being involved early enough in the ideation or problem-definition stage. They may not know the anticipated outcome if they’re handed priorities from a higher-level product team without the context or autonomy to shape the solution. And that’s the problem, not the question itself, but the absence of trust and inclusion upstream.

For Technical Leaders, it often comes when advocating for tech debt work. They know the system needs investment but struggle to translate that into a clear business reason. I get it; it’s frustrating when you know the consequences of letting entropy creep in, but you haven’t been taught to describe that impact in terms of business value, customer experience, or system performance.

But that’s exactly why this practice matters.

Asking for an anticipated outcome isn’t a punishment. It’s an exercise in alignment and clarity. And if that exercise surfaces frustration, that’s not failure. It’s the first step toward better decision-making and stronger cross-functional trust.

Whether it’s advocating for feature delivery or tech sustainability, we can’t afford to work in a vacuum. Every initiative, whether shiny and new or buried in system debt, must have a reason and a result we’re aiming for.

Anticipated Outcomes First, But OKR Alignment Is the Future

When I introduced the practice of documenting anticipated outcomes in every Epic or Initiative, I also asked for something more ambitious: a new field in our templates to capture the parent OKR or Key Result driving the work.

The goal was simple but powerful:

If we claim to be an outcome-driven organization, we should know what outcome we’re aiming for and where it fits in our broader strategy.

I aimed to help teams recognize that their Initiatives or Epics could serve as team-level Key Results directly tied to overarching business objectives. After all, this work doesn’t appear by chance. It’s being prioritized by Product, Operations, or the broader Business for a deliberate purpose: to drive progress and advance the company’s goals.

But when I brought this to our Agile leadership group, the response was clear: this was too much to push simultaneously.

Some teams didn’t know the parent KR, and some initiatives weren’t tied to a clearly articulated OKR. Our organizational OKR structure was often incomplete, and we were missing the connective tissue between top-level objectives and team-level execution.

And they were right.

We’re still maturing in how we connect strategy to delivery. For many teams, asking for the anticipated outcome and the parent OKR at once felt like a burden, not a bridge.

So, we paused the push for now. My focus remains first on helping teams articulate the anticipated outcome. That alone is a leap forward. As we strengthen that muscle, I’ll help connect the dots upward, mapping team efforts to the business outcomes they drive, even if we don’t have the complete OKR infrastructure yet.

Alignment starts with clarity. And right now, clarity begins with purpose.

Without an anticipated outcome, every initiative is a dart thrown in the dark.

It might land somewhere useful or waste weeks of productivity on something that doesn’t matter.

Documenting the outcome gives us clarity and direction. It means we’re making strategic moves, not random ones. And it reduces the risk of high-output teams being incredibly productive… at the wrong thing.

Introducing the Feature Factory Ratio

To strengthen our focus on PDD and prioritize outcomes over outputs, we are introducing a new core insights metric as part of our internal diagnostics:

Feature Factory Ratio (FFR) =

(Number of Initiatives or Epics without Anticipated Outcomes / Total Number of Initiatives or Epics) × 100

The higher the ratio, the greater the risk of operating like a feature factory, moving fast but potentially delivering little that matters.

The lower the ratio, the more confident we can be that our teams are connecting their work to value.

This ratio isn’t about micromanagement, it’s about organizational awareness. It tells us where alignment is breaking down and where we may need to revisit how we communicate the “why” behind our work.

Why We Call It the Feature Factory Ratio

When I introduced this metric, I considered several other names:

  • Outcome Alignment Ratio – Clear and descriptive, but lacking urgency
  • Clarity of Purpose Index – Insightful, but a bit abstract
  • Value Connection Metric – Emphasizes intent, but sounds like another analytics KPI

Each option framed the idea well, but they didn’t hit the nerve I wanted to expose.

Ultimately, I chose the Feature Factory Ratio because it speaks directly to the cultural pattern we’re trying to break.

It’s provocative by design. It challenges teams and leaders to ask, “Are we doing valuable work or just shipping features?” It turns an abstract concept into a visible metric and surfaces conversations we must have when our delivery drifts from our strategy.

Sometimes, naming things with impact helps us lead the behavior change that softer language can’t.

Sidebar: Superficial Alignment, The Silent Threat

One of the biggest leadership challenges in digital transformation isn’t open resistance, it’s superficial alignment.

These senior leaders attend the workshops, adopt the lingo, and show up to the town halls, but when asked to change how they work or lead, they bristle. They revert. They roll their eyes or make sarcastic comments.

But they’re really saying: I’m not sure I believe in this, or I don’t know how I fit anymore.

The danger is: superficial alignment looks like progress, but it blocks true transformation. It creates cultural drag. It confuses teams and weakens momentum.

Moments like the one I shared remind me that transformation isn’t a checkbox but a leadership posture. And sometimes, those sarcastic comments? They’re your clearest sign of where real work still needs to happen.

Start Where You Are and Grow from There

We’re all at different points in our transformation journeys as individuals, teams, and organizations.

So, instead of reacting with frustration when someone can’t articulate an outcome or when a snide remark surfaces resistance, use it as a signal.

Meet your team where they are. Use every gap as a learning opportunity, not a leadership failure.

If a team can’t answer “What’s the anticipated outcome?” today, help them start asking it anyway. The point isn’t to have every answer right now. It’s to build the muscle so that someday, we will.

These questions aren’t meant to judge where we are. They’re meant to guide us toward where we’re trying to go, and this is the Work of Modern Software Leadership.

It’s easy to say we want to be outcome-driven. Embedding that belief into daily practice is harder, especially when senior voices or legacy habits push back.

But this is the work:

  • Aligning delivery to strategy
  • Teaching teams to think in terms of impact
  • Holding the line on purpose—even when it’s uncomfortable
  • Measuring not just what we ship but why we’re shipping it

Yes, I’ve read my fair share of books. Along the way, I’ve experienced key moments and expected outcomes that influenced my journey in adopting new initiatives within our division and organization, such as Value Stream Management and understanding what it means to deliver real value. I’ve led teams through transformation and seen what works. From my experience in our organization and working with other industry leaders, I’ve learned that software delivery with a clear purpose is more effective, empowering, and valuable for the Business, our customers, and the teams doing the work.

Leader’s Checklist: Outcome Alignment in Agile Teams

Use this checklist to guide your teams and yourself toward delivering work that matters.

1. Intent Before Execution

  • Is every Epic or Initiative anchored with a clear Anticipated Outcome?
  • Have we stated why this work matters to the customer, business, or platform?
  • Are we avoiding the trap of “just delivering features” without a defined end state?

2. Strategic Connection

  • Can this work be informally or explicitly tied to a higher-level Key Result, business goal, or product metric?
  • Are we comfortable asking, “What is the business driver behind this work?” even if it’s not written down yet?

3. Team-Level Awareness

  • Do developers, QA, and designers understand the purpose behind what they’re building?
  • Can the team articulate what success looks like beyond “we delivered it”?

4. Product Owner Empowerment

  • Has the Product Manager or Product Owner been involved in problem framing, or were they handed a solution from above?
  • Is that a signal of upstream misalignment if they seem disconnected from the outcome?

5. Tech Debt with Purpose

  • If the work is tech debt, have we articulated its impact on system reliability, scalability, or risk?
  • Can we tie this work back to customer experience, transaction volume, or long-term business performance?

6. Measurement & Reflection

  • Are we tracking how many Initiatives or Epics lack anticipated outcomes using the Feature Factory Ratio?
  • Do we ever reflect on anticipated vs. actual outcomes once work is delivered?

7. Cultural Leadership

  • Are we reinforcing that asking, “What’s the anticipated outcome?” is about focus, not control?
  • When we face resistance or discomfort, are we leading with curiosity instead of compliance?

Remember:

Clarity is a leadership responsibility.

If your teams don’t know why they’re doing the work, the real problem is upstream, not them.

Poking Holes

I invite your perspective on my posts. What are your thoughts?

Let’s talk: [email protected]