Agile Release Train (ART) Networks — The Induced Dilemma
Introduction
The proliferation of Agile Release Trains (ARTs) within large IT software delivery departments, particularly following the surge in SAFe adoption during the 2010s, has often resulted in a complex and challenging landscape. While these ARTs were intended to enhance agility and deliver value, their creation was often scattered and uncoordinated, leading to a significant dilemma. This article — the first in a mini series of two — explores the origins and consequences of this dilemma, focusing on the inherent challenges posed by the growth of networked ARTs.
The Historical Growth and Resultant Complications
The initial enthusiasm for SAFe and the rapid establishment of numerous ARTs and Large Solutions created “agile bubbles” within organizations. These bubbles, while individually striving for efficiency, often lacked an overarching alignment with the company’s core value streams. This misalignment generated two primary complications:
1. The Exponential Growth of Communication Complexity:
Get Renaud Granier’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As the number of participants and delivery units in a network of ARTs increases, the communication overhead grows exponentially. This can be understood through the formula: Communication lines = n*(n-1)/2, where ’n’ is the number of delivery units (ARTs). This formula highlights the dramatic increase in communication pathways as the organization scales. For example, with 10 delivery units and key roles, there are 45 communication lines. With 15, there are 105. This escalation makes it increasingly difficult to maintain clear and efficient communication, leading to delays, misunderstandings, and a diminished overall understanding of the project landscape.
2. The Lack of Alignment Due to Conflicting Priorities:
The absence of a unified vision and strategy results in conflicting priorities among ARTs. This dilemma can be illustrated through an analogy with a football club that manages two teams: Team A, playing in the highest league, and Team B, a developmental team nurturing young talent destined for Team A.
In this scenario, Team A, facing rapid player turnover inherent in top-tier competition, has a strong incentive to draw the best young players from Team B to maintain its competitive edge. However, Team B, striving to avoid relegation to a lower league and maintain its own competitive standing, has an equally strong interest in retaining its most promising players. This creates a fundamental conflict of interest, a dilemma in fact, within the same club, pulling the development of players in opposing directions.
Similarly, in a network of ARTs, individual ARTs may prioritize their local objectives, which can conflict with the overall strategic goals of the organization. Each ART, like each football team, has its own specific goals and priorities. Without a clear, overarching strategy, these local optimizations can lead to misalignment, hindering the delivery of cohesive and valuable solutions. This internal conflict, much like the football club’s dilemma, demonstrates how competing interests within a larger organization can impede overall success.
Conclusion
The scattered growth of ARTs in IT departments since the creation of the Scaled Agile Framework created a dilemma characterized by increased communication complexity and conflicting priorities. This dilemma undermines the intended benefits of scaling and agility. Understanding the root causes of this dilemma is crucial for developing effective strategies to mitigate its impact. The second article of this mini-series will explore these strategies, focusing on value stream identification, lean portfolio management, and adequate work management tooling.
