SAFe at Intel MDO

Intel Agile and Lean Development Conference - 2014

Sean Goh & Joseph Chee

MDO Process & Efficiency Team

Penang Sept 2014

Agenda

1. What’s on the Market

2. MDO Organization

3. SAFe Implementation at MDO

4. TIPS for success

5. Challenges

Process and Efficiency Team

3

What’s in the Market?LeSS – Craig Larman & Bas Vodde

DaD – Scott Ambler

SAFe – Dean Leffingwell

SAFe

SAFe Principles - Intent• Output Quality

– “You can’t scale crappy code.”

• Predictable Execution

– “Agile Release Trains – self organizing teams of agile

teams – reliably and frequently deliver value on demand”

• Alignment & Synergy

– “More value is created by overall alignment than with

local excellence”

• Up/Down Transparency

– “Transparency builds confidence, alignment and trust”

MDO Value Stream

All Reporting to Single Organization

Pre-MDO reporting structure:

7

See the change

BO and CE are Project Managers

MDO reporting structure:

8

5 Horizontal Org 3 Horizontal Org

Vision

9

Horizontals

S/C TP

DCD

Analog

PHI

MPV

Client BO

S/C TPI, fuse

Arrays, reset, BF, scan

IO, PLL, power/thermal

Yield, BS

PPV, CMV

SOC BO Server BO Chipset BO

Reporting structure. Responsible for the “how”

Pro

du

ct structu

re –

resp

on

sible

fo

r the

“wh

at”

ART Release Planning

Plan Committed!!

Release Planning Artifacts

Sprint Planning Board

Risk Board

Dependency Board

Release Planning Artifacts

Sprint Planning Board Risk Board

Dependency Board

TIPS for Success

1. Leadership Support & Investments

2. Team Engagement & Strategy

3. Art of Standardization.

4. Can’t scale bad teams

5. Inspect and Adapt

Servant Leadership

Team Engagement & Strategy

Standardization?

Can’t Scale Bad Teams

Inspect and Adapt

Reflection – After Action Review (AAR)

• INTENT vs. ACTUAL– What did we intend to happen?

– What actually happened? Why?

• KEY LEARNINGS AND ACTION PLAN– What can we learn from Previous Iteration?

– What can we Sustain? What do we need to Improve?

– What actions can be taken during the next Iteration?

Intent vs. ActualIntent

• Building on our good scrum & release planning practices, launch ARTs for all the products at once in WW04

• Use SAFe as a template to remove variation in the organization’s execution

• Follow a simple rules across organization to guarantee efficiency and adherence to agile principles when constructing the agile teams and trains

Actual

• Took us a quarter to pull this off for business reasons– All trains finish the release on

time, but not all start on time

• 1200 engrs and tech in 177 scrums connected to 12 trains

• Variation in our agile maturity is showing up at the train level– Can’t scale bad/immature agile

• SAFe is not a prescriptive template, rather a set of guidelines about what you might need to pay attention to.– Trick is to figure out where to

implement as a rule and where to experiment with an idea

• Though the rules are simple, following them is not.

Intent vs. Actual (Rules)

• 100/177 Scrums are too

small/big

• 74/177 Scrums are X-

Site

• 15/177 Scrums work on

multiple trains

• 6/12 trains are run

across 3 geos

Scrum Level Rules

1. Size – 5-9 Team Members

2. Commitment – Permanent members 100% dedicated

3. Co-Location – Same site, sitting together.

4. X-Func – Can execute value stream, end to end, w/o handoffs

Train Level Rules

1. Size - Train can have 5-15 scrums

2. Commitment - 1 Scrum works on only 1 train at a time

3. Co-Location – max 2 geos per train with 3+ overlap hours

Accounting errors - Plans to fix – Waivers – Rule ChangesSome teams cannot follow some of the scrum rules . .

Just a Framework

Challenges

1. Conversation Over Indicator?

2. Pacing the Teams

3. Co-location Complexity

Conversation over

Indicators?

CAN WE COMPROMISE?

Pacing the Teams

CAN WE COMPROMISE?

Co-location Complexity

27

Backup

Intel Software Professionals Conference -

Intel Confidential28