PMI ACP Quiz 18

An environment that is tactically iterative and emergent does not minimize internal redundancy. Instead, it encourages small groups with internal redundancy. It also encourages intuitive actions and fluid interactions among members and supports proven protocols and lean practices.

Iteration backlog is a storage of stories or use cases that reflect agile methodology. Adjusting the iteration backlog is the most typical tactic employed in agile methods, effectively showing how strategy is combined with tactical expediency.

The iteration backlog does not need to be freed of any previously unidentified story. In fact, if there is an updated data about a requirement which was previously unidentified, this needs to be added to the backlog. Other reasons for needing to adjust the iteration backlog include an irrelevant story that needs to be removed following discovery, as well as whenever the user finds a superior method to achieve functionality.

Technical or functional debt in tactical maneuvering involves those small items on a punch list that have been deferred. Although delayed, this debt will have to be completed before the project ends. These items may lead to minor changes seeming to deviate from the strategy but, when combined, they actually satisfy the strategic intent.

Shift of dominance is an agile management mandate that shows a shift from being dominated by consumption based on the plan, to being dominated by consumption based on throughput. This means that instead of consuming resources (ex. project scope, timeline, etc.) based on the plan, more focus is given to consumption depending on what really gives value as identified during the process.

The first use of the black box it to outline or design the architecture of the project outcome. This process is more art than science and involves creating several black boxes that are connected with one another.

The only single way to utilize a black box is by communicating through its interface. A black box contains the internal framework and specifics of a project outcome’s architecture that is concealed from the outside world. Its generality is known for being convenient across a broad range of system design.

A good mapping shows the organizational biases of the business. Mapping is the first use of the black box which involves outlining or designing the architecture of a project outcome. This process is more art than science.

A best architecture is not “always” emergent because a best architecture is a result of forethought – such as the strategic architecture. However, at levels below the strategic architecture, such as the tactical architecture, the mapping is likely to emerge as it adjusts to the specific details of the customer’s requirements.

In encapsulated black boxes, specifics related to one black box are unknown to members that are not assigned to that black box. This results to encapsulated black boxes being territorial to an extent – “you have yours, I have mine” – and everybody gets to have a piece of the architecture. In this regard, local matters actually become confined to a small number of people instead of a large number of individuals.

We come to have a white box when the specifics of the black box are revealed to the people assigned to that black box. In effect, the black box becomes transparent to the people assigned to it and thus gets to be referred to as white box. Hence it can be said that for the members who now view the black box transparently, they are coming up with a white box solution.

The features of a black box interface, once defined, can actually still be changed on the open side as long as there is coordination with all other black box groups. The interface is crucial for communication and for connecting one encapsulated entity to another. It is in itself active and is a function onto itself.

According to the rule for tactical emergence and iteration, team members are given flexibility to iterate and work on an emergent backlog, then restructure the white box solution, once they have committed to the open and stationary interface. Note that the correct term is white box solution – not black box. This is because the specifics of the black box were already made known to the team members making it transparent to them and hence a white box.

When the encapsulation of a black box is removed, it then becomes a white box. The white box is a characterization of the internal architecture of the black box; and there is always a white box for every black box. This, however, does not mean that other teams not assigned to a certain black box will have

When communicating between and among black boxes, the broad choices for communication are dedicated and point-to-point connections, connections that are common to a particular network, and connections that are organized according to rank or those which are governed by hierarchical rules.

Instead of eliminating application protocols, a correct way of addressing oneself to the interface when choosing a network to communicate among black boxes is to put application protocols in place as an overlay to rules of connectivity. Other ways include administering layered protocols, organizing black boxes as nodes on the network, and establishing an active and accessible network as part of the product architecture.

Shift of allegiance is an agile management mandate that shows a shift from faithful compliance to a plan to faithful acknowledgment of the customer need. This means that instead of faithfully observing the detailed specifics of a plan, management will favor whatever it is that best satisfies the customer need.

A network that connects all black boxes into a system actually becomes extendable to other units. Even in the presence of a weak network, the supposed goals of a black box do not get compromised due to a responsive connectivity in place.

A tension between traditional and agile ideas can be found on how they view inputs in relation to outcomes. For the traditional approach, it subscribes to the idea that carefully controlled inputs applied to tested processes will always lead to the best outcome. This is opposed to the agile approach wherein inputs may be modified along with the processes in order to come up with the best outcome.

One of the problems with traditional ideas is that some issues with input quality are actually latent and hence may be discovered late. This is inevitable and will eventually alter the character of the outcomes. As such, the traditional approach cannot really always confidently predict outcomes because there would be variances between the plan and the reality.

Anchor bias is a concept theorized by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. It refers to an event wherein a person gets struck by an idea and chooses not to abandon it or stray too far from it. In effect, the person is putting himself on a short anchor line, believing that the expert who had set the anchor has the finest judgment on what is right.

A result of anchor bias occurs in the form of project metrics being put at the front with the plan instead of at the back with the results. In anchor bias, the person is struck by an idea and chooses not to abandon it or stray too far from it. Hence, crucial project metrics are placed close to the beginning of the idea, at the front, where the plan is. This is unlike the agile approach where crucial metrics are placed at the back where the outcome happens.

The agile response to the traditional anchor bias is to advocate for tactical emergence and iteration. This involves having the flexibility to adjust processes according to project circumstances in order to achieve the best outcome. Instead of faithfully subscribing to the initial idea, agile methods may modify the procedures and deviate from the plan, but ultimately accomplish the outcome consistent with the stationary strategic intent.

When anchor bias exists, outcomes are confidently predicted without taking into consideration the project circumstances. The outcome is based on the initial idea, on crucial project metrics that are placed at the start of the project where the plan is. Hence when project circumstances change which eventually affects the outcome, a gap occurs between the plan and the reality.

Between shift of dominance and shift of allegiance, shift of allegiance is the agile management mandate that is more profound. This is because it influences all types of relationships from project plans to pay plans, and more importantly the bargains that can be found in contracts. Take note that shift of allegiance prioritizes the customer need instead of strict compliance to a plan. The customer is the point of the project – i.e. if the customers do not find greater success in the project, then what is the point of the project?

The Agile Manifesto posits the change in dominance from a culture where members conform to rules and guidance, to a culture where a group of individuals develops solutions to problems by means of observation. The Agile Manifesto recognizes the value of each member of a team and gives it greater priority over anonymous protocol-based processes.

The grand bargain for best value means that one can deviate from the plan and modify the process as long as best value is delivered. Deviating from the plan to modify the process according to customer needs is illustrative of tactical emergence and iteration. Hence in trade for the freedom to be tactically emergent and iterative to the needs of the customer, the project will produce a best value outcome.

The grand bargain for best value occurs between the business sponsor and the project manager, or between the business and the project. The grand bargain makes it easier to accept the shift in allegiance from the business (i.e. its strategic plan) to the project (i.e. its outcome) as long as the project delivers a best value outcome.

Best value is the most scope and the most valuable scope that can be achieved using the resources provided in the business case. It adheres to the strategic intent without necessarily adhering to the strategic plan and hence can be achieved by being tactically emergent and iterative.

During the grand bargain for best value, the customer is present but is mostly a dormant partner at least until the project starts rolling. Although best value is dependent on what will meet the needs of the customer, there are aspects of best value where the customer is not included in the picture (ex. nonfunctional requirements such as certifications).