As your organization grows, how do you keep all the many parts aligned with each other and to the larger goals of the org. Status Reports remains the most effective tool and the most hated one by engineers; what can you do as a TPM to make status reporting more effective?
Several great points. Questions: assume the leader or scrum master will provide status report for each individual team. Who would review the whole update content and ask for clarification/actions/follow up if any issues? The program manager?
I am the believer that whomever is writing the code or is responsible for the team writing the code should be accountable for the words written in the Status report. This one of my primary dislikes about the Scrum model where everything, responsibility wise, is split across so many roles. Ideal, every feature has one person accountable for it's success; they don't necessarily need to be the one who writes the most code but are the SME in the space. If you don't have that level of simplified accountability, find the ones who will be responsible for the coding team and have the Program Manager confirm with them the words being written. At the leadership level each exec sponsor for the areas should review the status report as well.
Ultimately - the Program Manager is the one who makes sure all of these actions and steps are happening.
I really like the idea that DRI is giving the updates at the base level, and PgM clarify and validate the updates before rolling them up and send to executive sponsor. Interestingly I had been the reviewer and the presumable leader to ask for actions to be on track in several of my programs (infrastructure space) with the support of my executive sponsor. I did give regular high level updates to my senior leaders on the target dates, main issues, and any support I need.
Several great points. Questions: assume the leader or scrum master will provide status report for each individual team. Who would review the whole update content and ask for clarification/actions/follow up if any issues? The program manager?
I am the believer that whomever is writing the code or is responsible for the team writing the code should be accountable for the words written in the Status report. This one of my primary dislikes about the Scrum model where everything, responsibility wise, is split across so many roles. Ideal, every feature has one person accountable for it's success; they don't necessarily need to be the one who writes the most code but are the SME in the space. If you don't have that level of simplified accountability, find the ones who will be responsible for the coding team and have the Program Manager confirm with them the words being written. At the leadership level each exec sponsor for the areas should review the status report as well.
Ultimately - the Program Manager is the one who makes sure all of these actions and steps are happening.
I really like the idea that DRI is giving the updates at the base level, and PgM clarify and validate the updates before rolling them up and send to executive sponsor. Interestingly I had been the reviewer and the presumable leader to ask for actions to be on track in several of my programs (infrastructure space) with the support of my executive sponsor. I did give regular high level updates to my senior leaders on the target dates, main issues, and any support I need.