Leading Frameworks Add Gaping Holes to Agile Governance
Leading frameworks and dependencies do not mix well together because some of these frameworks are so rigid towards them. A dependency is something that your team must wait to be completed before their own work can commence.
If one team is working on a project and they rely on another team to deliver something, that dependency needs to be tracked and managed. But leading frameworks do not have a great way to do that. Following leading frameworks means there is an overabundance of planning, processing, standardisation, and lots of meetings.
All of the red tape and bureaucracy lead to Agile teams feeling frustrated because they are not able to move as quickly as they want. And when Agile teams are slowed down, it defeats the purpose of Agile.
Leading frameworks do not account for the fact that Agile teams are constantly changing and evolving. The framework is too rigid to change with the Agile teams, which leads to more frustration. There is less commitment to continuous improvement when compared to other Agile frameworks.
Since the decision-makers won’t be involved at the ground level, they won’t have the knowledge to benefit from retrospectives. As a result, the Agile team won’t be able to improve and will become stuck adhering to processes laid out by the theorists.