The journey to create a high-capacity network gateway began in late 2007, at a time when both the technology and its application were largely uncharted territories. This new venture was fraught with risk and uncertainty. The first challenge we faced was the development of a completely new technology—a first for Nokia Siemens Networks, which has since evolved into Nokia Networks. It was a technology that hadn’t been used or deployed commercially at that time. The second, perhaps more daunting, challenge was that the use cases for this technology were not fully defined. There was no clear roadmap for its commercial deployment, leaving us to navigate the process with limited direction.a
Given these challenges, it became evident that we needed a flexible and adaptive approach to development. The solution we gravitated toward was the LeSS framework, or Large Scale Scrum. LeSS, known for its scalability and emphasis on continuous feedback, offered a framework that could accommodate the evolving nature of the project. It was designed to manage complexity, uncertainty, and change effectively, all of which were central to the task at hand. The fundamental principle of LeSS is that it fosters iterative development and adaptability, making it an ideal fit for a project with an undefined and ever-shifting scope. By embracing this framework, we were able to create a product that could evolve based on real-world learnings and continually adapt to the needs of the customer.
However, the implementation of the LeSS framework was not without its struggles. While the decision to use LeSS was relatively straightforward, the transition to its principles and practices was challenging. The LeSS framework demanded a significant shift in organizational culture and working practices. One of the major challenges was overcoming the deeply ingrained organizational structure that had been in place for years. In a traditional setup, teams were divided into silos, with specialists working within distinct areas like hardware, software, and networking. Each team operated on a specific component, with handoffs between departments or teams. This approach, although functional in traditional environments, was not designed for the speed, flexibility, and cross-functional collaboration required for this ambitious network project.
Transitioning from component-based teams to feature teams was a monumental shift. Feature teams are long-lived, cross-functional, and composed of individuals from various domains, tasked with delivering complete end-to-end customer features. This structure required that each team take ownership of an entire feature rather than just a component of it. The idea was that feature teams could move faster, iterate more quickly, and collaborate more effectively than siloed, component-specific teams. The decision to embrace this model was rooted in the belief that such a setup would increase flexibility and reduce the overall cycle time for delivering the product. However, convincing everyone in the organization of the advantages of this approach was far from easy.
Many people were resistant to the change, especially those who had spent years working within the more traditional, hierarchical structure. The concept of cross-functional teams, where team members from different domains and areas of expertise collaborate closely, was foreign to them. There were concerns about the lack of clear authority lines, the blending of roles, and the challenges of having individuals with diverse skill sets working together without a clear division of labor. The shift to feature teams demanded not only a change in organizational structure but also a fundamental change in how team members interacted, made decisions, and managed responsibilities. The existing mindset was one of "command and control," where leadership dictated the direction and decisions were made by a few individuals at the top of the hierarchy. In contrast, the feature team model required collaboration, autonomy, and a more decentralized approach to decision-making.
Despite the challenges, the need for change was undeniable. We realized that in order to succeed, we had to embrace new ways of working, ways that allowed for more rapid development cycles and increased responsiveness to evolving customer needs. Adopting the feature team structure would not only streamline decision-making but also encourage ownership and accountability among team members. This approach also fostered a more collaborative environment, where team members with diverse expertise could bring fresh perspectives to the table and work together to solve complex problems.
The first few months of the project were marked by slow progress and intense debates between teams. The decision to start with two feature teams seemed like a strategic move, but it quickly became apparent that the process of aligning on core decisions was more challenging than anticipated. These early days were characterized by heated discussions on architecture, infrastructure, and the best approach to solving technical challenges. While it was natural for there to be disagreements, these debates were often prolonged and inefficient, leading to delays and frustration among team members.
The root of the problem was not just technical but also cultural. Many team members had little experience with Scrum and were accustomed to traditional, top-down management structures. The absence of clear hierarchies and the collaborative, consensus-driven decision-making process of Scrum created friction. Instead of focusing on collaboration and problem-solving, some team members treated discussions as arguments, where the goal was to "win" rather than find the best solution for the team. This created a challenging dynamic, as team members were more focused on defending their positions than on working together to find mutually agreeable solutions. It took time for everyone to adjust to this new way of working, and even longer to see the benefits of collaboration over competition.
Despite the early difficulties, these initial debates and disagreements had their silver lining. They forced the teams to explore every possible architectural solution and consider all viewpoints before making decisions. This rigorous exploration of options led to a more robust and comprehensive design. It also provided valuable lessons in how to navigate conflict and collaboration within a feature team structure. In many ways, the struggles of the early days were necessary to lay the foundation for the more effective collaboration that would come later.
As we moved from two to four teams, the challenges didn’t dissipate but rather evolved. While the addition of more teams created new dynamics, it also opened up new opportunities for innovation and problem-solving. The diversity of thought and perspective that came with having more teams allowed us to identify potential risks early on and address them before they became major obstacles. Each team brought a unique approach to the table, and while this sometimes led to disagreements, it also facilitated the identification of blind spots and areas for improvement.
The growing number of teams also meant that we had to continuously refine our processes. As the scope of the project expanded, so too did the complexity of coordinating between teams. Communication became even more critical, and the need for clear and effective channels of collaboration grew. To address this, we put greater emphasis on regular cross-team meetings, where we could discuss progress, share insights, and resolve any issues that arose. These meetings became essential for maintaining alignment and ensuring that all teams were moving in the same direction.
The process of scaling up from two to four teams required a balance of patience and strategic planning. While it was essential to allow the teams the autonomy they needed to make decisions, it was equally important to ensure that there was a cohesive overarching vision that all teams were working toward. The goal was to maintain the agility of the feature teams while ensuring that the development effort as a whole remained coordinated and aligned with the broader organizational objectives.
Looking back, the initial struggles of implementing the LeSS framework were not setbacks but rather opportunities for growth and refinement. The challenges we faced in the early stages helped us to better understand the nuances of the LeSS approach and how to make it work in a complex, real-world setting. Through iteration, feedback, and continuous improvement, we were able to transform our approach into a highly effective and efficient development process that ultimately led to the successful creation of the high-capacity network gateway.
As the development of the high-capacity network gateway continued, we reached a critical phase where the project needed to scale. Initially, two teams had been enough to manage the work. However, as the scope of the project grew, the decision was made to expand the team to four. This decision seemed logical at first. With more teams, we could distribute the workload and tackle more complex tasks. Yet, the expansion process was far from smooth. The transition from a smaller, more tightly-knit group of two teams to a larger, more diverse set of four presented its own set of challenges.
One of the key difficulties lay in the integration of new team members. The organization’s traditional, siloed structure had cultivated habits that were deeply ingrained in the team’s processes and mindsets. Introducing a new set of tools and methodologies—such as the LeSS framework—required not only technical adjustments but also cultural shifts. Teams were accustomed to their old ways of working and often felt overwhelmed by the idea of adopting something entirely new. This resistance to change manifested in many ways, such as reluctance to use new tools or processes, and often translated into slower progress during the development sprints.
For example, one of the newly formed teams refused to adopt the new testing tools that were central to the LeSS framework. Instead, they clung to the tools and methods they had used in their previous environment. This resistance had a ripple effect on the overall timeline. The team’s refusal to embrace unit testing and automated testing workflows delayed critical components of the gateway, leaving the entire project vulnerable to bottlenecks. It became clear that simply adding more teams did not guarantee faster development—it was essential that these teams were properly equipped and motivated to adapt to the new processes.
Looking back, the primary issue stemmed from insufficient training. The new tools and practices were introduced without adequate context or guidance. Teams struggled to understand how the new tools fit into the iterative nature of the Scrum process. In hindsight, it became evident that we had failed to provide the necessary training and explanation of the benefits of automated testing and unit testing within an agile framework. Without this foundational understanding, teams were unable to appreciate how their work contributed to the overall success of the project. This disconnect created friction and resistance, which ultimately slowed down the progress of the project.
To overcome this resistance and set the stage for future success, we had to take a step back and rethink our approach to training and communication. The first step in overcoming this challenge was creating a more structured onboarding process for new teams. We recognized that it was not enough to simply explain the tools and processes; we needed to ensure that teams understood the philosophy behind the changes. The iterative nature of Scrum, with its focus on constant improvement and adaptability, had to be conveyed clearly and comprehensively. Only then could we expect teams to embrace the changes fully.
We began to focus on the larger picture—the reason why these changes were important—and ensured that all team members, both new and old, had a firm understanding of how their roles fit into the LeSS framework. This shift in communication was crucial for making the teams feel involved in the process, rather than as mere recipients of top-down directives. By allowing them to see the long-term benefits of these changes and giving them the autonomy to adapt tools and processes to fit their needs, we were able to ease some of the initial resistance.
At the same time, we strengthened our commitment to hands-on support. We created a dedicated training team that worked closely with the teams to ensure they had the resources they needed to succeed. This wasn’t just about formal training sessions; it was about providing continuous guidance and feedback. Through one-on-one mentoring, pair programming, and peer support, we ensured that the learning process was integrated into the daily workflow, rather than something that was isolated to specific training sessions.
We also placed a strong emphasis on transparency. We began holding regular meetings where teams could openly discuss the challenges they faced and share insights about the changes they were experiencing. These conversations allowed us to identify any misunderstandings or roadblocks that were impeding progress and allowed us to address them quickly. As we gained a deeper understanding of the struggles that different teams were facing, we were able to adjust our training and communication strategies to better meet their needs.
The second phase of growth for the high-capacity network gateway development project brought its own set of challenges, but it also provided opportunities to build upon the lessons we had learned from the first round of expansion. By this point, we had begun to integrate some of the core principles of the LeSS framework more deeply into the process, and we recognized the importance of building a strong feedback loop to help us continuously refine and improve our approach.
The establishment of regular retrospectives was one of the most valuable practices we introduced at this stage. These retrospectives allowed teams to reflect on their work, share what was going well, and discuss what needed improvement. The key here was that these retrospectives were not just about identifying problems—they were about finding solutions together. Teams were encouraged to provide actionable suggestions for improvement, which gave them a sense of ownership and empowerment over the process.
These discussions also fostered a culture of openness and collaboration. Instead of viewing mistakes as failures, teams began to see them as learning opportunities. When things went wrong, they weren’t simply blamed or dismissed; instead, the team came together to understand what had happened and how they could improve moving forward. This shift in mindset played a crucial role in maintaining morale and ensuring that progress continued to move forward despite setbacks.
As the teams grew larger and more complex, the feedback loop became even more important. With more teams working on different aspects of the project, it was vital that everyone stayed aligned and worked together towards common goals. The retrospectives became an essential tool for maintaining this alignment, ensuring that each team understood how their work contributed to the larger objectives of the project. They also provided a forum for discussing not only technical challenges but also interpersonal issues, team dynamics, and cultural concerns. By addressing these issues early, we were able to prevent them from becoming major obstacles later on.
The feedback loop also extended beyond the team level. We introduced mechanisms for gathering feedback from stakeholders, including product owners and customers, to ensure that we were meeting their needs and expectations. This continuous input allowed us to make informed decisions about the direction of the project, ensuring that we were always moving in the right direction.
As the project continued to scale, we faced new challenges in maintaining quality across a growing team and expanding operations. One of the most significant turning points came when we added a second site to the development effort. This site was crucial for scaling up production and ensuring that we could meet the growing demand for the network gateway. However, the addition of a new site also brought with it the complexities of coordinating between two geographically dispersed teams.
In the early stages, the challenges were significant. The teams at the second site had to integrate with the teams at the primary site, and this required overcoming communication barriers, time zone differences, and cultural differences. One of the most difficult aspects of this integration was ensuring that the teams were aligned in terms of processes, tools, and expectations. It was essential that the teams at both sites worked together seamlessly, without the traditional silos that often emerge in geographically distributed teams.
We quickly realized that the key to overcoming these challenges lay in the strength of our collaboration and communication practices. We set up regular cross-site meetings, used collaborative tools like Slack and Confluence to facilitate communication, and ensured that both teams had access to the same documentation and resources. This helped create a sense of unity, despite the physical distance between the teams.
The integration of subcontractors at the second site also required additional effort. These subcontractors needed to be trained in the tools, processes, and methodologies we were using, and they needed to understand the culture of collaboration that we had worked so hard to establish. We took great care in ensuring that these subcontractors felt included and were integrated into the team as seamlessly as possible. This process highlighted the importance of a strong, cohesive team culture, especially when scaling operations to multiple locations.
The introduction of automated acceptance testing at both sites was another crucial step in ensuring that quality remained high. By automating key testing processes, we were able to ensure that the network gateway met the necessary performance and reliability standards, even as the development effort scaled. This allowed teams to focus more on innovation and feature development, rather than spending time on manual testing. As a result, we were able to maintain a high level of quality while keeping the development process agile and adaptable.
Looking back, the lessons learned during this phase of growth were critical to the long-term success of the project. The challenges we faced during this time were difficult, but they also provided valuable insights into how to scale a development effort effectively while maintaining quality and collaboration across teams.
As we entered the second phase of growth, we encountered a new set of challenges that shifted our focus from internal team dynamics to cross-site coordination. The decision to scale our development efforts by adding more teams and extending our work to a second site was driven by the increasing demand for the product. Our goal was to accelerate development and meet the growing market needs. However, this expansion introduced a host of obstacles that required careful attention to detail and new strategies for managing cross-site collaboration.
The most immediate challenge was ensuring that the teams at the new site were able to integrate seamlessly with the established teams at the original location. Unlike the local teams, the new site consisted of subcontractors who were unfamiliar with our tools, methods, and the overall way of working. It became clear that without a shared understanding of the processes, our efforts could be undermined by communication issues, delays, and inefficiencies. To address this, we committed to a thorough training program that would immerse the subcontractors in our workflows, tools, and team practices. This process took several weeks and involved a lot of hands-on collaboration, but it proved to be an investment that paid off in the long run.
As we navigated the complexities of cross-site work, we quickly realized that there was more to consider than just technical proficiency. The subcontractors brought with them different experiences, skills, and cultural approaches to work, which made integration more challenging. While the learning curve was steep, especially in the initial weeks, we found that a comprehensive training approach that went beyond technical knowledge and included cultural and process-related guidance was critical for ensuring smooth integration. This approach not only helped to align the teams on practical matters but also fostered a shared understanding of how we worked together as a whole.
With the scaling of our teams and the addition of a second site, the demands on our Product Owner became overwhelming. The sheer volume of work required to manage the growing backlog led us to rethink how we could maintain a manageable and organized structure. The initial solution was to divide the Product Backlog into larger areas, which would allow different teams to focus on specific domains. While this approach seemed promising at first, it soon became apparent that the areas we created were often too narrow, leading to unnecessary complexity.
Rather than simplifying the process, the division into smaller areas created confusion and a lack of visibility across teams. The teams that were tasked with handling these narrow domains often struggled with unclear boundaries, which led to inefficiencies and misalignment on the overall direction of the project. In retrospect, we realized that a more holistic approach to organizing the backlog would have been more effective. By grouping related features into broader, more encompassing areas, we could have improved transparency and reduced the fragmentation of work. This insight became an essential part of our backlog management strategy moving forward, as we adapted our approach to better support the growing needs of the product and its development.
In hindsight, we also understood that the fragmentation of the backlog not only created confusion for the teams but also put additional strain on the Product Owner. The challenges of managing multiple narrow domains became a bottleneck in the decision-making process, as the Product Owner struggled to keep track of the progress in each area. A more streamlined and balanced approach to backlog organization would have alleviated this pressure and allowed for better coordination between teams. This realization reinforced the importance of thoughtful backlog management and provided valuable lessons for future scaling efforts.
As the team continued to grow, we began to see the emergence of specialized roles that were essential for maintaining quality and ensuring that the product met the performance standards required for a high-capacity network. Some teams were dedicated entirely to specific functions, such as performance testing, system testing, and coaching. These specialized teams played a crucial role in ensuring that we did not compromise on quality during the scaling process.
Performance testing, for example, became a focal point as we worked to ensure that the product could handle the increasing demands of the market. As the complexity of the product grew, so did the need for rigorous testing processes to ensure that every component functioned optimally. By dedicating a specific team to performance testing, we were able to focus on the finer details of system performance and optimize the product for high-capacity environments.
Similarly, system testing became an area of specialization that allowed us to thoroughly assess the robustness of the system. With the increasing scale of development and the involvement of cross-site teams, having a dedicated system testing team helped to streamline the process and ensured that every feature was thoroughly tested before being integrated into the final product. This specialized approach also allowed us to address issues early in the development process, preventing costly errors and delays down the line.
Coaching also emerged as an essential specialized role. As we scaled, it became evident that the growth of the team was not just about adding more people but also about developing their skills and ensuring they were aligned with the overarching goals of the project. The coaching team played a key role in providing guidance, mentoring, and ensuring that the team's processes were aligned with the best practices. This focus on skill development and continuous learning became crucial for maintaining the high standards we set for the product.
Scaling development teams across sites presented us with several important lessons, both in terms of team management and product development. One of the most crucial takeaways was the importance of establishing a shared understanding of the way of working. This was particularly important when working with subcontractors from different sites who were unfamiliar with our processes. By investing in thorough training and ensuring that all teams, regardless of location, were aligned in their understanding of tools, methods, and workflows, we were able to overcome the initial hurdles of cross-site collaboration.
Another key takeaway was the importance of thoughtful backlog management. The decision to divide the backlog into smaller areas initially seemed like a good strategy for streamlining work across teams. However, the complexity it introduced highlighted the need for a more holistic approach to backlog organization. By grouping related features into broader areas, we were able to improve transparency and reduce unnecessary fragmentation of work. This insight proved to be invaluable as we continued to scale, and it reshaped our approach to backlog management.
The emergence of specialized roles within our team structure was also a vital lesson in scaling. As the product grew in complexity, we realized that we needed dedicated teams for specific functions such as performance testing, system testing, and coaching. These specialized teams allowed us to maintain the high standards we set for the product while also ensuring that we could handle the growing demands of the project. By providing targeted attention to these areas, we were able to improve both the efficiency and the quality of our work, ensuring that the product was ready for the challenges of high-capacity networks.
In the end, scaling our teams and managing cross-site collaboration required a combination of strategic foresight, effective communication, and a willingness to adapt our processes to meet the needs of the project. As we continued to grow, these lessons shaped how we approached future challenges and allowed us to build a more efficient and cohesive development environment.
As we transitioned into the second growth phase, the dynamics of team management underwent a significant shift. No longer just internal collaboration within a single location, the challenge now revolved around managing teams spread across multiple sites. With an increase in product demand, we decided to expand our efforts by extending development to a second site. The goal was to accelerate development and better meet the increasing market need. However, with this expansion came unforeseen complexities that required a fresh approach to how we worked across teams and sites.
The foremost lesson we learned was the importance of aligning teams on a shared way of working. The second site, which involved subcontractors who were unfamiliar with our tools, methods, and cultural practices, highlighted the challenges of cross-site coordination. To overcome these hurdles, we invested time in training the subcontractors intensively. This was not just a technical training exercise but also an effort to immerse them in our organizational culture, workflows, and tools. The close collaboration with our local teams played a crucial role in integrating these subcontractors effectively.
However, it was clear that simply training the subcontractors was not enough. There were differences in skill levels and previous experiences, which contributed to a steep learning curve. The integration was challenging, but in the long run, the effort paid off. By offering not only technical training but also guidance on our working processes and culture, we were able to facilitate a smoother transition and improve collaboration across sites. As the subcontractors became more familiar with our ways of working, the team's overall productivity and cohesion significantly improved.
The next hurdle came with managing the workload of our Product Owner. Initially, one Product Owner had been sufficient to handle the volume of work. However, as the team expanded, it became evident that the scope was too large for a single individual to manage effectively. To address this, we decided to break down the Product Backlog into larger, more specific areas. The idea was to give different teams more focus and responsibility, allowing them to work autonomously within their domains. While this seemed like a reasonable solution, it led to complications. The divisions between the areas were often too narrow, resulting in unnecessary complexity and a lack of transparency. We soon realized that broader, more inclusive areas would have been more effective, as they would have reduced complexity and allowed for better visibility across the teams.
This experience helped us refine our approach to managing the Product Backlog. It became clear that having a more holistic view of the backlog was essential to ensuring smooth collaboration between teams. This insight led to adjustments in how we organized and managed our teams, and it ultimately improved the efficiency of our cross-site coordination. Moreover, the growth of specialized roles within the team structure further reinforced the importance of focused expertise. Teams dedicated to specific functions like performance testing and system testing played an indispensable role in maintaining quality and ensuring that the product met the required standards for high-capacity networks.
The adoption of the LeSS framework brought significant benefits to our team, but it also required a constant process of adaptation. One of the most notable advantages was the reduction in time to market. By embracing agile principles and iterative development cycles, we were able to deliver results much faster than we had with the traditional, linear approach. This shift was crucial in meeting the fast-paced demands of the market and allowed us to stay competitive in the rapidly evolving telecom industry.
In the traditional development model, the product development cycle was long and rigid, often resulting in products that were outdated by the time they reached the market. The sequential lifecycle of the old model made it difficult to incorporate feedback from customers or adjust to new market demands. In contrast, the LeSS framework’s iterative nature enabled us to build a more flexible, adaptive process. Instead of being bound by rigid stages, we could develop and test features incrementally, making adjustments along the way. This gave us the ability to respond to changes quickly and deliver a product that better aligned with customer needs.
Another key advantage of the LeSS framework was the ability to reduce the time spent on rework. With traditional models, if a mistake was made or a change was needed, it often required revisiting earlier stages of development, which could result in delays and increased costs. However, with LeSS, the feedback loops were shorter, allowing us to identify issues early and fix them before they became more significant problems. This contributed to both cost and time savings, ultimately speeding up the development process.
The iterative cycle also improved our ability to maintain product quality. Instead of waiting until the end of the development process to test the product as a whole, we could conduct frequent tests during each iteration. This ensured that quality was embedded into the development process from the outset. It also helped reduce the risk of defects being carried forward into the final product, which in turn boosted customer satisfaction.
What truly set the LeSS framework apart was its emphasis on collaboration. By fostering a culture of teamwork and shared responsibility, LeSS encouraged cross-functional collaboration and alignment toward common goals. Teams were no longer siloed, working in isolation on different components. Instead, they came together to build customer-centric features that delivered real value. This approach helped break down barriers between departments and allowed everyone to focus on achieving the same outcome.
Under LeSS, the teams were empowered to make decisions on their own, which led to increased ownership and accountability. This sense of autonomy was crucial in enabling teams to move quickly and respond to changes without waiting for approval from higher-ups. The decentralized decision-making process also encouraged innovation, as team members felt more confident in proposing and implementing new ideas. This was particularly beneficial in a rapidly evolving market, where flexibility and responsiveness are key to success.
The benefits of LeSS were especially evident when we faced unforeseen challenges. Traditional development models often required lengthy change management processes whenever a new challenge arose, leading to delays and disruptions. However, LeSS’s adaptability allowed us to handle unexpected issues much more efficiently. Whether we needed to change priorities based on new customer feedback or pivot in response to a market shift, LeSS provided the framework to adjust quickly and effectively. This level of responsiveness was a major factor in our ability to bring the product to market faster than initially anticipated.
The adoption of LeSS marked a pivotal shift in how we approached product development. The increased speed, flexibility, and collaboration that LeSS enabled helped us adapt to the evolving telecom landscape. By embracing agile methodologies, we were able to reduce time to market and ensure that our product remained aligned with customer needs and market trends.
As the market for high-capacity network solutions began to mature, we found that the LeSS framework helped us stay ahead of the competition. The iterative cycles allowed us to continuously refine and improve our product, ensuring that it met the demands of a rapidly changing market. In contrast, the traditional waterfall model would have forced us to commit to a single, rigid development plan, which could have resulted in a product that was too slow to adapt to customer needs.
Moreover, the collaborative nature of LeSS helped us build a more resilient team. As we scaled, we found that cross-functional collaboration became a cornerstone of our development process. The ability for teams to work together toward shared goals created a stronger sense of camaraderie and trust. This was especially important as we expanded across multiple sites and worked with subcontractors who were unfamiliar with our processes. The emphasis on collaboration helped bridge the gaps and allowed us to work cohesively toward a common objective.
In hindsight, adopting LeSS was one of the best decisions we made during the development of the high-capacity network gateway. It allowed us to build a more agile, responsive, and collaborative organization that was able to meet the demands of an ever-changing market. By embracing agile principles and leveraging the flexibility of LeSS, we were able to reduce time to market, enhance product quality, and ultimately deliver a product that met customer needs and exceeded expectations.
As we entered the second phase of growth, the challenges evolved from internal team dynamics to the complexities of cross-site collaboration. In response to the increasing demand for our product, we expanded the development effort to a second site with the goal of accelerating production. While this decision was intended to meet market demand more efficiently, it also introduced significant challenges that required careful consideration and a strategic approach.
One of the most critical lessons during this phase was the importance of creating a shared understanding of how to work across different sites. The addition of subcontractors who were unfamiliar with our tools and processes posed a unique challenge. To address this, we dedicated time to training the subcontractors and integrating them with our local teams. The training was immersive, helping the subcontractors get up to speed on our workflows and tools. This close collaboration allowed them to adapt to our working environment faster and facilitated smoother integration.
However, the integration process was complicated by the varying skill levels and experiences of the subcontractors. The learning curve was steep, and some of the team members struggled to adjust to the new environment. This made it necessary to provide not just technical training but also guidance on our organizational culture and work processes. Over time, the effort paid off, and once the subcontractors became fully integrated, we witnessed a significant boost in both productivity and collaboration.
One of the key issues we faced was the growing responsibility of a single Product Owner, who found it increasingly difficult to manage the volume of work. To address this, we made the decision to divide the Product Backlog into larger, more manageable areas. This allowed different teams to focus on specific domains. However, we soon realized that dividing the backlog in this way led to unnecessary complexity and a lack of clarity. In retrospect, creating broader, more inclusive areas would have simplified the process and improved visibility across teams. This lesson shaped our future approach to backlog management.
The growth of our team also gave rise to specialized roles. Some teams were tasked with specific functions, such as performance testing and system coaching. These specialized groups were essential in maintaining the quality of our work and ensuring that the product met the rigorous standards needed for high-capacity networks. The specialization helped streamline the development process and allowed us to tackle complex issues more effectively.
Reflecting on our experience with the LeSS (Large Scale Scrum) framework, we can confidently say that it was instrumental in transforming our approach to product development. The most notable impact was the reduction in time to market. By embracing the agile principles embedded in LeSS, we were able to accelerate development, making significant strides compared to previous methodologies.
Under the traditional waterfall model, our development cycle would have been considerably longer. Sequential development processes often led to bottlenecks, delaying critical components and preventing us from adjusting course in response to changing requirements. The LeSS framework, however, allowed us to break free from these constraints. Its iterative approach enabled us to deliver continuous value and make quick adjustments based on feedback, which was crucial for adapting to market demands.
The increased speed and flexibility provided by LeSS were particularly valuable as the high-capacity network gateway market began to mature. We were able to fine-tune the product continuously, ensuring it met customer expectations and market needs. In contrast, with a traditional development model, we would have faced the risk of launching a product that was already outdated by the time it reached the market.
LeSS also fostered a culture of collaboration, which had a profound effect on the entire organization. Cross-functional teams were empowered to work together toward common goals, improving both efficiency and effectiveness. This approach led to faster decision-making, as teams were not bogged down by layers of bureaucracy. It also cultivated a sense of shared ownership, as every team member understood their role in the success of the project.
A key benefit of LeSS was its ability to accommodate unforeseen challenges and evolving requirements. In traditional models, changes could result in delays or cost overruns, but LeSS made it easier for us to adapt. By incorporating feedback seamlessly and maintaining an open channel of communication, we were able to keep the project on track and deliver the product faster than we had initially anticipated.
The adoption of the LeSS framework went beyond altering how we developed our product—it required a profound cultural transformation within the organization. Moving from a hierarchical, command-and-control structure to a more collaborative, self-organizing model was a significant shift. It demanded changes in mindset, both at the leadership level and within the teams themselves.
One of the most challenging aspects was shifting from a culture of top-down decision-making to one where teams were given autonomy and the responsibility to solve problems independently. In traditional settings, decisions were typically made by senior managers, and team members had little input in the decision-making process. Under LeSS, however, teams were encouraged to take ownership of their work and make decisions based on their expertise. This empowerment led to faster decision-making, but it also required a higher degree of trust between team members and leaders.
One of the key lessons we learned was the importance of continuous coaching and support throughout the transition. As teams took on greater responsibility, they often faced challenges in communication, collaboration, and technical skills. The coaching team played a vital role in helping teams navigate these difficulties, ensuring they remained aligned with the core values of LeSS. By providing guidance and support, the coaching team helped foster a culture of continuous improvement and ensured that teams remained on track.
Another significant cultural shift was the emphasis on transparency and open communication. In traditional environments, information was often siloed, with teams working in isolation and only sharing information when absolutely necessary. In contrast, LeSS encouraged teams to communicate openly and share knowledge across functions. This openness fostered a collaborative environment where teams could learn from one another, solve problems together, and ultimately work more efficiently.
As our organization grew and more teams were added, the culture of collaboration and transparency strengthened. Trust between teams and departments deepened, and the organization as a whole became more cohesive. The emphasis on shared responsibility, transparency, and open communication became ingrained in the organizational culture, driving greater innovation and collaboration.
The evolution of collaboration within our organization was one of the most rewarding aspects of adopting LeSS. Initially, cross-team collaboration was challenging, particularly when teams were located in different geographic locations. However, as teams grew more familiar with one another’s strengths and work processes, collaboration became smoother and more productive.
The process of integrating subcontractors into the team was a pivotal moment in this journey. Initially, their unfamiliarity with our processes and tools made collaboration difficult. However, by investing in training and providing the right support, we were able to integrate them seamlessly into our teams. This not only improved efficiency but also fostered a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose among all team members, regardless of their location or background.
As we continued to scale, the collaboration between teams became more natural. Teams learned how to communicate more effectively, share knowledge, and align their efforts toward common goals. The cross-functional nature of LeSS played a crucial role in breaking down silos and encouraging knowledge sharing. By bringing together diverse skill sets and perspectives, we were able to solve problems more creatively and improve the quality of our product.
Furthermore, as we continued to work under the LeSS framework, we saw the development of specialized roles within our teams. These roles, such as those focused on performance testing, system coaching, and process improvement, were instrumental in maintaining the quality of our work. Specialized teams ensured that we could meet the high standards required for a high-capacity network gateway while also enabling the core development teams to focus on their primary responsibilities.
As collaboration within the teams continued to improve, the organization as a whole began to operate more efficiently. The culture of trust, transparency, and shared responsibility created an environment where teams could thrive. This not only led to better product development but also fostered a more positive and engaged workforce. The transition to a more collaborative, agile way of working under LeSS was, without a doubt, one of the most impactful changes we made.
As we entered the second phase of our product's growth, the primary challenges shifted from managing internal team dynamics to coordinating efforts across different sites. The growing demand for the high-capacity network gateway meant we had to scale our teams rapidly, necessitating the addition of a second development site. The goal was to accelerate the development process to meet market needs. However, this transition came with its own set of hurdles that required us to be much more strategic about cross-site coordination.
A significant lesson learned during this phase was the importance of aligning team workflows and methodologies across locations. The second site brought in subcontractors who were unfamiliar with the tools, processes, and culture that our local teams had built. To ensure a seamless integration of the new team members, we invested considerable time in training. This immersion was critical not only in familiarizing subcontractors with technical tools but also with the specific workflows and practices that had become integral to our team’s success.
While the technical training was essential, we soon realized that managing the cultural and process-related aspects of collaboration was equally important. The initial challenges arose from differences in skill levels and varying levels of experience among the subcontractors. As they learned the ropes, the integration process was far from smooth, but the investment in comprehensive training—spanning both technical and interpersonal aspects—eventually paid off. Over time, as subcontractors became more embedded in the teams, we noticed a significant improvement in communication, efficiency, and overall collaboration.
At this point, it became clear that we had reached a threshold where one Product Owner could no longer manage the expanding scope of work. In response, we split the Product Backlog into distinct domains, allowing different teams to take ownership of specific areas. This decision, however, led to new challenges. The domains we created were often overly narrow, resulting in unnecessary complexity. In hindsight, we recognized that broader, more holistic areas would have helped reduce complexity and improve visibility across teams. This shift in how we managed the backlog significantly influenced how we organized work in the future.
As our team structure evolved, we saw the emergence of specialized roles. Some teams took on specific functions such as performance testing, system testing, and coaching. These specialized teams played a vital role in ensuring the product met the high standards required for a high-capacity network. The addition of such focused teams became an integral part of maintaining quality while scaling the product’s development.
Reflecting on our experience with the LeSS framework, the most significant benefit that became apparent was the reduction in time to market. By adopting agile practices and leveraging the iterative development cycle intrinsic to LeSS, we were able to drastically accelerate our development pace. This shift from traditional, waterfall-style development to an agile framework helped us meet the growing market demand more effectively.
Under the traditional model, developing a comparable gateway product would have taken considerably longer. The sequential nature of traditional development methods posed severe limitations, particularly in responding to changing customer needs or market conditions. In contrast, LeSS provided the flexibility to quickly adjust development directions based on real-time feedback. This adaptability was invaluable in a rapidly changing market where customer needs and technological requirements evolved frequently.
The speed at which we could develop new features and make adjustments was critical as we began to navigate an increasingly competitive space. With LeSS, we were not only able to deliver faster but also to align our product more closely with market needs, which were often shifting due to advancements in technology. This agility meant that we could deliver relevant features at a pace that traditional methodologies could not match.
Another factor that contributed to our success was the emphasis on collaboration. LeSS encouraged cross-functional teams to work together towards a shared goal, breaking down silos and increasing efficiency. This collaboration was not limited to just the development teams; it extended across departments, fostering a unified approach to delivering customer-centric features. With everyone aligned around a common purpose, decision-making was faster, and execution became more streamlined.
When faced with unforeseen challenges or evolving requirements, LeSS’s flexibility allowed us to incorporate changes seamlessly without disrupting the entire project. This ability to remain responsive and adaptable in the face of change helped us maintain momentum and ultimately brought the product to market faster than anticipated.
Adopting LeSS was not just about changing the way we approached development; it required a deep cultural transformation within the organization. The traditional hierarchical structure, where decision-making rested with senior management, had to evolve into a more collaborative and decentralized model. Teams had to become self-sufficient, taking ownership of both the decision-making process and the resolution of challenges.
The shift from a command-and-control approach to one based on autonomy and empowerment posed significant challenges. In the traditional setting, decision-making was often slow and top-down, with little input from lower-level team members. However, in the LeSS framework, teams were entrusted with more responsibility. They were given the authority to make decisions, solve problems, and drive their own processes. While this autonomy led to greater ownership, it also created challenges for those accustomed to a more structured environment. As a result, teams had to embrace ambiguity and develop problem-solving skills quickly.
One of the critical elements in supporting this transition was continuous coaching. As teams took on more responsibilities, they encountered a range of technical, communicative, and collaborative hurdles. The role of the coaching team became essential in helping teams adapt to these challenges. Through ongoing guidance and support, the coaching team ensured that teams remained aligned with the core values of LeSS and continued to improve their processes. The importance of this continuous support cannot be overstated, as it helped teams evolve into high-performing, self-sustaining units.
Transparency and open communication were also key cultural shifts that supported our LeSS adoption. In a traditional setup, information was often siloed, with teams working independently and sharing updates only when necessary. However, LeSS fostered an environment of constant communication and knowledge sharing. This shift to a more open and collaborative culture enabled teams to learn from one another, address problems more efficiently, and adapt to changing requirements with ease. As the organization expanded and more teams were introduced, this culture of openness and transparency became more deeply ingrained, strengthening collaboration across the board.
Looking forward, the future of high-capacity network gateways is inextricably linked to the adoption of agile methodologies like LeSS. The landscape for network technologies is constantly evolving, with the rapid expansion of 5G, IoT, and other emerging technologies presenting new challenges and opportunities for companies developing high-capacity network solutions.
In this dynamic environment, agility and flexibility will be critical to staying competitive. The ability to adapt quickly to changes in technology, customer demands, and market trends will be a major factor in the success of network gateway developers. By embracing frameworks like LeSS, organizations can maintain their ability to respond to these changes efficiently, ensuring they continue to deliver innovative products that meet the needs of the market.
The lessons we’ve learned through our experience with LeSS—about the importance of collaboration, transparency, and adaptability—will continue to guide us as we face the future of network gateway development. These principles, coupled with the scalability and flexibility inherent in LeSS, provide a solid foundation for the ongoing evolution of high-capacity network solutions. As we move forward, these values will shape not only the products we create but also the way we work together to build solutions that meet the ever-evolving needs of our customers and the market.
In conclusion, the adoption of the LeSS framework has been a transformative experience for our organization. It has allowed us to navigate the complexities of scaling a high-capacity network gateway while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing demands. As we continue to embrace agile practices, we are confident that the lessons learned from this journey will continue to inform our approach to product development and ensure we remain responsive and adaptable in the face of future technological advancements.
The journey of developing a high-capacity network gateway using the LeSS framework has been a transformative experience, not only in terms of the technology we’ve created but also in how we’ve adapted our organizational culture and development practices. By embracing the principles of agile development, we were able to overcome significant challenges, such as working with new technologies and managing evolving customer requirements. LeSS provided the flexibility and organizational agility that traditional development models lacked, enabling us to quickly respond to market demands and deliver a product that met real-world needs.
While the transition to LeSS was not without its struggles, particularly in terms of team dynamics and resistance to new ways of working, the eventual success was a direct result of our commitment to continuous improvement, collaboration, and transparent communication. The cultural shift from siloed, component-based teams to cross-functional feature teams empowered individuals, reduced cycle times, and enhanced the overall product quality. We also learned the importance of providing adequate training and support to ensure teams fully understood and embraced the agile principles driving the development process.
As we continue to scale and refine our development practices, the lessons learned from using LeSS will guide us in future projects. The ability to quickly adapt to changes, foster a culture of collaboration, and continuously improve processes will remain fundamental to staying competitive in an ever-evolving technology landscape. Ultimately, adopting LeSS has not only accelerated our time to market but also provided the organizational agility required to thrive in the fast-paced world of high-capacity network gateway development.
Have any questions or issues ? Please dont hesitate to contact us