In a CAS, attempting to control all inputs (like with a strict change board) or revert to predictive planning (a detailed roadmap) contradicts adaptive principles. The DASSM’s role is to shape the environment. By co-creating governing constraints (e.g., ‘All new features must demonstrably advance our core metric of user onboarding speed’) with stakeholders, you establish the boundaries of the ‘container’ in which the team self-organizes. This empowers the team to make decisions within those bounds without constant external disruption, aligning adaptation with strategic intent.

In flow-based methods, adding capacity to a system with existing bottlenecks often makes the problem worse, as highlighted by the Theory of Constraints. The DASSM should promote empirical process control. A Cumulative Flow Diagram (CFD) is a key tool for this, providing a visual representation of work in each state over time. It helps the team see if bottlenecks are in analysis, development, testing, or deployment. Addressing the root cause of the bottleneck (e.g., slow testing environment, unclear requirements) is a more disciplined approach than immediately adding people or imposing arbitrary limits without data.

Successful agile at scale requires evolving, not eliminating, governance. The DASSM must address the legitimate need for oversight and strategic alignment while changing its nature. Option C correctly shifts the focus from controlling inputs (detailed plans) to steering via outcomes (strategic themes, funding allocations, value metrics). This gives the governance group a more valuable, strategic role focused on maximizing portfolio value, which is more aligned with a product-centric, adaptive model than superficial changes (Option D) or removing their involvement (Options A & B).

Disciplined Agile is fundamentally about choice, not prescription. The ‘context counts’ principle is key. A DASSM should act as a coach, using the DA tool kit to help the team select and tailor practices. For a regulated, legacy context, a Lifecycle such as the Lean Continuous Delivery: Agile or even a hybrid with phased gates might be appropriate. The goal is to improve their process within *their* constraints, not to force-fit a mismatched framework. This builds engagement and demonstrates the true value of a flexible, enterprise-aware approach.

The DA value ‘Delight Customers’ moves the focus from output (features delivered) to outcome (value realized). While predictability (A) and quality (D) are important enablers, they are not the primary goal. The ultimate measure of success for a product team is whether their work achieves a desirable business outcome. In this case, the team’s goal should be to improve the HR process, not just to build features. Metrics tied directly to that outcome (like reduced tickets) provide the evidence needed to validate that they are truly delighting their internal customers.

Disciplined Agile explicitly addresses scaling product ownership through the Agile Product Management process blade. It distinguishes between strategic product leadership (Product Manager/Portfolio PO) and tactical team-level guidance (Product Owner). The situation describes a common scaling failure where a single role is overloaded. The DA solution is to formally recognize and structure this function, distributing the work according to scope (portfolio vs. team) and focus (strategy vs. tactics), thereby relieving the bottleneck while maintaining alignment.

The DAD Inception phase is a lightweight, collaborative starting activity. It is not about big-design-up-front (A) or detailed story writing (B). Its goal is to achieve just enough shared understanding—of the problem, the solution approach, the stakeholders, and the risks—to form a good enough plan to begin the Construction phase. It answers the questions: ‘Should we do this?’ and ‘How will we start?’ It aligns the team and stakeholders, ensuring the project is initiated with clear goals and context, which is a hallmark of a disciplined approach.

Disciplined Agile emphasizes outcome over output. Velocity (A) is a team-level planning tool, not a meaningful progress metric, and aggregating it is misleading. Burndowns (B) and task completion (D) focus on the consumption of estimates, not the delivery of value. The only true measure of progress for an agile initiative is a working, integrated solution. Recommending regular demos of the integrated product, coupled with outcome-based metrics, provides executives with a transparent, evidence-based view of real progress and value, which aligns with the DA mindset of ‘Delight Customers.’

A core strength of Disciplined Agile is providing context-specific lifecycles. The Exploratory (Lean Startup) lifecycle is explicitly designed for situations of extreme uncertainty, where the problem and solution are both unclear. It focuses on a Build-Measure-Learn loop, using minimal viable products (MVPs) and experiments to gain validated learning as the primary measure of progress. This is a far better fit for a novel R&D effort than lifecycles designed for more predictable delivery (A & D) or coordination (B).

In a CAS, attempting to control all inputs (like with a strict change board) or revert to predictive planning (a detailed roadmap) contradicts adaptive principles. The DASSM’s role is to shape the environment. By co-creating governing constraints (e.g., ‘All new features must demonstrably advance our core metric of user onboarding speed’) with stakeholders, you establish the boundaries of the ‘container’ in which the team self-organizes. This empowers the team to make decisions within those bounds without constant external disruption, aligning adaptation with strategic intent.0