Rate Your Agile Maturity!

Traditional Project Management roles, Loosely defined Agile roles

Agile roles defined but not adhered to, many resources in traditional and Agile roles

Agile roles clearly defined and adhered to, multiple roles not allowed

Agile roles defined and adhered to throughout organization, Agile management roles defined

Loosely defined, not followed

Ceremonies defined for initial teams but not adhered to

Ceremonies defined for core development team and adhered to

Ceremonies defined for all teams and adhered to

Little team collaboration

Ad hoc team collaboration

Cross-team collaboration with cross-team planning and Scrum of Scrums meetings

Organizational collaboration

Waterfall requirements adapted to user stories, not in user story format

User stories used to capture most requirements, Stories may not be complete or used appropriately

User stories used to capture all requirements, correct usage and format

User stories used to capture all requirements, correct usage and format

Low delivery predictability (< 25%) due to poorly defined roles, requirements, and collaboration

Some delivery predictability (25% - 50%) depending on team adoption and practices, initial tracking of team predictability

Moderate delivery predictability (50% - 75%) depending on team adoption and practices, feedback from predictability tracking used to improve performance

Good delivery predictability (75% - 100%) depending on team adoption and practices, teams are very predictable and

Slightly more productive

Productivity varies depending on team: some teams have hit major hurdles and become less productive, some teams have reverted back to waterfall and are less productive, some teams are more productive as they adopt Agile practices

Teams using Agile are more productive, some teams will hit major hurdles and have reduced productivity

Teams using Agile are productive and have been effective at overcoming hurdles

Slightly improved over waterfall teams

Improved over waterfall team morale

Good for Agile team members

Good for Organization's team members

Poor adoption, much friction between business and development team members as they try to implement Agile

Some adoption by Development teams, some friction between business and development teams

Good adoption by business and development teams, some friction between Agile teams and management

Excellent adoption by all affected teams

Existing Waterfall governance, few standards, best practices or metrics, no Agile oversight

Team-level performance metrics defined and tracked. Basic project standards defined. Definition, sequencing of Team work driven by project-level value proposition

Product / Program-level performance metrics defined and tracked. Definition, sequencing of work for Product Teams driven by product-level value proposition

Organizational / Portfolio-level performance metrics defined and tracked. Portfolio planning, funding decisions driven by value of programs and projects to the organization

Difficulty planning more than 1-2 sprint in advance, may be using Kanban

Multiple teams can plan next sprints effectively

Plan multi-Sprint Releases, including collaborative work across Teams

Plan Roadmap, plan and align multiple releases, plan and align multiple spints across the organization

Existing Waterfall reporting, low alignment to Agile activities

Waterfall release and project reporting, basic Agile reporting for sprints and activities

Complete Agile reporting for releases, sprints, and activities, Program level waterfall reporting

Complete Agile reporting for releases, sprints, and activities, Hybrid reporting at portfolio and program level

Waterfall tools with some fields changed for Agile needs

Agile tool implemented, basic usage, no workflow

Agile tool with most features used and basic workflow

Agile tool with all features used and workflow configured for project needs