Managing Digitization Program with 4 Agile Squads, challenges and resolution

✅ Q: You are managing 4 Agile squads. How did you spend your time across those? What was your contribution? How did you manage delivery across squads? What challenges did you face and how did you resolve them?

S – Situation:

In my previous role as a Senior Application Development Manager, I was leading 4 Agile squads (~40 engineers) as part of a large-scale cloud transformation and modernization program for a BFSI client. Each squad owned a different domain:

• Squad 1: Core platform & services

• Squad 2: Cloud migration

• Squad 3: DevSecOps and automation

• Squad 4: Integration and external APIs

These teams were distributed across time zones (India, UK, and US), and we had a 12-month roadmap with tight regulatory and operational milestones.

T – Task:

My role was to:

• Drive end-to-end delivery across all 4 squads.

• Ensure alignment with the program roadmap.

• Support technical decision-making, manage risks, and ensure delivery velocity and quality across the board.

• Engage with cross-functional stakeholders – product owners, architects, security, infra, and business teams.

A – Action:

🔹 1. Time Allocation & Focus Areas:

I structured my time as follows:

• 30%: Squad-level interactions – Attend standups selectively (rotational basis), sprint reviews, and key backlog refinement sessions. Focused on blockers, velocity issues, and inter-squad dependencies.

• 30%: Stakeholder alignment – Weekly syncs with product managers, enterprise architects, and security/compliance to align backlog with evolving business and risk priorities.

• 20%: Coaching leads – 1-on-1s with Tech Leads and Scrum Masters to ensure leadership maturity, team health, and support escalations.

• 20%: Strategic delivery management – Tracking progress (Jira dashboards), forecasting delivery outcomes, managing budgets, and reporting to the Steering Committee.

🔹 2. Contribution Across Squads:

• Defined clear OKRs for each squad aligned to program milestones.

• Standardized Agile practices using a common definition of done, story point estimation model, and DevSecOps checklist.

• Set up cross-squad sync meetings and integration demos to ensure collaboration and reduce siloed delivery.

• Drove adoption of CI/CD pipelines and automated quality gates across all squads.

🔹 3. Tools & Practices:

• Used Jira Advanced Roadmaps to track interdependencies and forecast delivery velocity.

• Used Confluence to document squad-level tech decisions, reusable components, and compliance standards.

• Held weekly delivery reviews and tracked delivery metrics (velocity, defects, story spillovers).

R – Result:

• Successfully delivered all quarterly milestones on time and within budget.

• Achieved 32% improvement in cross-squad collaboration velocity through better integration planning.

• Reduced production incidents by 45% by enforcing DevSecOps across squads.

• Improved stakeholder satisfaction score by 25% due to transparent forecasting and proactive risk handling.

  
  

Challenges & How I Resolved Them:

🔸 Challenge 1: Misalignment between squads on integration timelines

Solution: Introduced a shared system demo at the end of each PI and a rolling 2-sprint integration calendar to resolve dependencies earlier.

🔸 Challenge 2: Varying Agile maturity across squads

Solution: Mentored SMs and TLs on agile metrics, introduced a Squad Maturity Model, and rotated experienced leads to less mature squads.

🔸 Challenge 3: Resource contention and burnout in 2 squads

Solution: Worked with PMO and HR to stagger workloads, adjusted sprint capacity planning, and hired two senior engineers to balance throughput.

✅ Summary:

I ensured delivery across 4 Agile squads by balancing strategic leadership with tactical execution—mentoring leads, driving standardization, improving visibility through tools, and resolving dependencies proactively. The result was a predictable, secure, and high-performing program delivery.

✅ Refined STAR Response – Managing 4 Agile Squads (Hybrid Leadership Model)

S – Situation:

As a Senior Application Development Manager, I was leading 4 Agile squads (~25-30members) for a cloud-based modernization program for a BFSI client. Each squad owned a functional area:

• Track 1 (Core Lending Platform) – High-risk, business-critical

• Tracks 2–4 – Cloud enablement, DevSecOps, external integrations

Due to its complexity and visibility, I took direct ownership of Track 1, while assigning Tech Leads and Scrum Masters to guide the other squads under my oversight.

T – Task:

I was responsible for:

• Directly managing Track 1 from requirement gathering to production go-live.

• Driving overall delivery governance, cross-track alignment, and stakeholder collaboration across all 4 squads.

• Ensuring consistent velocity, cross-squad coordination, and alignment to business timelines.

A – Action:

🔹 1. Direct Hands-on Leadership – Track 1

• Participated in requirement workshops with product owners, security, and compliance teams.

• Led solution design reviews, contributed to technical decisions, and reviewed critical code merges.

• Facilitated all daily Agile ceremonies – standups, planning, reviews, and retros – acting as a Delivery Manager + Agile Coach.

• Owned CI/CD pipeline setup, performance tuning, and production release readiness.

🔹 2. Delegated Leadership – Tracks 2–4

• Assigned experienced Tech Leads and Scrum Masters to run squads independently.

• Held weekly 1-on-1s with each lead to track sprint goals, blockers, and team health.

• Defined a common delivery framework – including backlog hygiene, DoD, security gates, and integration reviews.

🔹 3. Cross-Squad Governance and Collaboration

• Organized weekly cross-squad syncs to track interdependencies and shared components.

• Drove PI Planning and Sprint Integration Reviews.

• Used Jira Advanced Roadmaps and Confluence to manage delivery visibility, decision logs, and architecture discussions.

🔹 4. Stakeholder Collaboration

• Regularly engaged with Product, Security, Infra, Finance, and Business SMEs to ensure alignment.

• Presented delivery forecasts, risks, and mitigation updates in weekly Steering Committee meetings.

• Coordinated with enterprise architecture and compliance teams to track policy adherence and regulatory timelines.

R – Result:

• Track 1 was delivered 2 weeks ahead of schedule, with zero major defects and seamless production cutover.

• Cross-track velocity improved by 28% through structured sync-up and shared technical tooling.

• Stakeholder satisfaction increased by 30%, driven by transparency, proactive risk handling, and consistent delivery.

• Mentored 3 tech leads, two of whom moved into Engineering Manager roles in the next 6 months.

✅ Summary:

I used a hybrid leadership approach — going deep in one critical track where I led requirements, design, agile events, and production delivery myself, while empowering leads to run other squads with my strategic oversight. This allowed me to ensure quality, velocity, and alignment at both tactical and program levels, while building leadership depth within the team.

===========================

I was managing 4 Agile squads as part of a large-scale cloud modernization program in the BFSI domain.

One of the squads, Track 1, was the most business-critical — focused on the core lending platform. I took full ownership of this track, leading it hands-on from requirement gathering, design discussions, development, CI/CD, testing, all the way through to production deployment. I directly facilitated all Agile ceremonies — daily standups, sprint planning, reviews, and retrospectives — and actively contributed to solution architecture and release planning.

For the remaining 3 squads—focused on Cloud Infra, DevSecOps, and Integrations—I delegated day-to-day leadership to Tech Leads and Scrum Masters but stayed deeply involved through:

• Weekly leadership syncs to track progress, unblock teams, and align priorities,

• A standardized delivery framework across all squads (shared DoD, sprint metrics, and tooling),

• And cross-squad coordination sessions to handle integration points and shared backlog items.

  
  

I also maintained regular collaboration with cross-functional stakeholders — including Product, Architecture, Infrastructure, Security, Finance, and Compliance teams. At the program level, I owned forecasting, delivery tracking, and presented updates to the Steering Committee weekly.

This hybrid model helped me go deep where it mattered most, while enabling scale and consistency across all squads. We delivered Track 1 two weeks ahead of plan with zero production defects, improved overall squad velocity by 28%, and ensured strong stakeholder alignment throughout.

🖼️ Visual Slide – "Managing 4 Agile Squads: Hybrid Leadership Model"

Track	Focus Area	Ownership	Responsibilities
Track 1	Core Lending Platform	Direct / Hands-on	- Requirements, Design, Architecture - Agile ceremonies (daily) - Code reviews, DevOps - Production release
Track 2	Cloud Infra	Delegated (Tech Lead)	Oversight, Risk review, Sprint syncs
Track 3	DevSecOps Enablement	Delegated (Tech Lead)	Governance, Shared pipelines, DoD
Track 4	API Integrations	Delegated (Tech Lead)	Dependency mgmt, Integration reviews

🔁 Common Across All Tracks:

• Weekly cross-squad syncs

• Unified Jira/Confluence governance

• Forecasting, delivery reporting

• Steering Committee communication

• Stakeholder engagement (Product, Infra, Security, Compliance)

pls cover raid logs for all above 4 squads, its mitigation plan with owensrship

=====

✅ Structured Overview: Metrics Tracked Across 4 Agile Squads

🎯 Objective:

To monitor performance, delivery predictability, team health, and alignment with business outcomes, I implemented a consistent metrics-driven governance model across all 4 Agile squads in the program.

📊 1. Delivery Metrics

These help track how reliably and predictably the teams are delivering against committed scope.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Sprint Commitment vs Completion Ratio	Measures planned vs. delivered story points	Bi-weekly	Jira
Feature/Story Throughput	# of features or stories delivered per sprint	Sprint	Jira
Release Burn-up/Burn-down	Tracks remaining effort vs. scope creep	Ongoing	Jira Roadmaps, Excel
Cycle Time / Lead Time	Time from story creation to closure	Sprint	Jira

🧪 2. Quality Metrics

Ensures that fast delivery does not come at the cost of quality.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Defect Leakage Rate	# of defects escaping to UAT/Production	Sprint / Release	Jira / Bugzilla
Code Coverage %	Unit test coverage threshold (target: 80%)	CI/CD	SonarQube
Defect Density	Defects per KLOC (thousand lines of code)	Sprint	SonarQube
Severity 1 & 2 Incidents	Production-impacting bugs	Monthly	ServiceNow / Jira

⚙️ 3. Velocity & Agile Health Metrics

Helps measure consistency and maturity in Agile execution.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Velocity Trend	Average points delivered per sprint over time	Sprint	Jira
Story Spillover Rate	% of stories carried over to next sprint	Sprint	Jira
Agile Maturity Score	Self-assessment across DoD, ceremonies, velocity, WIP	Quarterly	Internal framework
WIP (Work in Progress) Ratio	Ensures focus and flow	Weekly	Jira

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 4. People Metrics (Team Health)

To assess burnout, attrition risk, and collaboration levels.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Team Utilization %	Actual vs. available capacity per sprint	Bi-weekly	Timesheet tools, Excel
Team Health Score / Feedback	Pulse surveys on engagement, clarity, collaboration	Quarterly	Microsoft Forms, Google Surveys
Attrition Rate	Turnover during the program	Monthly	HRMS
1:1 Cadence / Escalations	Escalation logs or concerns raised/resolved	Ongoing	Manual logs

🔐 5. Risk, Security & Compliance Metrics

Especially important for regulated sectors like BFSI.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Security Policy Violations	# of pipeline failures or blocked releases	Weekly	DevSecOps pipeline
PII/PCI Audit Compliance	Adherence to GDPR, data handling policies	Monthly	Internal audit tracker
Vulnerability Remediation SLA	Closure of critical CVEs within SLA	Monthly	Nessus, Snyk
RAID Item Tracking	Active vs. mitigated risks/issues across squads	Weekly	Excel / RAID tracker dashboard

🌐 6. Cross-Squad / Integration Metrics

Track collaboration, dependency resolution, and delivery consistency.

Metric	Description	Frequency	Tools
Cross-Squad Dependency Closure Rate	% of cross-team dependencies resolved on time	Sprint	Jira / Confluence
Integration Test Pass Rate	End-to-end integration coverage between squads	Sprint / Release	Jenkins / Postman
System Demo Completion Rate	Planned vs actual demos conducted across squads	PI/Sprint	Manual tracking
Shared Component Reuse	Tracking % of components reused across teams	Monthly	Architecture review logs

✅ How I Used These Metrics:

Activity	Purpose	Output
Weekly Program Dashboard Review	Identify delivery drift and risk	Triggered re-estimation, reallocation
Squad-level Retrospectives	Improve velocity and reduce spillovers	Actions on WIP limits, estimation skills
Steering Committee Updates	Update leadership on trends	Flagged and escalated RAID items
Team Health Monitoring	Prevent burnout and improve morale	Enabled rebalancing, hiring

🧩 Tools Used Across Metrics Tracking

• Jira + Advanced Roadmaps – Velocity, backlog, dependencies, spillovers

• Confluence – Documentation, decision logs, RAID tracking

• SonarQube / Fortify / Snyk – Code quality & security

• Power BI / Excel Dashboards – Program-level visualization

• ServiceNow / Bugzilla – Incident & defect tracking

• Timesheets / HRMS – Capacity & attrition analytics

======================================================

✅ Team Size & Velocity Estimation

Each squad:

• 7–8 team members

• Of which ~60–70% are likely engineers (devs/testers) actively contributing story points

• Sprint Duration: 2 weeks

Let’s break it down:

Squad	Team Size	Active Contributors	Average Velocity (Story Points/Sprint)
Track 1: Core Lending	8	~6	45–50 story points
Track 2: Cloud Infra	7	~5	35–40 story points
Track 3: DevSecOps Enablement	8	~6	40–45 story points
Track 4: API Integrations	7	~5	35–38 story points

📌 Assumptions

• Each contributor averages 6–8 story points per sprint

• Some technical spikes and support activities are pointed conservatively

• Velocity variation accounts for complexity and maturity of the squad

📈 Velocity Usage in Program Management

• Used to forecast quarterly PI delivery scope

• Measured trend over time (velocity growth = team maturity)

• Used in sprint planning to avoid overcommitment

• Squad comparison helped identify coaching or process needs

✅ Breakdown for Track 1 and Track 2

Track 1 – Core Lending Platform

• Total Team Size: 8

• Active Contributors (Story Points): 6 (Developers, Testers)

• Non-Point-Contributing Roles (2):

  1. Scrum Master / Delivery Lead

     • Facilitated daily standups, retrospectives, planning sessions

     • Removed blockers, managed sprint discipline, ensured process adherence

     • Coordinated with Product Owner and cross-team dependencies

  2. Business Analyst / Product Owner Proxy

     • Refined backlog, wrote user stories and acceptance criteria

     • Acted as SME liaison for business validation and clarification

     • Participated in UAT planning and prioritization

Track 2 – Cloud Infra

• Total Team Size: 7

• Active Contributors (Story Points): 5 (Infra Engineers, DevOps Specialists)

• Non-Point-Contributing Roles (2):

  1. Site Reliability Engineer (SRE)

     • Focused on infrastructure observability, alerts, and resiliency patterns

     • Managed service health indicators (SLIs, SLOs, SLAs)

     • Owned incident response runbooks and dashboards

  2. Cloud Architect / Platform Engineer

     • Designed IaC patterns, managed Terraform/ARM templates

     • Ensured adherence to cloud guardrails, scalability, and cost optimization

     • Supported compliance and security posture (e.g., Zero Trust enforcement)

📌 Why They Don't Contribute Story Points (Directly):

• Their work is often operational, advisory, or governance-focused

• Contributions are logged outside the sprint backlog (e.g., Confluence, CI/CD changes, governance wikis)

• However, they enable velocity by ensuring smooth delivery, reducing rework, and managing risk

🔄 Indirect Contribution Example:

• A Cloud Architect may not deliver a "user story" but may unblock 3 stories by setting up reusable Terraform modules or enabling security policies.

• A Scrum Master may not code but ensures the team stays unblocked and focused, leading to a consistent 40+ velocity.

✅ Track 3 – DevSecOps Enablement

• Team Size: 8

• Active Contributors (Story Points): 6

  • DevOps Engineers / Platform Engineers / Security Engineers

  • Delivered infrastructure as code, pipelines, automated security scans, policy-as-code, etc.

🧩 Non-Point-Contributing Roles (2):

1. DevSecOps Architect / SME

   • Defined DevSecOps reference architecture and policy controls

   • Worked closely with security/compliance teams for CVE mitigation, firewall rules, secrets management

   • Enabled reusable pipeline templates and hardening guidelines

2. Scrum Master / Delivery Coach

   • Coordinated dependencies across squads (e.g., enabling pipelines used by other tracks)

   • Ensured sprint planning included capacity for hardening, compliance gates

   • Tracked improvements in security posture and shift-left implementation

🔁 Impact Without Story Points:

They enabled governance, pipeline reliability, and security gates that protected all squads and ensured scalable, compliant delivery.

✅ Track 4 – API Integrations

• Team Size: 7

• Active Contributors (Story Points): 5

  • API Developers / Backend Engineers / Test Engineers

  • Delivered REST APIs, integration logic, test cases, mocks, and contract validations

🧩 Non-Point-Contributing Roles (2):

1. Integration Analyst / System Analyst

   • Owned mapping documents, API specifications, and WSDL/schema translation

   • Coordinated with external vendors for SLA, contract agreement, and data format negotiation

   • Managed sandbox test credentials, API versioning documentation

2. Tech Lead / Architecture Reviewer

   • Performed code and contract reviews

   • Enforced REST best practices, security tokens, schema validation

   • Attended architecture review boards, defined reusability and discovery strategy (e.g., via API Gateway)

🔁 Impact Without Story Points:

Their contributions enabled faster onboarding, versioning, integration reuse, and compliance alignment across external systems and partner banks.

🧩 Summary Table – Non-Point-Contributing Roles (Tracks 3 & 4)

Track	Role	Contribution Type	Value Delivered
Track 3	DevSecOps Architect	Technical Governance	Hardened pipelines, CVE fixes, secrets mgmt
Track 3	Scrum Master	Delivery Enablement	Agile velocity, dependency management
Track 4	Integration Analyst	Functional SME	External partner coordination, schema translation
Track 4	Tech Lead	Architecture & Quality	Contract governance, security best practices

🧭 Team Persona Heatmap – Who Contributes What in Delivery

🟢 High Contribution to Delivery (Direct Story Points)

Role	Delivery Contribution
Developers	Coding, feature implementation, bug fixes, performance tuning
QA Engineers	Functional testing, test automation, regression, UAT support
DevSecOps Engineers	CI/CD, pipeline implementation, security policies, scans

🟡 Medium / Indirect Contribution (Support + Governance)

Role	Contribution
Tech Lead	Architecture design, code reviews, cross-squad reuse and standards
Integration Analyst	Partner coordination, API specs, schema design, SLA mgmt
Cloud Architect	IaC patterns, observability, compliance, scalability optimization

🔵 Enabling Roles (Non-point Contributors)

Role	Value Delivered
Product Owner / BA	Backlog grooming, requirements clarity, story refinement
Scrum Master	Delivery cadence, unblocking, Agile ceremonies
Security SME	Threat modeling, CVE remediation, zero-trust enforcement

Top 20 Risks Across 4 Agile Squads (Tracks 1–4) with Mitigation Plans

============================

#	Risk Description	Track(s) Affected	Risk Category	Mitigation Plan	Owner
1	Incomplete requirements at sprint start	Track 1	Delivery	Strengthen backlog grooming and stakeholder review process	Product Owner
2	Burnout due to aggressive timelines	Track 1, 2	People	Balance velocity with realistic capacity planning; enforce time-off tracking	EM / Scrum Master
3	Azure quota limits delaying provisioning	Track 2	Technology	Monitor usage weekly, pre-request quota increases	Cloud Lead
4	API contract misalignment between squads	Track 1, 4	Integration	Early contract finalization + interface testing in staging	Integration Lead
5	Security scan false positives delaying release	Track 3	Security	Establish fix-forward path + waiver process	DevSecOps Lead
6	Vendor delays in API specs	Track 4	External Dependency	Include vendors in sprint planning + define SLA in SOW	Delivery Manager
7	High number of defects in early UAT	Track 1	Quality	Introduce story-level testing criteria + early QA handoff	QA Lead
8	Budget overrun due to cloud waste	Track 2, 3	Financial	Implement auto-cleanup, tag non-prod, and enforce infra limits	FinOps / Cloud Architect
9	Lack of cross-skill causing single point of failure	All Tracks	People	Conduct skills matrix audit + implement shadowing	EM / Tech Leads
10	Compliance misalignment on logs and encryption	Track 3	Regulatory	Define security NFRs upfront; validate via pipeline checks	Security Architect
11	Velocity dips due to unplanned leaves	Track 1, 2	Capacity	Maintain buffer, rotate backups, visualize team calendar	Scrum Master
12	Integration testing delays due to data dependency	Track 4	Testing	Use synthetic data + environment refresh scripts	QA Lead
13	Misalignment on sprint goals between PO and dev	Track 1	Delivery	Conduct sprint pre-kickoff alignment + definition of done reviews	Scrum Master
14	Misconfigured deployment pipeline causes rollback	Track 2, 3	DevOps	Set up deployment validations and canary releases	DevOps Engineer
15	Attrition of key resource mid-PI	Track 2, 4	People	Maintain knowledge repository + pair programming	Engineering Manager
16	Poor engagement from InfoSec in early design	Track 3	Compliance	Involve InfoSec in sprint 0 and PI planning	Program Manager
17	Frequent rework due to late design changes	Track 1	Architecture	Finalize design by sprint -1 + implement impact matrix	Solution Architect
18	Jira hygiene issues affecting reporting	All Tracks	Delivery / Tooling	Set WIP limits, use dashboards, weekly triage	Scrum Master
19	Overlapping leave during release sprint	Track 1, 2	Planning	Enforce early leave planning + stagger leave approval	Delivery Lead
20	Poor RCA documentation after incidents	Track 4	Operations	Institutionalize RCA template + 1-pager summary deck	SRE / DevOps Lead

Let me know if you’d like to convert this into a RAID template, RACI overlay, or