The dynamics of value generation through needs

Needs define value, needs generate value add activities, and needs drive flow efficiency.

The right-to-left approach (or upstream approach)

At the delivery level in order to produce value there’s a need for a well structured, ordered, and prioritized work backlog. This quality gate is granted by a coherent product management team whose value contribution is a quality backlog.

For the product team to produce velue they need to pull work from a well defined anterprise initiative backlog produced by coherent portfolio management team, which in turn needs clear direction from the business teams.

Therefore the bottom-up dynamics of value is defined by the needs at the delivery, product and portfolio level, by teams requiring their needs attended to in order to produce quality outcomes.

The left-to-right approach (or downstream approach)

Business needs for value delivery to the market is attended by portfolio team who processes value initiatives through the capability, capacity and risk lenses to elaborate a roadmap of minimum business value that can be delivered to the market.

The Portfolio team needs for the design and execution of the minimum business value items are attended by the product teams that elaborate a quality product backlog for delivery and a release plan to the market.

The Product team needs for development of the elements that compose the minimum business increment are attended by the delivery teams that apply knowledge work to ensure the right thing is done right.

Conclusion

However the value stream is looked at, right-to-left or left-to-right, the dynamics of value generation is a sequence of outcomes that sytisfy a certain need. Needs not attended to are blockers to the flow of quality value.

Unknown's avatar

Author: Mario Aiello

Hi, I’m Mario – retired agility warrior from a major Swiss bank, beyond agile explorer, lean thinker, former rugby player, and wishful golfer. I’ve been in the agile space since 2008. I began consulting in 2012 with a Scrum adoption in a digital identity unit — and that path eventually led me to design an Agile Operating System at organisational scale. What pushed me further was frustration: poor adoption, illusionary scaling, and “agile” that looks busy but doesn’t improve business outcomes. That’s why I developed the Adaptive Fitness System (AFS) — an approach that treats agility as fitness for change: fit for purpose, fit for context, fit for execution, and fit for continuous improvement. Today, I use AFS to help organisations sense what’s real, learn fast, and adapt with intent.