Project 4: Agile Release Train Optimization & Delivery Cadence

Overview

As Product Owner for Telus’s Mobility & Wireline Assisted‑Sales platform, I revamped our Agile Release Train (ART) process during a major team reorganization. By redefining capacity allocation, streamlining PI planning, and enforcing a clear defect‑prioritization framework, we sustained a 25‑feature quarterly delivery cadence while keeping system resiliency above 90%.

Challenge

• Team Restructuring: Our scrum teams were realigned with new members, managers, and domain ownership, disrupting established workflows and lowering overall capacity.

• Competing Priorities: Major sales events demanded significant system‑resiliency efforts, but we still needed to consistently deliver new features for assisted‑sales channels.

• Inefficient Planning: Lengthy PI planning sessions and a monolithic release approach slowed feedback loops and masked true team capacity.

Approach & Product Leadership

1. Cross‑Functional Alignment:

   • Partnered with the Release Train Engineer, Business Analysts, Scrum Masters, and team leads to surface pain points in our ART process and capacity planning.

2. Capacity Segmentation:

   • Defined three distinct “lanes” within each Program Increment (PI) for:

     • Defect Triage & Fixes (high‑priority incidents)

     • System Enhancements (resiliency and event‑readiness)

     • New Product Deliverables

   • Reserved fixed percentages of team capacity in every sprint for each lane, ensuring critical work never blocked feature delivery.

3. Lean PI Forecasting:

   • Shortened planning sessions by focusing on one upcoming release at a time, while maintaining a rolling three‑release forecast as our north‑star.

   • Encouraged teams to break down epics into 2–3 sprint deliverable increments, enabling faster customer feedback.

4. Defect Prioritization Framework:

   • Introduced a Triage Board to categorize defects into “Critical,” “High,” and “Low” buckets.

   • Mandated immediate investigation and resolution only for Critical/High defects; Low defects were logged in a “deferred backlog,” preventing context‑switching and boosting sprint focus.

5. Continuous Improvement:

   • Held mid‑PI retrospectives to adjust capacity allocations based on actual run‑rate data and emergent sales‑event demands.

Impact & Metrics

• 25 features/products delivered per quarter, consistent across three consecutive PIs

• > 90% system resiliency during peak sales events, measured by uptime and error rates

• 40% reduction in PI planning time, freeing ~60 hours per quarter for execution

• 50% decrease in sprint spillover, thanks to incremental scoping and clear capacity segmentation

• Improved stakeholder confidence, evidenced by a 30% increase in positive feedback from sales leadership on release predictability

Skills Demonstrated

• Agile SAFe Expertise: Redesigned ART cadence and PI planning to align with business priorities and team capacity

• Cross‑Functional Collaboration: Aligned Release Train Engineers, Scrum Masters, BAs, and team leads around a shared process vision

• Capacity & Demand Management: Implemented capacity “lanes” to balance defect fixes, enhancements, and new feature development

• Incremental Delivery & Forecasting: Shifted from large‑batch releases to small, manageable increments with a rolling three‑release roadmap

• Problem Solving & Prioritization: Introduced a structured defect triage framework to minimize context‑switching and maximize throughput

• Data‑Driven Optimization: Used sprint velocity and ticket analytics to continuously refine capacity allocations and planning efficiency

Key Takeaway

By segmenting capacity, streamlining planning, and enforcing a disciplined triage process, we sustained high‑velocity delivery without sacrificing system stability—demonstrating that a well‑tuned ART can excel in both innovation and resiliency.