Ways to Keep Agile Teams Aligned with Business Goals

Scrum as a Service: When Agile Teams Become Ticket Processors Scrum as a Service is when Agile teams are execution units, taking orders instead of owning value delivery. They don’t solve problems; or shaping the product, they just code and close Jira issues. It’s what happens when companies adopt Scrum mechanically but keep traditional thinking and control structures intact. Symptoms of Scrum as a Service 1) No Product Ownership The PO is a backlog manager, not a decision-maker. Teams can’t challenge priorities. The backlog is a job assignment queue. Sprint Planning is a scheduling exercise, not a conversation about functional or technical trade-offs. 2) No Cross-Discipline Collaboration UX, DevOps, and Security exist outside the team, creating slow handoffs. Developers get fully fleshed-out requirements, not problems to solve. Agile teams are ticket processors, not value creators. 3) Nothing Changes Daily Scrums become status meetings for managers. Retros don’t lead to improvements, just performance reviews. Teams are judged by team outputs like velocity, not business outcomes. How This Happens 1) No Organizational Change Leadership keeps command and control, just renaming old roles. 2) Waterfall Thinking Teams have fixed scope and deadlines, no room for continuous discovery or progressive elaboration. 3) POs as Middlemen, Not Leaders POs relay stakeholder demands instead of shaping product strategy. 4) SMs are Managers. Not Coaches SMs push teams to move faster rather than helping them achieve a sustainable pace. How to Fix It 1) Give Teams Ownership Let teams define and prioritize their backlog. Facilitate direct feedback loops with users, not just stakeholder requests. Make POs strategic leaders, not order-takers. 2) Tear Down Silos Embed UX, DevOps, QA, and Security into the Scrum team. Stop treating devs as coders for hire. Make them coequal partners in product thinking. 3) Shift to Outcome Metrics Stop measuring success by velocity, throughput, or tickets. Track customer impact, retention, usability, and product adoption. Ask: Are we solving problems or just releasing code? 4) Decentralize Decision-Making Replace top-down roadmaps with team-driven prioritization. Let teams influence scope, trade-offs, and release planning. Encourage teams to experiment and innovate. 5) Foster Continuous Improvement Make retros actionable. Give teams time for technical excellence, like refactoring, automation, and innovation. Shift from feature delivery to sustainable, high-quality product development. From Execution Teams to Product Teams Scrum teams should be value creators, not feature factories. Agile is meant to empower teams, not turn them into Jira clerks. If teams can’t challenge priorities, shape solutions, adjust processes, or innovate, then you don’t have Agile. You have Scrum as a Service. Does your organization trust teams to own the product? If not, Scrum isn’t the problem. Your structure is.

Let's be honest: extensive cross-team coordination is often a symptom of a larger problem, not an inevitable challenge that needs solving. When teams spend more time in alignment than on building, it's time to reconsider your organizational design. Conway's Law tells us that our systems inevitably mirror our communication structures. When I see teams drowning in coordination overhead, I look at these structural factors: - Team boundaries that cut across frequent workflows: If a single user journey requires six different teams to coordinate, your org structure might be optimized for technical specialization at the expense of delivery flow. - Mismatched team autonomy and system architecture: Microservices architecture with monolithic teams (or vice versa) creates natural friction points that no amount of coordination rituals can fully resolve. - Implicit dependencies that become visible too late: Teams discover they're blocking each other only during integration, indicating boundaries were drawn without understanding the full system dynamics. Rather than adding more coordination mechanisms, consider these structural approaches: - Domain-oriented teams over technology-oriented teams: Align team boundaries with business domains rather than technical layers to reduce cross-team handoffs. - Team topologies that acknowledge different types of teams: Platform teams, enabling teams, stream-aligned teams, and complicated subsystem teams each have different alignment needs. - Deliberate discovery of dependencies: Map the invisible structures in your organization before drawing team boundaries, not after. Dependencies are inevitable and systems are increasingly interconnected, so some cross-team alignment will always be necessary. When structural changes aren't immediately possible, here's what I've learned works to keep things on the right track: 1️⃣ Shared mental models matter more than shared documentation. When teams understand not just what other teams are building, but why and how it fits into the bigger picture, collaboration becomes fluid rather than forced. 2️⃣ Interface-first development creates clear contracts between systems, allowing teams to work autonomously while maintaining confidence in integration. 3️⃣ Regular alignment rituals prevent drift. Monthly tech radar sessions, quarterly architecture reviews, and cross-team demonstrations create the rhythm of alignment. 4️⃣ Technical decisions need business context. When engineers understand user and business outcomes, they make better architectural choices that transcend team boundaries. 5️⃣ Optimize for psychological safety across teams. The ability to raise concerns outside your immediate team hierarchy is what prevents organizational blind spots. The best engineering leaders recognize that excessive coordination is a tax on productivity. You can work to improve coordination, or you can work to reduce the need for coordination in the first place.

A product only scales when its strategy is tied directly to business goals. Otherwise, features become noise, and teams burn months on “nice to have” work that doesn’t move revenue, retention, or efficiency. Business alignment means: ✓ Every feature connects to metrics that matter ✓ Every design decision supports growth or cost optimization ✓ The roadmap speaks the same language as the leadership team. ⸻ Example: Healthcare Case I worked with a medical SaaS platform that had a backlog of 120+ features. Developers pushed new releases every two weeks, but churn was growing and revenue wasn’t scaling. I ran a UX–Business audit: — Mapped every feature to a business KPI — Cut 40% of backlog items that had zero business impact. — Rebuilt the roadmap so that every quarter focused on one clear business lever . Result after 3 months: ✓ Customer support tickets dropped by 22% ✓ Retention improved by 15% because patients were guided better through their journey. ✓ Leadership got visibility: for the first time, the roadmap was linked directly to revenue forecasts. ⸻ Example: Fintech Case In a fintech startup, leadership struggled to raise the next round because their pitch deck showed features, not impact. I restructured the product narrative: — Aligned UX flows with financial metrics: fewer failed transactions, faster onboarding, higher account activation. — Designed a demo around money saved and money earned, not UI screenshots. — Synced the product roadmap with the CFO’s model, so investors could see cause–effect clearly. The outcome: They closed a $7M round. Investors saw a product tied to growth levers, not just design polish. ⸻ My takeaway Business alignment is not paperwork. It’s the discipline of turning UX work into financial outcomes. When I step in, I translate design into numbers the boardroom understands — retention, efficiency, growth. That’s how design stops being a cost center and becomes a driver of business decisions. ⸻ I’ve spent over 8 years in UX and 7 years in branding, marketing, and PR. What I do is not just design — I architect clarity between product and business goals. That’s why my work stabilizes teams, speeds up decision-making, and helps products grow in markets under pressure. 

Don’t mistake headcount for alignment. It’s one of the easiest traps leaders fall into. (Especially during rapid growth). You hire fast. You expand departments. You stack your org chart. And suddenly, you’ve got more people than ever… …but somehow, you’re moving slower. Here’s the hard truth: Adding people doesn’t mean you’re scaling. Alignment is what drives execution. Not more bodies. Not more meetings.  Not more dashboards. You can have 100 people in the company— But if they don’t understand the mission, the priorities, or each other, you’ll stall. So how do you create alignment while you grow? Here are a few places to start: 1. Repeat the mission until it’s second nature. Not just in onboarding. Weekly. Out loud. In writing. Until people can finish your sentence. 2. Define what success looks like—clearly. If people don’t know what “winning” means in their role, they’ll guess. And guesses rarely align. 3. Connect the dots between departments. Sales needs to know what ops is building. Customer success needs to know what marketing is promising. Transparency isn’t a luxury—it’s a requirement. 4. Prioritize clarity over speed. Slowing down to align your team will save you 10x the time later on when you’d be cleaning up confusion. 5. Don’t just communicate—check for understanding. Ask people to reflect the strategy back to you. Make sure they’re not just hearing you, but getting it. Scaling doesn’t mean adding more. It means getting everyone rowing in the same direction, at the same pace, for the same reason. Because growth without alignment? Is just noise.