In this CTO Series episode, Daniel Harcek shares how leading engineering teams across radically different scales — from a 7-person fintech startup to a 2,000-person cybersecurity company — taught him that leadership isn’t one-size-fits-all. We explore how he builds AI-first organizations, drives agile transformations, and why he believes every person in a company should think like a tech person.
What Works at 10 People Breaks at 100
“Leadership is contextual, not absolute. What works with 10 people breaks at 50, at 100.”
Daniel’s career spans from building a 30-person team for a German startup out of Žilina, Slovakia, to leading 70 engineers at Avast’s mobile division within a 2,000-person organization, and now running a 7-person team at WageNow. Each scale demanded a fundamentally different approach. At smaller scales, you strip away operational overhead and push ownership directly to the people. At larger scales, you need guardrails, dedicated roles, and structured processes that the smaller team would find suffocating. The lesson: don’t carry your playbook from one context to another — rebuild it for the reality you’re in.
In this BONUS episode, the final installment of our Special Xmas 2025 reflection on Software-native businesses, we explore the five fundamental principles that form the operating system for software-native organizations. Building on the previous four episodes, this conversation provides the blueprint for building organizations that can adapt at the speed of modern business demands, where the average company lifespan on the S&P 500 has dropped from 33 years in the 1960s to a projected 12 years by 2027.
The Challenge of Adaptation
“What we’re observing in Ukraine is adaptation happening at a speed that would have been unthinkable in traditional military contexts – new drone capabilities emerge, countermeasures appear within days, and those get countered within weeks.”
The opening draws a powerful parallel between the rapid adaptation we’re witnessing in drone warfare and the existential threats facing modern businesses. While our businesses aren’t facing literal warfare, they are confronting dramatic disruption. Clayton Christensen documented this in “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” but what he observed in the 1970s and 80s is happening exponentially faster now, with software as the accelerant. If we can improve businesses’ chances of survival even by 10-15%, we’re talking about thousands of companies that could thrive instead of fail, millions of jobs preserved, and enormous value created. The central question becomes: how do you build an organization that can adapt at this speed?
Principle 1: Constant Experimentation with Tight Feedback Loops
“Everything becomes an experiment. Not in the sense of being reckless or uncommitted, but in being clear about what we’re testing and what we expect to learn. I call this: work like a scientist: learning is the goal.”
Software developers have practiced this for decades through Test-Driven Development, but now this TDD mindset is becoming the ruling metaphor for managing products and entire businesses. The practice involves framing every initiative with three clear elements: the goal (what are we trying to achieve?), the action (what specific thing will we do?), and the learning (what will we measure to know if it worked?). When a client says “we need to improve our retrospectives,” software-native organizations don’t just implement a new format. Instead, they connect it to business value – improving the NPS score for users of a specific feature by running focused retrospectives that explicitly target user pain points and tracking both the improvements implemented and the actual NPS impact. After two weeks, you know whether it worked. The experiment mindset means you’re always learning, never stuck. This is TDD applied to organizational change, and it’s powerful because every process change connects directly to customer outcomes.
Principle 2: Clear Connection to Business Value
“Software-native organizations don’t measure success by tasks completed, story points delivered, or features shipped. Or even cycle time or throughput. They measure success by business outcomes achieved.”
While this seems obvious, most organizations still optimize for output, not outcomes. The practice uses Impact Mapping or similar outcome-focused frameworks where every initiative answers three questions: What business behavior are we trying to change? How will we measure that change? What’s the minimum software needed to create that change? A financial services client wanted to “modernize their reporting system” – a 12-month initiative with dozens of features in project terms. Reframed through a business value lens, the goal became reducing time analysts spend preparing monthly reports from 80 hours to 20 hours, measured by tracking actual analyst time, starting with automating just the three most time-consuming report components. The first delivery reduced time to 50 hours – not perfect, but 30 hours saved, with clear learning about which parts of reporting actually mattered. The organization wasn’t trying to fulfill requirements; they were laser focused on the business value that actually mattered. When you’re connected to business value, you can adapt. When you’re committed to a feature list, you’re stuck.
Principle 3: Software as Value Amplifier
“Software isn’t just ‘something we do’ or a support function. Software is an amplifier of your business model. If your business model generates $X of value per customer through manual processes, software should help you generate $10X or more.”
Before investing in software, ask whether this can amplify your business model by 10x or more – not 10% improvement, but 10x. That’s the threshold where software’s unique properties (zero marginal cost, infinite scale, instant distribution) actually matter, and where the cost/value curve starts to invert. Remember: software is still the slowest and most expensive way to check if a feature would deliver value, so you better have a 10x or more expectation of return. Stripe exemplifies this principle perfectly. Before Stripe, accepting payments online required a merchant account (weeks to set up), integration with payment gateways (months of development), and PCI compliance (expensive and complex). Stripe reduced that to adding seven lines of code – not 10% easier, but 100x easier. This enabled an entire generation of internet businesses that couldn’t have existed otherwise: subscription services, marketplaces, on-demand platforms. That’s software as amplifier. It didn’t optimize the old model; it made new models possible. If your software initiatives are about 5-10% improvements, ask yourself: is software the right medium for this problem, or should you focus where software can create genuine amplification?
Principle 4: Software as Strategic Advantage
“Software-native organizations use software for strategic advantage and competitive differentiation, not just optimization, automation, or cost reduction. This means treating software development as part of your very strategy, not a way to implement a strategy that is separate from the software.”
How can software 10x the value we generate right now?
What can we do with software that competitors can’t easily replicate?
Where does software create a defensible advantage?
How does our software create compounding value over time?
Amazon Web Services didn’t start as a product strategy but emerged from Amazon building internal capabilities to run their e-commerce platform at scale. They realized they’d built infrastructure that was extremely hard to replicate and asked: “What if we offered it to others?” AWS became Amazon’s most profitable business – not because they optimized their existing retail business, but because they turned an internal capability into a strategic platform. The software wasn’t supporting the strategy – the software became the strategy. Compare this to companies that use software just for cost reduction or process optimization – they’re playing defense. Software-native companies use software to play offense, creating capabilities that change the competitive landscape. Continuous strategy means your software capabilities and your business strategy evolve together, in real-time, not in annual planning cycles.
Principle 5: Real-Time Observability and Adaptive Systems
“Software-native organizations use telemetry and real-time analytics not just to understand their software, but to understand their entire business and adapt dynamically. Observability practices from DevOps are actually ways of managing software delivery itself. We’re bootstrapping our own operating system for software businesses.”
This principle connects back to Principle 1 but takes it to the organizational level. The practice involves building systems that constantly sense what’s happening and can adapt in real-time: deploy with feature flags so you can turn capabilities on/off instantly, use A/B testing not just for UI tweaks but for business model experiments, instrument everything so you know how users actually behave, and build feedback loops that let the system respond automatically. Social media companies and algorithmic trading firms already operate this way. Instagram doesn’t deploy a new feed algorithm and wait six months to see if it works – they’re constantly testing variations, measuring engagement in real-time, adapting the algorithm continuously. The system is sensing and responding every second. High-frequency trading firms make thousands of micro-adjustments per day based on market signals. Imagine applying this to all businesses: a retail company that adjusts pricing, inventory, and promotions in real-time based on demand signals; a healthcare system that dynamically reallocates resources based on patient flow patterns; a logistics company whose routing algorithms adapt to traffic, weather, and delivery success rates continuously. This is the future of software-native organizations – not just fast decision-making, but systems that sense and adapt at software speed, with humans setting goals and constraints but software executing continuous optimization. We’re moving from “make a decision, deploy it, wait to see results” to “deploy multiple variants, measure continuously, let the system learn.” This closes the loop back to Principle 1 – everything is an experiment, but now the experiments run automatically at scale with near real-time signal collection and decision making.
It’s Experiments All The Way Down
“We established that software has become societal infrastructure. That software is different – it’s not a construction project with a fixed endpoint; it’s a living capability that evolves with the business.”
Today’s episode provides the blueprint – the five principles forming the operating system for software-native organizations. This isn’t theory. This is how software-native organizations already operate. The question isn’t whether this works – we know it does. The question is: how do you get started?
The Next Step In Building A Software-Native Organization
“This is how transformation starts – not with grand pronouncements or massive reorganizations, but with conversations and small experiments that compound over time. Software is too important to society to keep managing it wrong.”
Start this week by doing two things.
First, start a conversation: pick one of these five principles – whichever resonates most with your current challenges – and share it with your team or leadership. Don’t present it as “here’s what we should do” but as “here’s an interesting idea – what would this mean for us?” That conversation will reveal where you are, what’s blocking you, and what might be possible.
Second, run one small experiment: take something you’re currently doing and frame it as an experiment with a clear goal, action, and learning measure. Make it small, make it fast – one week maximum, 24 hours if you can – then stop and learn. You now have the blueprint. You understand the barriers. You’ve seen the alternatives. The transformation is possible, and it starts with you.
Vasco Duarte is a thought leader in the Agile space, co-founder of Agile Finland, and host of the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast, which has over 10 million downloads. Author of NoEstimates: How To Measure Project Progress Without Estimating, Vasco is a sought-after speaker and consultant helping organizations embrace Agile practices to achieve business success.
In this BONUS episode, we explore the organizational barriers that prevent companies from becoming truly software-native. Despite having proof that agile, iterative approaches work at scale—from Spotify to Amazon to Etsy—most organizations still struggle to adopt these practices. We reveal the root cause behind this resistance and expose four critical barriers that form what we call “The Organizational Immune System.” This isn’t about resistance to change; it’s about embedded structures, incentives, and mental models that actively reject beneficial transformation.
The Root Cause: Project Management as an Incompatible Mindset
“Project management as a mental model is fundamentally incompatible with software development. And will continue to be, because ‘project management’ as an art needs to support industries that are not software-native.”
The fundamental problem isn’t about tools or practices—it’s about how we think about work itself. Project management operates on assumptions that simply don’t hold true for software development. It assumes you can know the scope upfront, plan everything in advance, and execute according to that plan. But software is fundamentally different. A significant portion of the work only becomes visible once you start building. You discover that the “simple” feature requires refactoring three other systems. You learn that users actually need something different than what they asked for. This isn’t poor planning—it’s the nature of software. Project management treats discovery as failure (“we missed requirements”), while software-native thinking treats discovery as progress (“we learned something critical”). As Vasco points out in his NoEstimates work, what project management calls “scope creep” should really be labeled “value discovery” in software—because we’re discovering more value to add.
Discovery vs. Execution: Why Software Needs Different Success Metrics
“Software hypotheses need to be tested in hours or days, not weeks, and certainly not months. You can’t wait until the end of a 12-month project to find out your core assumption was wrong.”
The timing mismatch between project management and software development creates fundamental problems. Project management optimizes for plan execution with feedback loops that are months or years long, with clear distinctions between teams doing requirements, design, building, and testing. But software needs to probe and validate assumptions in hours or days. Questions like “Will users actually use this feature?” or “Does this architecture handle the load?” can’t wait for the end of a 12-month project. When we finally discover our core assumption was wrong, we need to fully replan—not just “change the plan.” Software-native organizations optimize for learning speed, while project management optimizes for plan adherence. These are opposing and mutually exclusive definitions of success.
The Language Gap: Why Software Needs Its Own Vocabulary
“When you force software into project management language, you lose the ability to manage what actually matters. You end up tracking task completion while missing that you’re building the wrong thing.”
The vocabulary we use shapes how we think about problems and solutions. Project management talks about tasks, milestones, percent complete, resource allocation, and critical path. Software needs to talk about user value, technical debt, architectural runway, learning velocity, deployment frequency, and lead time. These aren’t just different words—they represent fundamentally different ways of thinking about work. When organizations force software teams to speak in project management terms, they lose the ability to discuss and manage what actually creates value in software development.
The Scholarship Crisis: An Industry-Wide Knowledge Gap
“Agile software development represents the first worldwide trend in scholarship around software delivery. But most organizational investment still goes into project management scholarship and training.”
There’s extensive scholarship in IT, but almost none about delivery processes until recently. The agile movement represents the first major wave of people studying what actually works for building software, rather than adapting thinking from manufacturing or construction. Yet most organizational investment continues to flow into project management certifications like PMI and Prince2, and traditional MBA programs—all teaching an approach with fundamental problems when applied to software. This creates an industry-wide challenge: when CFOs, executives, and business partners all think in project management terms, they literally cannot understand why software needs to work differently. The mental model mismatch isn’t just a team problem—it’s affecting everyone in the organization and the broader industry.
Budget Cycles: The Project Funding Trap
“You commit to a scope at the start, when you know the least about what you need to build. The budget runs out exactly when you’re starting to understand what users actually need.”
Project thinking drives project funding: organizations approve a fixed budget (say $2M over 9 months) to deliver specific features. This seems rational and gives finance predictability, but it’s completely misaligned with how software creates value. Teams commit to scope when they know the least about what needs building. The budget expires just when they’re starting to understand what users actually need. When the “project” ends, the team disbands, taking all their accumulated knowledge with them. Next year, the cycle starts over with a new project, new team, and zero retained context. Meanwhile, the software itself needs continuous evolution, but the funding structure treats it as a series of temporary initiatives with hard stops.
The Alternative: Incremental Funding and Real-Time Signals
“Instead of approving $2M for 9 months, approve smaller increments—maybe $200K for 6 weeks. Then decide whether to continue based on what you’ve learned.”
Software-native organizations fund teams working on products, not projects. This means incremental funding decisions based on learning rather than upfront commitments. Instead of detailed estimates that pretend to predict the future, they use lightweight signals from the NoEstimates approach to detect problems early: Are we delivering value regularly? Are we learning? Are users responding positively? These signals provide more useful information than any Gantt chart. Portfolio managers shift from being “task police” asking “are you on schedule?” to investment curators asking “are we seeing the value we expected? Should we invest more, pivot, or stop?” This mirrors how venture capital works—and software is inherently more like VC than construction. Amazon exemplifies this approach, giving teams continuous funding as long as they’re delivering value and learning, with no arbitrary end date to the investment.
The Business/IT Separation: A Structural Disaster
“‘The business’ doesn’t understand software—and often doesn’t want to. They think in terms of features and deadlines, not capabilities and evolution.”
Project thinking reinforces organizational separation: “the business” defines requirements, “IT” implements them, and project managers coordinate the handoff. This seems logical with clear specialization and defined responsibilities. But it creates a disaster. The business writes requirements documents without understanding what’s technically possible or what users actually need. IT receives them, estimates, and builds—but the requirements are usually wrong. By the time IT delivers, the business need has changed, or the software works but doesn’t solve the real problem. Sometimes worst of all, it works exactly as specified but nobody wants it. This isn’t a communication problem—it’s a structural problem created by project thinking.
Product Thinking: Starting with Behavior Change
“Instead of ‘build a new reporting dashboard,’ the goal is ‘reduce time finance team spends preparing monthly reports from 40 hours to 4 hours.'”
Software-native organizations eliminate the business/IT separation by creating product teams focused on outcomes. Using approaches like Impact Mapping, they start with behavior change instead of features. The goal becomes a measurable change in business behavior or performance, not a list of requirements. Teams measure business outcomes, not task completion—tracking whether finance actually spends less time on reports. If the first version doesn’t achieve that outcome, they iterate. The “requirement” isn’t sacred; the outcome is. “Business” and “IT” collaborate on goals rather than handing off requirements. They’re on the same team, working toward the same measurable outcome with no walls to throw things over. Spotify’s squad model popularized this approach, with each squad including product managers, designers, and engineers all focused on the same part of the product, all owning the outcome together.
Risk Management Theater: The Appearance of Control
“Here’s the real risk in software: delivering software that nobody wants, and having to maintain it forever.”
Project thinking creates elaborate risk management processes—steering committees, gate reviews, sign-offs, extensive documentation, and governance frameworks. These create the appearance of managing risk and make everyone feel professional and in control. But paradoxically, the very practices meant to manage risk end up increasing the risk of catastrophic failure. This mirrors Chesterton’s Fence paradox. The real risk in software isn’t about following the plan—it’s delivering software nobody wants and having to maintain it forever. Every line of code becomes a maintenance burden. If it’s not delivering value, you’re paying the cost forever or paying additional cost to remove it later. Traditional risk management theater doesn’t protect against this at all. Gates and approvals just slow you down without validating whether users will actually use what you’re building or whether the software creates business value.
Agile as Risk Management: Fast Learning Loops
“Software-native organizations don’t see ‘governance’ and ‘agility’ as a tradeoff. Agility IS governance. Fast learning loops ARE how you manage risk.”
Software-native organizations recognize that agile and product thinking ARE risk management. The fastest way to reduce risk is delivering quickly—getting software in front of real users in production with real data solving real problems, not in demos or staging environments. Teams validate expected value by measuring whether software achieves intended outcomes. Did finance really reduce their reporting time? Did users actually engage with the feature? When something isn’t working, teams change it quickly. When it is working, they double down. Either way, they’re managing risk through rapid learning. Eric Ries’s Lean Startup methodology isn’t just for startups—it’s fundamentally a software-native management practice. Build-Measure-Learn isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s how you avoid the catastrophic risk of building the wrong thing.
The Risk Management Contrast: Theater vs. Reality
“Which approach actually manages risk? The second one validates assumptions quickly and cheaply. The first one maximizes your exposure to building the wrong thing.”
The contrast between approaches is stark. Risk management theater involves six months of requirements gathering and design, multiple approval gates that claim to prevent risk but actually accumulate it, comprehensive test plans, and a big-bang launch after 12 months. Teams then discover users don’t want it—and now they’re maintaining unwanted software forever. The agile risk management approach takes two weeks to build a minimal viable feature, ships to a subset of users, measures actual behavior, learns it’s not quite right, iterates in another two weeks, validates value before scaling, and only maintains software that’s proven valuable. The second approach validates assumptions quickly and cheaply. The first maximizes exposure to building the wrong thing.
The Immune System in Action: How Barriers Reinforce Each Other
“When you try to ‘implement agile’ without addressing these structural barriers, the organization’s immune system rejects it. Teams might adopt standups and sprints, but nothing fundamental changes.”
These barriers work together as an immune system defending the status quo. It starts with the project management mindset—the fundamental belief that software is like construction, that we can plan it all upfront, that “done” is a meaningful state. That mindset creates funding models that allocate budgets to temporary projects instead of continuous products, organizational structures that separate “business” from “IT” and treat software as a cost center, and risk management theater that optimizes for appearing in control rather than actually learning. Each barrier reinforces the others. The funding model makes it hard to keep stable product teams. The business/IT separation makes it hard to validate value quickly. The risk theater slows down learning loops. The whole system resists change—even beneficial change—because each part depends on the others. This is why so many “agile transformations” fail: they treat the symptoms (team practices) without addressing the disease (organizational structures built on project thinking).
Breaking Free: Seeing the System Clearly
“Once you see the system clearly, you can transform it. You now know the root cause, how it manifests, and what the alternatives look like.”
Understanding these barriers is empowering. It’s not that people are stupid or resistant to change—organizations have structural barriers built on a fundamental mental model mismatch. But once you see the system clearly, transformation becomes possible. You now understand the root cause (project management mindset), how it manifests in your organization (funding models, business/IT separation, risk theater), and what the alternatives look like through real examples from companies successfully operating as software-native organizations. The path forward requires addressing the disease, not just the symptoms—transforming the fundamental structures and mental models that shape how your organization approaches software.
Vasco Duarte is a thought leader in the Agile space, co-founder of Agile Finland, and host of the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast, which has over 10 million downloads. Author of NoEstimates: How To Measure Project Progress Without Estimating, Vasco is a sought-after speaker and consultant helping organizations embrace Agile practices to achieve business success.
In this BONUS episode we explore the practice of coding with AI—not just the buzzwords, but the real-world experience. Our guest, Llewellyn Falco, has been learning by doing, exploring the space of AI-assisted coding from the experimental and intuitive—what some call vibecoding—to the more structured world of professional, world-class software engineering. This is a conversation for practitioners who want to understand what’s actually happening on the ground when we code with AI.
Understanding Vibecoding
“You can now program without looking at code. When you’re in that space, vibecoding is the word we’re using to say, we are programming in a way that does not relate to programming last year.”
The software development landscape shifted dramatically in early 2025. Vibecoding represents a fundamental change in how we create software—programming without constantly looking at the code itself. This approach removes many traditional limitations around technology, language, and device constraints, allowing developers to move seamlessly between different contexts. However, this power comes with responsibility, as developers can now move so fast that traditional safety practices become even more critical.
From Concept to Working App in 15 Minutes
“We wrote just a markdown page of ‘here’s what we want this to look like’. And then we fed that to Claude Code. And 15 minutes later we had a working app on the phone.”
At the Agile 2025 conference in Denver, Llewellyn participated in a hackathon focused on helping psychologists prevent child abuse. Working with customer Amanda, a psychologist, and data scientist Rachel, the team identified a critical problem: clinicians weren’t using the most effective parenting intervention technique because recording 60 micro-interactions in 5 minutes was too difficult and time-consuming.
The team’s approach embodied lean startup principles turned up to eleven. After understanding the customer’s needs through exposition and conversation, they created a simple markdown specification and used Claude Code to generate a working mobile app in just 15 minutes. When Amanda tested it, she was moved to tears—after 20 years of trying to make progress on this problem, she finally had hope. Over three days, the team released 61 iterations, constantly getting feedback and refining the solution.
Iterative Development Still Matters When Coding With AI
The Great Product Owner: The Strategic Problem Solver
Bernie describes an exemplary Product Owner from a stealth program sponsored by a CTO, where the company needed to create new intellectual property. This Great Product Owner understood that Agile operates in three dimensions: most organizations only focus on outputs and delivery (first dimension), some reach outcomes (second dimension), but the truly great ones operate in the third dimension of strategic or business agility – defining problems worth solving. This Product Owner knew that high-performing teams need to understand what problem is worth solving rather than just receiving solutions to build. They embraced the Mobius loop approach, focusing on discovering the right problems rather than jumping straight to solutions.
The Bad Product Owner: The Backlog Jockey with Authority Issues
Bernie identifies the anti-pattern of Product Owners being treated as mere “backlog jockeys” by their organizations, which forces them into solution-building mode rather than problem-solving mode. These Product Owners don’t understand the importance of saying “no” and lack clarity about intent and goals. The worst case Bernie encountered was a team manager who also served as Product Owner, wielding positional authority that shut down team communication. This person would interrupt daily scrums, causing teams to revert to waiting for direction rather than self-organizing. The combination of unclear intent and positional authority creates a toxic environment that destroys team autonomy and psychological safety.
Self-reflection Question: Is your Product Owner focused on defining problems worth solving, or are they primarily managing a backlog of predetermined solutions?
Transform Your Agile Teams with Hard-Earned Lessons from Super-Experienced Scrum Masters
Do you wish you had decades of experience? Learn from the Best Scrum Masters In The World, Today!The Tips from the Trenches – Scrum Master edition audiobook includes hours of audio interviews with SM’s that have decades of experience: from Mike Cohn to Linda Rising, Christopher Avery, and many more. Super-experienced Scrum Masters share their hard-earned lessons with you. Learn those today, make your teams awesome!
About Bernie Maloney
Bernie Maloney has helped teams grow businesses to beyond $4B / year, delivering products from consumer electronics to network infrastructure to services & payments. He helps clients achieve performance breakthroughs with their teams, organizations and themselves, and believes that leads both to outrageous effectiveness, and a whole lot more fun.
Enter e-mail to download a clickable PO Cheat Sheet
This handy Coach Your PO cheat-sheet includes questions to help you define the problem, and links to handy, easy techniques to help you coach your Product Owner
Enter e-mail to download a clickable PO Cheat Sheet
This handy Coach Your PO cheat-sheet includes questions to help you define the problem, and links to handy, easy techniques to help you coach your Product Owner
Enter e-mail to download a checklist to help your PO manage their time
This simple checklist and calendar handout, with a coaching article will help you define the minimum enagement your PO must have with the team
Enter e-mail to download a checklist to help your PO manage their time
This simple checklist and calendar handout, with a coaching article will help you define the minimum enagement your PO must have with the team
Internal Conference
Checklist
Internal Conference
Checklist
Download a detailed How-To to help measure success for your team
Motivate your team with the right metrics, and the right way to visualize and track them. Marcus presents a detailed How-To document based on his experience at The Bungsu Hospital
Download a detailed How-To to help measure success for your team
Read about Visualization and
TRANSFORM
The way your team works
A moving story of how work at the Bungsu Hospital was transformed by a simple tool that you can use to help your team.
Read about Visualization and
TRANSFORM
The way your team works
Overcome Team Resistance and Gain Leadership Buy-In
Discover practical, real-world solutions from leading Agile practitioners. Download three free chapters from 'Tips from the Trenches Scrum Master Edition' and start transforming your Agile practices today!
Overcome Team Resistance and Gain Leadership Buy-In
Discover practical, real-world solutions from leading Agile practitioners. Access three free chapters from 'Tips from the Trenches Scrum Master Edition' and start transforming your Agile practices today!
Overcome Team Resistance and Gain Leadership Buy-In
Discover practical, real-world solutions from leading Agile practitioners.
Download three free chapters from 'Tips from the Trenches Scrum Master Edition' and start transforming your Agile practices today!
FREE! Audiobook Chapters: Overcome Team Resistance and Gain Leadership Buy-In
Download three free chapters from 'Tips from the Trenches Scrum Master Edition' and start transforming your Agile practices today!
Your FREE ticket is on the way!
Check your inbox for details.
Email us at
ProductOwnerSummit.org if you have questions
Check Your Inbox For Details
Email us if you have questions:
ProductOwnerSummit@oikosofy.com
Vasco Duarte is a thought leader in the Agile space, co-founder of Agile Finland, and host of the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast, which has over 10 million downloads. Author of NoEstimates: How To Measure Project Progress Without Estimating, Vasco is a sought-after speaker and consultant helping organizations embrace Agile practices to achieve business success.
Vasco Duarte is a thought leader in the Agile space, co-founder of Agile Finland, and host of the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast, which has over 10 million downloads. Author of NoEstimates: How To Measure Project Progress Without Estimating, Vasco is a sought-after speaker and consultant helping organizations embrace Agile practices to achieve business success.
Do you wish you had decades of experience? Learn from the Best Scrum Masters In The World, Today! 
Bernie Maloney has helped teams grow businesses to beyond $4B / year, delivering products from consumer electronics to network infrastructure to services & payments. He helps clients achieve performance breakthroughs with their teams, organizations and themselves, and believes that leads both to outrageous effectiveness, and a whole lot more fun.