The biggest challenge is that Learning and Development is not positioned as a strategic function in many organizations. Instead, L&D often operates as a function for the sake of having a function. It is rarely used by executive leadership as a strategic support capability and is more often treated as a nice-to-have necessity rather than an integral part of business decision-making.
One of the challenges teams face when working with large boards or displaying multiple fields on work item cards is limited screen space. This became even more noticeable with the rollout of the New Boards hub, which introduced additional spacing and padding for improved readability. While this enhances clarity, it can also reduce the number of cards visible at once.
Well, our guest today argues that the best way is by moving to a more project-driven model of work, up and down the organization from the corporate level to individual teams. He wants us to both ruthlessly prioritize as well as stay fluid so that we're identifying strategic goals, assembling teams to go after them, evaluating as we go, and then either continuing, shifting, or disbanding based on our outcomes.
"I've never felt this much behind as a programmer. The profession is being dramatically refactored as the bits contributed by the programmer are increasingly sparse and between. I have a sense that I could be 10X more powerful if I just properly string together what has become available over the last ~year and a failure to claim the boost feels decidedly like skill issue."
COPENHAGEN, Denmark-(BUSINESS WIRE)- Caliber, a stakeholder intelligence platform helping organizations build and protect trust, released its inaugural Stakeholder Intelligence Report, revealing global trends in brand, reputation, and data-driven communications. As economic anxiety, AI disruption, and geopolitical uncertainty intensify, leaders across industries are making higher-stakes decisions under conditions of compressed trust and heightened reputational risk. This report equips executives with data and actionable insights to support decision-making in 2026 and beyond.
During my eight years working in agile product development, I have watched sprints move quickly while real understanding of user problems lagged. Backlogs fill with paraphrased feedback. Interview notes sit in shared folders collecting dust. Teams make decisions based on partial memories of what users actually said. Even when the code is clean, those habits slow delivery and make it harder to build software that genuinely helps people.
Your AI pilot showed 94% accuracy improvements. The LLM is yielding solid results. You're getting defunded anyway. The reason? You solved a problem AI can solve. Your budget-holder needed you to solve theirs. Companies launch AI pilots that produce results, then stall at scale. The team's diagnosis: "They don't get it." What's really going on: These projects never earned budget-holder buy-in.
Scrum has a bad reputation in some organizations. In many cases, this is because teams did something they called Scrum, it didn't work, and Scrum took the blame. To counter this, when working with organizations, we like to define a small set of rules a team must follow if they want to say they're doing Scrum. Enforcing this policy helps prevent Scrum from being blamed for Scrum-like failures.
If a doctor ran the front desk, took vitals, performed X-rays, handled referrals, dealt with insurance, and did the paperwork, they'd only have time to see a few patients each day. They wouldn't have time to advance their craft, and they certainly wouldn't do their best work. Instead, a doctor's office organizes work so the doctor can focus on patient care. Delegating tasks doesn't mean the doctor avoids other responsibilities. It means the organization depends on the doctor to apply their expertise where it matters most.
To find the typical example, just observe an average stand-up meeting. The ones who talk more get all the attention. In her article, software engineer Priyanka Jain tells the story of two colleagues assigned the same task. One posted updates, asked questions, and collaborated loudly. The other stayed silent and shipped clean code. Both delivered. Yet only one was praised as a "great team player."
