Lucent Owl logo Lucent Owl

AAA Cycle Diagrams

Last updated:

5 related guides
1 related post
aaa-cycle stakeholder-management circuit-breakers scope-negotiation collaboration practical

The AAA Cycle

Flow

The three phases, their gates, and the paths back.

The AAA cycle's return paths and what triggers each one Align, Agree and Apply run left to right, each forward arrow crossing a gate: a signed charter and alignment that holds up before Agree, real agreement and team ownership before Apply, ending in delivery. Three backward paths run underneath, drawn at increasing depth because a longer return reopens more. A Pivot loops over Align itself, re-scoping or proving out novelty before re-estimating. A circuit breaker trip or a failed assumption returns work from Apply to Agree, reshaping the solution while the problem still holds. Failure to reach agreement, or an appetite nothing fits, returns Agree to Align to re-examine the problem rather than the design. Deepest, a dependency failure or a gap that changes cost, timeline or scope returns Apply all the way to Align, where the agreement itself is renegotiated. FORWARD · EACH ARROW CROSSES A GATE Pivot: re-scope or POC, then re-estimate Align [understand the need] produces: signed charter Agree [commit to how] produces: agreed plan Apply [honor the agreement] produces: working software charter signed alignment holds up real agreement team owns the plan delivered circuit breaker trips, or an assumption fails reshape the solution, the problem still holds no agreement is reachable, or nothing fits the appetite the problem needs re-examining, not the design a dependency fails, or the gap changes cost, timeline, or scope the agreement itself is renegotiated BACKWARD · HOW FAR BACK A PATH RUNS IS HOW MUCH IT REOPENS forward, through a gate back to Agree, reshape the solution back to Align, the problem itself moved

Go, Pivot, or No-Go

Flow

Risk tier and estimate combining into Go, Pivot, or No-Go.

How Align sizing produces a Go, Pivot, or No-Go recommendation Scope size and novelty are rated separately, each entering the risk tier on its own path, so a strong scope rating cannot hide a disqualifying novelty rating. Scope rates each domain as simple, average or complex and sums to small, medium or large. Novelty rates the problem for this team as well-understood, unfamiliar or novel. Together they give a tier of Low, Medium, High or Extreme. Separately, the effort estimate, a range with 20 to 30 percent contingency validated by the team, is checked against timeline, budget, staffing and dependencies. The tier and the fit check meet in one recommendation, a starting position for the stakeholder conversation. Go when the tier is Low or Medium and the estimate fits. Pivot when the tier is High or the estimate does not fit, by re-scoping, extending, adding resources or running a proof of concept, then re-estimating. No-Go when the tier is Extreme or no adjustment fits, by cancelling or funding a discovery spike. INPUTS, RATED SEPARATELY COMBINED ONE RECOMMENDATION Scope size [each domain rated, then summed] simple, average, complex sums to small, medium, large Novelty [for this team, not in general] well-understood, unfamiliar, or novel Effort estimate [a range, not a point] plus 20-30% contingency validated by the team Risk tier [scope × novelty grid] Low, Medium, High, or Extreme Fits constraints? [checked against] timeline, budget, staffing, dependencies Recommend [one call, not two] a starting position for the conversation Go tier Low or Medium, and the estimate fits Pivot tier High, or it doesn't fit: re-scope, extend, add, or POC No-Go Extreme, or nothing fits: cancel, or fund a spike after the change, estimate again feeds the recommendation Pivot loops back to the estimate

Circuit Breakers

State machine

What stops work in Apply, and the four outcomes.

How a circuit breaker trips in Apply and the four responses Every feature in Apply carries a time limit and a set of written assumptions, both set during Agree. Two breakers watch it. A temporal breaker trips when the time limit is reached, such as 3 days for a CRUD screen or 6 weeks for an integration. An assumption breaker trips when a documented assumption proves false, such as a vendor API turning out to have no bulk operations. Either one stops the work for reassessment with stakeholders rather than pushing through. There are four responses. Extend, when the work is close to done and stakeholders agree, and Reduce scope, cutting features to fit the limit, both return the work to Apply under the new agreement. Reshape returns the work to Agree. Drop stops investing in work that proved unviable. the work continues in Apply under the new agreement IN APPLY TWO KINDS OF BREAKER FOUR RESPONSES Feature in progress [limits set during Agree] a time limit per feature assumptions written down Temporal breaker [the time limit is reached] e.g. 3 days for a CRUD screen, 6 weeks for an integration Assumption breaker [an assumption proves false] e.g. the vendor API has no bulk operations Tripped [stop, don't push on] reassess with stakeholders Extend close to done, agreed Reduce scope cut to fit the limit Reshape return to Agree Drop stop investing

Hill Chart

Flow

Work climbing, cresting, and descending the hill.

A hill chart with uphill, peak, and downhill stages A hill chart has three stages. Uphill, the team is figuring the work out and unknowns are still open. At the peak, the unknowns are resolved and the work is ready to build, and it can wait there before building starts. Downhill, the work is known and being built. An integration sits partway uphill, still uncertain. A claims item sits higher uphill and has been in the same spot for several updates, which means it is stuck on an unknown and should be raised now. An export sits at the peak, ready but not started. The UI sits downhill, being built. READY TO BUILD integration still uncertain claims: stuck same spot for several updates raise it now export ready, not started UI being built UPHILL · FIGURING IT OUT unknowns still open PEAK unknowns resolved, work can wait here DOWNHILL · BUILDING IT known work, being built

Found this useful? Share it:

Share on LinkedIn