This Agile case study is drawn from the experience report “Connecting the Dots of Knowledge in Agile Software Development“ written by Raquel Ouriques, Daniel Mendez, Tony Gorschek, and Fabian Fagerholm.
In software development, effective knowledge management can mean the difference between a seamless workflow and chaos. This case study shows how poor knowledge management nearly derailed an Agile team at a global video surveillance and networking solutions company.
The company relied on boundary artifacts—documents that help teams align by sharing key information across departments. These artifacts were crucial for keeping teams connected and their work aligned. Over time, however, these artifacts became unreliable, leading to confusion and inefficiency.
The company’s journey to reclaim knowledge management offers valuable lessons for Agile organizations.
The problem emerges
Initially, the company ran smoothly, with teams adding new features and documenting them in a shared repository. However, boundary artifacts became cluttered, unreliable, and outdated. Multiple teams, each focusing on their own slice of the development process, were adding content without considering how it would be used by others. This led to inconsistencies and eroded trust.
The problem wasn’t just about documentation. It was about the breakdown of knowledge sharing—a vital part of what makes Agile work. Without reliable, up-to-date information, the very foundation of collaboration was crumbling.
Key challenges
Challenge #1: Poor and isolated documentation. Documentation was created in silos, resulting in a fragmented repository where finding relevant information was nearly impossible. Without a cohesive structure, the artifacts became a dumping ground for mismatched and often irrelevant data.
Challenge #2: Misalignment with stakeholder needs. Artifacts did not align with the needs of different stakeholders. Teams across the company, from engineering to marketing, had wildly different requirements for these documents. Yet, the artifacts were designed with only a narrow focus, which left many users struggling to find what they needed.
Challenge #3: Terminology misunderstandings. Inconsistent terminology across teams led to misunderstandings, making it hard to get a clear picture of ongoing development. The same feature might be described in different ways by different teams, leading to confusion.
Challenge #4: Outdated content. Artifacts were not consistently updated, resulting in outdated information and the creation of unofficial “shadow” documents. This led to a repository filled with outdated information, resulting in the creation of unofficial ‘shadow’ documents that fragmented the company’s knowledge base.
Challenge #5: Lack of visibility. Teams lacked insight into how artifacts were being used, resulting in overlooked or misused critical knowledge. This lack of visibility made it difficult to create artifacts that would be useful to everyone.
Solutions implemented
The company partnered with a research team to overhaul knowledge management and restore trust in boundary artifacts:
Structured documentation process. A formal process for creating and maintaining artifacts was introduced, including guidelines on scope, audience, and content structure. Each new artifact followed a clear structure with a defined scope, target audience, and content organization, preventing isolated, irrelevant documentation.
Stakeholder mapping and alignment. Teams mapped out stakeholders and their needs, ensuring artifacts served everyone from technical details for engineers to high-level overviews for marketing. By understanding departmental needs, artifacts were designed to serve everyone.
Standardized terminology. A shared lexicon was introduced to eliminate misunderstandings caused by inconsistent terminology. This ensured that everyone, from developers to managers, was on the same page when it came to discussing product features and requirements.
Regular updates and ownership. Dedicated content owners were assigned to maintain and update artifacts, improving accuracy and trust. By distributing responsibility for maintaining the accuracy and relevance of the content, the company reduced the risk of outdated information and improved trust in the system.
Visibility into usage. Artifact usage was tracked to identify knowledge gaps and ensure artifacts met stakeholder needs. This allowed them to identify gaps in knowledge sharing and ensure that the artifacts were meeting the needs of all stakeholders.
Results and lessons learned
The changes led to improved knowledge management. Teams regained trust in the boundary artifacts, knowing they were accurate, reliable, and relevant. The number of duplicate or shadow documents dropped significantly, as teams no longer felt the need to create their own versions of the truth. Most importantly, the company regained its ability to collaborate effectively, with all teams working from a single source of reliable information.
Key lessons include:
Lesson #1: Structure is essential. Agile values flexibility, but effective knowledge management requires structured planning to keep artifacts reliable.
Lesson #2: Align artifacts with stakeholder needs. By understanding stakeholders, companies can create artifacts that are genuinely useful for everyone involved.
Lesson #3: Shared ownership prevents bottlenecks. Distributing responsibility for maintaining artifacts ensures updates happen smoothly and no single team or person becomes a bottleneck for updates and corrections.
Lesson #4: Regular reviews are crucial. Knowledge management is a continuous process. Regular reviews and feedback loops are essential for keeping artifacts up-to-date and relevant as projects evolve.
Proper knowledge management is important
Proper knowledge management drives efficiency, innovation, and collaboration in Agile environments. However, without structure and oversight, it can quickly become a stumbling block. By taking a structured, stakeholder-driven approach to boundary artifact management, this company was able to overcome its challenges and restore the trust and collaboration that are the heart of Agile success.
Read the original experience report “Connecting the Dots of Knowledge in Agile Software Development“ written by Raquel Ouriques, Daniel Mendez, Tony Gorschek, and Fabian Fagerholm.
![[Case Study] Lessons from descaling 25 Scrum teams](https://www.agilealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/descaling-teams-1200x630-1-150x150.jpg)
![[Case Study] Lessons from descaling 25 Scrum teams](https://www.agilealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/descaling-teams-1200x630-1-300x158.jpg)
