In recent decades, our scientific and clinical understanding of how our nervous system works has increased tremendously. I’ve recently completed an education for trauma-informed work (NARM informed professional). It has changed many key aspects of how I teach and coach and will continue to have a large impact.

In this session, I’m presenting those key learnings, connecting them to well-known parts of Agile knowledge and inviting into a discussion of what a more trauma-informed approach to leading people in Agile organisations could look like.

Target Audience: All kinds of Leaders, Product Owners, People Managers, Decision Makers, Coaches, Scrum Masters
Prerequisites: No prerequisites
Level: Advanced

Extended Abstract:
In recent decades, our scientific and clinical understanding of how our nervous system develops and works has increased tremendously. Its implications are so profound, they radiate far beyond the field of psychology. Topics such as trauma-informed law, trauma-informed volleyball coaching, legal counseling, education, social activism have arisen. It is time to think about how it affects leadership.

Your speaker Anton, a Scrum trainer and coach, has recently completed a NARM-informed professional education. It has tremendously changed some key aspects of how he leads, teaches and coaches and will surely continue to have a large impact. In this session, he is presenting those key learning, connects them to well-known parts of Agile knowledge and invites into a discussion of what a more trauma-informed approach to leadership could look like.

In this talk you will:
•    experience a more calmer vulnerable space
•    learn what developmental trauma is and how it plays out in the workplace
•    learn about regulation and states of our nervous systems and its connection to creativity and cognitive capacity
•    get a new angle to think and act about topics such as responsibility, clarification of assignments and setting goals, teaching, mentoring and more
•    reflect on how these topics affects your own line of work and exchange on ideas

Discipline, determination, a highly visible area, and a few sticky notes, are all you need to move beyond problems with technical debt.

Target Audience: Developers, Project Leader, Designers, Product Owners, Decision Makers
Prerequisites: Basic Knowledge of Software Development Process
Level: Basic

Extended Abstract:
## Making great software is challenging
It doesn't matter how qualified a team is, it will never be able to produce perfect, flawless, entirely bug-free software.
While teams are discovering how to build the right software in the right way, the environment the team operates in changes.
This results in a constant reorientation of the product, and the corresponding software solution, which will cause gaps between how things work, and how they should work.
Unfortunately, the market won't wait infinitely until teams have addressed these issues in the software, and organizations tend to run out of patience too.
That is why teams often have to move forward with designs and code that are ... let's call them sub-optimal.
These gaps, they are technical debt: a loan against the future, where things will be fixed, at some point ... Hopefully.
According to a global survey performed by Stripe, Inc. amongst software engineers in 2018, researchers found that **engineers estimate to spend 17,3 hours per week on addressing technical debt**.
That same research established that developers work about 41.1 hours per week. With that in mind, addressing technical debt constitutes well over a third of the time a typical engineer spends per week.
**If engineers are spending that much time, how could they better utilize their attention?**
Why do they seem unable to gain control over this metric and push it downwards?
While technical debt sounds nice and predictable: "you just have to pay interest", it really is like a loan with a mobster, and not with a bank.
It will show up unannounced at your doorstep at 3.30 in the morning, demanding that you pay up now!
How can you prevent being surprised by this goon?! And what can you do to leverage the benefits of borrowing against the future?
Because when the conditions are right, taking out a loan and paying it back Tomorrow might just help you ship a better product today.

## Imagine...
- A lightweight process to discover technical debt without a big investment up front
- A data-driven approach to identify the technical debt that needs attention right now
- A system that is easy to introduce, and simple to enforce
- Something that will guide engineers to articulate technical debt in terms of our roadmap
- Which will ultimately improve the flow of work in your organization

## The Wall of Technical Debt™️
A few years ago [Mathias Verraes coined the term "_The Wall of Technical Debt_"][1]. During this presentation Marijn Huizendveld will show you how to institute such a process for managed technical debt. Doing so will provide you with a safety net that allows you to make "naive" design choices every now and again to ship your ideas as fast as possible, without sacrificing sustainable delivery in the long run.
[1]: verraes.net/2020/01/wall-of-technical-debt/

Even in the time of agile software development and devOps, maintenance and evolution of large-scale software systems remain challenging. This is not only caused by technical debt, but is heavily caused by lost knowledge, high complexity of micro-service architectures, difficult requirements management, not available documentation, and the complexity of communication among and coordination of the many stakeholders. In our session we will talk about the challenges we identified in our study and present new approaches to address these challenges.

Target Audience: Architects, Developers, Project Leader, Manager, Decision Makers
Prerequisites: Project Management Experience, Software Maintenance
Level: Expert

This talk explains how Scenario Casting enables agile teams to pull together despite diverse ideas and concerns - in three iterative collaborative steps:
1. Find example scenarios of how ideas and concerns affect the domain - strictly in domain language! This provides an initial Scenario Backlog outlining the problem space.
2. Prioritize the Scenario Backlog and agree on scope.
3. Combine the top scenarios into coherent overarching Orientation Scenarios.

Let the agile teams focus on their parts of the Orientation Scenarios over the next iteration(s).

Target Audience: Stakeholders, Non-IT Domain Experts, BAs, Developers, Architects, QMs, Agilists
Prerequisites: Project experience, basic knowledge of DDD, basic knowledge of agile methods
Level: Advanced

Extended Abstract:
Scenario Casting is a collaborative planning and requirements engineering method that has emerged over the past four years in various Domain-Driven Design projects. It is used intensively with dozens of teams most of them involved in ambitious transformation projects.
Scenario Casting is especially helpful for getting a handle on complex or even overwhelming domains. If your domain feels like this and there are a lot of people involved too, you should give Scenario Casting a try.
Scenario Casting lays the groundwork for focused collaborative modeling sessions using domain storytelling or event storming. It ensures that all relevant points are addressed step by step. Also, it helps to quickly identify your domain's subdomains and determine the people who should be involved.

More relevant scenarios are discovered during collaborative modeling. They all go into the Scenario Backlog and will be considered in future Scenario Castings.
Unlike other concepts that try to scale agile, the Scenario Backlog is strictly limited to DDD's problem space, thus avoiding upfront design and premature planning.
Instead, Scenario Casting sets a common focus in problem space for agile teams by defining Orientation Scenarios. An Orientation Scenario illuminates parts of the problem space very precisely. It defines the actual results that solutions must deliver from a domain perspective - but without prescribing specific solutions. Finding and implementing good solutions remains the responsibility of the individual agile teams!

This talk contains examples from real projects and gives you best practices - so you get a good idea of how to try Scenario Casting yourself!

Over 95 % of companies in the EU are small businesses with less than 250 employees. Many of them would like to reduce their carbon emissions but very few have the knowledge and time needed to take action.
Reaching a sizable fraction of these companies with actionable information about their carbon footprint has a huge potential for climate impact. But is that possible for an organization with less than 10 employees? While also working at a sustainable pace?

Target Audience: Everybody willing to explore how to build software for our future
Prerequisites: none
Level: Basic

Extended Abstract:

Humanity of today is faced with several very serious challenges: environmental problems such as climate change are changing our conditions for living and producing food, making social problems like poverty and global inequality worse.  A good future for our Planet Earth and the humans it supports is possible, but only if we act for it. The aim of this session is to give more people the confidence and tools to get more people to do exactly that: act for a better future.

We’ll spend most of the session exploring the story of GoClimate, a company founded for the sole purpose of stopping climate change. From the example of GoClimate’s journey we’ll extract a toolbox for making an impact on a global problem with a small team. Hopefully you’ll leave this talk convinced that your actions matter and with concrete ideas on how you can act.

Requirements engineering like testing require balance of value and risk. Agile requirements engineering and testing with test-driven requirements engineering (TDRE) balances project risks and cost. Clear advantage: Requirements are understandable, testable, and directly applicable as test case. Lead time and costs in testing are reduced by up to thirty percent.

This presentation at OOP 2023 will practically introduce to agile requirements engineering and test with TDRE. A case study demonstrates an industry use of TDRE.

Target Audience: Project Managers, Architects, Analysts, Requirements Engineers, Product Owners, Software Engineers
Prerequisites: None
Level: Advanced

Extended Abstract:
Requirements engineering like testing require balance. Balance is about balancing value and risk. Requirements must be good enough to mitigate risks but yet not overly specific to contain effort. Same for test, which though never complete needs to address those areas with highest risk.

Requirements engineering and testing belong together. Historically, testers have often only seen the requirements after the system has already been partially implemented. This had two serious disadvantages. On the one hand, insufficient requirements quality came far too late to the table. On the other hand, it was quite a lot of extra work without deriving suitable test cases in the context of requirements definition. A lot of additional work and long correction loops were the result.

Only an agile balance of risk-oriented coverage and testable requirements can improve test effectiveness. Such risk-oriented work also optimizes requirements engineering. Instead of paralysis by analysis in defining numerous requirements, test-driven requirements engineering (TDRE) focusses on specifying what is necessary and of high risk or high value.

TDRE is straight-forward: Test cases are developed in parallel to the requirements. Thus, the feasibility of the requirements is analyzed much faster than in the traditional sequential approach, in which tests are specified relatively late. The test cases are initially described in the same structure as the requirements and as a supplement to the respective requirements. This shifts Test-Driven Development (TDD), which has already proven itself as relevant agile methodology, to the specification level. Regression tests are attributed in order to prepare for later automation. The effort required for testing can be better estimated on this basis, and project and quality risks are thus reduced.
TDRE follows a triple peak model, which is connecting requirements (i.e., needs), design (i.e., solution) and test (i.e., the product).

It intertwines three perspectives:
•    Market perspective: “How can I meet customer satisfaction and needs?”
•    Design perspective: “How can I implement the solution to meet requirements?”
•    Testing perspective: “How can I find a defect and cause the product to fail?”

Here some guidance from our projects, which we will further illustrate in this presentation:
•    Every single functional requirement has at least one acceptance check, which is either fulfilled or not fulfilled and serves as the agile DoD (definition of done).
•    Each individual quality requirement is described with numerical values that can be measured.
•    Business rules are defined so that it can be determined whether they are true or false.
•    Business and data objects are defined with all their attributes, types and states so that they can be set and validated at test time.
•    System interfaces such as GUIs, reports and service interfaces are included in the requirements document so that values can be assigned to them.
•    All use cases have pre- and post-conditions that can be generated and validated.
•    All text is marked so that it can be automatically processed to generate test cases.

Agile requirements engineering and testing with test-driven requirements engineering (TDRE) balances project risks and cost. Clear advantage: Requirements are understandable, testable, and directly applicable as test case. Lead time and costs in testing are reduced by up to thirty percent. This presentation at OOP 2023 will practically introduce to agile requirements engineering and test with TDRE. A case study from medical cybersecurity demonstrates an industry use of TDRE.

One of the fundamental strategies of Agile Modeling is that artifacts, including architecture models, should be just barely good enough (JBGE). Another way of saying this is your models should be sufficient for the task at hand, no more and no less. But sufficiency is contextual in nature, it depends.
In this session we will look at the issue of model sufficiency, exploring the risk factors that motivate us to model more as well as the conditions that enable us to model less.

Target Audience: Software Architects, Software Developers
Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of agile, understanding of software architecture
Level: Advanced

Extended Abstract:
One of the fundamental strategies of Agile Modeling is that artifacts, including architecture models, should be just barely good enough (JBGE). Another way of saying this is your models should be sufficient for the task at hand, no more and no less. But sufficiency is contextual in nature, it depends.

In this session we will look at the issue of model sufficiency, exploring the risk factors that motivate us to model more as well as the conditions that enable us to model less. We model to think things through, to identify potential avenues for moving forward so that we can choose what we believe to be the most likely path for success. But the more effort we spend doing so potentially motivates us to make commitments earlier than we should and to lose time, and value, doing so. Balancing these tensions is how we determine model sufficiency in the context that we face. Proven agile architecture strategies that enable us to invest in less up-front modeling will also be explored. It's never just about modeling.

Agenda:
1. Architecture throughout the agile lifecycle.
2. What is initial architecture modeling?
3. What does it mean to be just barely good enough (JBGE)?
4. What risk factors motivate us to invest in more up-front modeling?
5. What factors enable us to invest in less up-front modeling?
6. What are the development practices that support an agile approach to architecture?