LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Concept and mechanism
Reporting should support decisions and reuse information produced by the work, avoiding multiple versions of the same status. Some shared definitions help when several teams are involved, but excessive uniformity can hide different contexts. Measure progress toward a usable outcome and expose blocked work, risks, forecasts, and pending decisions. DORA provides five current delivery and instability metrics that should be interpreted at service level. Do not turn one metric into a competition target or compare different teams without understanding context. A meeting or dashboard is useful when it improves understanding and enables action on an actual constraint.
Guided application
In a fictional team, the main delay occurs in validation between development and APS. Agree an experiment involving earlier participation, acceptance examples, and supported execution. Define the expected change, how waiting time will be observed, and which quality must be preserved. Then compare results in similar contexts, including rework and support capability. If waiting decreases but failures rise, adapt the practice before generalizing it. A retrospective should produce followed-up actions rather than a repeated complaint list. The Delivery Manager can facilitate improvement, but the team and flow participants need to own the actions that actually change delivery.
A flow improvement should preserve quality and operational capability.
Common pitfalls
Duplicate reports; metrics used for competition; retrospectives without follow-up; speed alone.
Related topics: Mandate, outcomes, and collaboration · Planning, capacity, and forecasting · Flow, dependencies, and impediments
Choose a constraint, try a change, and check its effect.
Reference: Measuring and reporting progress · Service Manual current public guidance; Kanban Guide May2025; DORA five-metric model; primary references reviewed 2026-09-30