Delivering Clean Core: People, Conflict & Cadence

• QuestionWhat is "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed"?Tap to revealAnswerClean Core is a cross-team programme competing with the feature backlog — without a named owner, reserved capacity, and someone managing the seams between teams, it stalls.
• QuestionIn "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed", explain:Tap to revealAnswerClean Core spans functional, Basis, security, integration, and business teams — it is not a solo refactor.
• QuestionIn "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed", explain:Tap to revealAnswerIt competes with the feature backlog, so it needs a named owner and reserved capacity or it slips.
• QuestionIn "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed", explain:Tap to revealAnswerThe burndown only stays down if remediation is continuous; new debt can outpace fixes.
• QuestionIn "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed", explain:Tap to revealAnswerMost failure modes are organisational (collisions, surprises, stale exemptions), not coding errors.
• QuestionAnalogy for "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed":Tap to revealAnswerIt's a city-wide road resurfacing, not patching your own driveway — most of the work is coordinating closures, detours, and the other crews.
• QuestionWhat is "How long, and what drives it"?Tap to revealAnswerDon't guess a calendar — size from drivers (live code, modifications, integrations), anchored to the ~12-month / 4M-LOC capstone, and express it as phases with exit criteria you re-estimate each sprint.
• QuestionIn "How long, and what drives it", explain:Tap to revealAnswerThere is no fixed duration — estimate from drivers, not a guessed calendar.
• QuestionIn "How long, and what drives it", explain:Tap to revealAnswerAnchor: ~12 months for a 4M-LOC estate converting to S/4HANA 2023 (module 13); scale up or down from there.
• QuestionIn "How long, and what drives it", explain:Tap to revealAnswerDrivers: live-code volume (SCMON), modifications, BDC/GUI dependencies, integration count, share already on released APIs.
• QuestionIn "How long, and what drives it", explain:Tap to revealAnswerRe-estimate each sprint from the actual burndown fix rate.
• QuestionAnalogy for "How long, and what drives it":Tap to revealAnswerEstimating a migration from total lines of code is like quoting a house move by the size of the house, not the boxes you still use — measure what's live first.
• QuestionWhat is "Collaborating across teams"?Tap to revealAnswerName your interfaces to functional, Basis, security, and SAP up front; run handoffs with a light RACI and a shared 'done', and communicate behavioural changes before they ship.
• QuestionIn "Collaborating across teams", explain:Tap to revealAnswerName your interfaces: functional (process owners), Basis/DevOps (transports, central ATC, CI gate), security (roles/auth objects), SAP (extension-point requests).
• QuestionIn "Collaborating across teams", explain:Tap to revealAnswerUse a light RACI and explicit handoffs per remediation.
• QuestionIn "Collaborating across teams", explain:Tap to revealAnswerMake 'done' shared: ATC-clean against the union variant, behaviour confirmed by the functional owner, transport sequenced with Basis.
• QuestionIn "Collaborating across teams", explain:Tap to revealAnswerNever surprise a business owner — communicate behavioural change before it ships.
• QuestionAnalogy for "Collaborating across teams":Tap to revealAnswerLike a kitchen on a busy night — food goes out smoothly only when each station knows the handoff; a brilliant line cook who ignores the pass still causes chaos.
• QuestionWhat is "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction"?Tap to revealAnswerSequence transports and own objects to avoid collisions (CDS + DCL + behaviour travel together); resolve priority friction with the impersonal gate, and log real disagreements as time-boxed exemptions.
• QuestionIn "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction", explain:Tap to revealAnswerTransport collisions: CDS + DCL + behaviour definition must travel together (module 10) — sequence and own objects per sprint.
• QuestionIn "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction", explain:Tap to revealAnswerKeep remediation transports small and frequently integrated; let the CI/CD ATC gate catch collisions early.
• QuestionIn "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction", explain:Tap to revealAnswerResolve priority friction with impersonal pre-agreed rules: the union variant, the baseline, the build-breaker policy (modules 8 / B1).
• QuestionIn "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction", explain:Tap to revealAnswerMove conflict from 'you versus me' to 'does it pass the gate.'
• QuestionAnalogy for "Conflicts: transport collisions and team friction":Tap to revealAnswerGood fences and a shared rulebook: clear object ownership stops collisions, and an agreed gate settles 'is this clean?' the way a referee settles a foul — not by who argues loudest.
• QuestionWhat is "Prioritising the backlog"?Tap to revealAnswerReuse the course's own model — prioritise by used × standard-impacting × cost weighted by upgrade severity, delete dead code, sequence the rest wrap-versus-rewrite, and keep one visible worst-first list.
• QuestionIn "Prioritising the backlog", explain:Tap to revealAnswerPrioritise on used? × standard-impacting? × cost-to-fix (module 8), weighted by upgrade-blocking severity (the readiness audit).
• QuestionIn "Prioritising the backlog", explain:Tap to revealAnswerHigh-usage, standard-impacting, low-cost first — most upgrade risk retired per unit of effort.
• QuestionIn "Prioritising the backlog", explain:Tap to revealAnswerUnused code → decommission policy (mark, watch, delete), not remediation — deletion is the cheapest fix.
• QuestionIn "Prioritising the backlog", explain:Tap to revealAnswerSequence the rest with wrap-versus-rewrite (the decoupling-cockpit matrix).
• QuestionAnalogy for "Prioritising the backlog":Tap to revealAnswerTriage in an emergency room: treat by severity and survivability, not by who's easiest or who shouts — and don't operate on someone who has already left (dead code).
• QuestionWhat is "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook"?Tap to revealAnswerExpect scope creep, exemption sprawl, a stalled burndown, resistance, and upgrade-freeze — each has a known move, and the meta-fix is to track delivery issues like ATC findings: owner, expiry, review.
• QuestionIn "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook", explain:Tap to revealAnswerScope creep → usage-scoped, phased plan with bounded reserved capacity.
• QuestionIn "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook", explain:Tap to revealAnswerExemption sprawl → mandatory expiry plus a periodic renew-or-fix review.
• QuestionIn "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook", explain:Tap to revealAnswerStalled/rising burndown → tighten the build-breaker gate on NEW code to stop the inflow first.
• QuestionIn "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook", explain:Tap to revealAnswerTeam resistance → make value visible (burndown, celebrated 'C2 eliminated' metric) and reserve capacity.
• QuestionAnalogy for "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook":Tap to revealAnswerA pre-flight checklist: the emergencies are known and rehearsed, so when one happens you run the procedure instead of improvising.

1. 1List the core idea

   Analyse~10 min

   In your own words, list the central idea of "Why Clean Core delivery has to be managed". Aim for one paragraph, no jargon you haven't earned.

   Done when: A non-expert could read your paragraph and explain it back to you.

   Re-read the source concept

2. 2Translate it to a real situation

   Apply~15 min

   Find a real situation from your own work / life where "The issues you'll hit, and the resolution playbook" applies. Translate the idea — describe the situation, the move you'd make, and the alternative you considered first.

   Done when: You can name a specific situation (not a hypothetical), state your move, and explain the trade-off in one paragraph.

   Re-read the source concept

3. 3Teach it back

   Evaluate~5 min

   Pick someone (a colleague, a peer, a rubber duck) and explain the section to them in under 5 minutes. Use your own example, not the one from the lesson.

   Done when: Your listener can repeat the core idea + the trade-off back to you without prompting.

Why this matters. Reading + quizzing prove recall; applying it in a real situation is the only evidence of transfer. Treat at least one of these as non-negotiable before you move on.