Stefan Wolpers

A3 Delegation System Founding Workshop — September 28-29, 2026

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-22 Featured Agile and Scrum

Turn An AI Workflow Into an Explicit Delegation

Your team already delegates work to AI: reports, research, customer feedback analysis, stakeholder communication, or parts of operational workflows.

But can you answer these questions without improvising?

What may AI decide, and what must remain a human decision?
What does “good enough” mean for this particular work?
Who verifies the result before somebody acts on it?
Who checks whether the delegation still works after the model or workflow changes?

If those answers live in one person’s head, or nowhere, your problem is no longer prompting. You have a delegation problem.

The A3 Delegation System gives you a practical way to decide what AI may do, hand over the work clearly, define acceptable results, and inspect the delegation over time.

During two hands-on sessions, you will apply the system to a workflow. You will leave with a clear understanding of how to apply the A3 Delegation System to your workflows so that team members or stakeholders can understand, challenge, and continue your AI delegation work. Everything you learn is directly applicable to your situation the next day. The class is in English.

A3 Delegation System Founding Workshop — September 28-29, 2026 — by Stefan Wolpers Berlin-Product-People.com

From Prompting to Operating Capability: The AI4Agile Online Course Release v3

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-19 Featured Agile and Scrum

TL; DR: AI4Agile v3 Is Live

You learned to prompt, and your organization learned to spend. Unfortunately, few organizations have learned to connect the two. That is where the AI4Agile online course comes in.

An AI operating capability exists when delegated work can be reproduced without its original creator, meets an explicit quality standard, follows a defensible execution path, has a named owner, and is inspected often enough to detect drift. The AI4Agile Online Course V3 teaches practitioners how to build one, independent of a particular AI model, and still, there is no coding required. The course is in English. 🇬🇧

📺 Watch me walk you through the AI4Agile online course, pointing to the new modules.

AI4Agile Course v3: Master AI for Agile Practitioners — Berlin-Product-People.com

👉 AI4Agile V3 launches today, July 20, 2026, at the introductory price of $149, including a 14-Day Money Back Guarantee. (On July 28, it will be $249.)

Food for Agile Thought 553: Dangerous Agile Myths, Produce Evidence Quality, Running Experiments, Playing Politics?

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-17 News

TL; DR: Dangerous Agile Myths — Food for Agile Thought #553

Welcome to the 553rd edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,462 peers. This week, Henrik Mårtensson dismantles seven dangerous Agile myths, showing that fat-tailed cycle-time data invalidates the use of story points. Teresa Torres and Petra Wille question whether support tickets can replace story-based interviews, while Roman Pichler pushes visions beyond feature lists toward purpose. Turning to AI, Laura Summers finds LLM-assisted coding replaces building satisfaction with supervision fatigue, Benedict Evans sees foundation models becoming commodities, and Satya Nadella urges firms to own their learning loops before providers capture proprietary knowledge.

Next, John Cutler reframes software assets through a portfolio lens, asking whether AI makes you faster or moves you faster in the wrong direction. George Sivulka and Arvind Narayanan both place the bottleneck in management, not model capability. On the human side, Sean Goedecke redefines engineering politics as knowing who holds power and making contributions visible, while Steven Sinofsky compares Chicago Law School’s AI ban to Harvard’s 1982 computer ban, arguing such restrictions never last.

Lastly, Pavel Samsonov argues that product empathy rings hollow without respect, a gap LLMs deepen by pushing error correction onto users. Thomas Squeo and Matt Kamelman trace enterprise AI failure to missing governance, not weak models. Susan MacKenty Brady, Stuart Kliman, and Leslie Smith name four leadership traps quietly eroding trust. Finally, Dave Rooney rethinks story slicing when AI handles large tasks, and Tristan Kromer notes AI accelerates experiments but cannot pick the right question.

Food for Agile Thought 553: Dangerous Agile Myths, Produce Evidence Quality, Running Experiments, Playing Politics? Age-of-Product.com

You Already Have an AI Working Agreement. Write It Down.

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-12 Agile and Scrum

TL;DR: The AI Working Agreement

Your team already has rules for using AI. Some live in templates, some in habits, exceptions, and one person’s memory. The AI Working Agreement puts the decisions that matter in one place: what the team delegates to AI, what stays human, what must be reviewed, what never enters a model, who owns which workflow, and how the agreement changes. Write it, and a new colleague can read your team’s AI decisions on their first day, while the decisions stay when someone leaves.

You Already Have an AI Working Agreement. Write It Down to Turn Scattered AI Decisions into an Inspectable Artifact - Age-of-Product.com

Thesis: Team-level AI governance fails more from uncodified judgment than from missing policies. The AI Working Agreement turns scattered AI decisions into one inspectable artifact, so a team can onboard people, survive departures, and challenge its own habits before those habits harden into risk.

Food for Agile Thought 552: AI Creates Jobs? Product Roadmaps & Leader Anxiety, Overthinkers, Measuring ≠ Learning

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-09 News

TL; DR: AI Creates Jobs? — Food for Agile Thought #552

Welcome to the 552nd edition of the Food for Agile Thought newsletter, shared with 35,468 peers. This week, Ramp Economics Lab and Revelio Labs report that heavy AI adopters grew headcount by 10%, yet Charity Majors insists only honest feedback loops turn adoption into results. Alex Karp questions the economics entirely, calling token pricing fundamentally broken. Pavel Samsonov and Jerry Colonna both argue that speed without trust or judgment produces waste, while Janna Bastow reminds us that roadmap dates are comfort objects that mask the need for outcomes.

Next, Jeff Gothelf proposes that when AI makes building nearly free, teams should prioritize learning value and reversibility over effort. Kyle Poyar believes the resulting cost crisis is self-inflicted and offers a five-step spending fix. Yanli Liu warns that even working tools like Claude Skills silently rot without maintenance, while Addy Osmani suggests engineers must own accountability as agents handle execution. Also, John Cutler recommends that overthinkers disconnect self-worth from work entirely.

Lastly, Paweł Huryn frames the 2026 AI PM roadmap around whether agents run on your work or inside your product, while Alberto Romero raises a stranger question: why do AI models keep inventing their own languages? Fabian Metzeler and McKinsey colleagues distill seven truths from 15 AI-native companies, yet Cris Beswick warns most transformations stall when organizations skip differentiated innovation. Finally, Ant Murphy proposes a two-question test to tell actionable metrics from noise.

Food for Agile Thought 552: AI Creates Jobs? Product Roadmaps & Leader Anxiety, Overthinkers, Measuring ≠ Learning – Age-of-Product.com

If You Can Write Acceptance Criteria, You Can Write an AI Routing Policy

by Stefan Wolpers | 2026-07-05 Agile and Scrum

TL;DR: The AI Routing Policy

You moved your routine AI work to a cheaper model, so you think the cost question is handled; however, often, that is not the case. The decision lives in one person’s head and produces nothing that the person accountable for the invoices can read. Worse, it is an architectural choice nobody documented. The AI Routing Policy is the missing artifact of Stage 2 of the Delegation Lifecycle: it records which execution path, from a cheaper model to a frontier model to plain code, handles each class of work, what counts as good enough output to meet the AI Definition of Done, and who owns the call. The skill it needs to work is one you already have: You write acceptance criteria.

If You Can Write Acceptance Criteria, You Can Write an AI Routing Policy — The AI Delegation Lifecycle by Age-of-Product.com

Thesis: An AI routing policy is not about picking a cheaper model at the moment of executing an AI task. It is a written, repeatable team decision that assigns each task class to the cheapest sufficient execution path: a model, human review, deterministic code, or no automation. Paired with a minimal routing log, it creates the spend-by-task-class record that your finance team will eventually request. You can draft the first three lines in twenty minutes.