Moving Beyond Checklists in Integration Work: Exploring Sprint-Based Execution
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In my current integration role, I’ve recently started introducing Agile-inspired sprint concepts into our integration work—not because checklists are wrong, but because they’ve started to show their limits as our integrations become faster and more overlapping.
–
Historically, our execution model leaned heavily on checklists and waterfall-style task tracking. Those tools provide clarity on what needs to be done, but in practice I kept seeing the same challenges:
Checklists showed tasks, but not real momentum
Too many items stayed “in progress” at the same time
Ownership and due dates were often implied rather than explicit
Issues surfaced late, after multiple workstreams were already impacted
–We’re now experimenting with short sprint cycles, fewer priorities at a time, clear owners, and defined review points. The goal isn’t to add ceremony or turn integration into software development—it’s to introduce flow, focus, and earlier feedback into execution.
What’s been most interesting so far is how behavior changes:
Teams are forced to make tradeoffs instead of carrying everything forward
Progress becomes visible earlier, not just at milestone reviews
Blockers surface sooner, when they’re still manageable
Accountability feels more intentional, not heavier
–We’re still early, and we’re actively figuring out how to make this fit without overcomplicating things or losing the practical benefits of checklists. This feels less like “implementing Agile” and more like evolving how we execute integration work.
–I’d really like to hear from others in the M&A community:
Where have checklists and waterfall approaches worked well for you?
Where have they broken down?
Have you tried sprint-based or time-boxed execution in integrations—and what changed as a result?
What are some development and learning opportunities have you pursued?
–Looking forward to learning from different perspectives.
We have toyed with utilising Agile methodology including sprints with the desire to speed things up, or at least see earlier discernible progress being made but ultimately pivoted away from it.
The main reason we didnt find it helpful was that we found that a lot of the change in integration had to be complete and coordinated and it wasnt possible to break down the change in to discrete pieces to be delivered across different sprints and a lot of the change didnt have much option to choose what to include in a particular sprint and what could be carried forward to future sprints.
We found checklists had the major downside of workstream leads thinking that a checklist was a concrete and complete plan of what needed to be done and they then struggled to review and adapt it based on the needs of the integration. Instead we use pre-defined Outcomes with Definition of Done for each as the basis for planning to give them a starting point and repeatability. It also helps focus peoples in minds on what you are seeking to achieve and how to communicate it without chasing milestones that may not mean anything to people outside the core integration team and workstreams.
So while agile and sprints didnt work as such for us I guess we do still use some aspects such as Outcomes and Definition of Done
That resonates with what I have seen as well. Many integration changes are inherently interdependent, which makes it hard to slice the work into clean, independent sprints without creating artificial sequencing.
I have not directly used Agile or sprint-based approaches in integrations yet, but I do find the concept interesting. My sense is that it could work well in specific stages of an integration, with certain teams, or where there is limited crossover between workstreams.
I like your point on Outcomes and Definition of Done. That feels like a very practical way to keep focus on value and intent rather than just completing checklist items. I would be interested to hear how this evolves for you as you continue refining the approach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.