Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) and Climate Change.

Based upon a total distance of 200,000 km, an eGolf driven by electrical energy as of today’s German production situation will produce 142 g/km CO2, a Diesel Golf will product 140 g/km CO2. If an eGolf is „fueled“ by wind energy only, it produces 59 g/km CO2. 


This is a complete disaster, because no smart person would invest 50 k€ to basically deteriorate his/her carbon footprint. And the 59 g/km are just based on hope, since green energy will just not be available in amounts needed to significantly transform western economy.

What would a SAFe consultant do? My guess is: a SAFe consultant (I am one…) would apply the WSJF principle: 

In SAFe the weight is calculated by dividing the Cost of Delay (CoD) by the Duration:

Weight = CoD / Duration

The CoD is the sum of user-business value, time-criticality and risk reduction and/or opportunity enablement:

CoD = user-business value + time-criticality + risk reduction

where each parameter has a value of 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, or 20.

WSJF Applied to the eGolf and Possible Alternatives 

Now, how would a carpool with two people who currently both own a Diesel Golf (solution 1, leading to weight 1) compare to the acquisition of two eGolfs (solution 2)?

I actually do not know the CoD, but CoD1 should be roughly twice the value of CoD2, since CO2 production of the cars is quite identical and thus are halved in case 1.

What is not identical is the time to market: The carpool can go live tomorrow, the eGolf has to be ordered and produced in let’s say three month, thus w2/w1 = 90.

Now, my question is: Why on earth don’t we focus our efforts on carpools instead of electrical cars?!

, , ,