Why does the EBM guide overlook the 'unrealised value' that I have in both T2M and A2I?
I believe this view applies just as well here. Perhaps I should use a different term, given that there is no actual "Value" in T2M and A2I.
Wouldn't the following approach be more logical:
Value: What about 'Current Value' and 'Unrealised Value'?
T2M: What are my 'Current T2M' and 'Unrealised T2M Possibilities'?
A2I: What are my 'Current A2I Status' and 'Unrealised A2I Possibilities'?
Is there a reason why the EBM guide only divides 'Value' in this way?
There's probably nothing wrong with handling it this way in practice. However, whenever I have had questions like this about the Scrum.org guides in the past, I have usually overlooked or misunderstood something.
Unrealised T2M or A2I possibilities may be a consequence of technical debt, which is one of the KVMs for A2I. Poor tooling, poor automation, poor maintainability etc.
I wouldn't say that's the reason you are looking for, but it is a lens through which these matters can be considered.
You are right that A2I and T2M provide a lens for this, as value provides a lens for customer satisfaction, for example.
However, while we view customer satisfaction as current value and the satisfaction gap as unrealised value, we do not view automation as current T2M and the automation gap as unrealised T2M.
Why is that?
As far as I know, unrealised value was not included in the initial versions of EBM. It was introduced to provide insight into what is possible and enable better budget decisions.
In my opinion, a similar situation arises with unrealised T2M or A2I. These would also offer insight into what is possible.
Budgeting is, of course, for the product, but the combination of unrealised value, unrealized T2M and unrealized A2I can provide the PO with information on how the budget can be spent.
- If there is only a small amount of unrealised value, it may not be worthwhile investing in T2M or A2I, even if there are opportunities.
- However, when there is a lot of unrealised value and unrealised T2M or A2I, it may(!!) be sensible for the PO to spend the budget on the latter two first and deliver the unrealised value faster afterwards.
- When there is a lot of unrealised value but few unrealised T2M or A2I opportunities, the PO can focus entirely on value. He also knows that there is no opportunity to speed up.
Is this the next extension of the KVAs? (Sometimes I am immodest.)
It is more likely that there are reasons not to divide A2I and T2M that I do not see!