This Agile case study is drawn from the Agile Experience Report “Neurodivergent Struggles in Agile” written by Christiane Schabarum.

---

Christiane Schabarum, a seasoned Scrum Master, noticed a pattern on her Agile teams. People knew the practices. They had the training, the experience, the vocabulary. But when the work began, the basics broke down. Stories wouldn’t slice. Estimates drifted. Planning stalled. Focus came and went. Over time, she saw the same pattern in herself.

The issue wasn’t effort or attitude. For people with ADHD and other forms of neurodivergence, the work depended on abilities the brain does not always provide on demand: holding sequences in working memory, sensing time accurately, filtering distractions, and regulating emotion under pressure. What looked like inconsistency was often a mismatch between standard Agile expectations and how some people process information.

Instead of trying to “fix” the people, Christiane changed the system. She redesigned how work was framed, how conversations were structured, and how decisions were supported to reduce cognitive load and allow more than one way to succeed.

Below is a case study of how she adapted Agile practices to support neurodivergent team members and improve execution.

1. The Challenge

Context

The work took place in Agile software delivery teams using Scrum practices such as backlog refinement, story slicing, estimation, and real-time collaboration. Christiane had more than a decade of Agile experience.

Key problems

• Breakdown in core practices: Story slicing, sequencing, and estimation were difficult to execute despite training.
• Task initiation risk: Ambiguous work or unclear starting points triggered freeze responses.
• Planning pressure: Time perception challenges made estimates stressful and unreliable.
• Cognitive overload: Frequent change increased decision fatigue and analysis paralysis.
• Misinterpreted behaviors: Detailed thinking, tangents, or repeated questions were often treated as distractions rather than processing needs.

The risk was reduced delivery predictability, lower confidence for individuals, and strain on team collaboration. The challenge persisted despite experience and training, indicating a gap between knowing Agile practices and executing them.

2. The Approach

Principle shift

Christiane moved from enforcing standard Agile behavior to designing work around cognitive differences, guided by the Agile Manifesto value “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.”

Key adjustments

• Outcome-first planning: Start from deadlines or deliverables when step-by-step breakdown was difficult.
• Bound uncertainty: Use spikes, research questions, and assumptions to create a clear entry point for ambiguous work.
• Externalize thinking: Capture ideas visually using mind maps or shared boards.
• Create external structure: Use checkpoints and early collaboration to support task initiation.
• Reduce cognitive load: Limit unnecessary decisions and rely on routines.
• Allow flexible execution: Permit task switching when focus blocked progress.

3. Implementation and Iteration

Changes were introduced through small experiments rather than a formal transformation.

• Trigger moment: Difficulty with story slicing during an Agile workshop highlighted the execution gap.
• Personal experimentation: Christiane developed structured personal systems and shared them through internal sessions.
• Visual collaboration: Colleagues helped translate non-linear thought streams into structured visual artifacts.
• Facilitation changes: Smaller working sessions, additional processing time, and visual capture replaced strict real-time discussion.

The team balanced structure with flexibility, treating focus and execution as design concerns rather than individual shortcomings.

4. Results and Impact

• Helped individuals start and complete work more consistently: External structure and clearer anchors supported starting and finishing work.
• Better shared understanding: Visual tools reduced confusion and supported follow-through.
• More effective overload recovery: Recognizing stress responses allowed practical resets such as breaks or context changes.
• Provided a framework for understanding behaviors as cognitive differences: Behaviors previously seen as resistance were understood as cognitive differences.

The report also notes that when conditions supported deep focus, individuals could produce high-quality results quickly. No formal metrics were reported; impact was observed through delivery consistency and collaboration quality.

5. Lessons Learned

• Design for variability: Multiple execution paths improve reliability more than strict uniformity.
• Make thinking visible: Visualizing ideas supports alignment and follow-through.
• Create clear entry points: Bounded exploration helps teams move forward in uncertain work.
• Use structure as support: Routines and checkpoints reduce cognitive load without reducing autonomy.

Training and process knowledge alone did not solve the problem. Execution improved when the system adapted to how people actually think and work.

Key Agile Takeaways

• Used iterative experimentation to refine working methods instead of introducing a single change.
• Applied “Individuals and interactions” by adapting practices to cognitive differences.
• Used spikes and lightweight discovery to make ambiguous work actionable.
• Externalized thinking with visual tools to improve collaboration and execution.
• Reduced cognitive load through routines, simplified decisions, and clear checkpoints.

Read the original Agile Experience Report “Neurodivergent Struggles in Agile” written by Christiane Schabarum.