Global Adobe delivery · KPMG · Havas CX

Holding release cadence across ten markets.

A global Adobe marketing platform serving more than ten markets, delivered as a managed service by a twelve-person team—running enhancements, upgrades, country rollouts and incidents on a biweekly cadence, while the platform itself was moving underneath them.

10+Markets served
12Person delivery team
2wkRelease cadence
Ten markets on one release train Ten market rows share a single fortnightly release cadence; release points are marked in coral and each market reaches readiness on its own date. MARKET RELEASE TRAIN EACH MARKET REACHES READY ON ITS OWN DATE

One platform, ten sets of expectations.

A shared platform across many markets is not one project with many stakeholders. It is many local realities competing for one release train.

Each market had its own priorities, its own regulatory and language requirements, its own view of what was urgent. All of it had to land on a single instance, through one backlog, on a fixed cadence—alongside platform upgrades, incident response, and rollouts bringing further countries onto the platform.

My role was coordination in the literal sense: I was not building the Adobe implementation. I was making sure the right work entered each sprint, that requirements were understood before development started, that engineers were unblocked, that QA actually happened, that dependencies surfaced early enough to matter, and that every market's stakeholders knew where their request stood.

Confidentiality boundary

Client-internal architecture, market-specific requirements, commercial terms, and named deliverables are withheld. Team scale, operating cadence, and the delivery model described are represented faithfully.

The cadence is the governance.

With this many stakeholders and one shared instance, a predictable cycle does more for trust than any amount of reporting. Everyone knowing when the next window opens is what makes a "not this sprint" acceptable.

01 / IntakePrioritize

Requests from every market assessed against capacity and platform impact.

02 / ReadyGroom the backlog

Requirements clarified and sized before they reach a sprint, not during one.

03 / BuildDevelop and test

Development with QA inside the sprint rather than appended to the end of it.

04 / ShipRelease readiness

Production deployment against explicit criteria, then hypercare on what shipped.

Running enhancements, upgrades, new-country implementations and incident response through the same fortnightly cycle meant capacity had to be reserved for the unplanned. A sprint filled to its edges with planned work is a sprint that fails the first time production breaks.

Operating artifactsGeneralized view
01

Single prioritized backlog

Every market's requests in one ordered list, so trade-offs were visible rather than implicit.

02

Definition of ready

Entry conditions a request had to meet before consuming sprint capacity.

03

Release readiness checklist

QA evidence, dependencies, and sign-off tracked to a production decision.

04

Incident and escalation path

A route for production issues that did not require dismantling the sprint to use.

Moving platforms without stopping the train.

The engagement spanned a shift in the underlying Adobe platform. The release cadence did not get to pause while it happened.

Platform transitions are where managed-service delivery is most exposed. Two environments exist at once, capability is unevenly distributed between them, and every incoming request needs a judgement about which platform it belongs to and whether building it twice is worth avoiding a delay. Meanwhile the markets' expectations do not reset.

01

Keep one intake, whatever the target

Requests entered a single prioritized queue regardless of which platform would ultimately serve them, so stakeholders never had to understand our internal migration state to ask for something.

02

Protect capacity for the unplanned

Reserved room in every sprint for incidents and transition surprises, on the assumption that a fortnight without one was the exception.

03

Make readiness explicit per market

Treated each market's move as its own readiness decision with its own criteria, rather than a single global cutover that would have forced the least-ready market to set the date.

04

Escalate on consequence

Raised issues in terms of what a decision delay would cost a specific market's release, which turned escalation into something stakeholders acted on.

Predictable, even while changing.

Markets got a cadence they could plan around, and a shared platform kept absorbing local demand without the release train losing its rhythm.

The part that transferred to everything I have done since: with enough stakeholders, delivery credibility comes from the reliability of the cycle rather than the speed of any single release. A team that ships something predictable every fortnight earns more latitude than one that occasionally ships a lot.

10+Markets on one platform

Local requirements served through a single shared instance and backlog.

12Coordinated specialists

Development, QA, and platform work moving through one operating rhythm.

2wkSustained cadence

A release cycle held through upgrades, rollouts, incidents, and a platform transition.

What this work taught me.

Coordination is an actual discipline, not the absence of a specialism. On a distributed team it is the thing that decides whether specialists get to be effective.

  • A single prioritized queue beats a fair-seeming per-market allocation: it forces trade-offs into the open where they can be discussed.
  • Sprints planned to full capacity have no capacity, because production does not schedule its failures.
  • Per-market readiness decisions prevent the least-ready participant from dictating everyone's timeline.
Coordinating delivery across markets and time zones?

Let’s build the cadence.

Start a conversation →