Category Archives: Theory of Agile

Face-to-Face Value

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Linkedin has introduced a new app called Linkedin Lookup, advertised as “the fastest way to find and learn about your coworkers.”

If you don’t know who your co-workers are then your Enterprise has big problems, and a LinkedIn app won’t solve them. But Agile can…

The first Value in the Agile Manifesto reads: “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.”

What does that mean? For some understanding, you might read this excerpt from: Applying Agile Management Value 1: (Agile Project Management For Dummies)

The first core value of the Agile Manifesto is to value individuals and interactions over processes and tools. When you allow each person to contribute unique value to your software development project, the result can be powerful.

… This emphasis on individuals and teams puts the focus on people and their energy, innovation, and ability to solve problems. You use processes and tools in agile project management, but they’re intentionally streamlined and directly support product creation. The more robust a process or tool, the more you spend on its care and feeding and the more you defer to it. With people front and center, however, the result is a leap in productivity. An agile environment is human-centric and participatory and can be readily adapted to new ideas and innovations.
If you do not know who your employees or co-workers are, if you are never with them when they are engaging in their work to note their individual styles and capacities, then you are part of the old corporate way of conducting business, and will not be able to succeed given the current needs that demand a more humanistic approach to problem-solving and increased production – in other words, needs that demand agility.

What does it take to introduce yourself to a co-worker on another floor? What does it take to encourage an individual or team struggling with a creative problem? What does it take to tell someone, face-to-face, their work is well done?

These small interactions can have a great effect on any individual. She will feel valued, needed, noticed, regarded, and will likely want to learn and work even harder to increase his/her potential.

In Forbes magazine, January 2015, Steve Denning wrote an interesting article that speaks to the value of “individuals and interactions over processes and tools. His piece is called ”Why do Managers Hate Agile?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/01/26/why-do-managers-hate-agile/
In it, he compares the vertical mindset and approach of corporations, which served them well one hundred and fifty years ago, to the horizontal approach that Agile offered in the late part of the 20th century as a response to changing needs in the world.

Denning writes:

Agile, Scrum and Lean arose as a deliberate response to the problems of hierarchical bureaucracy that is still pervasive in organizations today: falling rates of return on assets and on invested capital, a dispirited workforce and widespread disruption of existing business models.

…the world changed and the marketplace became turbulent. There were a number of factors: globalization, deregulation, and new technology, particularly the Internet. Power in the marketplace shifted from seller to buyer; average performance wasn’t good enough. Continuous innovation became a requirement; in a world that required continuous innovation, a dispirited workforce was a serious productivity problem. As the market shifted in ways that were difficult to predict, static plans became liabilities; the inability to adapt led to “big bang disruption.” In this turbulent context, the strengths of hierarchical bureaucracy evaporated. In this context, businesses and institutions requires continuous innovation.”

Social media apps can be fun and helpful, but they cannot replace human face-to-face interaction. Think about Agile’s first value as a place to begin.

 

 

 

 

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Article Review: Thinking About the Agile Manifesto

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Often times, as I’ve been researching about agile methods and how to apply these to create real and sustainable change in an organization, I come across reference to the Agile Manifesto. I list it here today for those who are new to the field or who are getting back to the roots after trying a few things with different-than-expected results. It is an instrumental document. The values and principles listed here truly do shape the way agilists think and operate and to some degree or another the results appear to be better than before this founding document was introduced. So here is my “hats off” to this remarkable item which plays a pivotal role in cultural transformation.

The four key values are:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

Personally, I find the first one the most meaningful of all. When we value individuals and interactions over process and tools we are truly improving in leaps and bounds in creating collaborative environments which are continuously improving.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

What You Need To Know About Disruption

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

This information was presented by John Hagel in a Scrum Alliance webinar, April 12, 2016. These are my notes plus a few thoughts.DSC_0616.

The idea of Disruption in business was popularized in ‘97 in a book by Clayton Christensen. What is disruption? It occurs when most of the leading incumbents (in business, politics, technology, etc) are displaced by a new approach that is challenging to replicate. Disruption can usually be quickly seen in a change in economic factors or a change in mindsets.

There are 5 aspects of disruption to be aware of:

1. it’s happening across every industry

2. well-managed firms don’t make you safe from disruption

3. most firms/ businesses did not see it coming, i.e. newspaper industry

4. disrupting companies are not themselves immune from disruption

5. there are multiple-patterns or inter-related patterns of disruption

Most companies focus on their high-value estimates; their low-value customers don’t seem to be a threat. But as low-value items or services steadily improve, we see high-value customers shift to that. Firms must become Agile and be able to adjust on-the-fly to new technologies; they should not focus on adding improvement just to high-value things.

John Hagel clarified that disruption is a universal phenomenon – “the story of the century.” Many companies are not weathering the storm. The average life of a leading company in the ‘50’s was 62 years – now it is 18 years.

This is due to a fundamental shift in value creation, whereby consumers are gaining more power with more information and options, and knowledge workers are gaining more power in that talent has greater visibility, and higher wages can be continually demanded.

Hagel’s research shows that there are patterns that can act as lenses through which disruption can be viewed. The first pattern relates to the transformation of value and economics. For example, the digital camera became a huge disruption to the photography industry, but now itself has been disrupted by the ability to embed digital cameras in cellphones. The second pattern relates to “harnessing network effects;” the more participants that join, the more value is created. This pattern is more enduring and challenging to disrupt.

In your industry, what would you look for to understand market vulnerability? Would it be through product pricing, product modularity, demand characteristics, or supply constraints? If you assess your industry, which catalysts are the most important to understand to deal with disruption?

My personal thought is that, given the organic nature of the world’s systems, whatever disruptions are trending in the world around us, sooner or later they will have an effect on most businesses and organizations.

Disaster can be staved off by becoming more Agile in your organization. Agile will help everyone respond more quickly and with flexibility to disruptions. In fact, Agile itself has become a disruptive factor for outmoded ways of doing business.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Refactoring: 4 Key Principles

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

I believe in refactoring.  The Agile Manifesto holds that

The best architectures, requirements and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

The quality of our software systems depends on refactoring.  In fact, I believe that the only way that an organization can avoid refactoring is by going out of business.  Maybe I should explain that.

Refactor or Die

Heart Monitor Flatline - Refactoring or DeathEvery software system that we build is inside a dynamic environment.  The organization(s) using the software are all in a state of constant change.  The people using the software are also constantly changing.  Due to this constant change, every software system needs to be adapted to the environment in which it is used.  Most of the time, businesses think of this constant change in terms of new features and enhancements – the scope of functionality that a system can handle.  Less commonly, businesses think of this change in terms of the obvious external qualities and attributes of the system such as performance or security.  But almost never does an organization, from a business perspective, think of the invisible qualities of the software system such as simplicity and technical excellence.

What happens when the business does not recognize those invisible qualities?  I’m sure almost every software developer reading this can answer this question easily: the system becomes “crufty”, hard to maintain, bug-prone, costly to change, maze-like, complex.  Some people refer to this as legacy code or technical debt.

The longer this state is allowed to continue, the more it costs to add new features – the stuff that the business really cares about.  It is pretty easy to see how this works – for someone who has a technical background.  But for those without a technical background it can be hard to understand.  Here is a little analogy to help out.

Imagine that you set up a system for giving allowance to your kids.  In this system, every week your kids have to fill out a simple form that has their name, the amount that they are requesting, and their signature.  After a few weeks of doing this, you realize that it would be helpful to have the date on the form.  You do this so that you can enter their allowance payments in your personal bookkeeping records.  Then you decide that you need to add a spot for you to counter-sign so that the paper becomes a legal record of the allowance payment.  Then your kids want extra allowance for a special outing.  So you add some things on the form to allow them to make these special requests.  Your accountant tells you that some portions of your kids allowance might be good to track for tax purposes.  So, the form gets expanded to have fields for the several different possible uses that are beneficial to your taxes.  Your form is getting quite complex by this point.  Your kids start making other requests like to be paid by cheque or direct-deposit instead of in cash or to be paid advances against future allowances.  Every new situation adds complexity to the form.  The form expands over multiple pages.  Filling out the form weekly starts to take significant time for each child and for you to review them.  You realize that in numerous places on the form it would be more efficient to ask for information in a different way, but you’re not sure if it will have tax implications, so you decide not to make the changes… yet.  You decide you need your own checklist to make sure that the forms are being filled out correctly.  A new tax law means that you could claim some refunds if you have some additional information… and it can be applied retroactively, so you ask your kids to help transcribe all the old versions of the form into the latest version.  It takes three days, and there is lots of guess-work.  Your allowance tracking forms have become a bureaucratic nightmare.

The forms and their handling is what software developers have to deal with on a daily basis – and the business usually doesn’t give time to do that simplification step.  The difference is that in software development there are tools, techniques and skills that allow your developers to maintain a system so that it doesn’t get into that nightmare state.

For a more in-deth description of this process of systems gradually becoming more and more difficult to improve, please see these two excellent articles by Kane Mar:

Technical Debt and Design Death

Technical Debt and Design Death: Part II

Ultimately, a software system can become so crufty that it costs more to add features than the business benefit of adding those features.  If the business has the capacity, it is usually at this point that the business makes a hard decision: let’s re-write the system from scratch.

I used the word “decision” in that last sentence.  What are the other options in that decision?  Ignoring the problem might be okay for a while longer: if the company is still getting benefit from the operation of the system, then this can go on for quite a while.  Throwing more bodies at the system can seem to help for a bit, but there are rapidly diminishing returns on that approach (see The Mythical Man-Month for details).  At some point, however, another threshold is reached: the cost of maintaining the operation of the system grows to the point where it is more expensive than the operational value of the system.  Again, the business can make a hard decision, but it is in a worse place to do so: to replace the system (either by re-writing or buying a packaged solution), but without the operating margin to fund the replacement.

In his articles, Kane Mar describes this like so:

It’s pretty clear that a company in this situation has some difficult decisions ahead. There may be some temporary solution that would allow [a company] to use the existing system while building a new product, [A company] may decide to borrow money to fund the rewrite, or [a company] may want to consider returning any remaining value to their shareholders.

In other words, refactor or die.

Refactoring and Business

Refactoring and Business Success - Growth ChartIn the Scrum Master and Product Owner classes that we teach, this topic comes up frequently: how does the business account for refactoring?  How do we “govern” it?  How do we make good decisions about refactoring?

There are a few principles that are important in helping to answer these questions.  All of these principles assume that we are talking about refactoring in an Agile team using a framework like Scrum, OpenAgile, or Kanban.

Refactoring Principle One: Keep It Small

Refactoring is safest and cheapest when it is done in many small increments rather than in large batches.  The worst extreme is the complete system re-write refactoring.  The best refactoring activities take seconds or minutes to execute.  Small refactorings create a constant modest “overhead” in the work of the team.  This overhead then becomes a natural part of the pace of the team.

Not all refactoring moves can be kept so small.  For example, upgrading a component or module from a third party might show that your system has many dependencies on that module.  In this case, efforts should be made to allow your system to use both the old and the new versions of the component simultaneously.  This allows your system to be partially refactored.  In other words, to break a large refactoring into many small refactorings.  This, in turn, may force you to refactor your system to be more modular in its dependencies.

Another common problem with keeping refactorings small is the re-write problem.  Your own system may have a major component that needs to be re-written.  Again, finding creative technical means to allow for incremental refactoring of the component is crucial.  This can often mean having temporary structures in your system to allow for the old and new parts to work harmoniously.  One system that I was working on had to have two separate database platforms with some shared data in order to enable this “bi-modal” operation.

Refactoring Principle Two: Business Catalysts

When is the earliest that a refactoring should be done? Not whenever the technical team wants to do it.  Instead, the technical team needs to use business requests as catalysts for refactoring.  If the business needs a new feature, then refactoring should only be done on those parts of the system that are required to enable that feature.  In other words, don’t refactor the whole user interface, just refactor the parts that relate to the specific business request.

Again, there can be exceptions to doing this… but only in the sense that some refactorings might be delayed until a later date.  This is tricky: we want to make sure that we are not accumulating technical debt or creating legacy code.  So, instead, we need to allow the technical team to refactor when they detect duplication.  Duplication of code, data or structure in the system.  A business request might impact a particular part of the system and the team sees how it might be necessary to refactor a large swath of the system as a result.  But, the cost of doing so is not yet justified: the single request is not enough of a catalyst, and the team can also choose a simple temporary solution.  Later, the business makes another request that also implies the same large refactoring.  Now is the time to seriously consider it.  It is now a question of duplication of another simple temporary solution. The business may not be happy with the extra expense of the large refactoring so the principle of keeping it small still applies.  However, the technical team must also be willing to push back to the business under the right circumstances.

Refactoring Principle Three: Team Cohesion

Teamwork in Agile requires high levels of communication and collaboration.  In refactoring work, teamwork applies just as much as in any other activity.  Here, it is critical that all members of the team have a unified understanding of the principles and purpose of refactoring.  But that is just the first level of team cohesion around refactoring.

The next level of team cohesion comes in the tools, techniques and practices that a team uses in refactoring.  Examples include the unit testing frameworks, the mocking frameworks, the automation provided by development tools, continuous integration, and perhaps most importantly, the team working agreements about standard objectives of refactoring.  This last idea is best expressed by the concept of refactoring to patterns.

The highest level of team cohesion in refactoring comes from collective code ownership and trust.  Usually, this is built from practices such as pair programming or mob programming.  These practices create deep levels of shared understanding among team members.  This shared understanding leads to self-organizing behaviour in which team members make independent decisions that they know the other team members will support.  It also impacts research and learning processes so that teams can do experiments and try alternatives quickly.  All of which leads to the ability to do refactoring, large and small, quickly and without fear.

Refactoring Principle Four: Transparency

In many ways, this is the simplest refactoring principle: the team needs to be completely open and honest with all stakeholders about the cost of refactoring.  This can be difficult at first.  Another analogy helps to see the value of this.  A surgeon does not hide the fact that care is put into creating a clean operating environment: washing hands, sterilizing instruments, wearing face masks and hair covers, restricted spaces, etc.  In fact, all of those things contribute to the cost of surgery.  A surgeon is a professional who has solid reasons for doing all those things and is open about the need for them.  Likewise, software professionals need to be open about the costs of refactoring.  This comes back to the main point of the first part of this article: hidden and deferred costs will still need to be paid… but with interest.  Software professionals are up-front about the costs because doing so both minimizes the costs and gives stakeholders important information to make decisions.

The challenge for business stakeholders is to accept the costs.  Respecting the team and trusting their decisions can sometimes be very hard.  Teams sometimes make mistakes too, which complicates trust-building.  The business stakeholders (for example, the Product Owner), must allow the team freedom to do refactoring.  Ideally, it is continuous, small, and low-level.  But once in a while, a team will have to do a large refactoring.  How do you know if the cost is legitimate?  Unfortunately, as a non-technical stakeholder, you can’t know with certainty.  However, there are a few factors that can help you understand the cost and it’s legitimacy, namely, the principles that are described here.

If the refactoring is small, it is more likely to be legitimate.

If the refactoring is in response to a business catalyst, it is more likely to be legitimate.

If the refactoring is reflective of team cohesion, it is more likely to be legitimate.

And, of course, if the refactoring is made transparent, it is more likely to be legitimate.

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

YouTube Video: What is Real Agility?

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Many organizations are attempting to use Agile methods.  Banks, telecom companies, government agencies, and all manner of mid-size and small organizations.  Most of these attempts are limited in that they think of Agile as a solution instead of as a culture.  In this video, I explore some of the conditions for creating Real Agility.

This is the first video in a series of eleven that is oriented towards what managers need to know to create Real Agility in their organizations.  The final two videos in the series are going to be content exclusively available to subscribers to our Real Agility Newsletter.  Those final two videos are about “Dealing with Crisis” and “The Knowing-Doing Gap”.  (Our newsletter also includes other great content including interviews – we are featuring an interview with Mary and Tom Poppendieck in just a few weeks!)


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

What Do Strong Companies Hire For – Skills, or “Something Else?”

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Perhaps you’ve experienced this…You go all revved up to a job interview with your beautiful resume in hand outlining all your accomplishments, believing you have all the right training, skills and experience…but you’re not chosen for the position. You cannot understand why.

Advertising guru and author, Simon Sinek, explains: “Weak companies hire the right experience to do the job. Strong companies hire the right person to join their team.”

Teamwork is becoming the hallmark of most successful businesses and organizations. We have entered an age where cooperation and working together is a vital necessity. No longer is the individual star performer going to do it for an organization. That’s not enough. Everyone needs to have the same vision, the same values, the same feeling of being valued. The demands on companies is just too great for one or two individuals to lead the way. Everyone must be a leader.

How can one show a potential employer that you are a team player? That you have great consultative and cooperative skills? That you’re willing to learn from everyone around you? Is this something that can be reflected in your personality?

“A recent international study surveyed more than 500 business leaders and asked them what sets great employees apart. The researchers wanted to know why some people are more successful than others at work, and the answers were surprising; leaders chose “personality” as the leading reason. Notably, 78% of leaders said personality sets great employees apart, more than cultural fit (53%) and even an employee’s skills (39%).” http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-you-have-right-personality-successful-dr-travis-bradberry

Forbes Magazine has published online articles about the hiring process which are fairly old-school, even wishy-washy. Writers talk about knowing the clear skill-sets a company is looking for, and having a detailed scorecard that defines the performance objectives for the position. They also discuss qualities of behaviour, but do not define behaviour in any specific way. Their expertise falls short in looking at personality, team-building qualities, and desire to learn, change and adapt.

Agile is the leading team-oriented methodology being adopted by the best and the brightest organizations in the world, such as Google and Apple. Agile teaches its participants to reflect, act and learn.

This is a kind of life-agility that’s needed in every realm we function in, whether as spouses, parents, employees, or members of our communities.

What do you hire for?


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Teams and their proximity to the final user

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

A great, simple post from Mike Bowler…

Time: Teams that are writing code today that will be used by their customers tomorrow are very focused on what the customers actually need. Teams that are writing code today that won’t be seen by a customer for six months are less engaged.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-teams-care-mike-bowler

Mike Caspar
Passionate About Agile


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Agile Transformation Metrics

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

TL;DR

When asked to provide metrics to assess “how well” an Agile transformation is going, re-frame the discussion around measuring changes in the impact the IT organization is having (or not) on it’s Business environment, and define a small set of “fitness for purpose” metrics.

The Inevitable Question about Agile Transformation Metrics

Sooner or later, as an IT organization embarks on a transformation towards Agile mindset and practices, someone will be asked to provide “hard evidence” that the effort is paying off, and the conclusion will be that metrics is the vehicle to satisfy that request. What are your Agile transformation metrics?

It’s been my experience that this request usually leads to a discussion about measuring the specific Agile initiatives the IT organization has launched. In organizations where the emphasis has been around engineering disciplines, such metrics might be things like unit test code coverage, or integration build times. If the focus  was around teams and process, then counting number of teams “converted” to Scrum, or people sent to Scrum Master training may appear as the choice.

While those measurement might be useful indicators in some context, they have two problems. First, they are akin to measuring the performance of the car engine without looking outside the window; the engine might be performing well, but if the car doesn’t have the wheels attached, we’re going nowhere. More importantly, though, these figures are usually meaningless for Business stakeholders, who are the ones usually asking for them in the first place.  Agile transformation metrics need to be meaningful to the Business.

Re-framing the Agile Transformation Metrics Question

Agile transformation efforts can be very costly exercises, therefore it is legitimate to ask about the results of such endeavour. The important thing to realize, though, is that this question is really equivalent to another question: “is the IT organization improving its impact on its Business environment.” Another way to put it is, borrowing from the terminology used by the Kanban community: “is the IT organization becoming more and more fit for purpose?” Answering this question, of course, requires a clear understanding of what is that the Business expects from its interactions with IT.

The IT organization can be seen as providing various services to customers. Arguably, if IT has decided to “transform” in some way (perhaps by moving towards an Agile mindset), it’s doing so to improve its impact on those customers, so this is what needs to be measured to know “how the transformation” is going.

Some of those customers are different areas of the organization (like Finance, or HR.) But it doesn’t stop there, because the Business’ engagement with IT doesn’t have value for its own sake. Ultimately, the Business is using IT as a way to optimize its operations so that it can provide external customers with more effective products and services. Moreover, IT is these days the direct channel through which those products and services are delivered to external customers (for example, through web sites and mobile applications.) Therefore, the concept of “fitness for purpose” of the IT organization can be extended to consider the fitness for purpose of the Business respect the external customers it intends to serve.

Defining the “Agile” Transformation Metrics

Measuring “agile transformation success” really means measuring the success of the exchanges between IT and the Business, and between the Business and its external customers.  Measuring the internal processes and practices that IT puts in place as part of that “transformation” is beside the point. This implies starting with a careful definition of the boundaries that delineate the exchanges to be measured. There might be more to external customer fitness for purpose than IT operations, for example, and that needs to be considered when defining Agile transformation metrics, especially if we’re later going to be drawing causation conclusions.

Defining Agile transformation metrics will be, of course,  a highly contextual exercise because every business organization is different.  But we can, however, draw again from the Kanban community for some general guidelines on what to look for. Their thought leaders talk about classifying metrics into 3 categories: fitness for purpose metrics, health indicators and improvement drivers.  Using this framework, when talking about “agile transformation metrics” we are referring mainly to the first category, and perhaps a bit to the second. Based on those, improvement initiatives can be put in place, and perhaps driven with metrics belonging to the third category.

A fitness for purpose metric (also known as KPI) is an indicator of something a customer will care about. This is a key distinction: if the metric is not easily recognizable and meaningful for the customer, then it’s not a KPI. Another key characteristic is that a minimum threshold for its value can be defined: if the metric goes below the threshold, the Business is putting the relation with its customers at risk (perhaps they will walk away, initiate legal actions, etc.). In other words, the Business is no longer “fit for purpose”. We can then measure the effectiveness of the “agile transformation” by analyzing how KPI values over time compare to their respective thresholds. A typical KPI is delivery time, measured from the moment a customer request is accepted and committed to, until the moment it’s delivered to production.  This is usually a good Agile transformation metric.

Health indicators are metrics that are inwards facing. Customers don’t really care about them (or even understand), but they indicate how a given aspect of the system is operating. The key characteristic is that they are not directly actionable; they only provide information that needs to be analyzed and put in context. As the value of a health indicator changes, we can draw some conclusions about how the system works, or explain why something is happening (or not), but it doesn’t necessarily leads to concrete action. Defect count is an example of this. Customers will certainly care about quality of the product, and we can make inferences about that quality by looking at how many defects we have, but the absolute number of defects will not necessarily make the product more or less fit for purpose. It may happen that customers consider the current quality to be “good enough”, irrespective of the number of defects.

Finally, improvement driver metrics are metrics put in place to influence behaviour towards a particular change. Their key characteristic is that they are temporary: we set a target on them and once the target is achieved, the metric is no longer necessary. The reason for this is related to the unintended behaviours that a metric might encourage in people, which may lead to locally optimizing the metric at the expense of other aspects, leading to global sub-optimization of the system. An example is unit testing code coverage: if we have determined that a given service is not fit for purpose and the cause is related to poor unit test coverage, then establishing a target for minimum coverage may influence developers to work on adding tests to reverse the situation.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Pitfall of Scrum: Assigning Tasks

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Even though the concept of self-organizing teams has been around for a long time, still some people think that a project manager or team lead should be assigning tasks to team members. Don’t do this!!!  It is better to wait for someone to step up than to “take over” and start assigning tasks.

Assigning tasks can be overt or subtle.  Therefore, avoid even suggestions that could be taken as assigning tasks. For example, no one should ever tell a Scrum Team member “hey! You’re not doing any work – go take a task!” (overt) or “This task really needs to get done – why don’t you do it?” (semi-overt) or “Would you consider working on this with me?” (subtle). Instead, any reference to tasks should be to the team at large. For example it would be okay for a team member to say “I’m working on this and I would like some help – would anyone help me?”

In the Scrum Guide, a partial definition of self-organizing is given:

Scrum Teams are self-organizing….. Self-organizing teams choose how best to accomplish their work, rather than being directed by others outside the team.

A more formal definition of the concept of “self-organizing” can be found here:

Self-organisation is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent.

The key here is that there is no single point of authority, even temporarily, in a self-organizing team. Every individual member of the team volunteers for tasks within the framework of “the laws followed by the process” – namely Scrum. Scrum does define some constraints on individual behaviour, particularly for the Product Owner and the ScrumMaster. People in those two roles have specific duties which usually prevent them from being able to volunteer for any task. But all the other team members (the Development Team) have complete freedom to individually and collectively figure out how they will do the work at hand.

What If One Person Isn’t Working?

People who are managers are often worried about this.  What if there is one person on the team who just doesn’t seem to be doing any work? Isn’t assigning tasks to this person a good thing?  Scrum will usually make this bad behaviour really obvious. Let’s say that Alice hasn’t completed any tasks in the last four days (but she does have a task that she volunteered for at the start of the Sprint). Raj notices that Alice hasn’t finished that initial task. An acceptable solution to this problem is for Raj to volunteer to help Alice. Alice can’t refuse the help since Raj is self-organizing too. They might sit together to work on it.

Of course, that might not solve the problem. So another technique to use that respects self-organization is to bring it up in the Sprint Retrospective. The ScrumMaster of the team, Sylvie, chooses a retrospective technique that is designed to help the team address the problem. In a retrospective, it is perfectly acceptable for people on the team to be direct with each other. Retrospectives need to be safe so that this kind of discussion doesn’t lead to animosity between team members.

Remember: everyone goes through ups and downs in productivity. Sometimes a person is overwhelmed by other aspects of life. Sometimes a person is de-motivated temporarily. On the other hand, sometimes people become extremely engaged and deliver exceptional results. Make sure that in your team, you give people a little bit of space for these ups and downs.  Assigning tasks doesn’t make a person more productive.

What If There is One Task No One Wants to Do?

Dig deep and find out why no one wants to do it. This problem is usually because the task itself is worthless, frustrating, repetitive, or imposed from outside without a clear reason. If no one wants to do a task, the first question should always be: what happens if it doesn’t get done? And if the answer is “nothing bad”… then don’t do it!!!

There are, unfortunately, tasks that are important that still are not exciting or pleasant to do. In this situation, it is perfectly acceptable to ask the team “how can we solve this problem creatively?” Often these kinds of tasks can be addressed in new ways that make them more interesting. Maybe your team can automate something. Maybe a team member can learn new skills to address the task. Maybe there is a way to do the task so it never has to be done again. A self-organizing Scrum Team can use innovation, problem-solving and creativity skills to try to over come this type of problem.

And, of course, there’s always the Sprint Retrospective!

Why Self-Organize – Why Is Assigning Tasks Bad?

Autonomy is one of the greatest motivators there is for people doing creative and problem-solving types of work. The ability to choose your own direction instead of being treated like a mushy, weak, unreliable robot. Motivation, in turn, is one of the keys to creating a high-performance state in individuals and teams. The greatest outcome of good self-organization is a high-performance team that delivers great work results and where everyone loves the work environment.

Assigning tasks to people is an implicit claim that you (the assigner) know better than them (the assignees).  Even if this is true, it is still easy for a person to take offence.  However, most of the time it is not true.  People know themselves best.  People are best at assigning tasks to themselves.  And therefore, having one person assigning tasks to other people almost always leads to sub-optimal work distribution among the members of a team.

The ScrumMaster and Assigning Tasks

The ScrumMaster plays an important role in Scrum.  Part of this role is to encourage self-organization on a team.  The ScrumMaster should never be assigning tasks to team members under any circumstances.  And, the ScrumMaster should be protecting the team from anyone else who is assigning tasks.  If someone within the team is assigning tasks to another team member, the ScrumMaster should be intervening.  The ScrumMaster needs to be constantly aware of the activity on his or her team.

I have added a video to YouTube that you might consider sharing with ScrumMasters you know about this topic:

This article is a follow-up article to the 24 Common Scrum Pitfalls written back in 2011.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The Agile Manifesto – Essay 3: Working Software over Comprehensive Documentation

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

How much documentation does it take to run a project with ten people working for six months?  For some organizations it takes way too much:

Photo of heavy documentation for software project

This binder (about 3 or 4 inches thick) is all the documentation associated with such a project.  In looking carefully at the project, creating the documentation took far more time than the time spent on designing, writing and testing the software.  Yet, the documentation does not produce any value.  Only the software produces value.  The Agile Manifesto, asks us to focus on the outcome (working software) and to make tradeoffs to minimize the means (comprehensive documentation).

The Agile Manifesto asks us to challenge our assumptions about documentation.  In many work environments, documentation is an attempt to address some interesting and important needs:

  • Knowledge sharing among stakeholders and the people working on a project.
  • Knowledge sharing across time as people come in and out of a project.
  • Verification and traceability for contracts or other compliance needs.
  • Decision-making and analysis for business and technical problems.
  • Management oversight and control.
  • Various aspects of individual accountability.

Documentation is usually heavier (more comprehensive) the more the following circumstances exist in an organization:

  • Geographical distribution of people.
  • Lack of trust between people, departments or organizations.
  • Regulated work environments.
  • Depth of management hierarchy.
  • Number of people directly and indirectly involved.
  • Knowledge and skill sets highly segregated between people.
  • Culture of respect for written texts.

Working Software

What if the software itself could address the needs that often documentation is used to address?  Let’s look at them in turn:

  • Knowledge sharing among stakeholders and the people working on a project.
    If the software is functional at all stages, as supported by Agile methods such as Scrum and Extreme Programming, then the software becomes an effective representation of the knowledge of all the people who have participated in building it.
  • Knowledge sharing across time as people come in and out of a project.
    Software that is technically excellent is often easier to understand for people who are new to it.  For example, excellence in user experience and design means new users can get up to speed on software faster.  Use of good design patterns and automated testing allows new developers to understand existing software easily.
  • Verification and traceability for contracts or other compliance needs.
    Test-driven development (code) and specification by example (scripting and code) are forms of traceable, executable documentation that easily stay in-sync with the underlying software system.
  • Decision-making and analysis for business and technical problems.
    In particular, diagrams can help a great deal here.  However, electronic tools for creating such diagrams can be slow and awkward.  Consider the practice of Agile Modelling (basically using a whiteboard and taking photos) as a good alternative to precise technical diagramming if you are doing problem-solving.
  • Management oversight and control.
    Reports and metrics drive much of the traditional documentation in an organization.  Simplifying reports and metrics often leads to a clearer picture of what is going on, reduces the opportunities to “game” the system, and always results in lower levels of documentation.  As well, some reports and metrics can be generated 100% through automated means.  All that said, the fundamental premise in the Agile manifesto is that management should base decisions on what is actually built – the “Working software” by looking at it and using it.
  • Various aspects of individual accountability.
    If you really need this, a good version control system can give you the information for this.  Sign-offs and other types of accountability documentation are typically just waste that doesn’t actually help in process improvement.  Most people who are in high-compliance environments already have licenses and/or security clearances that provide this accountability.  If you software is working, however, then this isn’t even a concern as trust is built and bureaucracy can be reduced.

In my recent training programs as research for this article, I have surveyed over 100 people on one aspect of documentation – code documentation.  Every individual surveyed is either currently coding or has a coding background, and every single person had the same answer to a simple scenario question:

Imagine that you have just joined a new organization and you are about to start working as a software developer.  One of the existing team members comes up to you and introduces himself.  He has with him a piece of paper with a complicated-looking diagram and a full binder that looks to be holding about 250 pages.  He asks you, “you need to get up to speed quickly on our existing system – we’re starting you coding tomorrow – would you prefer to go over the architecture diagram with me or would you prefer to review the detailed specifications and design documents.” He indicates the one-page diagram and the binder respectively.  Which would you prefer?

(I’ve put up a Survey Monkey one-question survey: Code Documentation Preference to extend the reach of this question.  It should take you all of 60 seconds to do it.  I’ll post results when I write the next Agile Manifesto essay in a month or two.)

The fact that everyone answers the same way is interesting.  What is even more interesting to me is that if you think through this scenario, it is actually almost the worst-case scenario where you might want documentation for your developers.  That means that in “better” cases where documentation for developers may not be as urgent or necessary, then the approach of just going to talk with someone is a lot better.

Documentation and Maps

The problem with documentation is the same problem we have with maps: “the map is not the territory” (quote from the wisdom of my father, Garry Berteig).  We sometimes forget this simple idea.  When we look at, say, Google Maps, we always have in the back of our consciousness that the map is just a guide and it is not a guarantee.  We know that if we arrive at a place, we will see the richness of the real world, not the simplified lines and colours of a map.  We don’t consider maps as legally binding contracts (usually).  We use maps to orient ourselves… as we look around at our reality.  We can share directions using maps, but we don’t share purpose or problems with maps.  And finally, maps assume that physical reality is changing relatively slowly (even Google Maps).

Many times when we create documentation in organizations, however, we get confused about the map versus the territory.

Agility and Documentation

Of course, code is a funny thing: all code is documentation too.  The code is not the behaviour.  But in software, code (e.g. Java, ASM, Scheme, Prolog, Python, etc.) is as close as possible to the perfect map.  Software is (mostly) deterministic.  Software (mostly) doesn’t change itself.  Software (mostly) runs in a state absent from in-place human changes to that software.  Software (mostly) runs on a system (virtual or physical) that has stable characteristics.  The code we write is a map.  From this perspective, documentation becomes even less important if we have people that already understand the language(s)/platform(s) deeply.


This essay is a continuation of my series on the Agile Manifesto.  The previous two essays are “Value and Values” and “Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools“.

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

New Video Series: Kanban in One Minute by Michael Badali

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Check out our first video “Kanban Basics”.

http://youtu.be/Kzaadklsu_A

Michael Badali is a Kanban expert with years of experience in Kanban and other Agile methods including nearly 2 years working as an internal coach at HP in China and the UK.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The Agile Manifesto – Essay 2: Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

This value is the hardest to do well.

In IT and high-tech, there is a “natural” prevailing culture that makes this first value incredibly difficult.  This difficulty is rooted in traditional “scientific management“, but made even more so by a critical additional factor that is mostly invisible: techies solve problems with tools.

Management wants to define processes with clearly described activities, clear inputs and outputs, and clear sources and recipients of the activity (see the description of SIPOC for an explanation of this thinking).  Techies build tools to automate these well-defined processes to improve their efficiency, quality and reliability.

Management creates organizational roles with detailed descriptions, detailed goals and detailed performance measurements (see the description of RACI for an explanation of this thinking).  Techies build tools to carefully constrain people to these detailed roles to improve efficiency, quality and reliability.

Management has money.  Techies want some of that money.  So they build the tools to help management get what they really want: a completely automated organization of computers, machines and robots.

The culture of technology is to solve problems with individuals and interactions by introducing processes and tools.  The culture of technology is (almost) inherently anti-Agile.

Ford Assembly Line 1913

The culture of technology is to solve problems with individuals and interactions by introducing processes and tools.  The culture of technology is (almost) inherently anti-Agile.


 

BMW Assembly Line

Individuals and Interactions

Let’s look at the first part of this value in a bit more depth.  When we think about work, most of us work with other people.  We bring our unique skills, personality and interests to work, and we work with other people who also bring unique skills, personality and interests.  In a high-bureaucracy, high-technology work environment, it is easy to forget about all this uniqueness and instead objectify people.  When people sense they are being objectified, mostly they feel bad about it.  We want to be acknowledged as thinking, feeling, unique beings with agency.  Objectification, no matter the source or the rationale, is depressing and de-humanizing.  The Agile Manifesto implicitly recognizes this concept and asks us who follow the Manifesto to try to shift our value-focus.

There are many aspects to this concept of humanizing work.  Some things that come to mind immediately include recognizing and encouraging people’s capacity for:

  • creativity and innovation
  • learning and problem-solving
  • caring about others
  • pride in work
  • complementarity with others
  • responsibility

Photo of diverse children teamwork

Processes and Tools

This side of the value is also interesting.  Processes and tools do not have agency.  They do not improve on their own.  Instead, processes and tools only either remain the same or degrade.  Processes and tools are forces for stasis: they encourage maintenance of the status quo.  Only humans introduce new processes and tools.

Technologists live in a philosophical double-standard: we build processes and tools for others to use and which we frequently would not like used on ourselves.  (We will discuss the cases where me might both build and benefit from processes and tools in a bit.)  This is one of the challenges of the type of work we do in technology, but it also applies to many other types of work.  So how do we solve this conundrum?  I would assert that the principles of the Agile Manifesto and the various Agile methods and techniques are all answers to this question.  They show us possible ways to implement this value (and the others) without getting stuck in processes and tools.

Only humans introduce new processes and tools.


 

What are Processes Good For, What are Tools Good For?

Some processes are good.  Some amount of process is good.  How do we determine what is good?  Well, it largely depends on context.  Some examples:

If a close family member is living in a distant location then the advances in communication tools are extremely helpful: the telegraph, the telephone, the cell phone, email, Skype.  These tools create connections where otherwise there would be little or none.

If a great deal of data is created while running a marketing campaign and needs to be stored and manipulated, then computers are amazing tools for this.  Computers are much much better than human minds and manual record-keeping for this sort of work.

If you create a fantastic new soup, from scratch, for some special occasion and you want to remember how to make and even share how to make it with others, then you document the process in a recipe.

Photo of Pho Soup

Context, Emphasis and Crisis

Context here is important.  The value of Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools is basically a statement that given the right circumstances we can use processes and tools, but that our default approach to work and problem-solving should be to focus on individuals and their interactions.  Depending on the state of your work environment this is easier or harder.

For example, a startup company founded by three long-time friends who have not yet employed anyone else is almost certainly going to solve most problems that come up through discussion amongst founders and through the development of their skills and capabilities.  As a company gets larger, however, there is pressure to adopt more and more processes and tools.  This pressure comes from a deep source: lack of trust.  At about 12 people, you reach the limit of the number of people you can have and still have anyone do anything (this limit is referred to obliquely in “The Wisdom of Teams” by Katzenbach and Smith).  After 12 people, it becomes harder to avoid role specialization and some basic forms of processes and tools.  In other words, bureaucracy starts growing as the organization grows.  Even at this size, however, it is still relatively easy to have a very strong emphasis on individuals and interactions.  There is another important limit: somewhere around 150 to 200 people, any hope of 100% mutual trust among the members of the organization is lost.  This is the point at which processes and tools “naturally” start to truly take over.  (This transition can happen even in much smaller organizations if the culture does not emphasize trust-based interactions.)

In small trust-based organizations, crisis is usually addressed by the mechanisms of mutual respect, skill development, informal agreements, and strengthening the interactions between people.  In a large organization with low trust, crisis is almost always addressed by the creation of new bureaucracy: sign-offs, audits, traceability, procedures, policies, processes and tools.

The true test of the an organization’s commitment to the first value of the Agile Manifesto is, therefore, how it responds to crisis.  When someone makes a mistake, can we help them develop the skill and the support networks to avoid the mistake in the future?  Or do we put in place even more restrictive constraints on what that person does and how they do it?

In a large organization with low trust, crisis is almost always addressed by the creation of new bureaucracy.


 

Beyond IT and High-Tech

For now, all that needs to be said is that this particular value of the Agile Manifesto does not in any way directly refer to software or software development.  As such, it is pretty easy to see how it could be applied in many other types of work.  However, there are some types of work where processes and tools really do take precedence over individuals and interactions.  If we want to apply the concepts of Agile universally (or near-universally), we have to examine some of these exceptions.  I will leave that for a future essay.

In the next few articles, I will continue to look in-depth at each of the values of the Agile Manifesto.  If you missed the first essay in this series, please check it out here: The Agile Manifesto – Essay 1: Value and Values.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The Agile Manifesto – Essay 1: Value and Values

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

What is Agile?

In 2001, 17 people got together for a world-changing discussion about software development. They tried to find the common values and principles by which people could do better at the work of software development, which was in a terrible crisis (and still, to some extent is). They were successful in that they created a list of 4 values and 12 principles to guide people trying to find better ways of developing software: the Agile Manifesto was born.

Now, nearly 14 years later, Agile software development has become well-known (if not well-practiced) throughout the business world. In fact, the concepts of Agile software development have been extended through to many other fields as diverse as mining, church management, personal time management, and general corporate management. In the process, there has also been a growing recognition of the relationship between Agile values and principles and those of Lean thinking.

It is time to think about the concepts behind the values and principles. To acknowledge that the Agile Manifesto (for software development) can be re-stated at a much deeper level. To abstract Agile software development to Agile work in general. This is my goal over a series of essays about the Agile Manifesto.

Let’s start with an analysis of the values of the Agile Manifesto in relationship to the concept of “value”.

The Agile Manifesto Values

In the Agile Manifesto we can read the four values:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan

While a few of these already are quite general, let’s dig a bit deeper by starting with the second value, “working software over comprehensive documentation”. What does this value really refer to? Why do we care about software over documentation. Why “working” vs. “comprehensive”? This is where Lean thinking can help us. The notion of “customer value-added” or just value added work is any work that changes the form, fit or function of that which you are delivering and simultaneously is work that a customer would pay for independently of all the other activities and results you may be spending time on. In this specific example of software and documentation, we can try to imagine what it would be like to say to a potential customer, “we can give you documentation for our software, but we won’t be able to give you the actual software itself… but we’d still like to be paid.” I’m sure it will be clear that it would be a very unusual customer who would agree to such a proposal. Thus, we see that the value of software development activities is in producing the software itself, and the documentation is by necessity of secondary importance.

But what if we are writing a book of fiction? Surely this is documentation! But, it is not. To make the analogy to the type of documentation mentioned in the Agile Manifesto, we would sell a book not just with the story itself, but also with in-depth instructions on how to use a book, how to read, how to interpret our feelings as we read, etc. And not just that, but we would also provide a set of notes to the publisher about exactly how we wrote the book: the time and place of each paragraph written, our original outlines, our research including much that was thrown away, all our conversations with people as we struggled to sort out various plot, character and setting elements, and possibly even all our edits that we had thrown away. This is the documentation to which, by analogy, the Agile Manifesto is referring.

Perhaps now we can look at a connection between the first value and the second value of the Manifesto: that documentation, tools and processes are all much of the same thing. They all belong to the same abstract category, namely, the means used to achieve a particular end. Of course, we all know that both the means and the ends are important, although we may not all agree on their relative importance. Nevertheless, we can probably agree on some extreme outliers that will help us come to the point I wish to make. For example, we can agree that killing someone merely to get to the front of the grocery store line and save a minute or two of time is an extreme case where the end clearly does not justify the means. Likewise, we can also agree that refusing honestly given help out of a desire for independence when it ends with the death of our children by starvation is putting means too much in the fore. Balance is required, therefore. The Agile Manifesto acknowledges this balance by its epilogue to the values, “That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.” The other two values of the Agile Manifesto which mention contract negotiation and following a plan are similarly pointing out activities of the means that are non-value added, in Lean terms.

The Agile Manifesto, is stating four values, is, quite directly, pointing to those things which in life are fundamentally of value as ends, not just as means. Individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration and responding to change, are all valuable. In order to abstract away from software, then, and create a more general statement of the nature of Agility, we need to explore the idea of value.

The Idea of Value

If we are in business, determining value, while possibly complicated, is not usually too obscure an effort. We look at exchanges of money to see where the “market” agrees there is value. The price of a product or service is only representative of value if someone will actually pay. Therefore, businesses look at return on investment, profit margins and the like to determine value. Similarly, in other types of markets such as the stock market, value is determined by an exchange of money. But underlying this exchange of money is a decision made by an individual human being (or several, or many) to refuse all the other potential uses of that money for the one specific use of making a particular purchase. This choice is based on all sorts of factors. In economics, we talk about these factors mostly in rational selfish terms: what sort of benefit does the purchaser get from the purchase. Factors such as risk, short-term vs. long-term, net present value, trade-offs, etc. certainly can play a role in such decisions. But in business (and in particular marketing and sales), we know that there are also lots of non-rational forces at work in deciding to spend money on a particular something. Value, therefore, has a great deal to do with how a particular person both feels and understands the current proposed “investment” opportunity.

Feeling and understanding arise from many specific factors, as discussed, but what can we say generally about feeling and understanding? They are internal states of a person’s mind (or heart, if you like). Those internal states have been the subject of much discussion in the realm of psychology, sociology, economics, and philosophy. But quite simply, those internal states are greatly determined by perception. How a person perceives a situation is the immediate general factor that determines those internal states. Of course, perception is a general term that includes sensory perception, but also the kinds of prejudices we have, the categories into which we place things conceptually, the internal language we use to describe things, and our existing emotional and mental constructs. So, fundamentally, value is perceived depending on all these perceptual factors.

The Agile Manifesto authors, therefore, had (and perhaps still have) a perception of value which places individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration and responding to change all in a position of more value than those other items. But this perception of value may not be in alignment with other people’s perception of value. Still, we can see already in 13 short years that there is broad, if not universal, agreement on these statements of value. Why is this? Why has Agile become so popular over a relatively sustained length of time with a trajectory that still seems to have it growing in popularity for years to come?

Agile values address a deep need in people in the software development discipline and indeed, by analogy, into much of the work world.

In my next essay on the Agile Manifesto, we will take a look in more depth at the first value of the Agile Manifesto: Individuals and Interactions over Processes and Tools.

Some links to commentary on the values of the Agile Manifesto while you wait for my next essay instalment!…

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools – by Mark Layton

Working software over comprehensive documentation – by Renee Troughton

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation – by Jared Richardson

Responding to change over following a plan – by Chris Matts


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Announcing: The Real Agility Program

Learn more about transforming people, process and culture with the Real Agility Program

Real Agility Program LogoThe Real Agility Program is an Enterprise Agile change program to help organizations develop high-performance teams, deliver amazing products, dramatically improve time to market and quality, and create work environments that are awesome for employees.

This article is a written summary of the Executive Briefing presentation available upon request from the Real Agility Program web site.  If you obtain the executive briefing, you can follow along with the article below and use it to present Real Agility to your enterprise stakeholders.

The Problem

At Berteig Consulting we have been working for 10 years to learn how to help organizations transform people, process and culture.  The problem is simple to state: there is a huge amount of opportunity waste and process waste in most normal enterprise-scale organizations.  If you have more than a couple hundred people in your organization, this almost certainly affects you.

We like to call this problem “the Bureaucratic Beast”.  The Bureaucratic Beast is a self-serving monster that seems to grow and grow and grow.  As it grows, this Beast makes it progressively more difficult for business leaders to innovate, respond to changes in the market, satisfy existing customers, and retain great employees.

Real Agility, a system to tame the Bureaucratic Beast, comes from our experience working with numerous enterprise Agile adoptions.  This experience, in turn, rests on the shoulders of giants like John Kotter (“Leading Change”), Edgar Schein (“The Corporate Culture Survival Guide”), Jim Collins (“Good to Great” and “Built to Last”), Mary Poppendieck (“Lean Software Development”) Jon Katzenbach (“The Wisdom of Teams”) and Frederick Brooks (“The Mythical Man-Month”).  Real Agility is designed to tame all the behaviours of the Bureaucratic Beast: inefficiency, dis-engaged staff, poor quality and slow time-to-market.

Studies have proven that Agile methods work in IT.  In 2012, the Standish Group observed that 42% of Agile projects succeed vs. just 14% of projects done with traditional “Bureaucratic Beast” methods.  Agile and associated techniques aren’t just for IT.  There is growing use of these same techniques in non-technoogy environments such as marketing, operations, sales, education, healthcare, and even heavy industry like mining.

Real Agility Basics: Agile + Lean

Real Agility is a combination of Agile and Lean; both systems used harmoniously throughout an enterprise.  Real Agility affects delivery processes by taking long-term goals and dividing them into short cycles of work that deliver valuable results rapidly while providing fast feedback on scope, quality and most importantly value.  Real Agility affects management processes by finding and eliminating wasteful activities with a system view.  And Real Agility affects human resources (people!) by creating “Delivery Teams” which have clear goals, are composed of multi-skilled people who self-organize, and are stable in membership over long periods of time.

There are lots of radical differences between Real Agility and traditional management (that led to the Bureaucratic Beast in the first place).  Real Agility prioritizes work by value instead of critical path, encourages self-organizing instead of command-and-control management, a team focus instead of project focus, evolving requirements instead of frozen requirements, skills-based interactions instead of roles-based interaction, continuous learning instead of crisis management, and many others.

Real Agility is built on a rich Agile and Lean ecosystem of values, principles and tools.  Examples include the Agile Manifesto, the “Stop the Line” practice, various retrospective techniques, methods and frameworks such as Scrum and OpenAgile, and various thinking tools compatible with the Agile – Lean ecosystem such as those developed by Edward de Bono (“Lateral Thinking”) and Genrich Altshuller (“TRIZ”).

Real Agility acknowledges that there are various approaches to Agile adoption at the enterprise level: Ad Hoc (not usually successful – Nortel tried this), Grassroots (e.g. Yahoo!), Pragmatic (SAFe and DAD fall into this category), Transformative (the best balance of speed of change and risk reduction – this is where the Real Agility Program falls), and Big-Bang (only used in situations of true desperation).

Why Choose Transformative?

One way to think about these five approaches to Agile adoption is to compare the magnitude of actual business results.  This is certainly the all-important bottom line.  But most businesses also consider risk (or certainty of results).  Ad-Hoc approaches to Agile adoption have poor business results and a very high level of risk.  Big-Bang approaches (changing a whole enterprise to Agile literally over night) often have truly stunning business results, but are also extremely high risk.  Grassroots, where leaders give staff a great deal of choice about how and when to adopt Agile, is a bit better in that the risk is lower, but the business results often take quite a while to manifest themselves.  Pragmatic approaches tend to be very low risk because they often accommodate the Bureaucratic Beast, but that also limits their business results to merely “good” and not great.  Transformative approaches which systematically address organizational culture are just a bit riskier than Pragmatic approaches, but the business results are generally outstanding.

More specifically, Pragmatic approaches such as SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) are popular because they are designed to fit in with existing middle management structures (where the Bureaucratic Beast is most often found).  As a result, there is slow incremental change that typically has to be driven top-down from leadership.  Initial results are good, but modest.  And the long term?  These techniques haven’t been around long enough to know, but in theory it will take a long time to get to full organizational Agility.  Bottom line is that Pragmatic approaches are low risk but the results are modest.

Transformative approaches such as the Real Agility Program (there are others too) are less popular because there is significantly more disruption: the Bureaucratic Beast has to be completely tamed to serve a new master: business leadership!  Transformative approaches require top-to-bottom organizational and structural change.  They include a change in power relationships to allow for grassroots-driven change that is empowered by servant leaders.  Transformative approaches are moderate in some ways: they are systematic and they don’t require all change to be done overnight. Nevertheless, often great business results are obtained relatively quickly.  There is a moderate risk that the change won’t deliver the great results, but that moderate risk is usually worth taking.

Regardless of adoption strategy (Transformative or otherwise) there are a few critical success factors.  Truthfulness is the foundation because without it, it is impossible to see the whole picture including organizational culture.  And love is the strongest driver of change because cultural and behavioural change requires emotional commitment on the part of everyone.

Culture change is often challenging.  There are unexpected problems.  Two steps forward are often followed by one step back.  Some roadblocks to culture change will be surprisingly persistent.  Leaders need patience and persistence… and a systematic change program.

The Real Agility Program

The Real Agility Program has four tracks or lines of action (links take you to the Real Agility Program web site):

  1. Recommendations: consultants assess an organization and create a playbook that customizes the other tracks of the Real Agility Program as well as dealing with any important outliers.
  2. Execution: coaches help to launch project, product and operational Delivery Teams and Delivery Groups that learn the techniques of grassroots-driven continuous improvement.
  3. Accompaniment: trainer/coaches help you develop key staff into in-house Real Agility Coaches that learn to manage Delivery Groups for sustainable long-term efforts such as a product or line of business.
  4. Leadership: coaches help your executive team to drive strategic change for long-term results with an approach that helps executives lead by example for enterprise culture change.

Structurally an enterprise using Real Agility is organized into Delivery Groups.  A Delivery Group is composed of one or more Delivery Teams (up to 150 people) who work together to produce business results.  Key roles include a Business leader, a People leader and a Technology leader all of whom become Real Agility Coaches and take the place of traditional functional management.  As well, coordination across multiple Delivery Teams within a Delivery Group is done using an organized list of “Value Drivers” maintained by the Business leader and a supporting Business Leadership Group. Cross-team support is handled by a People and Technology Support Group co-led by the People and Technology leaders.  Depending on need there may also be a number of communities of practice for Delivery Team members to help spread learning.

At an organizational or enterprise level, the Leadership Team includes top executives from business, finance, technology, HR, operations and any other critical parts of the organization.  This Leadership Team communicates the importance of the changes that the Delivery Groups are going through.  They lead by example using techniques from Real Agility to execute organizational changes.  And, of course, they manage the accountability of the various Delivery Groups throughout the enterprise.

The results of using the Real Agility Program are usually exceptional.  Typical results include:

  • 20x improvement in quality
  • 10x improvement in speed to market
  • 5x improvement in process efficiency
  • and 60% improvement in employee retention.

Of course, these results depend on baseline measures and that key risk factors are properly managed by the Leadership Team.

Your Organization

Not every organization needs (or is ready for) the Real Agility Program.  Your organization is likely a good candidate if three or more of the following problems are true for your organization:

  • high operating costs
  • late project deliveries
  • poor quality in products or services
  • low stakeholder satisfaction
  • managers overworked
  • organizational mis-alignment
  • slow time-to-market
  • low staff morale
  • excessive overtime
    or…
  • you need to tame the Bureaucratic Beast

Consider that list carefully and if you feel like you have enough of the above problems, please contact us at tame.the.beast@berteigconsulting.com. or read more about the Real Agility Program for Enterprise Agility on the website.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail