Tag Archives: management

Unpacking the Fifth Principle of the Agile Manifesto

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

The Agile Manifesto was signed and made public in 2001. It begins with short, pithy statements regarding what should be the priorities of software developers, followed by Twelve Principles. In this article I want to call attention to the fifth principle in the Agile Manifesto, which is:

Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.”

https://www.agilealliance.org/agile101/12-principles-behind-the-agile-manifesto/

Although it appears to be a very simple statement, I suggest that it is jam-packed with profitable guidance, and is essential to, and at the heart of, real Agility. Human qualities must be considered.

Motivation

The first part of the principle urges us to build projects around motivated individuals.  What does this imply?

The idea of “building a project” makes it a process, not necessarily a fait accompli. It can change and be altered as one works toward it. There may be a structural roadmap, but many details and aspects can change in the “building.”

The second part of the statement describes motivated individuals. The verb “motivate” is an action word, meaning to actuate, propel, move or incite. Thus, in this line, is the “project” the thing which will “move or incite” those being asked to carry it out?

Or do we understand this to imply that the individuals are already “motivated” in themselves, which is an emotional condition of individuals? Is this motivation already there prior to starting a project?

The topic of motivation is rich. How does motivation occur? Is it the culture and environment of the company, lived and exemplified by it’s leaders, which motivates? Or is motivation an intrinsic quality of the individual? It may be both. (Daniel Pink, author of “Drive,” uses science to demonstrate that the best motivators are autonomy, mastery and purposeful-ness – ideas which are inherent in the Agile Manifesto.)

In any case, the line itself suggests that the project may be a) interesting to pertinent (perhaps already motivated) individuals, b) do-able by those same individuals, and c) contains enough challenges to test the mastery and creativity of the individuals. In other words, it’s going to be a project that the individuals in your company care about for more than one reason.

Environment

The second line from the fifth Principle has two distinct parts to it. The first part, “Give them the environment and support they need” puts a great deal of responsibility on whoever is assigning the project. Let’s look at the idea of environment first.

In a simple way, we can understand environment as the physical place which influences a person or a group. It can be any space or room; it can refer to the lighting, the colours, the furniture, the vegetation, the walls, whether water or coffee is available – physical elements which will certainly affect the actions of people and teams. For example, creating face-to-face collaboration environments is also part of the Agile Manifesto.

But we must remember that environment also entails the non-physical ie, the intellectual, emotional, or even the spiritual. Is the environment friendly or not? Cheerful or not? Encouraging or not? Affirming or not? We can think of many non-physical attributes that make up an environment.

Support

These attributes allude to the second part of what’s to be given by an owner or manager: “…and support they need.” This idea of support pertains not just to helping someone out with tools and responding to needs, but that the environment is supportive in every way – physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This may be a more holistic way of considering this Agile principle.

The last part of the statement is of great importance as well: and trust them to get the job done.

If you as product owner, or manager have created motivation, environment and support, then the last crucial requirement of trust becomes easier to fulfill. There is nothing more off-putting than being micromanaged, supervised or controlled with excessive attention to small details. Trust means you have confidence in the capacity of your team and its individual members. It also implies that they will communicate with transparency and honesty with you, and you with them, about the project.

Context

The principles of Agile do not exist in a vacuum, because, of course, other principles such as the following, are relevant to this discussion:

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

At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behaviour accordingly.”

This fifth principle has application far beyond IT projects. I wanted to reflect on it because it speaks to human qualities, which must be recognized as a key factor in happy work places, and in any high-performance team.

Valerie Senyk is a Customer Service agent and Agile Team Developer with BERTEIG.

For more information please go to http://www.worldmindware.com/AgileTeamDevelopmentWorkshopStage1

Also read about BERTEIG’s RealAgility Program: http://www.berteig.com/real-agility-enterprise-agility/


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Kanban: Real Scaled Agility for Your Enterprise

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

Your business is an ecosystem of interdependent services, a complex adaptive system.

A bunch of organizations I know started their journey of increasing their agility with Scrum. That didn’t solve all of their problems. Kanban enables organizations to evolve their service delivery systems towards mature business agility.

As addressed in How Kanban Saved Agile, pure Scrum is extremely rare. Scrumbut (the disparaging label that spawned from so many organizations reporting that they do Scrum, but…) on the other hand, is extremely common.

In order to not be Scrumbut, you need the following:
  • Cross-functional development team of 7 +/- 2 people—ALL skills needed to ship product is present on the team—there are no dependencies external to the team;
  • One source of demand with no capacity constraints—the Product Owner is the customer AND full-time member of the team;
  • Sprints are one month or less, begin with starting new demand from the Product Owner and end with the delivery of potentially shippable Product Increments, followed by a retrospective about how to do better next Sprint;
  • “Potentially Shippable” means that the decision about whether to actually ship is purely a business decision. All the technical work is done;
  • If all of the technical work required in order to ship isn’t done, then the Sprint is a failed Sprint;
  • The Scrum Master is a servant-leader and Scrum educator to the entire organization.

How many organizations do you know of with Scrum teams that meet all of the requirements above? I don’t know one.

So, what’s the solution? Give up on Scrum? Are we still getting benefits from Scrumbut? Alright, let’s stop it with the Scrumbut already. Let’s acknowledge what’s really going with real teams in the real world and call that Scrum. Let’s refer to the above  checklist as “Ideal Scrum”.

Agile scaling methods have become a popular risk hedging tactic for all the loose ends dangling around the real teams in the real world.

Here are some of the reasons for adding layers of scaling around Agile teams:

  • Teams are not fully cross-functional;
  • Teams have external and opaque depencies;
  • Many of these dependencies are shared services with multiple sources of demand and constrained capacity—often overburdened;
  • External dependencies can be other teams—demand from other teams shows up in their backlogs, prioritized by their own Product Owners;
  • Many dependencies don’t play by the same rules at all—some reside in a different part of the organization, with different structures and political forces;
  • The Product Owners are proxies for multiple stakeholders and customers and the Product Backlogs represent an array of multiple sources of demand, with different service level expectations, strategic origins, degrees of clarity, urgency and political forces pushing them into the deliver organization;
  • The Product Backlogs are made up primarily of solutions defined by stakeholders and translated by the pseudo-Product Owners as pseudo-user stories—how they get there is opaque, the “fuzzy front end”—and somewhere in here a fuzzy delivery commitment was already made;
  • The work of a Sprint includes all of the work that the non-cross-functional teams can get done—then whatever the teams get “done” is “delivered” (handed-off) to a subsequent set of teams or process steps (usually fairly well defined at an organizational level but outside of the teams’ influence);
  • Delivery decisions are made based on constraints imposed by legacy technology, systems and their gatekeepers (for historically good reasons);
  • The teams are “done” at the end of each Sprint, yet much work is still to be done before their “done” work is potentially shippable;
  • The Scrum Master’s are held collectively accountable for the collective deliverables of the teams and their ability to cross-team coordinate and integrate—accountability by committee translates into no one is actually responsible.
  • Middle managers are scrambling to pick up the pieces because they are actually accountable for delivered results.

Generally speaking, the aim of Agile scaling methods is to apply larger Agile wrappers around clusters of Agile teams in order to re-establish some kind of hierarchical structure needed to manage the interdependencies described above. Whether its a Release Train or a Nexus, or whatever else, the idea is that there is an “Agile Team of Teams” managing the interdependencies of multiple, smaller teams. As long as the total number of people doesn’t grow beyond the Dunbar number (~150), the Dunbar-sized group is dedicated and cross-functional, there is a team managing the interdependencies within the Dunbar, there are no dependencies outside of the Dunbar and there is some cadence (1-3 months) of integrated delivery—it’s still “Agile”. All of this scaling out as far as a Dunbar (and only that far) allows the enterprise to still “be Agile”—Scaled Agile.

This is all supposed to be somehow more realistic than Ideal Scrum (with perhaps am overlay of Scrum of Scrums and a Scrum of Scrum of Scrums). It’s not. How many organizations do you know of that can afford to have ~150 people 100% dedicated to a single product? Perhaps today there is enough cash lying around, but soon enough the  economic impact will be untenable, if not unsustainable.

How does Kanban address this problem? Your business is a complex adaptive system. You introduce a Kanban system into it such that it is likely that the complex adaptive system is stimulated to improve. The Systems Thinking Approach to Introducing Kanban—STATIK—is how you can make such a transition more successful (@az1):
  1. Understand the purpose of the system—explicitly identify the services you provide, to whom you provide them and why;
  2. Understand the things about the delivery of the service that people are not happy about today—both those whose needs are addressed by the service and those doing the work of delivering the service;
  3. Define the sources of demand—what your customers care about and why;
  4. Describe the capability of your system to satisfy these demands;
  5. Map the workflow of items of customer-recognizable value (@fer_cuenca), beginning with a known customer need and ending with the need being met through stages of primary knowledge discovery (Scrum teams somewhere in the middle, towards the end)—focus on activities, not looping value streams;
  6. Discover classes of service—there are patterns to how different kinds of work flow through your system (they are not arbitrarily decided by pseudo-Product Owners), what are they? Group them, they are classes of service and knowing them enables powerful risk management;
  7. With all of the above as an input, design the Kanban system for the service;
  8. Learn how to do steps 2-7 and start applying it directly to your own context in a Kanban System Design class;
  9. Socialize and rollout (learn how by participating in a Kanban Coaching Professional Masterclass);
  10. Implement feedback-loop Cadences for continuous evolution—learn the 7 Kanban Cadences and begin applying to your own context in a Kanban Management Professional class;
  11. Repeat with all of the interdependent services in your organization—every “dependency” is a service—Kanban all of them with STATIK and begin implementing the Cadences.

Don’t get hung up on teams, roles, your latest reorg, how people will
respond to another “change”, who’s in, who’s out, etc. These are all part of the service as it is now—your current capability. Initially, no changes are required at this level. The kanban system will operate at a higher level of scale. Through feedback-loop cadences, it will evolve to be fit for the purpose of your customers without a traumatic and expensive reorg.  Who is responsible for this? Identify this person. If you are the one thinking about this problem, there is a good chance that it’s you. Whoever it is, this is the manager of the service; take responsibility, do the work and make life better for everyone.

For more information about LeanKanban University Certified Kanban courses provided by Berteig, please go to www.worldmindware.com/kanban. Some spots are still available for our classes in Toronto, June 12-16.

For Agilists who have read this far and still don’t get it, start here:

14 Things Every Agilist Should Know About Kanban

The story below may be familiar to some:

Our IT group started with Scrum. Scores of people got trained. Most of our Project Managers became “Certified” Scrum Masters. Most of our Business Analysts became “Certified” Product Owners. We purged some people who we knew would never make the transition. We reorganized everyone else into cross-functional teams – mostly developers and testers. But now they are Scrum Developers. We tried to send them for “Certified” Scrum Developer training but hardly anyone of them signed up. So they are Just Scrum Developers. But we still call them developers and testers. Because that’s still how they mostly function—silos within “cross functional teams”, many tales of two cities rather than just one.

After the Scrum teams had been up and running for a while and we were able to establish some metrics to show the business how Agile we were (since they didn’t believe us based on business results), we had a really great dashboard showing us how many Scrum teams we had, how many Kanban teams, how many DevOps, how many people had been trained. We even knew the average story point velocity of each team.

The business didn’t get it. They were worried that Agile wasn’t going to solve their problem of making commitments to customers and looking bad because we still weren’t able to deliver “on time”.

As IT leadership, we were really in the hot seat. We started to talk about why the transformation wasn’t going as it should. We knew better than to bring the Agile coaches into the boardroom. They were part of the problem and needed to be kept at arms length from those of us who were making important decisions. Besides, their Zen talk about “why?” was really getting old fast. Some thought it was because we didn’t have the right technology. Others were convinced it was because we didn’t have the right people. After all, we didn’t go out and higher experienced (above-average) Scrum Masters and Product Owners, instead we just retrained our own people. Clearly that wasn’t working.

We started with improving the Scrum Masters. We went out and hired a few with impressive resumes. We developed some Scrum Master KPIs (HR jumped all over this one). Then one day we had a collective flash of brilliance—since the ScrumMasters are the servant leaders of teams, we will make them responsible for collecting and reporting team metrics and this will tell us how well the teams are doing and how they need to improve. This surely would be the key to improving the performance of IT and get us on a better footing with the business.

But we didn’t get the response we were hoping for. The ScrumMasters soon complained that the metrics of the teams were impacted by dependencies that they had no influence over. When we pushed harder and shamed them publicly for failing to produce meaningful metrics, they tried harder, but they weren’t able to do it. Some began disengage. “This is not the job I signed up for” became their new mantra. This was puzzling. We were empowering them and they were recoiling. Maybe we didn’t get the right Scrum Masters after all. Maybe we needed to go out and find people who could think and act effectively beyond the confines of their own teams. Or…


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

5 Insights to Help HR Ride the Agile Wave

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

In a recent scan of the e-literature on the reciprocal impact of Agile on HR, I connected some very interesting insights which I’d like to share. A set of insights that looks like ripples across the surface of a pond. Ripples that started when the Agile stone was thrown into the pond in 2001. In its simplest form, Agile is about a different way of working with each other in teams. Teams that are cross-functional, collaborative, co-located and customer-driven in their decision making. The insights provide compelling reasons why HR needs to take an active role in Agile implementations.

Insight #1

“In the most successful Agile transformations, HR is a driver of the change and a key hub that steers other departments’ success.”

(cPrime.com)

HR certainly needs to be ‘a’ driver in the change, but not ‘the’ (sole) driver. Rather they need to partner in the change. Successful Agile transformations will benefit from HR’s expertise in

  • Organizational Effectiveness
  • Learning & Development
  • Workforce Planning & Talent Management
  • Total Rewards

The driver of the change, historically IT, will need HR’s help to manage the impact to people and traditional HR processes/tools. As the change scales and starts to impact other departments in the business, HR can play a large role in ensuring the business overall stays aligned in delivering end-to-end value to customers.

Insight #2

“2016 will be the year of Agile HR… most HR teams have no clue what Agile HR means.”

(HR Trend Institute)

Agile was a hot topic for HR in 2016 as evidenced by the number of times ‘Agile HR’ has made the shortlist of topics being brainstormed for HR conferences and networks.  It was the #1 trend on the 2016 HR Trend Institute list. Its popularity is not cooling off in 2017. And yet most HR teams still don’t have a clue what ‘Agile’ means, never mind what ‘Agile HR’ means.

Insight #3

“As the world becomes more volatile, organizations need to find ways to become highly agile. HR will need to support a world where people may no longer have predefined ‘jobs’ that lock them into doing one activity.”

(HRO Today)

Agile has entered the mainstream. A necessity given the VUCA[1] world we live in.  Agile is no longer the sole domain of IT. The common refrain from all C-suite leaders these days is increased agility and nimbleness across the entire business – not just IT. The impact of capital ‘A’ Agile or small ‘a’ agile will affect HR. People will no longer have predefined jobs – People’s career paths will change. In this VUCA world, standardized career paths are no longer effective. Batch-of-one career paths will become the norm.

Insight #4

“HR’s job is not just to implement controls and standards, and drive execution—but rather to facilitate and improve organizational agility.”

(Josh Bersin)

The HR profession itself has been going through its own transformation. The HR profession has evolved from an administrative and transactional service to a strategic business stakeholder with a seat at the executive table.  The role of HR now includes a focus on organization-wide agility and global optimization of departmental efforts.

Insight #5

“Human capital issues are the #1 challenge for CEOs globally.”

(The Conference Board CEO Challenge 2016)

The Conference Board’s 2016 survey of global CEOs ranked human capital issues as the number one challenge. It has been number one for the last four years in a row. Within that challenge, there are two hot-button issues:

  1. Attracting and retaining top talent
  2. Developing next-generation leaders

The adoption of agile ways of working will change

  • How we recruit and engage
  • How we nurture and grow not only our leaders but our talent in general

In the words of Robert Ployhart, “…employees don’t just implement the strategy – they are the strategy”[2]. CEOs around the world would tend to agree.

The net of these insights is the more HR professionals understand Agile and its implications, the more effective Agile or agile initiatives and people/strategy will be.

I’d like to see HR ride the wave.

 

 

[1] VUCA is an acronym introduced by the US military to describe a state of increased Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity

[2] Ulrich, Dave, William A. Schiemann, Libby Sartain, Amy Schabacker Dufain, and Jorge Jauregui Morales. “The Reluctant HR Champion?” The Rise of HR: Wisdom from 73 Thought Leaders. Alexandria, VA: HR Certification Institute, 2015. N. pag. Print.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Scrum vs. Kanban vs. ADKAR vs. Kotter: Change Management

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

The battle of the organizational change management approaches!

Check out the presentation I did last night at Agile Mississauga Meetup.

20170208 Agile Mississauga Meetup – Change Approach Characterization Model

I describe a model for understanding change management approaches and deciding which ones to use for your situation.  I also look briefly at Positive Deviance and Appreciative Inquiry.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

How a Non-Agile Big Corporation Lost Out

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

The Scenario

In a search for new vistas and growth, my husband had been scanning employment ads across the country and applied for a job he was well-suited for with a large corporation. He received two interviews by telephone and SKYPE. The new job would require us to move several provinces, leaving family, friends and a community we were attached to.

He received confirmation by telephone that the corporation wanted to hire him. We spent a few days agonizing over a decision, consulting with family and friends, praying about it, and decided my husband would accept the job. After his verbal acceptance, a contract followed a few days later, which he duly signed and sent back. He was told it had been signed at the other end and he could now announce the new job publicly.

He gave notice to his present employers, as did I mine, and we proceeded to take steps to put our house on the market, search for housing in the new city, and pack. We had begun to say good-bye.

Three days later a phone call came from the HR Department of the corporation saying they had to rescind the contract as someone “higher up” had not given approval for it.

We were stunned. There had been no hint in any part of the process that the job offer was in any way tentative or not thoroughly vetted. We had taken many steps forward, and now had to backtrack several steps.

My husband had to go, hat in hand, to his current employers to see if he could retain his job. After a painful good-bye session with my team I had to inform them that I was not leaving.

This whole experience has brought to mind the importance of what my employer, BERTEIG Inc, is attempting to do through agile training, consulting and coaching.

The “Agile Manifesto” proclaims:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.”

And, further on: “Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.

These are prime values to be lived by small and large businesses.

Admittedly, Agile was initially created for software developers, but more and more corporations and organizations are seeing the value in being agile, and are responding to this necessary change of culture in what is currently a time of deep disruption.

What If?

What if the corporation my husband was contracting with had honored the implications of “individuals and interactions over processes and tools” and “customer collaboration over contract negotiations?”

If some “higher up” had not actually given approval for this hiring, once the contract was signed at both ends (which it was), could this higher-up not have responded with more agility, more compassion, and more ethically?

What if he had acted in such a way that, even if he did not approve the contract, he acknowledged the good intentions of both sides and let it go? After all, his corporation was getting a highly-qualified, experienced employee.

What if he was transparent and acknowledged that the contract was not to his liking, and asked would my husband consider some other version of it? And then consulted directly with my husband and HR over certain changes to the contract? And made sure everyone was agreeable with the changes?

What if the “higher-up” just called my husband directly, apologizing that the contract was made without his say-so, that they were not in a position to hire him, and offered two-months salary for any damages – material and emotional – that had been incurred?

The above scenarios could have changed the situation from one of loss, to one of win-win for both sides. Agile frameworks are clearly proving to be of great benefit to employers and employees alike.

Hundreds of eager attendees take Certified Scrum Master and Certified Product Owner training from us. Many have taken our Certified Agile Leadership offering in cooperation with Agilitrix. Do the corporations they belong to welcome the changes these attendees are prepared to make? Are corporations taking steps to truly alter their culture?

The Losing End

My husband was almost employed in that organization, where hundreds of others are employed. I wonder how often their employees experience this type of trauma, since this neglectful handling of my husband’s contract is a likely sign of ongoing cultural problems within.

This rescinding of a contract was a losing situation on both ends. The corporation in question lost a highly-talented employee who would have been extremely loyal and hard-working (as was determined in the interviews). My husband lost professional credibility having to backtrack with his current employers. We lost the challenge of a new adventure.

We’re recovering, despite this having a huge emotional impact on our lives. We’ve been agile enough to say: we’re still here, we still have jobs, we can make the best of it all.

I just wish that Big Corp would get it. And soon. Before more is lost.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

How Kanban Saved Agile

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

In reality, Kanban isn’t actually saving Agile nor is it intended to, nor is any thoughtful and responsible Kanban practitioner motivated by this agenda. What I’m really trying to convey is how human thinking about the business of professional services (including software development) has evolved since “Agile” as many of us know it was conceived around 20 or so years ago. The manifesto is the collective statement of a group of software development thought leaders that captured some of their ideas at the time about how the software industry needed to improve. Essentially, it was about the iterative and incremental delivery of high-quality software products. For 2001, this was pretty heady stuff. You could even say that it spawned a movement.

Since the publication of the manifesto in 2001, a lot of other people have had a lot of other good ideas about how the business of delivering professional services can improve. This has been well documented in well known sources too numerous to mention for the scope of this article.

Substantial contributions to the discourse have been generated by and through the LeanKanban community. The aim of Kanban is to foster environments in which knowledge workers can thrive and create innovative, valuable and viable solutions for improving the world. Kanban has three agendas: survivability (primarily but not exclusively for the business executives), service-orientation (primarily but not exclusively for managers) and sustainability (primarily but not exclusively for knowledge workers). Kanban provides pragmatic, actionable, evidence-based guidance for improving along these three agendas.

Evolutionary Theory is one of the key conceptual underpinnings of the Kanban Method, most notably the dynamic of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution is natural, perpetual and fundamental to life. Long periods of equilibrium are punctuated by relatively short periods of “transformation”—apparent total and irreversible change. An extinction event is a kind of punctuation, so too is the rapid explosion of new forms. Evolutionary theory is not only a scientifically proven body of knowledge for understanding the nature of life. It can be also applied to the way we think about ideas, methods and movements.

For example, science has more or less established that the extinction of the dinosaurs, triggered by a meteor impact and subsequent dramatic atmospheric and climate change, was in fact a key punctuation point in the evolution of birds. In other words, dinosaurs didn’t become extinct, rather they evolved into birds. That is, something along the lines of the small dinosaurs with large feathers hanging around after Armageddon learned to fly over generations in order to escape predators, find food and raise their young. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds saved the dinosaurs.

There has been a lot of social media chatter and buzz lately about how Agile is dead. It is a movement that has run its course, or so the narrative goes. After all, 20 years is more or less the established pattern for the rise and fall of management fads. But too much emphasis on the rise and fall of fads can blind us to larger, broader (deeper) over-arching trends.

The agile movement historically has been about high-performing teams. More recently, market demand has lead to the profusion of “scaling” approaches and frameworks. Scaling emerged out of the reality of systemic interdependence in which most Agile teams find themselves. Most agile teams are responsible for aspects of workflows—stages of value creation—as contributors to the delivery of a service or multiple services. Agile teams capable of independently taking requests directly from and delivering directly to customers are extremely rare. For the rest, classical Agile or Scrum is not enough. The feathers just aren’t big enough. Agile teams attempting to function independently (pure Scrum) in an interdependent environment are vulnerable to the antibodies of the system, especially when such interdependencies are merely denounced as impediments to agility.

Some organizations find themselves in a state of evolutionary punctuation (the proverbial sky is falling) that can trigger rapid adaptations and the emergence of local conditions in which independent service delivery teams can thrive. Most large, established organizations seem to be more or less in a state of equilibrium. Whether real or imagined, this is what change agents have to work with. However, more often than not, the typical Agile change agent seems adamant that the sky is always falling and that everyone accepting that the sky is falling is the first step to real and meaningful change. This is not an attitude held by Agile change agents alone. This is a standard feature of traditional 20th Century change management methods, the key selling point for change management consulting.

Naturally, most self-identifying “Agilists” see themselves as change agents. Many of them find themselves in the position of change management consultants. But the motivation for change can quickly become misaligned: Change needs to happen in order for Agile to work. If you are passionate about Agile, you will seek to bring about the environmental changes that will allow for Agile to thrive. We don’t need to follow this path too far until Agile becomes an end in itself. It is understandable then that for some, Agile appears to be a dead end, or just dead.

But if there is a larger, over-arching historical process playing out, what might that be? Perhaps it has something to do with the evolution of human organization. Perhaps we are living in a period of punctuation.

For my working definition of Kanban, please refer to my previous article 14 Things Every Agilist Should Know About Kanban (this contains links to the Kanban body of knowledge, including Essential Kanban Condensed by David J. Anderson and Andy Carmichael).

For my working definition of Agile, please refer to The Manifesto for Agile Software Development.

 

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CLEAR Servant Leadership

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

Sun rising over field - servant leadership

I facilitated this workshop today for a senior leadership team. I mostly employ famous quotations familiar to many to provide a brief overview of Servant Leadership as well as a learning framework for systematically building capacity in others while improving the systems in which they work. The folks in the workshop seemed to really connect with Scott’s CLEAR model (not so famous but ingenious in its deceptive simplicity). I offer it as a guide for designing CLEAR acts of leadership.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leading to Real Agility – Leader Responsibilities

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

Leading an organization to Real Agility is a complex and difficult task.  However, the core responsibilities of leaders attempting this are simple to describe.  This video introduces the three core responsibilities of the senior leadership team as they lead their organization to Real Agility.

The video presents three core responsibilities:

  1. Communicating the vision for change
  2. Leading by example
  3. Changing the organization

Future videos in the series will elaborate on these three core responsibilities.

Real Agility References

Here are some additional references about how leaders can help their organizations move towards Real Agility:

Please subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notifications when each new video is published! (There are 15 more videos coming in this series, and more beyond that on other topics!)  You can also find the summary article that helps you find all the videos and additional references here: Leading to Real Agility – Introduction.

Mishkin Berteig presents the concepts in this video series.  Mishkin has worked with leaders for over fifteen years to help them create better businesses.  Mishkin is a certified Leadership Circle Profile practitioner and a Certified Scrum Trainer.  Mishkin is co-founder of BERTEIG.  The Real Agility program includes assessment, and support for delivery teams, managers and leaders.

BESTEIG Real Agility logo

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leading to Real Agility – Introduction

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

Leading an organization to Real Agility is a complex and difficult task.

Leading to Real Agility is about how leaders including executives and senior managers help their organization achieve great business results and a great corporate culture. This video introduces the topics of our next series of videos.

This is the first video in a series on Leading to Real Agility.

Leading to Real Agility

The following topics will be covered in the video series.  A new video will be posted every two weeks.

  1. Leadership Responsibilities – what must leaders do to inspire change.
  2. Communicate the Vision for Change – how leaders can craft a compelling vision for change.
  3. Lead by Example – the actions of leaders matter.
  4. Change the Organization – the primary work of leaders.
  5. Environment for Change – hindering and helping change.
  6. Real Agility Practices – how do leaders and their staff work?
  7. Choosing a Change Approach – options for changing your enterprise.
  8. Leadership and Culture – what do you need to know to change culture?
  9. Change Adoption Curve – when do people adopt change?
  10. Leadership Time Allocation – a major benefit of improvement.
  11. Handling Resistance and Laggards – leading sometimes means pushing.
  12. Choosing a Pilot Project – some projects are better than others when you’re starting out.
  13. Real Agility at Scale – if you have a big organization.
  14. Organizational Agility – having wholeness and integrity throughout.
  15. Individual Leadership Development – a leader’s personal journey.
  16. Assessing Your Organization – where are you right now?

Please subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive notifications when each new video is published!

Mishkin Berteig presents the concepts in this video series.  Mishkin has worked with leaders for over fifteen years to help them create better businesses.  Mishkin is a certified Leadership Circle Profile practitioner and a Certified Scrum Trainer.  Mishkin is co-founder of BERTEIG.  The Real Agility program includes assessment, and support for delivery teams, managers and leaders.

BESTEIG Real Agility logo

 


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Link: The Human Side of Agile

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

Scrum of Scrum photo

On the blog “Fragile” the author writes about the human side of Agile.  The author, who does not name themself anywhere on the blog, criticizes the agile movement for not giving more time to the issue around management.

Here are some of the key arguments:

  • not enough care is taken over the distinction between project and line management
  • almost all agile implementation failures could be traced back to management’s reluctance or failure to engage
  • practical guidance is needed for an agile team leader to describe how they might incorporate these ideas into their role.

The author also notes that an anecdote they wrote was included in a recent book. It basically describes a way to make the most of an environment even if management is not providing funding or space to support agile implementation.

Here is the antidote:

It may not always be possible to create the perfect working environment, however it is important to make the most of what is available. My team were looking to map their work flow using a white board and sticky notes. Unfortunately we were situated in the middle of an open plan office without access to walls, nor did we have the necessary space for a for a free standing white board. In the end we bought a roll of white board sheeting and applied it to a nearby structural pillar. Work items flowed from top to bottom and space was tight, but it served our purpose and is still in use years later.


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Certified LeSS Practitioner with Craig Larman

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

In just a few weeks we will be hosting Craig Larman here in Toronto as he facilitates the first-ever-in-Canada Certified Large Scale Scrum Practitioner training!  Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) is about de-scaling.  In simple terms, this is about using Scrum to make the best possible use of the creativity, problem-solving and innovation abilities of large numbers of people, rather than getting them stuck in bureaucracy and management overhead.

Here are the details of this unique learning event:

  • Date and Time: April 11-13 (3 Days), 2016 – 9am to 6pm all three days
  • Location: Courtyard by Marriott Downtown Toronto, 475 Yonge St. Phone: 416-924-0611
  • Price: $3990.00 / person (that’s in Canadian Dollars – super great deal if you are coming from the US!)

Check out the full agenda and register here.

Here are some quotes from previous attendees:

“It was inspiring to discuss Large-Scale Scrum with Craig Larman. The content of the course was top-notch.” – Steve Alexander

“The delivery was outstanding and the supporting material vast and detailed.” – Simone Zecchi

“The best course I have ever been on. Totally blown away.” – Simon Powers

Certified Less Practitioner BadgeToronto is a great place to visit (I know many of our Dear Readers are from the United States) – don’t hesitate to consider coming in for a weekend as well as the course!

Register now! (Goes to our BERTEIG / World Mindware learning event registration site.)


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

The Perfect Agile Tool – 12 Key Features

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

The Perfect Agile Tool doesn’t yet exist.  In my training and consulting work, I often have strong words to say about electronic tools.  Most of the tools out there are really bad.  Unfortunately, JIRA, the most common tool, is also the worst that I know of.  (Actually, the only tool worse than JIRA for an Agile team is MS Project – which is just plain evil).  Some Agile tools do a bit better, but most fall far short of a good physical task board (information radiator).  I am often asked to evaluate and / or partner with tool vendors to “bless” their products.  Here is what I am looking for before I will consider an outright endorsement of such a tool.

Features for a Perfect Agile Tool

This list is roughly organized in order of features which do show up in some tools to those which I have never seen or heard of in tools.

1. Skeumorphism: Cards and Wall

The tool should display the current work of an Agile team in a way that is immediately recognizable as a set of note cards or PostIt’s on a physical wall.  This includes colours, sizes, etc.  Most people will type to enter data so fonts should be chosen to mimic hand-printed letters.  Every aspect of the display should remind people of the physical analogue of the tool.

2. Live Update

As team members are using the tool, all updates that they make should be visible as immediate updates to all the other team members including typing, moving cards around, etc.  There is no off-line mode for the tool.  In fact, if the tool is not receiving live updates, it should be clearly disabled so that the team member knows there is a problem with the information they have displayed.

3. Simple or No Access Control

Most Agile methods strongly de-emphaisize or even disallow traditional roles and encourage self-organizing teams.  This means that fine-grained access control to different features of the tool should be eschewed in favour of extremely simple access control: everyone can do anything with the tool.  (It actually helps if there is no “undo” feature, just like there’s no easy way to erase Sharpie written on a note card.)

4. Infinite Zoom In/Out

When you are using cards on a wall, it is easy to see the whole wall or to get up close and see even very fine details on a single note card.  Although it does not have to be literally infinite, the wide and tight zoom levels in the tool should be at least a few orders of magnitude difference.  As well, the zoom feature should be extremely easy to use, similar perhaps to the way that Google Maps functions.  Among all the other features I mention, this is one of the top three in importance for the perfect Agile tool.

5. Touch Device Compatible

This seems like a super-obvious feature in this day and age of tablets, smart phones and touch-screen laptops.  And it would take the cards on the wall metaphor just that extra little way.  But very few tools are actually easy to use on touch devices.  Dragging cards around and pinch to zoom are the obvious aspects of this feature.  But nice finger-drawing features would also be a big plus (see below)!

6. Size Limit on Cards

For techies, this one is extremely counter-intuitive: limit the amount of information that can be stored on a “card” by the size of the card.  It shouldn’t be possible to attach documents, screen shots, and tons of meta-data to a single card.  Agile methods encourage time-boxing (e.g. Sprints), work-boxing (e.g. Work-in-Process limits), and space-boxing (e.g. team rooms).  This principle of putting boundaries around an environment should apply to the information stored on a card.  Information-boxing forces us to be succinct and to prefer face-to-face communication over written communication.  Among all the other features I mention, this is one of the top three in importance for the perfect Agile tool.

7. Minimal Meta-Data

Information-boxing also applies to meta-data.  Cards should not be associated with users in the system.  Cards should not have lots of numerical information.   Cards should not have associations with other cards such as parent-child or container-contained.  Cards should not store “state” information except in extremely limited ways.  At most, the electronic tool could store a card ID, card creation and removal time-stamps, and an association with either an Agile team or a product or project.

8. Overlapping Cards

Almost every electronic tool for Agile teams puts cards in columns.  Get rid of the columns, and allow cards to overlap.  If there is any “modal” behaviour in the tool, it would be to allow a team member to select and view a small collection of cards by de-overlapping them temporarily.  Overlapping allows the creation of visually interesting and useful relationships between cards.  Cards can be used to demarcate columns or groupings without enforcing strict in/out membership in a process step.

9. Rotatable, Foldable, Rip-able Cards

Increase the fidelity of the metaphor with physical cards on a wall.  Rotation, folding and ripping are all useful idioms for creating distinct visual cues in physical cards.  For example, one team might rotate cards 45 degrees to indicate that work is blocked on that card.  Or another team might fold a dog-ear on a card to indicate it is in-progress.  Or another team might rip cards to show they are complete.  The flexibility of physical cards needs to be replicated in the electronic environment to allow a team to create its own visual idioms.  Among all the other features I mention, this is one of the top three in importance for the perfect Agile tool.

10. Easy Sketching on Cards… Including the Back

Cards should allow free-form drawing with colours and some basic diagramming shapes (e.g. circles, squares, lines).  Don’t make it a full diagramming canvas!  Instead, allow team members to easily sketch layouts, UML, or state diagrams, or even memory aides.  The back side of the card is often the best place for more “complex” sketches, but don’t let the zoom feature allow for arbitrarily detailed drawing.  Lines need a minimum thickness to prevent excessive information storage on the cards.

11. Handwriting Recognition

With Siri and other voice-recognition systems, isn’t it time we also built in handwriting recognition?  Allowing a team member to toggle between the handwriting view and the “OCR” view would often help with understanding.  Allow it to be bi-directional so that the tool can “write” in the style of each of the team members so that text entry can be keyboard or finger/stylus.

12. Sync Between Wall and Electronic Tool

This is the most interesting feature: allow a photo of cards on a wall to be intelligently mapped to cards in an electronic tool (including creating new cards) and for the electronic tool to easily print on physical note cards for placement on a wall.  There is all sorts of complexity to this feature including image recognition and a possible hardware requirement for a printer that can handle very small paper sizes (not common!)

Key Anti-Features

These are the features that many electronic tools implement as part of being “enterprise-ready”.  I’ll be brief on these points:

No Individual Tracking – the team matters, not who does what.

No Dependency Management – teams break dependencies, tools don’t manage dependencies.

No Time Tracking – bums in seats typing doesn’t matter: “the primary measure of progress is working software” (or whatever valuable thing the team is building) – from the Agile Manifesto.

No Actuals vs. Estimates – we’re all bad at predicting the future so don’t bother with trying to get better.

No Report Generation – managers and leaders should come and see real results and interact directly with the team (also, statistics lie).

No Integration Points – this is the worst of the anti-features since it is the one that leads to the most anti-agile creeping featuritis.  Remember: “Individuals and interactions [are valued] over processes and tools” – from the Agile Manifesto.

Evaluation of Common Agile Tools

I go from “Good” to “Bad” with two special categories that are discontinuous from the normal scale: “Ideal” and “Evil”.  I think of tools as falling somewhere on this scale, but I acknowledge that these tools are evolving products and this diagram may not reflect current reality.  The scale looks like this, with a few examples put on the scale:

Perfect Agile Tool evaluation scale with examples

Plea for the Perfect Agile Tool

I still hope that some day someone will build the perfect Agile tool.  I’ve seen many of the ideal features listed above in other innovative non-Agile tools.  For example, 3M made a PostIt® Plus tool for the iPhone that does some really cool stuff.  There’s other tools that do handwriting recognition, etc.  Putting it all together in a super-user-friendly package would really get me excited.

Let me know if you think you know of a tool that gets close to the ideal – I would be happy to check it out and provide feedback / commentary!


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

Link: The Cost of Turnover on an Agile Team

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

Great article by Mike Griffiths: http://leadinganswers.typepad.com/leading_answers/2015/10/agile-talent-management.html


Please share!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail