Agile Adoption

Company Culture Is NOT An Excuse! Leverage It For Organizational Agility

Posted on by

The more experiences companies create through agile transformation the importance of organizational culture becomes clearer. It is the number one challenge. It’s true, it could be the very reason why we can’t change, and subsequently why agile won’t work. However, working on our culture will also open the path forward. A closer look at agile organizations reveal that it is culture that builds the common ground and acceptance for agility.

company-culture-leverage-it-for-organizational-agilityOrganizational development has always taught us that change is achieved sustainably when it starts with the people. Agile transformations are no different. On the contrary – the Manifesto for Agile Software Development already brings this focus to the surface. And the more we learn, the clearer it becomes, that organizational agility is a question of how people think and act; a question of organizational culture. Thus, it is not surprising, that agile organizations have little in common in terms of structure and governance (see e.g. Kimes, 2009; Aronowitz, De Smet & McGinty, 2015). Having the right culture helps us achieve organizational agility.

What is Organizational Agility?

Organizational agility is not Scrum at scale. It is not about individual agile methods at all. It also has little to do with table-soccer and couch-corners, nor with dogs-allowed-in-the-office.

Organizational agility is actually about one thing alone: adaptability. The market is changing. Technology offers new possibilities to produce the old things more efficiently, faster, more customer-specific and to develop the new things, demands on the organization or other circumstances that are changing. The organization reacts by adapting. Its strategy, products, processes and structures adapt. If we look at concepts of business agility (according to the Agile Alliance), or the concept of digital business agility (Global Center for digital Business Transformation; Loucks, Macaulay, Noronha & Wade, 2016), we need to add one more aspect to the definition of organizational agility: the ability to identify internal and external changes early on and to derive new opportunities to create new or greater value for customers.

Ultimately, it is about how people work, how individuals, teams and the organization as a whole behave. Do we plan on foresight and focus in on developments step-by-step to explore and learn along the way? Do we monitor what is going on outside? Are we willing to change direction to keep up with the trends? Can we react and execute quickly?

Corporate Culture as an Opportunity, Not an Excuse

How we work, how we behave, that is corporate culture. If an organization wants to become more agile, then it is either the biggest impediment or the most powerful lever.

“The importance of investing in culture and change on the road to agility cannot be overemphasized.” (Brosseau, 2019). Even if it is only about individual agile projects, an organizational culture that does not support agility is one of the most common reasons for failure, as the Project Management Institute (PMI) observes.

So Why Don’t we Tackle Culture?

This is often because culture is understood – or not understood at all – as a spongy, soft, feel-good concept. It’s also because, although we have a vague idea of what an agile culture looks like, somehow hip and start-up-like, it is firstly (and often) so far removed from our own reality and secondly, this image does not offer us any concrete starting points.

Often people in the organization react to the topic of culture with a resigned shrug of the shoulders as an expression of “That’s the way it is with us, it can’t be changed”.

Organizational culture is more often seen as an excuse than an opportunity. Culture is seen as a rigid mass, as a historically-grown, and fossilized skeleton. A culture came into being at some point – in its basic features – and has continuously developed, polished, deepened and specified. An inert mass, but a living one. Culture has to do with people, with the system, with circumstances and structures, but it is more than the sum of its parts. Culture is alive and what is alive develops, and therefore can change.

Culture is a result of collective learning.

The Pandemic Crisis as Opportunity to Tackle Culture

Today, facing a global pandemic that throws us into crisis, we learn very quickly to adapt to new ways. We also learn a lot about ourselves and about the way we work together. We learn a lot about our culture, we learn where its strengths lie and what is holding us back or slowing us down in becoming the best possible company to deal with today’s challenges. We learn new things. Learning is developing.

Let’s reflect on and build on those learnings and allow them to allow us to shape our culture.

For a company’s culture to support agility, three elements are needed which are illustrated in the “Agile Culture Code”, the TEC model (Puckett, 2020) Three Company Culture Elements Increased Agility Can’t Go Without: Transparency, Empowerment and (conditionless) Collaboration.

Please don’t change your mindset!

We humans do not have to change. Actually, we usually behave “TEC-compliant” when we want to solve a problem or achieve a goal privately:

  • Before we get started, we first inform ourselves and make sure that we have access to all relevant information – in order to define and plan the scope and to be able to recognize the need for corrections early on. Once we get started, we regularly check that we are on the right track, that our approach or the solution we develop is working (testing, obtaining feedback, observing reactions). (Transparency)
  • That and the problem we want to tackle we have decided ourselves, we have chosen it and set the goal ourselves. We decide ourselves how we want to proceed, when, where, with whom we will work on it and it is our decision to adapt methods, goals and scope in between. (Empowerment)
  • We look for people from whom we can learn something in the matter, or those who encourage or support us. (Collaboration)

We need to know what is going on and measure our impact. We need to be empowered not only to do things right but to do the right thing. We need to be able to connect and team up with others to focus on contributions rather than roles.

So, no, we don’t need to change. But change has to happen in the organization. To create an environment that inspires us and allows us to bring all our talents to the table and be at our best. 

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Sources:

Aronowitz, S., De Smet, A. & McGinty, D. (2015). Getting organizational redesign right. McKinsey Quarterly. June 2015.
Brosseau, D., Ebrahim, S., Handscomb, C. & Thaker, S. (2019). Accessed February 2019. The journey to an agile organization. McKinsey & company. May 2019.
Jurisic, N., Lurie, M. Risch, P. & Salo, O. (2020). Doing vs being: Practical lessons on building an agile culture. McKinsey.com. August 4, 2020.
Kimes, M. What admired firms don’t have in common. Fortune. Released: March 2009. archive.fortune.com
Loucks, J., Macaulay, J., Noronha, A & Wade, M. (2016). Digital Vortex. How Today‘s Market Leaders Can Beat Disruptive Competitors at Their Own Game. DBT Center Press, Plano/Texas.
Manifesto for Agile Software Development. agilemanifesto.org
Puckett, S. (2020). The agile culture code – A guide to organizational agility. BusinessVillage.

Contributing Author

Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).

Three Company Culture Elements Increased Agility Can’t Go Without

Posted on by

It has been over a decade now that surveys reveal – again and again – the one biggest challenge when transforming to agile: an organization’s culture. No surprise, since organizational agility arises not from doing agile alone but from being agile. So, let’s look at how agility can be anchored in the company culture, so it becomes a lever, not a challenge in achieving agility.

three-company-culture-elements-that-increased-agility-cant-go-withoutIf an organization is agile, it can be seen in how aware they are about trends and developments on the market, how quickly and flexibly they can adapt to the changes they sense around them, and how spot on they come up with their solutions. Structure and process can help to set the organization up for agility, agile methodologies and tool support.

Agility does not happen through structure or tools; it happens through people

However, the heart of agility lies simply in the way people in the organization think and act. What they pay attention to, how they prioritize, how they get stuff done, how well they plan by sight and keep their eyes on the customer. Agility happens through people. By being agile, they form an agile culture in the organization. Intuitive, right? A lot about agility is intuitive. This is why it works so well.

For such a culture to grow and sustain, three elements, summarized in the TEC culture code (Puckett, 2020) are needed.

We all know how to best solve problems. We’ve done it since we learned how to walk

Imagine a project you would like to realize. Any project, business or personal. Often, the very first thought after we come up with an idea is “Can I do this?”

To answer this question, we think:

  • Do we have enough knowledge to understand what we are getting into?
  • Do we have access to all relevant information and data to validate that we are taking the right steps?
  • Do we know what success looks like?

-> This is our way to create the TRANSPARENCY we need to see this through and to self-correct and steer ourselves along the way towards success.

Behind the initial question if we can do this, lies another basic condition. Some very basic thoughts:

  • Can we take that decision?
  • Do we have the freedom and the means to take on and execute the project?

-> This is our way of ensuring that we have full EMPOWERMENT.

Lastly, we make sure we are not on our own. We activate our network or build a network with people that we can use as a sounding board, bounce ideas off, learn from and ask for support if needed.
-> We ensure that we have the COLLABORATION we need.

The common denominator in agile organizations

This is it. This is the common denominator of agile culture –> TEC: Transparency, Empowerment and Collaboration. Manifested as pillars of a company’s culture, they come each with three unique aspects, each that require attention.

The three pillars and nine facets of the TEC culture code

Pillar 1: Transparency

  1. Information: transparency with information and data

Direct line of sight to the customer, access to information about developments in technology and market, knowing what the competition is doing, etc. goes in line with transparent key performance indicators of the company. This allows us to think strategically.

  1. Intention: transparency with intention and plans

To make sure we align forces and act as one organization, we all need to understand the organization’s purpose, its intentions and plans. This way we can channel ideas and align our efforts with the current corporate priorities.

  1. Effect: transparency with results & impact

Feedback is key to be able to optimize solutions on evolving customer needs. A direct line of sight, where possible, allows us to see firsthand how our work is perceived. Knowing where and how the different tasks we are working on play a role, we can self-steer to have maximum impact on value creation.

Pillar 2: Empowerment

  1. Freedom: freedom to adapt and create

Work is more fun if we are in control and can decide or at least influence when, where and how we work. We are also more creative if we have the freedom to try things differently or experiment with something new. Freedom also allows teams to quickly adjust and adapt to changing circumstances, fostering adaptability and speed throughout the organization.

  1. Enablement: empowerment to take charge

Empowerment means not only deciding how to do things right but doing the right thing. Given the transparency that provides a clear line of sight to the customer or access to data in combination with knowledge of the strategy, every team can act as an autonomous unit that works to generate maximum value. Ideas are implemented fast, adaption happens where it is needed most, at the contact point to the outside (e.g. customers).

  1. Ownership: ownership, biased toward action

Where we used to hear “not my job” before, people are now committed to achieving a goal, not to filling a job role. Entrepreneurship is fostered when people take initiative and have end-to-end responsibility.

Pillar 3: Collaboration

  1. Exchange: collaboration through exchange and sharing

One advantage an organization has, is that it can achieve mastery, generate new knowledge and ideas by connecting the many minds within, fostering exchange and sharing.

  1. Contribution: collaboration through contribution and flexibility

Modern organizations focus on value creation. This requires us to think about our skills and how to add value with them. It requires commitment to doing your best (when and where needed), not on doing a certain job in a certain team in a certain role. It also requires investment in building flexible networks that form temporary and open teams to achieve different goals.

  1. Learning: collaboration through learning and growing together

To advance together as an organization, we must learn together. The starting point is taking time and extending trust, to openly talk about mistakes and to learn from them, together. Collaboration also means to support each other’s success and development, and to challenge each other to leave our comfort zone. Growth happens if we take risks and challenge the status quo.

We are the culture!

Achieving the three TEC elements is what organizations strive for. However, we are the organization. We are the culture. Look at your own space to maneuver, at your area of responsibility. What can each of us do to increase transparency, to empower others and to improve collaboration to the next most intense, and most flexible level?

Source: Puckett, S. (2020). THE AGILE CULTURE CODE – A guide to organizational agility. BusinessVillage.
Image courtesy of IndypendenZ at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Contributing Author

Dr. Stefanie Puckett has lived and worked globally for several consulting firms, in management and global roles for a Fortune 500 company and ran her own business. She is a psychologist that turned to agile once she saw that decades of organizational psychology research are basically summed up in the agile manifesto. Since then, agile transformation has become her passion as a consultant and executive coach. Stefanie is author of “The agile culture code – a guide to organizational agility” (BusinessVillage, 2020) and co-author of “Agile Leadership – leadership competencies for the agile transformation” (BusinessVillage, 2020).

Pros and Cons of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)

Posted on by

pros-and-cons-of-scaled-agile-framework-safe

There’s definitely a lot of buzz these days on the most popular types of Agile-At-Scale frameworks that would enable a company to scale for larger teams and varying company sizes. Everyone wants to go with the most popular one and assume that it’s the most effective one. We are providing an unbiased view of the pros and cons of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). Just note that a more popular framework doesn’t mean it’s better, or at least in the context of adoption and use, it might not be the best one for your particular company culture, size, situation, growth, budget, etc..

Is Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) the Best for Your Company?

Scaling for agile implies that Scaling = Increase, Expansion or Variation in Size. That being said, it needs to be considered, what will be the amount and speed of growth as well? Not to mention, the budget and time required to sustain the adoption of the particular framework of choice. Below we explain SAFe and how it may or may not be best for your organization. We also take into consideration what may be the reasons for it’s popularity and growth.

An Unbiased SAFe No-Nonsense Assessment

The Scaled Agile Framework has evolved by far as one of the more popular of the frameworks. Created by an Agile pioneer Dean Leffingwell, this framework requires your teams to get certification through mandatory courses from a Certified Trainer (SPC and/or SPCT depending on the certification). Add to that the small “e” at the end of SAFe seems like a desperate attempt at an acronym just for the sake of making it a buzzword in and of itself. Does it come from the “e” in Framework? In any case, without the “e”, SAF wouldn’t sound all that nice from a marketing perspective, so most of us have just gone along with it, no questions asked.

Nonetheless, SAFe provides a well outlined Roadmap with a large variety of courses to get a better understanding of the multiple levels of scale. The types of courses will depend on the size and maturity of your agile teams within the enterprise (Essential, Large Solution, Portfolio, and Full).

With the entire spectrum (or as much as it possibly could be covered) of a scaled framework in an agile context, it needs to be outlined that in addition to the cost of courses, they also require annual subscription renewal fees, and much like the structure of software updates, will have major (x.1, x.4, etc.) and minor updates (3.x, 5.x, etc.) that a certified associate would need to maintain. That is as much an advantage as it could be a disadvantage. We outline those below.

Advantages of SAFe

  • Whomever is certified will need to make sure they have taken the latest exams and courses to be able to claim they have the latest knowledge on the framework. This also allows everyone to look forward to the latest and for those who have the time to update to take courses, read, and pass the exam, it is a great way to stay engaged. It is by far the most flexible and adaptable to an enterprise’s size and growth.
  • They do provide as much support as possible to provide access for members to a dedicated community and forum as a source of resources and answers to general and specific questions. They also have an app that can be downloaded to your mobile phone, tablet, etc..
  • This framework is here to stay, and would most likely be increasingly popular, adding to the fact that it has partnered (to some degree) with Atlassian through JIRA Align as a fully compatible tool. Those looking to use the JIRA Align tool, are in fact encouraged to become familiar with SAFe since it is almost entirely built on the same models and sub-framework models. This framework also supports in-person and/or remote agile teams when using tools like Atlassian’s Align, so this is further confirms that it’s definitely keeping up with the times.
  • Number of certifications are diverse, they include over 10 Types of certifications ranging from the very basic “Scaled Agilist” (SA) to the highly trained and/or experienced “SAFe Program Consultant” (SPC). They also include the certifications for the many roles that are present within the framework so that could entice new members to specialize in their areas of expertise.

Disadvantages of SAFe

  • If you haven’t learned about the latest version of SAFe, and/or haven’t passed the latest exams, you may have to deal with the fact that your knowledge can appear to be obsolete. As an example, you might have gotten the 4.0 level certification, but did not yet have the time to update to the latest 4.6. These updates also come within 2 years (or less) of each other, so this could present some indirect peer-pressure if your teammates have all updated on their end, as you will be the “4.0” in the room. Also, you have only a few chances to pass the exam, and if you do not, you will need to start paying for them. There also seems to be a missing component to the Agile Mindset per se.
  • You will need to renew your certification fee annually, but that is common with most all other framework certifications. It should be considered however, that you will need to budget almost automatically on an annual basis, that everyone who will be maintaining their certifications, will be dipping into the company funds to keep it (i.e. # of certified employees x Annual Renewal Subscription).
  • Given the structure of the training and maintenance of their certifications, you almost need to be an employee of a company implementing SAFe, either due to factoring the cost and or time to get training, or the minimum class size to make it worthwhile. However, this does make sense to some extent if you are about to embark on the SAFe journey. It would not be worthwhile doing this on your own with no company or team to implement it with.

Concluding Thoughts

Due to it’s vast coverage and all-round spectrum toward agility, it would certainly require more than a few Agile experts to implement this framework. It would also require all members to adopt it, let’s face it, there’s no “one foot in the door” approach, it’s all or nothing for this framework, as are most. But right out the door, you would need to expect at least the minimal budget for training for all members of the enterprise in order for a successful implementation, not to mention the cost of maintaining annual subscription fees.

The benefits certainly outweigh the costs of SAFe implementation, however, the costs should be considered ahead of time so that the benefits aren’t misunderstood for purely optimistic outcomes. You need to take the “good” with the “not so good” in these instances, and it needs to be determined as to what the immediate pitfalls are if the first attempts at gaining ROI or roll-out to full implementation are not as successful as expected.

The Agile Mindset And Why It’s Important

Posted on by

agile-mindset-why-its-importantWhat Is an Agile Mindset?

In the agile community, many newcomers have not yet adopted the Agile Mindset, and most don’t actually know it exists. They’ll see Agile as something they’d like to use as a tool, process, or methodology. But that is like comparing someone who wants to play a video game without getting into the story-line about what the actual game is about. Surely that will not prevent someone from playing the game, but their advantage compared to the rest of the players, will be heavily hampered. In order to be fully immersed in the experience, one must consider that there are others involved in the game as well. Some may also be better (or worse) than others in some aspects of the game.

To keep a team performing optimally, all members should adopt a similar mindset to level the playing field and keep everyone engaged to handle high complexity. In today’s world, it’s important to consider that we have an increased level of complexity. We all are part of complex environments, whether we think certain situations are simple or not, and the more we are aware of that, we can better circumvent these issues when they come up in the future.

Why Is An Agile Mindset Important?

Agile methodologies are best suited to handle today’s level of high complexity. But for this we need to consider what “complexity” is? In our day-to-day, everything can be perceived as complex, even just the drive to our workplace, or having to debug a line of code. One thing we need to put in perspective is that every large structure or concept is typically built over smaller structures or concepts. With that in mind, we also need to consider that we’re being subjected to and we may quite possibly be bombarded by many smaller elements of one entire complex process on a constant basis. Sometimes it may appear that we’ve tackled the daily simple task, but in reality, it’s part of a month’s worth of seemingly non-related tasks. 

An Agile Mindset is not a silver bullet to being fully immersed in Agile principles. It is a formal setting for your mind that will open doors, rather than close them once you are involved with an Agile team. The level of complexity that we all face in our teams could lead us to thinking that some things are not possible, and depending on the mindset of that team, that could potentially bring everything to a halt if they are not prepared to resolve it collectively. If you think of a mindset as a switch, such that if any one person in a 5 to 6 person team is not switched “ON” to the Agile Mindset, they may stick out like a sore thumb. They might not completely jive with the rest of the team’s discussions. Although they may still perform well overall, their synergy to help resolve issues and deal with the system of a complex situation will be less likely.

How Does An Agile Mindset Help With Today’s Problems and Issues?

Once we see a situation in which all members of a team are switched on to an Agile Mindset, where they are working in a complex Agile environment, it can be more easy to see that problems get resolved quickly and more easily. An organizational structure could benefit from a more flatter one since all members rely less on a hierarchical structure, specifically one that relies on top-down delegation. When all members are sharing synergies and giving all their optimal levels of involvement, decisions are made more easily and become more self-managed, wherein everyone knows their respective part, external blame and distractions become less prevalent and overall processes become more streamlined.

How Do We Adopt And Develop An Agile Mindset?

Genuine openness and engagement from each team member is necessary for the individual parts to work as a whole. This is crucial and works like any moving parts in an engine. The moment a gear, cylinder or plug in an engine doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, the rest of the engine will need to compensate, other gears will grind, and the engine as a whole will risk overheating. In this same way, an Agile team must be aware and conscious that there are vulnerabilities throughout their performance. Some vulnerabilities may be individual, and others as a group. This is why an Agile team, although it should be shielded from external factors that could distract from the current focus, should also be well informed with the necessities that could possibly enable the team to perform effectively. A perfect example of this scenario would be to have an Agile Coach on-board, but it is also possible to get relevant reports and analytics from members of the team itself. In general, a diverse team, diverse backgrounds in culture or language, either technical or business or both, are all areas that could promote discovery of hidden problem-solving or creative avenues and provide the best overall direction for an organization.

[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

The Dangers of MVP with High Product Expectations (HPE)

Posted on by

dangers of mvp with high product expectationsIn the context of Lean principles the Minimum Viable Product is known in practice as the MVP. For most, the use of that term is used liberally and sometimes even dangerously when used to represent a finished product. The problem arises when there are expectations well beyond actual possibilities at the time of signing, planning or initial sprint. Of course with reason, nobody knows what to expect until the product is completed.

Defining HPE

We are using the concept HPE as an acronym to represent High Product Expectation. In this context, High Product Expectation is what the client expects as the finished product right from the start, with the additional possibility of more features. As you could guess, the MVP should never be equal to the HPE. By this we mean that you should never expect the completed product as an MVP to have a full set of features and attributes.

MVP Expectation Pitfalls

The above sounds like common sense, but many projects from time and time again, are built with ridiculous expectations at the signing of a contract or initial product specifications, they become sealed with the expectation that a minimum viable product (MVP) will be built, even with the utmost transparency. This is not a problem in and of itself, but this step is seldom dived into or taken seriously during the different stages of a project from beginning to end. We tend to skip through the process, whether through ignorance or negligence, and as a result take for granted that should we actually “do things properly” so all will turn out well. This could also be from a lack of negotiation, rush to get started, because after all, everyone acts like there could be a ticking time-bomb that could go off at any time. Certainly, time of is of the essence, and nobody wants to lose out on the opportunity cost. But the loses incurred down the road would be best prevented at the very beginning.

The Lessons Learned and Questions Asked

In the end we could all be optimistic, and rely on good faith, but most projects start with best intentions, and how they end is a different story. Actually, the only real moment the customer starts to ask ‘serious’ questions about what was expected to be built, ends up being at the end of the project, or at signoff. Not to confuse, “definition of done” with actual “completed product,” but these terms may eventually be intertwined as well, and could be used at times of disagreement, leading to a never-ending cycle of argument, discouragement, disbelief, loss of trust, loss of morale, and just plain waste of time. The client may have had another understanding of what the MVP was. It is very likely they thought it just meant the “first version” of the product. That is where things can go seriously wrong.

Certainly if agile principles and methodology are being practiced properly, there shouldn’t be any surprises when the end of a project comes. We all know too well, that expectations or better yet “defining expectations” has no bounds. When it comes to meeting expectations, there’s a lot of politics, assumptions, and a lot of finger pointing as to who expected what and for what dollar amount, especially when there are hidden agendas.

So when we talk about MVP, we need to ask the client important questions like:

“What are you willing to accept?”
“What are you really looking for?”
“What are the features you’d be willing to let go of if there we run out of time or budget?”
“Who’s expert opinion is being questioned?”
“How much time do we have to learn about what the market wants?”

Preferably these are questions that you should ask at the very beginning, but definitely consider re-asking those questions and bring out those assumptions throughout the project, from sprint to sprint. The Product Owner or Business Analyst should be keeping tabs on these questions, but relevant questions should always be asked over and over again, with emphasis to determine those expectations. Keeping track of those answers is also key to making sure those expectations are met. You may eventually notice that the answers change as each sprint, stage, or phase is completed. With those changes you can eventually challenge why there have been changes and assumptions, in the hopes of getting those answers and dig deeper to find out who’s behind them, perhaps gaining some extra transparency. Don’t be afraid to ask who’s expectations (or assumptions) created those changes to the original ones. You may be surprised to find out it’s not the same stakeholders who are behind the original ones; more people may have gotten involved, or maybe switched in or out of the project.

With these basics covered, you should be able to gain higher levels of understanding on what the client was expecting. But to further this understanding, you should be able to gauge whether or not the client was setting them too high to begin with. Put differently, if the client had high expectations (HPE) at the beginning of the project (i.e. little or no knowledge of what they were going to get from the MVP) it would be unlikely for the client to lower their expectations by the end of the project. If expectations were described as a type of force, this explanation would represent a metaphoric ‘inertia’ that tends to increase in a project over time, once in motion it does not diminish.

[Image courtesy of jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

Agile IS NOT Scrum!

Posted on by

agile-is-not-scrumThere are certainly many misconceptions that occur with having to implement agility within the organization. The issue becomes even more compounded when non-agile practitioners speculate about what Agile is or for that matter what their idea of what it should be. In our example, this kind of speculation can present a sort of revolving door phenomenon whereby those who are familiar with Scrum, use it to refer to Agile interchangeably. Admittedly, Scrum is a large part of Agile when referring to it holistically, but Agile is not Scrum. However, we can derive some values from Scrum and say that they are synonymous with Agile values. What tends to happen is that many people believe that if they are doing Scrum, then automatically they are Agile. There’s a very fine line to that supposition, but it’s not always entirely true.

Part Of The Whole Doesn’t Necessarily Mean You Are All Of The Whole

For the most part, implementing a part of the whole doesn’t necessarily mean you are all of the whole. As an example we can use the idea of electricity. If some parts of a car (i.e. radio, window system, pumps, battery) are electric, would you say that your car is an “electric” car? Not likely. Even when we do refer to electric cars that are motorized by electric power cells alone, the car isn’t entirely electric per se. This comparison although not an exact representation of the differences in Agile or Scrum, hopefully can give you the level of complexity in the assumption of either one for another.

Agile Is Not Just A Process

For further clarity, there are other mechanisms of Agile in perspective, there is also a mindset and value-driven aspects that should be accompanied with it, not just a process. There’s also other methodologies and processes that can be included or can be complimentary to Scrum (i.e. XP, Kanban, TDD, ATDD) that make a more solid Agile implementation possible. That is not to say that it’s an “all-or-nothing” situation. Further to this we have what is considered to be the Agile guidelines, also known as the Agile Manifesto consisting of 4 values and 12 principles. When speculation and discussion occurs about what Agile really is, very seldom does the conversation include what is mentioned in the manifesto. However, more often, the concept of implementing a Scrum process does. This is where the clarification about those assumptions or beliefs, is very important to distinguish before it’s too late, whereby the decision takes place and is built on a preconceived false notion of Agile.

Agile Expectation And Implementation

Getting the above points out in the open early is not only to assure successful Agile expectation and implementation, but also to bring a more positive light to what can sometimes bring “failures-as-fact.” By that we mean that there are many who have attempted implementing Agile in the workplace, and used a “not-so-complete” method or process into effect. That is to say, they thought they were putting an Agile methodology (or in certain cases what they thought was Agile) in place, then saw it fail, and then concluded “Agile doesn’t work” despite the other flaws.  There are certainly instances where Agile really doesn’t work, or perhaps it isn’t the best solution for your organization, politics and bureaucracy aside. Agile isn’t the cure-all solution to all your organizational woes but can definitely be more fun! Even when it’s not a good match for the organization, not implementing Agile is perfectly fine, it’s not a must, and further to that, it’s not a religion (although it sometimes is perceived as such).

How Osmotic Communication Uses The Subconscious

Posted on by

osmotic-communication-uses-the-subconsciousWhile the practice of agile requires a “Caves and Common” setup of teams, there is a reason for it. Mainly it’s to make sure communication is ongoing and regular. This requires a specific setup of office equipment and overall layout within the workplace. The “Caves” aspect refers to a place where some team members have the occasional place or space to work alone for a short or brief period of time, while “Common” is the area where most team members spend their time with the rest of their team for the majority of time in their day.

The Importance of Closeness Among Team Members

Agile practitioners would agree Osmotic communication takes place in most part within the “Common” space as everyone is communicating without barriers whereby conversations and discussions occur freely. The principle behind osmotic transmission and absorption of team members’ conversations implies that we acquire knowledge even if we are not an active participant in any particular conversation. Much like a song playing in the background, even if you don’t know the name of the song, if heard regularly over time, you may just be able to know the melody or lyrics without even trying to memorize them. How this actually is made possible is explained through the way our minds work on a subconscious level. It can be compared to a radio that is always on while the antenna is picking up frequencies at all times.

Much of what we do throughout the day, our daily routines, product purchases, learning habits, and inner thoughts are a result of our subconscious taking over very important aspects of our lives. Although it’s not easily explained, osmotic communication works on a highly metaphysical level. It provides a collective result, a lot of what teamwork provides only when they are in the same location, and not otherwise. This is mainly why the success of an agile team should not be given credit to any one particular member, but rather the collective effort of the entire team.

Osmotic Communication Effectiveness

The key idea behind making osmotic communication effective however, is that the communication should be within hearing distance of any or all team members on a regular basis. Without that, the knowledge sharing and subliminal absorption aspect gets chopped up. Using the radio frequency example, it’s similar to getting only some channels but not all, or a channel with a lot of static. This is how the subconscious mind works, it’s always on and absorbing without effort. It’s important when considering the physical team’s layout, especially in today’s work environment as many teams are known to be located remotely from each other, or with specific members working alone but connected online.

It’s no secret, a team that works together in the same physical space will communicate more efficiently either because of their added ability to listen in to each other’s conversations as well as read their body language. Compare this to a team whose majority of members are located remotely, there’s a big loss on the quality of communication. It becomes increasingly difficult to know if someone is actually being sarcastic or serious without having to see their facial expressions or body language. This is why conflict created among remote members for any particular team could escalate very quickly. They couldn’t possibly be (or become) an agile team with that factor to overcome.

[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

Major Hurdles to Agile Adoption in Government Organizations

Posted on by

major-hurdles-agile-adoption-government-organizationsDespite what you’ve heard on the news about the federal debt, many federal, state, and local government agency budgets have been flat or declining for several years. Add in inflation and other cost increases, and these agencies are constantly being asked to do more with less. For the IT departments, this surely means they’ve made the transition to lean, mean, Agile teams, right? Well, no. But there are some good reasons for that.

Responsible Spending and Risk-Aversion

Government organizations usually have budgets that are determined by politicians and other actors outside the agency itself. Unlike companies that can expand budgets through increased revenue and profitability, government agencies need to justify budget requests by showing they have a responsible track record deploying their budget to meet their mission.

Tax payers don’t want the government making reckless decisions with their money. As a result, government organizations routinely make decisions that can be justified as responsible, risk-averse, or “safe” – even if those decisions are not the most efficient or cost-effective. I’ve heard it said that nobody has ever fired a government employee for using Microsoft Project on an IT initiative. In an environment like that,  a half-century old methodology like Waterfall – or a century old tool like Gantt charts – would be seen as preferable to newer methodologies that are not well understood to business or political stakeholders.

Delivery Dates vs. Sprint Cycles

Government IT solutions and systems are often the result of new laws or regulations, and have a defined time period in which they must be implemented after the new law is passed. Just like the adage, “requirements may be vague, but the software will be specific,” laws may be vague, but the regulations must be specific, and the software that implements them must be even more specific. Elements like complex business logic and multiple system interfaces cause managers and business stakeholders to ask for lots of documentation to prove that the system was built correctly.

When a new law mandates implementation by a specific date it creates an anchoring effect, that the system needs to be “done” by that date. Briefing senior government officials or even legislators on sprint velocity and burn rates is a much bigger challenge than providing dates and percentages. Even if, in the end, delivering the most valuable 80% of a solution on time should be preferable to delivering 100% of a system after a 1-2 year delay.

Software and Tools

Another reason no one in government ever got in trouble for managing an IT project with Microsoft Project is because it is already on the list of pre-approved software for use that nearly every agency maintains, in one form or another. Hardware and infrastructure requirements are a common consideration, as are licensing costs. But security concerns are an increasingly big reason why software on pre-approved lists keeps getting used instead of newer or better products being adopted.

Getting software tools approved for use at a federal agency means completing a thick stack of paperwork. It also requires a champion to spearhead the process, work with Help Desks on administration and conducting training. This means longer-term commitments to tools than in the private sector, and that larger companies with established products get used more often.

End User vs. Customer

Until recently, most end users of government IT systems were employees of that agency, so there was little conflict in seeing the end-user as an internal customer. As the internet has proliferated, more businesses and individuals are interacting directly with government IT systems: submitting applications and appeals, self-registering or updating information, or just searching for general information on a government website or portal. These external end users, or government customers, present a unique tension when designing systems for them.

While “the customer is always right” is a great motto for many private businesses, government agencies need to walk a fine line with that approach. They run the risk being too accommodating or “too cozy” with the people and businesses they regulate, and can erode trust that the government agency can regulate or monitor effectively.

Tight budgets, pre-defined timelines, and the need for some agencies to keep end users at arm’s length make it easy to de-emphasize agile principles like personas, end user demos, and usability sessions.

Contributing Author

David Pradko is a project manager and certified business analyst, who has worked with over a dozen government agencies to design and implement IT solutions. He as also appeared at the IIBADC’s Business Analysis Development Day and on Federal Tech Talk radio to discuss Agile in the federal government.

You can follow David on Twitter at @DPradko

[Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

Why Choose Agile?

Posted on by

why-choose-agileIt’s becoming more and more obvious, Agile adoption is growing at an incredible rate, and it has been estimated at roughly 10% annually. Not many who have jumped into adopting Agile have asked the question “Why Choose Agile?” To answer that question we also need to look at already existing methodologies that exist, namely Waterfall. Is it to say that waterfall is bad? or inefficient? The answer is, not necessarily. Waterfall has it’s purposes, and when applied properly it provides all the benefits that are expected from a project that is using it…the key words here “applied properly.” The problem with Agile adoption is that it’s considered to be relatively new, and more often than not, applied incorrectly. So here are the key differences that can help understand and promote the transition from Waterfall to Agile.

1. Process Control

In Waterfall you have phase gates that are defined similar to milestones, and they occur at every stage of the process. For each of those stages there is a request to approve each gate before it is started, furthermore the scope is defined at the beginning and can’t be changed without major impacts. Sure, you can issue a change request, but that likely changes the entire balance of the budget, resources, and timeline. In Agile on the other hand, there is empirical process control where you are redefining the scope based on priority of the preset period of a sprint (2 – 4 weeks). In this way Agile allows the highest value, business needs, and ROI that are realigned regularly. Whereas in Waterfall, you cannot and there is little possibility to change the scope mid-course. Agile therefore allows a team or business to respond to the immediate business needs of their client, thus providing higher value consistently.

2. Triple Constraints and the Perception of Success

The main components to any project are Scope, Time (Budget), and Cost. With Waterfall the Scope is typically fixed, whereby Time and Cost are flexible. Problem though is that even with a Time and Cost change there really isn’t any easy way to determine a cutoff point, and stop teams in the middle of the project while waiting for a client to make a decision. This means that in order for a project to be successful in Waterfall, ideally all 3 constraints would typically need to stay fixed with the addition of change requests. Agile on the other hand provides a way to easily fix Time and Cost while making Scope flexible. Waterfall-minded people will right away spark the question “Will all the scope be completed though?” The answer of course is “not necessarily and that’s ok.” The reason for this is that it doesn’t matter, because in Agile you are already delivering the highest value from your Time and Cost that could ever be delivered from a Waterfall project. Hard to believe at first, but for those who have completed at lease one Agile project, they know this can be attained since the highest priority/value scope is being delivered.

3. Profitability and Customer Retention

Most Waterfall-minded companies will measure their margins from project to project with the intent that each project will need to be profitable. But what happens when a project slips through the cracks and goes into the negative? Going Agile will allow for higher customer retention, after all when you provide higher value through implementing current trends in innovation, accurate and faster delivery dates, customers are more likely to stay with you for the long run. The positive side-effect to this is higher motivation within your teams. This is an added benefit to both supplier and customer since learning curves (performance states) stay intact and will very likely improve when the same team members work together for longer periods of time.

4. Delivery Schedules

Waterfall depends on the entire project to be completed before it can be delivered. This certainly gives the impression to both the development team and the client that the project is going on without end. This of course applies to projects that last longer than a few months. But with Agile, you already built in the expectation that delivery is possible at the end of each Sprint, even though in some cases you may choose not to. The main issue that has never been resolved but almost always happens in Waterfall, is the moment there’s a change request, the client asks for more scope and although they would be willing to pay more for it, they want the delivery date to stay the same. Why not just deliver in increments the way that Agile already requires you to?

There are many more reasons why you may want to choose Agile over Waterfall, but most need to be shown rather than be told what those benefits are. The key point to consider is that Agile adoption should be concrete, and should come with a fully committed paradigm shift in management and teams that are looking to implement all the necessary mindsets and tools that are needed. The most likely and best approach to adopting Agile however, is to jump into it completely and use Agile in itself to inspect and adapt. Taking on a half waterfall and half agile approach will certainly lead to adoption failure.

[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

5 Guidelines From Agile Modeling for Agile Best Practices

Posted on by

agile-modeling-guide-agile-best-practicesThroughout the life of project there are many potential pitfalls to implementing and practicing agile. As the agile principles and values are put into practice it’s important to take steps that keep the path of agile best practices for which you are looking to benefit from. The use of Agile Modeling is an excellent way to integrate agile principles and values that can complement almost any other agile methodology (i.e. Scrum, XP, etc.).

Agile Modeling components don’t all need to be implemented to make your project agile, however the more you can put in place with thought and importance in each project situation, can provide solid benefits over time. Most importantly, they provide a good framework to building an agile mindset, and integrate seamlessly in an ongoing agile project. The following is a short list of some components:

1 – Active Stakeholder Participation

As with any agile project, the best way to guarantee success is to make sure your stakeholders are involved at all times. The Product Owner usually is the voice of the stakeholders, and we would all hope that it is always that one person that could speak for many. The importance of “Active” is the key to success. There can be times where stakeholders come out from hiding and suddenly become a decisive voice (make or break) in the success of a project. Late stakeholders that become active at the end of a project open big risks as it is the most costly point at which to make changes to accommodate their expectations.

2 – Document Continuously and/or Document Late

Notice here that we mentioned “and/or,” as an approach to documenting your deliverables. It likely will depend on the type of solution and dependencies of functionalities between features as deliverables. That is to say, it’s always best to document continuously so that you don’t have to wait until the last-minute to remember which features were implemented in your solution. As expected in an agile iterative nature, you are looking to deliver a potentially shippable solution at the end of each sprint. This would require regular documentation revisions if the features were to change and evolve drastically over the course of numerous sprints.

Admittedly it sounds contradictory, but this is where it would be best to document late, since it would be less wasteful if you were to document your deliverable once all features were integrated as much as possible. Particular attention needs to be placed on the nature of the product and development. As in the case of software development, releases occur frequently, some major and some minor. Some consideration as to what will be major and minor can allow for less waste when it comes to documenting.

3 – Iteration Modeling

As the initial part of any iteration, we expect take some time for planning. Usually that time will vary from a half day to an entire day depending on the duration of your iteration/sprint. Iteration Modeling outlines the features and design of what is expected to be delivered by the end of the sprint. Some features may end up being developed in sub-parts over a number of sprints, as well as entire parts. The importance here, is to outline how modular some features may be to the rest of them. With that in place, it becomes much easier to prioritize a sprint backlog, which brings us to the next point.

4 – Prioritized Requirements

There are many factors that go into prioritizing requirements, but the one starting point to attaining this is to actually have a backlog (or list of work items) in the first place. In most cases this Sprint Backlog will come from a much larger list called the Product Backlog. As many practitioners soon find out, prioritizing is a key activity that requires identification of numerous factors such as: ROI, risks, stakeholder needs, functional dependencies, available resources, etc.

5 – Single Source Information

If there is one thing that can cause duplication is a highly bureaucratic and disorganized framework from which an organization is set up. Although seemingly simple, having one single source of information is a major challenge for an organization. Many will point to 1 wiki page as a source of information, whereas other departments try to set their own identities and create their own versions of information that gives them a sense of purpose. From an agile project approach, it is extremely important that all parties learn to use one source of information so that it is updated in 1 location to reduce redundancy and waste.

Many companies today, still strive to revise documents of the same content, but in different locations every time there’s update. Beyond just the internal operations, the complexity of multiple sources increases when working on a project where the client looks to use their own sources of project information in conjunction with that of the vendor’s information. In this scenario, duplication is not efficient and is highly wasteful throughout all organizations, as everyone struggles to find out which is the latest version of the code, documentation, template, etc.

More Agile Modeling Guidelines

From an Agile Modeling perspective there are many more components that make up the framework of agile best practices. The important factor to consider is that it will not be an overnight implementation, nor will it be an overnight success. It takes a considerable amount of time and resources to make an agile system work, but unfortunately, not many want to invest, and expect instant gratification. As history will show, even the concept of instant plug-and-play came with a series of bugs and fixes.

[Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

 

5 Healthy Workplace Habits by Using The Scrum Process Model

Posted on by

5-healthy-workplace-habits-by-using-the-scrum-process-modelThere are many ways to do work, and to be honest, not many people are taught how to create good or optimal workplace habits. That being the case, workplace dynamics can range from being a cesspool of toxic behavior and habits, to one that has an environment of the utmost respect for one another. The environment created in most workplaces is a cumulative result of individual behaviors happening at a given time, much like society, but only much more concentrated since we’re left to interact daily from morning until afternoon with our work colleagues.

The following factors, as part of the scrum process model, are found to reduce stress, anxiety and in turn increase workplace  motivation and productivity:

1- Intermediate Deadlines (The Sprint)

It has been shown that when work has no confinements and there is “no light at the end of the tunnel,” the level motivation steadily declines over time. Further to this, the likelihood of burnout and employee turnaround starts to become more and more apparent. The Sprint as a 2 to 4 week timebox that is meant to happen iteratively, gives a mini-project sense to accomplishing each round that expectedly gives a delivery of product. Intermediate deadlines in this case, tend to occur frequently and regularly give a sense of accomplishment and cyclical motivation.

2- Sense of Purpose (Sprint Planning, Sprint Goal)

When Sprint Planning takes place, there’s a chance for everyone on the team to set their sights on how much work can be estimated for the upcoming sprint timebox. As part of the Sprint Planning activity, a Sprint Goal is set by the Product Owner that enables all involved, the focus and vision as to what they will all being working toward by the end of the Sprint. Consequently if there is proper buy-in at the start with all sights on the sprint goal, it will give that sense of purpose that everyone can focus on and relate to for achievement.

3- Doing Things Better Every Time (Sprint Retrospective)

As most workplaces allow their employees to become complacent, and resulting in lack of performance feedback, the Sprint Retrospective allows for that time where everyone as a group can look at what were the great and no-so-great behaviors of the previous sprint. This sets the course for getting better on an iterative basis as this is done in each sprint. What some people don’t realize is the advantage of thinking of what to “stop doing” and what to “start doing” is already a two-fold way of taking on good habits. This is a bi-directional thought process, since most people typically think of improvement in one direction such as “just do things better” and leave out “what bad habits should I leave out of my routine.”

4- Great Support Network (Daily Scrum/Standup)

Everyone knows that an ongoing support network is a great positive factor. The daily scrum/standup allows for everyone to confirm what they were working on the previous day, and what they will accomplish for the remainder of the current day. The key part of team support for that day is when impediments and blockers are reported. This is a chance for everyone to chip in and see if there’s a way to resolve the blocker. This isn’t just the job for the Scrum Master, but also for the rest of the team. So the blocker announcement starts at the scrum meeting, but gets resolved outside of the meeting with the relevant members of the team, most likely those that are knowledgeable in the area of the impediment. Everyone else continues on their existing tasks to make sure productivity is not impeded.

5- Being Able to See Results  (Daily Scrum/Standup, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective, Sprint/Kanban Board)

The structure from which we have a sprint allows everyone to see results on a regular basis. Whether it’s on a daily basis (Scrum/Standup) or by sprint duration (Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective). We are able to see and experience results on a very constant basis. Along with tools such as the sprint/kanban board that are high-touch/high-visibility in nature, allows for everyone to see progress and status as it happens.

On a Final Note…

It must be said, getting everyone aligned to proper workplace habits can come naturally to those who adopt the scrum process model. It’s not necessarily about having a process, but actually  having a positive attitude and confidence that it will work. Creating that momentum in your day-to-day, will likely come with resistance at all stages of development, but those who are on board, will quickly become visible to the organization and will certainly become the agile champions and leaders.

[Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

 

7 Reasons Why Some Corporations Hate Agile Methodologies

Posted on by

7-reasons-why-some-corporations-hate-agile-methodologiesConventional business wisdom will tell us that we should tell our shareholders what they want to hear so that the price of company stock will rise. This displaces the value that corporations will aim for toward the shareholder and not necessarily toward the customer. This is where Agile methodologies conflict as the goals of a conventional vs. agile mindset are not the same.

Below we will outline how conventional corporate mindset thinking conflicts with that of an agile mindset:

1- Focus on customers over shareholders

As a company you would likely be trying to appeal to both the shareholders and customers, however it’s usually shareholders that will come first and customers second. Based on agile principles and agile mindsets, the priority undeniably reverts to customers first! Everything in the agile value mindset reflects a goal toward delighting the customer and the accepted agile methodologies and processes show much evidence to conclude this is always the case.

2- Perceived Loss of control

The thought that there could be teams that are self-organized and self-managed leaves a sense of control loss by management at any level. Management may argue that if the teams are self-managing, then what is the use for management in the first place. Unfortunately this is a false perception, since management would likely still be needed for areas of business operations that are not covered by the day-to-day of agile processes. 

3- Perceived loss of authoritative rank and power

Most conventional businesses will follow the militaristic approach as the known command-and-control approach to business structure and organization. Companies with a highly vertical (hierarchical) structure being at one extreme and the more flat (horizontal) type of organization at the other end. Those with a heavy emphasis on a vertical structure tend to harbor many of the anti-patterns of an agile approach. Be it either from lack of trust or lack of willingness to let go of authoritative power, many companies that have a top-heavy structure will not be easily capable of converting or adopting agile.

4- Focus on delivering immediate customer value over immediate revenue

As many have noticed the periodic reporting of large businesses, especially those whose stocks are on the market exchange, the revenues that were forecasted must hold up in the later quarters or else face the consequences of lost share prices and market share overall. This places emphasis on how soon work can be done and made billable rather than concentrating on the actual scope and process of work to be done. The best interest of the customer is left behind as resources are stuffed into the work processes, rather than allowing agile methodologies to take their course.

5- Too much learning and too much change

Most who have reached a respectable level within their company whether it be in management or non-management (technical) levels, may tend to sit on their laurels all too often. Although we seem to hope that society is a meritocracy, let’s face it, some people just get to the higher positions based on years of experience rather than actual willingness to continue learning and changing. To this point, there are some who live up to their titles, but others who don’t and wouldn’t care to collaborate with their fellow colleagues either because they have underdeveloped people skills, lack of extensive knowledge, or because it’s seen as too much work to learn and share.

6- Customer value is cumulative while overall benefits only come if done properly in the long run

If there is anything we can’t promise is what will happen in the future. It is highly unlikely that an executive management team will wait to see if there will be continued commitment and support from their existing customers. Since much of what builds up customer satisfaction retention accumulates over time, most companies do not factor that in and will take the shortest path to generating revenue. Building quick untested solutions for the sake of having something billable does not look after the best interest of the client. This extends further to the disappointment of employees who are being told what to do, without buy-in. Some companies would rather sacrifice growth of their existing team synergies to result in high turnovers from unmotivated employees, rather than keep them on-board. This is why at the first sign of lost profits, most companies will take the immediate route of terminating their employees. The reason? It’s the quickest and easiest way to lower costs. However in the long-term it proves detrimental, and usually leads to further “voluntary” fallout where employees lose sense of purpose from the previous setback of layoffs. This affects customer relationships as the level of expertise and direct customer engagement from employees diminish.

7- Increased level of transparency perceived as very risky

Most companies do not share at many levels for fear that the truth may  reveal too much for many to be comfortable with. High levels of transparency bring about a sense of fear that the information provided can be way too sensitive or used against the company. Although transparency may reveal positive and negative aspects of a company and its operations, most companies tend to err on the side of non-transparency to avoid the risk at all costs. This approach of course lowers the level of trust and therefore the level of engagement from customers as they find out from latent communications throughout the project life-cycle.

[Image courtesy of cooldesign at FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

 

Welcome to The Agile Times!

Posted on by

On our site you can find a series of expert opinions, advice on Agile insights, book reviews, and software usage tips, as well as training certifications and recommendations. Bookmark us now and join our Newsletter for regular (but not overly annoying) updates. 

Feel free to join us at our other social sites:
   twitter-logo    linkedin