How Leaders Support Agile Success

By -
VersionOne publishes an annual State of Agile survey (see the 2016 9th annual report here).  Each survey includes impediments to Agile success in an organization.  Among the leading causes of failure in Agile transformation, and barriers to future success, are:
  • Company philosophy or culture at odds with core Agile values
  • A broader organizational or communications problem
  • Lack of management support
  • Lack of support for cultural transition
  • General organizational resistance to change
  • Management concerns about lack of upfront planning
  • Concerns about a loss of management control
  • Concerns about the ability to scale agile
  • Perceived time and cost to make the transition
In my experience, leaders above the director level throughout an organization think of Agile as applicable to software development teams and typically invest little of their time and energy to understand it and how their understanding and involvement influence the success or failure of Agile transformation efforts.  Most leaders at the director level and above, especially those outside the product/engineering organization, believe their attitude toward Agile has a neutral effect on transformation efforts.  

And therein lies the problem.  Ignorance and apathy toward Agile in product development have a negative effect on the success of Agile transformation efforts.  Agile is not a software development framework or product development process, it's a culture and attitude, a way of being more than a set of things to do.

The key terms from the list of impediments to Agile success are "philosophy," "culture," "organizational resistance," and "loss of . . . control."  Replace the impediments listed above with their opposites and you get:
  • Company culture that aligns with Agile values
  • Broader organizational understanding
  • Full management support
  • Full support for cultural transition
  • Organizational bias and support for change
  • Management support for less upfront planning
  • Management desire to relinquish control
  • Commitment to develop the processes and tools required to scale Agile
  • Commitment to supply the resources and time to make the transition
Organizational change happens over time as stakeholders work together to understand and thrive with the values, tools, practices and roles that are required to deliver value in the complex, dynamic technology environment.

Scott Ambler has written about a cultural impedance mismatch between software development professionals and data management professionals, and its negative impact on both groups and their stakeholders.  I think a similar cultural impedance mismatch can be identified between Agile engineering/product organizations and their counterparts in marketing, sales, operations, and finance.  To the extent that mismatch is not addressed, the cultural and organizational impediments to Agile transformation will continue to frustrate stakeholders.

 Those in a Director, VP, or CXO role have the unique responsibility and authority to identify and remove cultural and systemic impediments to organizational success.  They are in the best position to understand how to replace ignorance with understanding, to align incentives and positive recognition with the right behaviors to achieve desired outcomes, and to create channels of communication and feedback that help everyone move toward target states.

 Dan Greening has identified 5 organizational Agile base patterns that are a way for leaders to express their support for Agile transformation through actions and visible indicators (also see Dan's interview about these here):
  1. Measure Economic Progress
  2. Experiment to Improve
  3. Limit Work in Progress
  4. Embrace Collective Responsibility
  5. Solve Systemic Problems
Leaders who understand the leverage of their position and use it in ways to promote team growth lift their teams to much higher levels of success.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Severity, Priority, Impact and Likelihood - Managing Defects and Risks

By -
Defects and Risks are often dealt with in a subjective, emotional way.  That's unfortunate, because among all the things a software development team deals with, those are two that can be handled in a more constructive and empirical way. First, a couple definitions. Defect Severity: the degree of impact a defect has on system operation. A defect is something observed, so impact can be empirically quantified. Risk Severity: the degree to which a hypothetical event, should it occur, would impact system operation. A risk event is something that has not occurred, so impact must be estimated or extrapolated. The common element in both Risk Severity Assessment and Defect Severity is Impact on Revenue.  The FMEA framework that AKF recommends uses 1 = Low, 3 = Med, and 9 = High, to represent the exponential effect of a high impact risk or defect Impact on Revenue No payments being collected and/or payment data security compromised (Critical) Payment collection being de
Read more

Enterprise Agile Framework: The Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS)

By -
Image
Brian Rabon introduced me to the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) as the framework he uses to manage his company, The Braintrust Consulting Group (TBCG). EOS is the missing element in organizations that are having some success with Agile at the team level, but not succeeding with change at higher levels or outside software development. As Charlie Rudd points out in his post The Third Wave of Agile , there is broad consensus on the value of Agile practices at the team level, but all types and sizes of businesses are struggling to scale Agile and to increase agility across their organization.  I think EOS addresses those challenges. EOS is comprised of the EOS Model : Having a model like this in place allows teams to function optimally as self-organized units that share the vision and goals of the organization.  Teams are able to align themselves with the organization's objectives, and can see how their outcomes affect the organization's performance. The EO
Read more

Chatbot Code of Ethics

By -
A  NYTimes article  describes efforts by a consortium of the largest technology companies to create ethical standards for AI. A related article in MIT Technology Review is titled  AI Wants to Be Your Bro, Not Your Foe . Artificial Intelligence has reached a level of sophistication, and is on the brink of being so pervasive, that we can have these serious conversations. In my work developing AI-powered chatbots to assist with learning, I work within the bounds of these 7 precepts: Right View - our chatbots honor humanity, human dignity, and the human quest for knowledge, understanding and technological innovation Right Intention - our chatbots promote human progress in the areas of intellectual pursuits and personal ethical development Right Speech - our chatbots use encouraging, prudent, and situationally appropriate language Right Action - our chatbots perform with integrity toward the aforementioned right view and intention Right Live
Read more