Goodhart's Law in Agile Delivery: When Metrics Become Targets
| Introduction In the pursuit of productivity and predictability, organizations often turn to metrics to track progress and drive improvement. In Agile software delivery, measures like story points and velocity have become ubiquitous tools for estimation and forecasting. Yet, as the British economist Charles Goodhart famously observed, “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” This principle—known as Goodhart’s Law—captures a dangerous dynamic: when management fixates on metrics as ends in themselves, teams adapt their behaviour to meet the numbers, often at the expense of genuine progress and transparency. This blog post explores how Goodhart’s Law manifests in Agile delivery, why it leads teams to inflate point sizing, and what organizations can do to foster healthier measurement cultures.
Rather than working faster or delivering more value, teams may unconsciously or deliberately inflate story point estimates to make their velocity appear higher. The logic is simple: if a 3-point story is now estimated as a 5, the same work results in a higher velocity. Over time, the relative calibration that made story points useful is lost. The Consequences
|
Aligning Agile Practices with the PMI Code of Ethics: Intersecting Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty with the Agile Manifesto
| Introduction After the publication of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development in 2001 Agile frameworks have transformed how teams deliver value, fostering collaboration, adaptability, and customer-centricity. The Project Management Institute (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct provide a global benchmark for project teams for ethical behaviour, built on the pillars of Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty. Aligning Agile practices with these pillars not only strengthens ethical delivery but also ensures that Agile values are more than just aspirations—they become lived realities. This blog post explores the overlap between the PMI Code of Ethics and the values of the Agile Manifesto, examining how each pillar interconnects with Agile principles, and offers actionable insights for cultivating ethical, high-performing Agile teams.
2. Respect PMI: “We respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all people.” Agile Alignment:
3. Fairness PMI: “We make decisions impartially and objectively.” Agile Alignment:
4. Honesty PMI: “We are truthful in our communications and conduct.” Agile Alignment:
|
Fabricating Estimates Under Executive Pressure: Navigating the Ethics of Adjusting to Fit the Budget
|
Why Is This Unethical?
|
Risk Management in Agile vs. Traditional Approaches—A Code of Ethics Perspective
Categories:
Scrum,
Risk Management,
Agile,
Change Management,
Leadership,
Lessons Learned,
Decision Making,
Ethics,
Teams,
Organizational Culture,
Governance
Categories: Scrum, Risk Management, Agile, Change Management, Leadership, Lessons Learned, Decision Making, Ethics, Teams, Organizational Culture, Governance
| Risk management is critical in every project, but the way risks are identified, assessed, and communicated can differ greatly between Agile and traditional methodologies. When viewed through the lens of the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, these differences become even more pronounced. Let’s explore the impact of Agile practices on risk management, how a real Agile implementation compares with a traditional approach, and what this means from an ethical standpoint. Agile Risk Management Practices
Although there is no guidance or a prescriptive approach to risk management, traditional project management methodologies follow a similar pattern:
The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is built on four foundational values: Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty. Here’s how these values can play out differently in Agile and traditional risk management:
Core Agile values are naturally aligned with PMI’s ethical values by emphasising transparency, shared responsibility, and inclusivity. Traditional methods offer structure and control but may introduce ethical challenges related to communication and accountability. By adopting collaborative and ethical risk management techniques, teams can better serve both their projects and their professional obligations. In principle, a collaborative Agile delivery should manage risk better than a command-and-control approach, but achieving Agile maturity takes time, and very few teams can become self-organised. The challenge of being Agile and effectively managing risk is more obvious when Agile is ‘scaled’ using old practices. Lean, although it may provide cost savings and a faster delivery, requires a standardised process that is contrary to Agile values. Teams transitioning from traditional to Agile or scaling Agile practices beyond a small team of software developers must keep in mind that Agile is empirical, it embraces and needs change and is more dependent on context than traditional project delivery methods. In my opinion, the concept of ‘best practices’ may not exist in Agile. Question for Readers: How does your team ensure that risk management practices align with PMI’s Code of Ethics, and have you observed ethical challenges when shifting between Agile and traditional approaches to risk management? |
Scaled Agile Concerns: Ethical Use of Knowledge
| Scaled Agile Frameworks, the Agile Manifesto, and Lean Six Sigma Ethical Concerns: Ethical Use of Knowledge In a very competitive certification market and as organisations seek to scale agile practices, many turn to structured frameworks and borrow from established methodologies like Lean Six Sigma. While using traditional practices and tools from traditional Project, Portfolio, Program Management and Lean Six Sigma, ethical issues arise when Lean Six Sigma concepts are copied, misrepresented as new Agile practices, or used without proper attribution. These concerns become more acute when such practices diverge from the values of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Unknown to many Agile practitioners, Agile emerged as an American response to the success of Lean Six Sigma in Japan, and whilst there is value in improving quality and reducing cost, standardisation is against the Agile core value of responding to change. Intellectual Property Concerns Adopting Lean Six Sigma tools for Agile frameworks or projects can be valuable, but appropriating these concepts without proper acknowledgment raises ethical questions around intellectual property and originality. Methodologies like Lean Six Sigma are the result of years of development and collective expertise. Using their elements without credit not only ignores this lineage but also undermines respect for the source and the broader professional community. Transparency and Honesty Organisations have an ethical duty to be transparent about the origins of their frameworks, metrics, and tools. Presenting repurposed Lean Six Sigma practices as original Agile innovations is misleading and can be perceived as dishonest. This lack of honesty can erode trust and damage the organisation’s reputation, especially if exposed by those familiar with the methodologies. Risks of Misalignment with the Agile Manifesto When organisations implement scaled Agile frameworks that deviate from the core values of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, especially through uncredited borrowing from Lean Six Sigma, they risk replacing transparency, collaboration, and adaptability with rigid processes and metrics. This can:
Best Practices for Ethical Adoption To uphold ethical standards, organisations should:
Conclusion Respecting intellectual property and being transparent about the origins of agile practices is essential for maintaining credibility and trust. Ethical adoption not only honours the contributions of others but also strengthens the integrity of Agile transformations. Have you encountered issues of transparency or intellectual property in your organisation’s Agile journey? How were they addressed? Share your thoughts in the comments below. |
