George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
The need for organizational agility is paramount amidst the turbulence of disruptive technologies, hypercompetition, market uncertainty, instability, and other similar factors. Hence, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to state that most C-level executives would pronounce that “agility is king.”
That said, anecdotal evidence suggests that agile and agile-based practices have reached their bell curve peak and are starting to slip down the backside of popularity. I concede there’s plenty of room to disagree with that statement, and maybe it finds its truth in certain types of industries, environments, cultures, and company sizes, but it begs a deeper dive.
If there is truth to this proposition, what are the reasons for this leveling out or decline? Here are some example thoughts in this regard that might have merit:
[1] Specific industries may find that agile-based practices don’t provide them with the level of documentation they desire to satisfy regulatory compliance needs.
[2] An organization’s portfolio performance of agile-stamped projects may collectively have budget-busting and quality-concerning characteristics compared to non-agile-stamped projects.
[3] Medium and large organizations may find agile principles lacking effectiveness or challenging to execute due to disparate systems and structures that create siloing and objective alignment issues.
[4] Literalist formulations of agile supersede pragmatic needs within an organization, creating contention and results that fall short of objective success.
[5] COVIDized ways-of-working adjustments impacted finely-tuned “agile balances,” which never returned to equilibrium post-covid.
Over time, our profession has recognized that principles should guide the formulation and execution of our projects versus rigid “here’s what you must do” processes. However, many practitioners (newbie or otherwise) prefer to have the rigidity as it can be “sold” on its merit of a perceived fact versus expert opinion, which may be necessary within their organization’s confines.
That said, here’s my question:
Is agile, the methodology, the way of thinking, still the way to unlock “business agility,” or do we need to revise or reset and create another paradigm?
Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
George, for me, Agile is not a methodology but an approach under which many frameworks and probably some methodologies fall. Its also a mindset and way of thinking.
I don't think agile reached its bell curve peak but with the rapidly evolving world we live in, Hybrid approaches became more dominant and a necessity for organizations to be able to strive and survive.
...
1 reply by Fabian Crosa
May 08, 2024 11:45 PM
Fabian Crosa
...
I agree agile for me is more and more current every day.
While specific agile frameworks and failed attempts to implement them have certainly generated a lot of dismay, the need for a fit-for-purpose, adaptive approach to tackling VUCA work has not changed.
The Manifesto was written 21 years ago by 17 guys. Other than the lack of diversity in its creation, it has not aged well hence repeated attempts to refresh or replace it.
When I look to movements like Modern Agile, Agile 2.0, toolkits like Disciplined Agile, and video series such as Drunk Agile, I'm comfortable that there is a desire to obey the first sentence of the Manifesto, namely that we are uncovering better ways...
Kiron
...
1 reply by Fabian Crosa
May 08, 2024 11:44 PM
Fabian Crosa
...
I agree with what you mention, there is a lot of valuable literature on the subject, and I recommend studying it because the problem with agility is not agility but how it is implemented.
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
The concept of agility has gained significant traction in the business world, promising a more adaptable and responsive approach to navigating the ever-changing landscape. However, alongside this growing interest, a concerning trend has emerged: the proliferation of self-proclaimed agility gurus who often misinterpret and misrepresent the core principles, leading to confusion and skepticism among those seeking to implement agile practices.
One of the primary challenges lies in the misconception that applying a specific framework, such as Scrum, automatically equates to adopting an agile mindset. While frameworks can provide valuable structures and guidelines, true agility extends beyond mere adherence to a set of processes. It encompasses a fundamental shift in organizational culture, fostering collaboration, continuous learning, and a willingness to embrace change.
To combat these misconceptions and restore credibility to agile practices, a concerted effort is required to educate and inform individuals about the true essence of agile culture. This involves:
Demystifying Agility: Dispelling the myths and misconceptions surrounding agility, emphasizing its core principles of adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement.
Transparency in Implementation: Encouraging transparency in the implementation of agile practices, ensuring that all stakeholders understand the underlying rationale and objectives.
Emphasizing Cultural Transformation: Highlighting the importance of cultural transformation as the foundation for successful agility, fostering a supportive environment that embraces change and empowers individuals.
Promoting Continuous Learning: Cultivating a culture of continuous learning, encouraging experimentation and reflection to refine agile practices and adapt to evolving needs.
By addressing these challenges and promoting a deeper understanding of agile principles, organizations can harness the true potential of agility to enhance their adaptability, innovation, and overall success.
Key Takeaways:
Agility is not merely a set of processes or frameworks; it is a cultural transformation that emphasizes adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement.
Misconceptions and misrepresentations of agility can lead to confusion and skepticism.
Addressing these challenges requires educating and informing individuals about the true essence of agile culture.
Transparency, cultural transformation, continuous learning, and a focus on the underlying principles are crucial for successful agility adoption.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
May 09, 2024 2:12 PM
George Freeman
...
Fabian,
Let me throw a curveball into the conversation:
I understand your perspective that misinterpretations of “agile core principles” have been the primary driver behind the proliferation of variant agile-based frameworks, let alone the confusion this proliferation creates for those wishing to leverage the practice.
However, the “original sin of misinterpretation” in our field occurred when well-meaning project professionals misunderstood the foundation of the approach we now call “waterfall.” Let me carefully say that I’m not singling out the founders of modern Agile; instead, I’m referring to the whole of our profession that accepted a narrative created from two words pulled out of their complete and proper context—Linear and Sequential.
Now, before you dismiss me completely, read the following excerpt from an article I wrote on this subject years ago:
-----------------------------------
[1] Herbert Benington, the recognized author of the first linear sequential phased approach, made it clear that the processes described in his 1956 paper were not strictly performed sequentially (as mistakenly believed) but were dependent on a prototype. Unfortunately, that clarity came 27 years later, in 1983, when he wrote a forward to his republished paper.
[2] In 1970, Dr. Winston Royce recognized through his experience as a project manager that strictly following the sequential process steps created issues. Therefore, he recommended modifications in how each process interacted with its preceding and succeeding step. Although the traditional phasing remained, the improvements provided a formal path for iterative and incremental development.
[3] These approaches then became the basis for the 1985 Department of Defense software development standard (i.e., 1985 DOD-STD-2167), where you find tidbits such as:
- [A] During software development, more than one iteration of the software development cycle may be in progress at the same time. And…
- [B] This process may be described as an “evolutionary acquisition” or “incremental build” approach.
-----------------------------------
Every project I’ve structured over the past twenty-five years has combinations of Sequential, Iterative, Incremental, and prototype elements incorporated into the plan. I learned this mode of operation from practice and theory over my four decades in the profession and the corporate-political need to “sell the plan” to audiences that demanded up-front knowledge, flexibility, and accountability.
My point is that misinterpretations have got us where we are in the industry. Creating new methods, approaches, and mindsets to fix something that, one could argue, was not broken is seemingly futile.
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
May 08, 2024 3:43 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
George -
While specific agile frameworks and failed attempts to implement them have certainly generated a lot of dismay, the need for a fit-for-purpose, adaptive approach to tackling VUCA work has not changed.
The Manifesto was written 21 years ago by 17 guys. Other than the lack of diversity in its creation, it has not aged well hence repeated attempts to refresh or replace it.
When I look to movements like Modern Agile, Agile 2.0, toolkits like Disciplined Agile, and video series such as Drunk Agile, I'm comfortable that there is a desire to obey the first sentence of the Manifesto, namely that we are uncovering better ways...
Kiron
I agree with what you mention, there is a lot of valuable literature on the subject, and I recommend studying it because the problem with agility is not agility but how it is implemented. Saving Changes...
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
May 08, 2024 1:31 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
George, for me, Agile is not a methodology but an approach under which many frameworks and probably some methodologies fall. Its also a mindset and way of thinking.
I don't think agile reached its bell curve peak but with the rapidly evolving world we live in, Hybrid approaches became more dominant and a necessity for organizations to be able to strive and survive.
I agree agile for me is more and more current every day. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
May 08, 2024 11:39 PM
Replying to Fabian Crosa
...
The concept of agility has gained significant traction in the business world, promising a more adaptable and responsive approach to navigating the ever-changing landscape. However, alongside this growing interest, a concerning trend has emerged: the proliferation of self-proclaimed agility gurus who often misinterpret and misrepresent the core principles, leading to confusion and skepticism among those seeking to implement agile practices.
One of the primary challenges lies in the misconception that applying a specific framework, such as Scrum, automatically equates to adopting an agile mindset. While frameworks can provide valuable structures and guidelines, true agility extends beyond mere adherence to a set of processes. It encompasses a fundamental shift in organizational culture, fostering collaboration, continuous learning, and a willingness to embrace change.
To combat these misconceptions and restore credibility to agile practices, a concerted effort is required to educate and inform individuals about the true essence of agile culture. This involves:
Demystifying Agility: Dispelling the myths and misconceptions surrounding agility, emphasizing its core principles of adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement.
Transparency in Implementation: Encouraging transparency in the implementation of agile practices, ensuring that all stakeholders understand the underlying rationale and objectives.
Emphasizing Cultural Transformation: Highlighting the importance of cultural transformation as the foundation for successful agility, fostering a supportive environment that embraces change and empowers individuals.
Promoting Continuous Learning: Cultivating a culture of continuous learning, encouraging experimentation and reflection to refine agile practices and adapt to evolving needs.
By addressing these challenges and promoting a deeper understanding of agile principles, organizations can harness the true potential of agility to enhance their adaptability, innovation, and overall success.
Key Takeaways:
Agility is not merely a set of processes or frameworks; it is a cultural transformation that emphasizes adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement.
Misconceptions and misrepresentations of agility can lead to confusion and skepticism.
Addressing these challenges requires educating and informing individuals about the true essence of agile culture.
Transparency, cultural transformation, continuous learning, and a focus on the underlying principles are crucial for successful agility adoption.
Fabian,
Let me throw a curveball into the conversation:
I understand your perspective that misinterpretations of “agile core principles” have been the primary driver behind the proliferation of variant agile-based frameworks, let alone the confusion this proliferation creates for those wishing to leverage the practice.
However, the “original sin of misinterpretation” in our field occurred when well-meaning project professionals misunderstood the foundation of the approach we now call “waterfall.” Let me carefully say that I’m not singling out the founders of modern Agile; instead, I’m referring to the whole of our profession that accepted a narrative created from two words pulled out of their complete and proper context—Linear and Sequential.
Now, before you dismiss me completely, read the following excerpt from an article I wrote on this subject years ago:
-----------------------------------
[1] Herbert Benington, the recognized author of the first linear sequential phased approach, made it clear that the processes described in his 1956 paper were not strictly performed sequentially (as mistakenly believed) but were dependent on a prototype. Unfortunately, that clarity came 27 years later, in 1983, when he wrote a forward to his republished paper.
[2] In 1970, Dr. Winston Royce recognized through his experience as a project manager that strictly following the sequential process steps created issues. Therefore, he recommended modifications in how each process interacted with its preceding and succeeding step. Although the traditional phasing remained, the improvements provided a formal path for iterative and incremental development.
[3] These approaches then became the basis for the 1985 Department of Defense software development standard (i.e., 1985 DOD-STD-2167), where you find tidbits such as:
- [A] During software development, more than one iteration of the software development cycle may be in progress at the same time. And…
- [B] This process may be described as an “evolutionary acquisition” or “incremental build” approach.
-----------------------------------
Every project I’ve structured over the past twenty-five years has combinations of Sequential, Iterative, Incremental, and prototype elements incorporated into the plan. I learned this mode of operation from practice and theory over my four decades in the profession and the corporate-political need to “sell the plan” to audiences that demanded up-front knowledge, flexibility, and accountability.
My point is that misinterpretations have got us where we are in the industry. Creating new methods, approaches, and mindsets to fix something that, one could argue, was not broken is seemingly futile.
Where do we go from here?
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
May 09, 2024 5:41 PM
Kiron Bondale
...
George -
You are absolutely correct that incremental, iterative approaches have existed for decades and the inherent risks of a purely predictive, sequential approach for everything but the most simple, uncomplicated project are also well known.
However, the same can be said about:
- Accepting more work into a system than can be effectively and efficiently delivered
- Prioritizing utilization over value delivery
- Sacrificing quality for speed
- Micro-management
and a slew of other leadership poor behaviors which are well understood to be unhelpful but continue to be practiced.
As the saying goes "there is nothing new under the Sun" or "plus ca chance, plus ca reste la meme chose".
I understand your perspective that misinterpretations of “agile core principles” have been the primary driver behind the proliferation of variant agile-based frameworks, let alone the confusion this proliferation creates for those wishing to leverage the practice.
However, the “original sin of misinterpretation” in our field occurred when well-meaning project professionals misunderstood the foundation of the approach we now call “waterfall.” Let me carefully say that I’m not singling out the founders of modern Agile; instead, I’m referring to the whole of our profession that accepted a narrative created from two words pulled out of their complete and proper context—Linear and Sequential.
Now, before you dismiss me completely, read the following excerpt from an article I wrote on this subject years ago:
-----------------------------------
[1] Herbert Benington, the recognized author of the first linear sequential phased approach, made it clear that the processes described in his 1956 paper were not strictly performed sequentially (as mistakenly believed) but were dependent on a prototype. Unfortunately, that clarity came 27 years later, in 1983, when he wrote a forward to his republished paper.
[2] In 1970, Dr. Winston Royce recognized through his experience as a project manager that strictly following the sequential process steps created issues. Therefore, he recommended modifications in how each process interacted with its preceding and succeeding step. Although the traditional phasing remained, the improvements provided a formal path for iterative and incremental development.
[3] These approaches then became the basis for the 1985 Department of Defense software development standard (i.e., 1985 DOD-STD-2167), where you find tidbits such as:
- [A] During software development, more than one iteration of the software development cycle may be in progress at the same time. And…
- [B] This process may be described as an “evolutionary acquisition” or “incremental build” approach.
-----------------------------------
Every project I’ve structured over the past twenty-five years has combinations of Sequential, Iterative, Incremental, and prototype elements incorporated into the plan. I learned this mode of operation from practice and theory over my four decades in the profession and the corporate-political need to “sell the plan” to audiences that demanded up-front knowledge, flexibility, and accountability.
My point is that misinterpretations have got us where we are in the industry. Creating new methods, approaches, and mindsets to fix something that, one could argue, was not broken is seemingly futile.
Where do we go from here?
George -
You are absolutely correct that incremental, iterative approaches have existed for decades and the inherent risks of a purely predictive, sequential approach for everything but the most simple, uncomplicated project are also well known.
However, the same can be said about:
- Accepting more work into a system than can be effectively and efficiently delivered
- Prioritizing utilization over value delivery
- Sacrificing quality for speed
- Micro-management
and a slew of other leadership poor behaviors which are well understood to be unhelpful but continue to be practiced.
As the saying goes "there is nothing new under the Sun" or "plus ca chance, plus ca reste la meme chose".
I think the problem is too many people looking for the paint-by-numbers approach and insisting things must be done one way. That's what I call "rigid agile" and with some exceptions it is a recipe for failure. Too often people try to standardize a process where the problems themselves they are designed to address have very little repeatability.
It's not limited to agile. I've seen people wanting a template, checklist, presentation format, single process for everything in multiple contexts. The problem is that one tool doesn't fit all situations and greatly reduces the available solution space. It's a demonstration of the Peter principle. It worked here so we must use it everywhere until it no longer works.
Following the same way indefinitely has diminishing returns and bad results over all if the process doesn't fit the situation. Nature proves that in many ways. Organisms evolve or become extinct. Put them in a different environment and they may quickly die. Chemical reactions reach equilibrium. There are many examples throughout business and nature.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) always increases. To reduce disorder, energy must be added to the system. The same applies to business. If you don't disrupt the system by bringing something new into it, improvements fizzle out. I think the paradigm shift required is continuously challenging the status quo instead of getting too comfortable in doing it one way. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
The paint-by-numbers approach offers many analogical opportunities to make a substantive statement regarding its dangers. Let’s take this variant for a spin:
When you research the approach, you find it has an overwhelming appeal due to its ability to build confidence and foundational technical “art” skills. Hence, it’s understandable that a nextGen, accidental, or new career-initiating project manager would believe the same would hold for “project management.”
However, the advertised parallel is, in fact, a pretense that drives its victims to dismay as they find their projects consistently falling short of objective success.
So, what are the delineated metaphorical qualities that make paint-by-numbers incompatible with our profession?
Context: Painting
[1-Motion] The canvas the artist applies their paint to is stationary (i.e., fixed in one position), providing stability to apply delicate paint strokes to their “by-the-number” masterpiece.
[2-Shape] The shape of the canvas is static, meaning its shape at the beginning of the creative effort is the same shape the canvas has at the end of the effort.
Context: Project Management
[1-Movement] A project’s canvas (i.e., plan) does not remain in one position; instead, it’s propelled down a track that its creator/builder has laid down. Unfortunately, this is rarely a ride suited for the faint-hearted, as the path is full of twists, turns, dips, and bumps that make it challenging to paint (i.e., apply change) within the lines.
[1-Shape] There is no guarantee that your ticketed/chartered path to your destination will be the actual path you traveled when you reach your final destination, as the track is prone to washouts from deluges (e.g., change orders) or destructive events of sabotage initiated by wayward executives. Hence, shapeshifting the plan (i.e., canvas) and laying down new tracks to avoid the obstacles is standard fair.
Bottom Line:
Painting by the numbers creates “hard to shake-off” patterns. Although you miss the mark of objective success, it is success at some level (i.e., success redefined). Hence, you will likely continue repeating the same pattern simply because it is what you know. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
