Join Giles Lindsay, Janka Krings-Klebe, and Lenka Pincot as they explore insights from PMI’s A New Era for Enterprise Agility report. Discover how agility and antifragility help organizations thrive. Learn what top-performing PMOs are doing to lead change across eight key industries.
- Discover how high-agility organizations deliver stronger project outcomes and successfully adopt hybrid work models and digital transformation initiatives.
- Understand the critical role of PMOs in driving project integration and aligning efforts with overall business strategy.
- Learn how to build antifragility alongside agility to not only withstand disruption but thrive and grow stronger through change.
Let's get a discussion started: What is holding back true agility in YOUR industry or organization?
Saving Changes...
Head of International Project Management Office| Deutsche TelekomPraha, Czechia
I would face the question from another perspective, that is what helps in the organisation to embrace agility. I think that the main point is to have an agile maturity in the organisation and agile mindset. On the other hand I believe it is important to make a clear evaluation from the beginning if the project is suited for pure agile or if other methodologies, such as hybrid, would fit better. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Tara Leparulo Recent data and experience across multiple industries suggest that true enterprise agility is still held back by five key factors:
- Intermittent executive sponsorship
Many organizations still lack sustained leadership commitment to agility.
Only 44% of professionals say their company is even moderately agile, even as the pace of change accelerates.
When support from the top comes and goes, teams are left without the trust and safety needed for experimentation and learning.
- Cultural and business alignment barriers
Nearly half of organizations identify business-unit resistance or corporate culture as the main blockers.
Agile practices alone do not shift mindsets; lasting agility requires openness, curiosity, and a willingness to challenge old habits.
- Chronic technical debt
The world’s largest firms are burdened by up to $2 trillion in technical debt, making it difficult to quickly prioritize and deliver value.
Legacy systems consume resources and energy, pushing teams into a reactive mode.
- Gaps in key agile roles
While many teams have Scrum Masters, fewer than one in three have an Agile Coach—limiting the development of antifragile habits and sustainable self-management.
- Slow leadership adoption of enabling technologies
Less than 1% of organizations see themselves as mature in AI and automation.
The main barrier is rarely the workforce, but rather leadership’s hesitance to invest in new capabilities and ways of working.
Beyond the Numbers: Why Do These Barriers Persist?
What emerges from these findings is that agility is ultimately a question of trust—at every level.
Without genuine trust, executive support is conditional, risk-taking is minimized, and silos prevail.
Agile frameworks then risk becoming “cosmetic,” rather than transformative.
Organizations that make real progress often invest not just in new processes, but in cultivating a shared sense of purpose and psychological safety.
They create environments where experimentation is encouraged, learning is continuous, and people feel safe to challenge the status quo—knowing that leadership is present for the long term, not just for the latest trend.
A Strategic Reflection:
Perhaps the real test of agility is not how quickly we adopt new practices, but how courageously we build cultures of trust, learning, and purposeful adaptation—especially when old habits and pressures to conform are at their strongest.
In my view, the biggest barrier to true agility is mindset misalignment many organizations adopt agile practices without embracing agile principles. Leaders may still expect rigid timelines, fixed scopes, and top-down control, which stifles team autonomy and rapid adaptation. Real agility requires trust, continuous learning, and cultural transformation far beyond just using scrum boards or sprints.
Curious to hear what others think!
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
The key role is the Business Analyst, not the Project Manager, no matter both work together to create a solution. The second thing is to understand that we are creating solutions, not running projects. The problem is simple to address: there is big misunderstanding outside there including what the PMI is publishing regarding agile. Agile was born in manufacturing industry in 1990 inside the USA DoD/NSF Agility Forum trying to find an alternative to Lean because the new world demand. I was there. At the same time Japan was working on something similar called Holonic Manufacturing. Agile is a matter of enterprise architecture. Agile is component based. Time after, people that had object oriented methods to create software product took the word agile to put a name to the umbrella of methods and created the basement to considered something agile when created the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. They used the word software in the name for a reason. I worked with them and others each year at OOSPLA and then I was part of the group that created DSDM. One framework that took those key concepts is SAFe. So, if somebody continue publishing the message that agile is about mindset, methods, iterative-incremental life cycle only, and things like that then it is impossible to be successful with agile for those organization that buy it.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jul 04, 2025 2:52 PM
Luis Branco
...
Sergio Luis Conte Thank you for sharing and for the historical context.
Your technical contribution is valuable in helping us understand the origins of the word agile and the multiple influences that led to the formalization of the Manifesto in 2001.
Indeed, earlier developments in manufacturing and enterprise architecture—such as the Agility Forum or Holonic Manufacturing—are an important part of that story.
However, I believe an important distinction is needed here:
- The PMI post is not discussing software development methods, nor frameworks like SAFe, XP, or DSDM.
The focus is clearly different — it's about organizational agility, cultural transformation, and the role of PMOs as catalysts for change across multiple industries.
We’re talking about enterprise agility, not agile software development.
In that light, the challenges being discussed — such as trust, executive sponsorship, cultural barriers, technical debt, and technological hesitation — are aligned with a broader question:
- How can entire organizations become more adaptive, resilient, and value-driven in increasingly complex environments?
I’d be very interested to hear, from your experience, what you see today as the main barriers to agility in real-world organizational settings.
- What is still holding change back?
- How do we build antifragility beyond agility?
Your historical insight is an asset — and it would be even more powerful if connected to the practical challenges we’re facing now.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jul 04, 2025 2:19 PM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
The key role is the Business Analyst, not the Project Manager, no matter both work together to create a solution. The second thing is to understand that we are creating solutions, not running projects. The problem is simple to address: there is big misunderstanding outside there including what the PMI is publishing regarding agile. Agile was born in manufacturing industry in 1990 inside the USA DoD/NSF Agility Forum trying to find an alternative to Lean because the new world demand. I was there. At the same time Japan was working on something similar called Holonic Manufacturing. Agile is a matter of enterprise architecture. Agile is component based. Time after, people that had object oriented methods to create software product took the word agile to put a name to the umbrella of methods and created the basement to considered something agile when created the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. They used the word software in the name for a reason. I worked with them and others each year at OOSPLA and then I was part of the group that created DSDM. One framework that took those key concepts is SAFe. So, if somebody continue publishing the message that agile is about mindset, methods, iterative-incremental life cycle only, and things like that then it is impossible to be successful with agile for those organization that buy it.
Sergio Luis Conte Thank you for sharing and for the historical context.
Your technical contribution is valuable in helping us understand the origins of the word agile and the multiple influences that led to the formalization of the Manifesto in 2001.
Indeed, earlier developments in manufacturing and enterprise architecture—such as the Agility Forum or Holonic Manufacturing—are an important part of that story.
However, I believe an important distinction is needed here:
- The PMI post is not discussing software development methods, nor frameworks like SAFe, XP, or DSDM.
The focus is clearly different — it's about organizational agility, cultural transformation, and the role of PMOs as catalysts for change across multiple industries.
We’re talking about enterprise agility, not agile software development.
In that light, the challenges being discussed — such as trust, executive sponsorship, cultural barriers, technical debt, and technological hesitation — are aligned with a broader question:
- How can entire organizations become more adaptive, resilient, and value-driven in increasingly complex environments?
I’d be very interested to hear, from your experience, what you see today as the main barriers to agility in real-world organizational settings.
- What is still holding change back?
- How do we build antifragility beyond agility?
Your historical insight is an asset — and it would be even more powerful if connected to the practical challenges we’re facing now.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Jul 07, 2025 8:54 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
All the answers to your questions are inside the Agile and Agility definition created in 1990 in the USA DoD NSF/Agility Forum as I mentioned. It is so simple than going to the definitions, understand them and put them in the practice. Adding to that I worked implementing that from 1995 in organizations around the world and I talked about that in PMI World Forum from 2010 to 2020, publishing articles about that in PMI´s magazines, between other places.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Jul 04, 2025 2:52 PM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Sergio Luis Conte Thank you for sharing and for the historical context.
Your technical contribution is valuable in helping us understand the origins of the word agile and the multiple influences that led to the formalization of the Manifesto in 2001.
Indeed, earlier developments in manufacturing and enterprise architecture—such as the Agility Forum or Holonic Manufacturing—are an important part of that story.
However, I believe an important distinction is needed here:
- The PMI post is not discussing software development methods, nor frameworks like SAFe, XP, or DSDM.
The focus is clearly different — it's about organizational agility, cultural transformation, and the role of PMOs as catalysts for change across multiple industries.
We’re talking about enterprise agility, not agile software development.
In that light, the challenges being discussed — such as trust, executive sponsorship, cultural barriers, technical debt, and technological hesitation — are aligned with a broader question:
- How can entire organizations become more adaptive, resilient, and value-driven in increasingly complex environments?
I’d be very interested to hear, from your experience, what you see today as the main barriers to agility in real-world organizational settings.
- What is still holding change back?
- How do we build antifragility beyond agility?
Your historical insight is an asset — and it would be even more powerful if connected to the practical challenges we’re facing now.
All the answers to your questions are inside the Agile and Agility definition created in 1990 in the USA DoD NSF/Agility Forum as I mentioned. It is so simple than going to the definitions, understand them and put them in the practice. Adding to that I worked implementing that from 1995 in organizations around the world and I talked about that in PMI World Forum from 2010 to 2020, publishing articles about that in PMI´s magazines, between other places.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Jul 08, 2025 10:58 AM
Luis Branco
...
Sérgio Luis Conte Acknowledging the reference to foundational definitions and the historical context of Agile, it is clear that conceptual rigor is important.
However, practical experience across organizations shows that challenges often extend beyond simply knowing or applying original definitions.
Cultural, systemic, and human dynamics frequently present barriers that theory alone cannot address.
It is also important to recognize that concepts such as agility continue to evolve as organizations and environments change.
What was defined in one context or era often requires reinterpretation and adaptation in light of new realities, technologies, and challenges.
Relying exclusively on definitions from the past can limit an organization’s ability to innovate, adapt, and lead with impact in today’s complex environment.
For instance, Amy Edmondson’s research on “psychological safety” has significantly expanded the understanding of organizational agility, emphasizing cultural and human dimensions in addition to processes.
Similarly, PMI’s latest standards reflect how agility and project management have evolved to address new organizational and market realities.
The true value of discussions within professional communities like PMI lies in bridging conceptual clarity with practical learning and adaptive leadership—especially as organizational environments become increasingly dynamic.
It remains crucial to explore how foundational Agile principles can be effectively translated into practice, particularly in settings where trust, executive sponsorship, shared purpose, and cultural integration are persistent challenges.
Bridging the gap between theory and practice is where genuine organizational agility emerges.
Recognition is due for maintaining the historical perspective, but the ongoing challenge is to connect that legacy with the evolving realities that organizations face today.
In your experience, what have you found most effective in ensuring that foundational concepts like agility remain relevant and impactful as contexts change?
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Jul 07, 2025 8:54 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
All the answers to your questions are inside the Agile and Agility definition created in 1990 in the USA DoD NSF/Agility Forum as I mentioned. It is so simple than going to the definitions, understand them and put them in the practice. Adding to that I worked implementing that from 1995 in organizations around the world and I talked about that in PMI World Forum from 2010 to 2020, publishing articles about that in PMI´s magazines, between other places.
Sérgio Luis Conte Acknowledging the reference to foundational definitions and the historical context of Agile, it is clear that conceptual rigor is important.
However, practical experience across organizations shows that challenges often extend beyond simply knowing or applying original definitions.
Cultural, systemic, and human dynamics frequently present barriers that theory alone cannot address.
It is also important to recognize that concepts such as agility continue to evolve as organizations and environments change.
What was defined in one context or era often requires reinterpretation and adaptation in light of new realities, technologies, and challenges.
Relying exclusively on definitions from the past can limit an organization’s ability to innovate, adapt, and lead with impact in today’s complex environment.
For instance, Amy Edmondson’s research on “psychological safety” has significantly expanded the understanding of organizational agility, emphasizing cultural and human dimensions in addition to processes.
Similarly, PMI’s latest standards reflect how agility and project management have evolved to address new organizational and market realities.
The true value of discussions within professional communities like PMI lies in bridging conceptual clarity with practical learning and adaptive leadership—especially as organizational environments become increasingly dynamic.
It remains crucial to explore how foundational Agile principles can be effectively translated into practice, particularly in settings where trust, executive sponsorship, shared purpose, and cultural integration are persistent challenges.
Bridging the gap between theory and practice is where genuine organizational agility emerges.
Recognition is due for maintaining the historical perspective, but the ongoing challenge is to connect that legacy with the evolving realities that organizations face today.
In your experience, what have you found most effective in ensuring that foundational concepts like agility remain relevant and impactful as contexts change?
PMI Team Member
Community Champion
