AINO, just one of the cute words to describe an agile transformation that has failed. After decades since the agile approach was first introduced, spawning more than ten over types of different frameworks, there is still a large proportion of supposedly agile companies practicing “Agile In Name Only”.
If we take a look at Richi Jenning’s article, there is a common cause running through all the personal accounts of agile failures. This cause is clearly a lack of understanding of the philosophy behind agile. Philosophies are ambiguous, tacit experiences; they do not immediately translate to something implementable, but convey broad strokes of ways of thinking and ways of behaving. For one, the agile manifesto mentioned “people over processes”, but what does it mean really? Sure, by thinking further, it leads us to understand that we ought to prioritise having the team working well together rather than adhering to set processes. It also speaks of working closely with the users throughout the development process rather than following the process strictly without feedback from the users. These are but two trains of thoughts emanating from the single phrase “people over processes”.
Thinking downstream is easy. When a philosophy eventually gets elaborated into implementable, tangible processes and documents, the latter gets done easily without the former as a foundation step. Take the scrum framework for example. It is easy to enforce daily standups, expect work to be presented every two weeks, and proclaim that “we are agile!” without even understanding the purposes of these ceremonies. The problem is compounded when management does not understand the philosophy itself but wishes to be trendy and regarded as an industry leader in using agile. This gives rise to the monstrous hybrid that is “scrumfall”, where management expects work to be produced on point every two weeks but at the same time expects a full suite of project plans, Gantt charts, detailed financial budgets and detailed monthly reports.
The only way out of this is to encourage open-mindedness to re-education. Transformations are difficult. They are huge complex changes to how an organization operates and even if the transformation is focused on transforming a single team to agile, the way the rest of the organization interacts with this team could easily break the transformation. This is especially so if the company has always worked in a waterfall manner with significant signs of micromanagement. Transformation therefore has to start with the leaders. They do not have to know how to implement, but it is imperative for them to understand the philosophy of agile so that they can appreciate the implementation by the teams themselves and support them accordingly. Concurrently, teams have to understand both philosophy and frameworks. The purpose is not to implement blindly, but to implement frameworks in a manner that is customized to the needs of the company while adhering to the philosophy of agility. This presents a bidirectional approach which has the highest chance of success.
If you are facing a monster hybrid situation, speak to us today. Left unchecked, these situations lead to both customer and employee dissatisfaction and poor business outcomes.
Click here to access this useful article written by RICHI JENNINGS for more information
By Sherman Ho
6 June 2022
