“We need to get everyone on the same page”
“We need to be able to talk the same language”
“We need to do things the same way”
These are the arguments frequently heard to justify the need for Lean-Agile centers of excellence and methodologies. While consistency is necessary, are we conflating conformity with consistency?
The benefits of adopting Lean and Agile practices are based on creating an environment that facilitates learning and flexibility. Yet by enforcing one specific methodology or tool across teams, organizations hinder their ability to deliver customer value.
In this webinar, Steve Adolph, addresses the challenges organizations face when adopting Lean and Agile methodologies and presents a three-element model that enables organizations to create a consistent and flexible culture that motivates practitioners to embrace change for faster delivery of business value.
3. What this is all about:
• One goal of many “agile transformations” is to create
consistency so teams can work together smoothly.
• Transformations often fall short of their objectives and
can have the unintended consequence of creating a
culture of conformance rather than a a culture of
change.
• We will compare a mechanistic model and organic
model of organization to explain why this can happen.
• We will provide a 2+1 model for systematically creating
consistency and a culture of change
3
5. The start of a typical consulting
engagement: Islands of Agility
5
6. Problems with ”Islands of Agility”:
• Barrier to teams working together
– Inability to re-use and share knowledge
• Challenging to manage
– Lacks repeatable processes
– Difficult to collect meaningful metrics
• Difficult to improve
– Improvement is ad hoc rather than systematic
– Knowledge is associated with individuals rather
than corporate knowledge base
– Individuals become constraint to scale
6
7. Management seeks a solution to the
“Islands of Agility”
We need everyone to
“speak the same language”
if they’re going to work
together
7
8. An Agile Centre of Excellence (CoE) maybe
created to drive the change…
This in
addition to
my day job?
We’re doing an agile
transformation and you will lead
that change. One goal is creating
a consistent structure so our
teams are on the same page and
can work together.
8
9. A methodology and maybe a coach are
adopted...
I think the Comprehensive
Agile Methodology will help
get all your teams on the
same page.
9
10. The teams are trained in the methodology (and
possibly new tools)... Let me tell you how the
comprehensive agile
methodology defines all your new
roles, practices, and work
products…
10
12. Yes and from what we were
hearing we all thought we
were on the same page.
Unfortunately we weren’t.
However can structure on its own create
alignment? “People trump process” – Alistair Cockburn
How could you miss those
dependencies? Our methodology has
all sorts of coordination meetings?
Aren’t you holding them?
12
13. Yes but some of
these practices
aren’t working for
my team
Does structure facilitate flexibility and the ability to
adapt?
If we don’t have
consistency we will
have chaos
13
You are just saying
that because you are
find the changes
inconvenient
14. What happens to the culture of change if
an over enthusiastic desire for consistency
suppresses change?
That’s not how
we do agile!
Where did that
character come
from?
But we just wanted
to try something!
14
15. The result?
But we’re agile?!! I
thought things were
suppose to get better
with a consistent
structure
15
16. “Corporate transformations have a miserable success
rate…studies consistently report that about ¾ of change efforts
flop” - HBR Nov-Dec 2017
Another great career lost to a “transformation”
We did everything
right, so how did it go
so wrong?
16
17. Poll Here: Any of this familiar?
1. Yes: this is my life right now.
2. Sort of: we’re in the midst of a
transformation and while we’re seeing issues,
its moving in the right direction.
3. No: we’re in the midst of a transformation
and things are really going well.
4. Don’t know: we’re still exploring our options
17
18. Thesis:
Seeking “consistency” by standardizing
practices and tools in knowledge based
work processes (like software
development) risks creating unhealthy
processes – an unhealthy “eco-system” –
because such processes cannot adapt.
18
21. But what do we mean by “consistency”?
Is consistency, conformity?
21
22. How we define “consistency” depends on how
we see our organization.
• Organization as a
machine
• Organization as an
organism
22
23. The organization as a machine –
Frederick Taylor
Emphasis on “efficient”
operation:
– Bureaucratic organization
– Well defined job
descriptions
– Management by objectives
– Responsibility for planning
lies with management
23
25. …but is the ”Software Factory” the solution?
Mechanistic models work well
where there is little need to
adapt:
•Straightforward tasks
•Stable environment
•No variation – produce the
same thing every time
•Precision is at a premium
•Compliant workers
But does this sound like
the traits of knowledge
work?
25
26. We just want to try
something different to
see if it will work better
If we don’t have
consistency we will
have chaos
Some of these practices
aren’t working for my
team
Knowledge work requires
flexibility.
26
27. The organization as an organism.
Emphasis is on adapting an
organization to the environment*
• Organizations are “open
systems”
• Different “species” of
organization need different
types of environments.
• The is no one “best way” of
organizing
• Management seeks to achieve
alignment and good fits
* - Images of Organization pg.42
27
28. The organization from a biological point of
view: a diverse eco system of organisms
exchanging resources
28
29. A biological model of consistency?
Consistency is the capability of the
organization to create a healthy
environment that facilitates the
interaction between all the different
organisms (Islands of Agility) in the
organizational eco-system
29
30. The machine model approach to consistency:
Pave over the Eco-system! Create a “mono
culture”
30
35. The Organizational Mono Culture: An
Unhealthy Organizational Eco-system:
• Lacks resilience, cannot change in face
of environmental change.
• Invasive species fill the gaps where
methodologies and tools fall short
impeding communications. Makes
systematic improvement challenging.
35
36. Embrace a diverse multi methodological world
Teams and programs create their
methodologies and select their
tools depending on their
context, and even personal
preferences.
36
39. The “Liberating Form” - Neil Harrison
Creating balance between structure and flexibility.
39
40. Methodology and tools as “guard rails”
Minimize mandated practices to what is necessary to
liberate the creativity of our people.
”...barely sufficient process”
– Jim Highsmith
40
42. A 2+1 part solution in the form of a
software engineering fable as told by
Philippe Kruchten….
NSERC Chair in Design Engineering
Former Director of Process Engineering at Rational
….and the Newt!
42
47. The Frog says “all projects are the same”
Represents the common attributes of software
development
47
48. The Octopus says “all projects are different”
Represents the contextual attributes of a project.
48
49. And of course we cannot forget the people –
How people work together is the single largest determinant of success,
possibly swamping all other factors
49
50. Introducing the “Newt” who says “people create
software”
Who can cultivate the social process we need to keep everyone
aligned?
50
51. Two Models of Change
Machine Model:
Paves over the diversity of the
eco-system by installing
standard practices and expects
the context and social systems
to adapt.
Organic Model:
Embraces the diversity of the
eco-system. Practices, context,
and social system change
holistically.
COE as Enforcers of Change COE as Facilitators of Change
51
52. Poll Here: What Model of Change Have
You Experienced in Your Organization?
1. Mechanistic: We adopted a specific
methodology and then we were all expected to
adapt to it.
2. Organic: While we did adopt a specific
methodology, we are working hard to integrate
it holistically into our context and social systems.
3. Chaos and Magic: Pretty much everyone does
what they want. Somehow magically it all comes
together.
4. Don’t know: I haven’t been through a
“transformation” yet or thought much about it.
52
54. A Cautionary Tale
• It is tremendously easy to delude ourselves
that we are building an organic organization
because we are adopting an ”agile”
methodology, when in fact we are creating a
mechanistic mono-culture.
• It is the difference between doing agile and
being agile.
But we’re
agile!!
54
55. Management seeks a solution to the
“Islands of Agility”
We need everyone to
“speak the same language”
if they’re going to work
together
55
56. We still need an Agile COE AND…
We’re doing an agile
transformation and you will lead
that change. One goal is creating
an eco-system that enables our
teams to work together.
This in
addition to
my day job?
56
57. And probably still adopt a methodology (or
two).
I think the Comprehensive
Agile Methodology will help
as a guiding framework.
57
58. And the need for training does not go
away, AND… Let me tell you about the
comprehensive agile framework,
but first lets make sure we
understand the economics that
drive this.
58
61. Tooling facilitates the exchange of resources
between teams rather than enforcing how the
team gets their job done.
61
62. Some of these
practices aren’t
working for my
team
How does this conversation change?...
Is that because its hard to change, or
what is it about your context that we
have to adapt to?
62
63. …and what about this conversation?
That’s not how
we do agile!
But we just wanted
to try something!
63
64. Facilitate the opportunity to learn…
You guys seem to
be doing something
different!
we just wanted to
try to reduce our
story writing effort
Lets see what
we can learn
then. As long as
you stay aligned
with our
principles, and
run this as an
experiment.
64
65. Yes and from what we were
hearing we all thought we
were on the same page.
Unfortunately we weren’t.
While some structure is necessary, its not
sufficient…
How could you miss those
dependencies? Our methodology has
all sorts of coordination meetings?
Aren’t you holding them?
65
66. People really do trump process. Learn to
unleash people’s talents.
What if Lydia facilitated the
meetings?
Great idea, she knows how to
make sure everyone really is on
the same page and no one would
dare miss the meetings.!
66
68. A Tale of Two Approaches
Mechanistic (Frog only)
• Methodology used as a tool
for conformance
• CoE mandate is to roll out
the methodology
• People are animators of the
system
• Experimenting is often seen
as non conformance
• Mandated tool suite is
imposed
Organic (Frog, Octopus, Newt)
• Methodology used as a tool
for encouraging change
• CoE mandate is to create a
healthy eco-system
• People are an intrinsic part
of the system
• Experimentation (and hence
learning from failure) is
encouraged
• Diverse tooling is integrated
68
69. The downside of the organic model
Everyone participate in process improvement. This is
NOT solely the responsibility of the CoE
69
70. Why is this important?
“….Personnel attributes and human relations
activities provide by far the largest source of
opportunity for improving software
productivity”
- Barry Boehm, 1981, Software Engineering Economics
70
72. “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the
enemy of growth” – John F. Kennedy
72
73. Organizations that fossilize mechanistic
processes – even agile processes - are destined
to become fossils themselves
73
74. Summary: Our Biological Definition of
Consistency
Consistency is the capability of the organization to
create a healthy environment that facilitates the
interaction between all the different organisms (Islands
of Agility) in the organizational eco-system
74
75. Summary
• Consistency is not conformity.
• Enforcement of standard practices and standard tools
may create a mono culture by paving over a vibrant
eco-system
• The Frog, Octopus, and Newt represent three
perspectives of knowledge work, practice, context, and
people.
• An effective consistency programs focuses on all the
creatures in the eco-system– the Frog, Octopus, and
the Newt and changes them holistically
• Inter-connect tools rather than using a single tool to
create conformity
75
76. Bibliography
• Morgan, G. (2006), Images of Organization, Sage Publications
• Taylor, F.W, 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management,
Courier
• Burns, T., Stalker G. M., (1961), The Management of
Innovation, Tavistok
• Kruchten, P. (2012), The Frog and the Octopus: A Conceptual
Model of Software Development
• Adolph, S., Kruchten, P. Hall, W. (2012) Reconciling
Perspectives: How People Manage the Process of Software
Development – Journal of Systems and Software
76
77. Thank You!
Feel free to reach out… We’d love to hear from
you.
• Steve@developmentknowledge.com
• info@tasktop.com
• marketing@cprime.com
77
Notas del editor
Agile consistency versus flexibility Seems a bit like an oxymoron….one of the reasons we adopt agile is to become flexible, create a culture of change, yet how is we could ourselves into a situation where we are tradeing flexibility.
I have been involved in numerous “agile transformations” A primary business drive is to get everyone on the same page, consistency. For people to work together we need consistency, we need consistency on how we get our requirements, what we making…..yada yada....
This is a serious problem if the team must collaborate to deliver a product or service.
Simple examples, does the term Epic mean the same thing to everyone,
Who is responsible for coordinating the teams, what are the mechanisms? What are the practices
I have been involved in numerous “agile transformations” A primary business drive is to get everyone on the same page, consistency. For people to work together we need consistency, we need consistency on how we get our requirements, what we making…..yada yada....
This is a serious problem if the team must collaborate to deliver a product or service.
Simple examples, does the term Epic mean the same thing to everyone,
Who is responsible for coordinating the teams, what are the mechanisms? What are the practices
Agile COE is usually a team dedicated to driving change in the organization,
Camilla telling Miyagi and Paul, make this happen, we got to get everyone on the same page.
Me selling the comprehensive agile methdoloy
But then the cracks appear – need tSahil is a firmware engineer, and maybe
Kinda like the joke, I’m from the government, I’m here to help….I’m from the COE, I’m here to help
I have been a lot of clients where I have heard “this is the 4th time we’ve been to this rodeo….
Lets first state this up front, this is hard stuff change is really hard….
Maybe we didn’t do everything right.
While this articiale is focused on corporate wide transformation initiative and not IT specifically, it supports what I have anecdotally observed, that many transformation efforts fall short of their goals.
I have marquee clients that have remarked ”…this is their fourth time to this rodeo....”
As an agile coach, my perspective may be biased, after all if an organization is happy they are likely not going to call in a coach.
Could it be that our efforts to create consistency impede our ability to create a culture of change?
If the biblical story of the tower of Babel taught us anything is that we need consistency to work together.
Negotiate commitments, coordination, managing dependencies, reporting….
That goal depends very much on how we imagine or model our organization
Depends on how you view your organization
If you’ve done an MBA or studied business you may have run across this book…if you haven’t its worth a read...
Book presents different models for reasoning about organizaitons, eg. The organizaiton as a machine, as a biological organism, as a brain....
Many agilist make a significant effort to vilify Taylor and yet despite protest to the contrary, the organization as a machine appears to be the dominant model for organizing people and designing their processes….even in knowledge based organizations.
Everyone likes to beat up on Taylor but in the 1800s he was a pretty progressive person, his theories at that time were intended to increase the economic benefit of the worker. How to achieve more for the same work
We are all likely familiar with Fredrick Winslow Taylor and as a good agile community we have dumped all that is wrong with organizations on his shoulders.
Machine…strive for efficiency.....terms of lowest cost for the greatest value
Works well where a machine would work well….no need for adaptation
Straightforward tasks
Stable environment
No variation – produce the same thing everytime
Precision is at a premium
Compliant workers
Think McDonalds….very efficient…now think how well they are doing as they need to adapt
Through the machine model lens a consistent structure to create alignment is a good course of action
In the software factory, people are mere animators of a defined process…
Mechanical models are associated with mass production, and a focus on costs
But Mechanical models of organization do not innovate and adapt well
, and we live in a world where only the adaptable survive
It’s a cliché, but its true, the only certainty is change.
Sometimes called contingency theory
Open system – need careful management to balance internal needs (e.g. consistency) and adapt to the environmental circumstances – change
Management seeks good fits, not perfection ( the perfect is the enemy of the good) a perfectionist never gets anything done
Different projects need different environments.
This implies that our roles move from enforcement of standards and practices
Managements role becomes creating the healthy eco-system that enables these “organisms” to easily exchange resources, adapt. ( may need a slide for this what is the role of management….)
Changes the focus from seeking conformity to facilitating
Few agile organizations would admit they see consistency through the machine model lens, but unfortunately the way some transformations are pursued
So now using the biological model of organization we can explain why an agile transformation can fail to create alignment and impede creating a culture of change
Because there is no variation, there is no resiliency to change the organization becomes fragile, a single blight wipes out the entire crop. Catastrophic failure for organizations may be in the form of missed opportunities….the organization is incapable of responding quickly enough to new opportunities because they have created an IT mono-culture. , that other variants or species could have survived.
If we look at this approach from a biological point of view we can understand why it really didn’t work, created fragile organizations that we unable to adapt to changes in their environment…..mono cultures lack reslience….
Decision making is slow when confronted by change
Cavendish bannana and blight, all bananas are a clone….
Lets carry the metaphor a bit further, what happens when we create a mono culture? Its fragile, cannot resist disease and cannot adapt
Photo of a diseased grove abandon field in Florida – victim of greening disease
Lacks resilience to disease
Invasive species
This structure looks like it would have change anti-bodies, in fact would resist change
This week, Sears completed liquidation in Canada, and Jeff Bezos was declared the richest man in history….it had the opportunity to be Amazon
How quickly can this organization adapt to change? How quickly could this organization respond to faster moving rivals
Could it survive disruption? Size and regulation are no longer determinants of survivability….even highly conservative industries such as finance, insurance and even utilities are realizing this.
Simply, will Google eat your lunch?
What will block chain do to your business....mono culture creates rigidity....resistst change...
How many invasive, “rogue” excel spreadsheets are floating around within your organization??
Worse, by suppressing diversity we create gaps in the eco-system that are filled by invasive species…..
In this case the invasive species are the local ad hoc or situation methodologies people create because the organization methodology is not relevant to the needs of the group
Steve’s Law, the more rigid SDLC enforcement the more invasive local ad hoc methodologies will appear
People being innovative in getting their jobs done
There are some really painful tools out there, and people will find a way to get their job done despite the tooling
Hilight how lacks of resilience and invasive species defeat
Could it be that our efforts to create consistency impede our ability to create a culture of change?
This is not anti methodology, or even anti consistency, it means choosing the appropriate model Just like embrace change…
Alistair Cockburn – every project requires its own methodology
Remember the invasive species??
Mission of the COE becomes providing the plumbing that makes this all work
Zombie apocolypse…
After all the original agile manifesto was not a rejection of software melthodolgy, rather it was an effort in jim highsmiths words to restore balance.
As organizations seek to transform, we need to know how to discover balance.
Liberating form….Rather than suppression our people’s creativity innovation, what do we really need to channel and structure the skills and talents of our staff? What can we do to unleash them?
Focusing on the whole means minimizing mandated and prescribed practices: Consistency as a “guard rail” that encourages the exchange of resources between organisms and not as an operational prescription for how to behave
A fable by Philippe Kruchten may help us better understand the reasoning we are pursuing
Scrum team for a website will be different from a scrum team for a defense contractor, from a medical devices team, to an IT team.
What we tend to forget…..They are highly diverse
And swamp is suppose to be a valid pun here. They are not mere “animators” of the software process.
The newt represents the social process for keeping alignment and the roles people play within this process.
Mis-alignment is when people have different mental models or perspectives of an event or artifact. A key element of this process is recognizing the mis-match and reaching out to begin reconciling that mismatch. Methodologies usually mandate a variety of coordination meetings to flush these out, but as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. Methodologies can create the opportunity to talk, but it is the personality of people that make this process work.
The Newt is particularly susceptible to being crushed in consistency programs because This is the dynamic that keeps everyone aligned and avoids chaos
As engineers we seem to be by nature uncomfortable with managing social systems beyond machine models, but they are the key driver to success. We need to truly understand what drives a healthy social system for software development.
The machine model is simple and straight forward for an agile COE because our measure of success is conformance to the methodology. The biological model requires the COE to facilitate the design of an appropriate methodology for each organism.
Consistency programs frequently just focus on the Frog, seeking compliance with standard methodologies and practices in the hope of creating alignment. We ignore the Octopus (context) and the Newt (social system).
As an agile coach, my perspective may be biased, after all if an organization is happy they are likely not going to call in a coach.
With this new knowledge, how may our transformation saga now unfold.
We still have the islands of agility problem ….
The mandate is more focused on creating an eco-system, rather than focus on a specific structure…
Me selling the comprehensive agile methdoloy
Lets get the teams to work together on the same page.
Being “agile” versus “doing” agile.
Learning agile economics and principles such that we can make better decisions.
We still have the islands of agility problem ….
Everyone wants their own tool of course, lot of developers are of the “from my cold dead hands” mindset
Beyond enforcing a standard practice, why do we want a single tool? License cost? Reporting?
Of course there is a need for conformity, but what do we absolutely have to do? In other worlds who really has to work with whom and what do they need to exchange?
Reality is many teams will simply refuse to use the tool, or use it improperly GIGO...
But then the cracks appear – need tSahil is a firmware engineer, and maybe
Kinda like the joke, I’m from the government, I’m here to help….I’m from the COE, I’m here to help
Our principles become our “guard rails”
But then the cracks appear – need tSahil is a firmware engineer, and maybe
Means everyone must believe that process improvement can substantially improve their lives. That process
Everyone needs to learn to experiment.
Many do not appreciate the economic i
Most of us do not appreciate the economic impact of
The failure of the machine model is that a machine does not improve itself- cross pollination between different methodologies….
If everyone used the same methodology, what happens to competitive advantage?
We talk so much of embracing change and yet we seem to focus on compliance with agile practices….
This means the COE is steering the process to seek constant improvement….not conformity to a specific methodology