Unrealistic expectations or “why we can’t replicate the success of others…
Let’s start with a brain teaser to set the stage for questioning our assumptions.
One day a man visits a church and asks to speak with the priest. He asks the priest for proof that God exists. The priest takes him to a painting depicting a group of sailors, safely washed up on the shore following a shipwreck.
The priest tells the story of the sailors’ harrowing adventure. He explains that the sailors prayed faithfully to God and that God heard their prayers and delivered them safely to the shore.
Therefore God exists.
This is well and good as a story of faith. But what about all the other sailors who have prayed to God, and yet still died? Who painted them?
Are there other factors that might be at play?
When we look for answers, it’s natural to automatically consider only the evidence that is easily available. In this case, we know that the sailors prayed to God. God listened. The sailors survived.
What we fail to do, is look for less obvious factors.
Does God only rescue sailors that pray faithfully? Surely other sailors that have died, also prayed to God? If their prayers didn’t work, perhaps this means that something other than faith is also at play?
If our goal is to replicate success, we also need to look at what sets the success stories apart from the failures. We want to know what the survivors did differently from those that did not. We want to know what not to do, what mistakes to avoid.
In my experience, this is a key problem in the application of agile. Agile is often presented as the correct path; after all lots of successful projects use it. But what about the projects that failed, did they use Agile, or did they not implement Agile correctly? Or maybe Agile is not actually that big a factor in the success of the project?
Welcome to the history of what is wrong with Agile.
Consider this, a select group of Fortune 500 companies, including several technology leaders decides to conduct an experiment. They hand pick a number of people from across their organization to complete a very ambitious task. A task of an order of magnitude different from anything they’d previously attempted and with an aggressive deadline.
Question 1: How many do you think succeeded?
Answer 1: Most of them.
Question 2: If your team followed the same practices and processes that worked for these teams do you think your team would succeed?
Answer 2: Probably not.
The Original Data
In 1986, Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka published a paper in the Harvard Business Review titled the “The New New Product Development Game.” In this paper, Takeuchi and Nonaka tell the story of businesses that conduct experiments with their personnel and processes to innovate new ways to conduct product development. The paper introduces several revolutionary ideas and terms, which most notably developed the practices that we now know as agile (and scrum).
The experiments, run by large companies and designed for product development (not specifically intended for software development), addressed common challenges of the time regarding delays and waste in traditional methods of production. At the root of the problem, the companies saw the need for product development teams to deliver more efficiently.
The experiment and accompanying analysis focused on a cross section of American and Japanese companies, including Honda, Epson, and Hewlett-Packard. To maintain their competitive edge each of these companies wished to rapidly and efficiently develop new products. The paper looks at commonalities in the production and management processes that arose across each company’s experiment.
These commonalities coalesced into a style of product development and management that Takeuchi and Nonaka compared to the rugby scrum. They characterized this “scrum” process with a set of 6 holistic activities. When taken individually, these activities may appear insignificant and may even be ineffective. However, when they occur together as part of cross-functional teams, they resulted in a highly effective product development process.
The 6 Characteristics (as published):
- Built-in instability;
- Self-organizing project teams;
- Overlapping development phases;
- Subtle control;
- And, organizational transfer of learning.
What is worth noting, is what is NOT pointed out in great detail.
For instance that the companies hand picked these teams out of a large pool of, most likely, above average talent. These were not random samples, they were not even companies converting their process, these were experiments with teams inside of companies. The companies also never bet the farm on these projects, they were large, but if they failed the company would likely not go under.
If we implement agile, will we be guaranteed success?
First, it is important to note that all the teams discussed in the paper delivered positive results. This means that Takeuchi and Nonaka did not have the opportunity to learn from failed projects. As there were no failures in the data set, they did not have the opportunity to compare failures with successes, to see what might have separated the successes from failures.
Accordingly, it is important to consider that the results of the study, while highly influential and primarily positive, can easily deceive you into believing that if your company implements the agile process, you are guaranteed to be blessed with success.
After years in the field, I think it is vitally important to point out that success with an agile implementation is not necessarily guaranteed. I’ve seen too many project managers, team leads, and entire teams banging their heads up against brick walls, trying to figure out why agile just does not work for their people or their company. You, unlike the experiments, have a random set of people that you start with, and agile might not be suited for them.
To simplify this logical question; if all marbles are round, are all round things marbles? The study shows that these successful projects implemented these practices, it did not claim these practices brought success.
What is better: selecting the right people or the right processes for the people you have?
Consider that your company may not have access to the same resources available to the companies in this original experiment. These experiments took place in large companies with significant resources to invest. Resources to invest in their people. Resources to invest in training. Resources to invest in processes. Resources to cover any losses.
At the outset, it looks like the companies profiled by Takeuchi and Nonaka took big gambles that paid off as a result of the processes they implemented. However, it is very important to realize that they, in fact, took very strategic and minimal risk, because they made sure to select the best people, and did not risk any of their existing units. They spun up an isolated experiment at an arm’s length.
If you look at it this way, consider that most large multinational companies already have above average people, and then they cherry pick the best suited for the job. This is not your local pick-up rugby team, but rather a professional league. As large companies with broad resources, the strategic risks they took may not be realistic for your average small or medium sized organization.
The companies profiled selected teams that they could confidently send to the Olympics or World Cup. How many of us have Olympians and all star players on our teams? And even if we have one or two, do we have enough to complete a team? Generally, no.
The Jigsaw Puzzle: If one piece is missing, it will never feel complete.
Takeuchi and Nonaka further compare the characteristics of their scrum method to that of a jigsaw puzzle. They acknowledge that a single piece of the puzzle or a missing piece mean that your project will likely fail. You need all the pieces for the process to work. They neglect to emphasize that this also means that you need the right people to correctly assemble the puzzle.
The only mention they make regarding the people you have is the following:
“The approach also has a set of ‘soft’ merits relating to human resource management. The overlap approach enhances shared responsibility and cooperation, stimulates involvement and commitment, sharpens a problem-solving focus, encourages initiative taking, develops diversified skills, and heightens sensitivity toward market conditions.”
In other words, the solution to the puzzle is not only the six jigsaw puzzle pieces, it is also your people. These “soft merits” mean that if your people are not able to share responsibility and cooperate, focus, take initiative, develop diverse skills and so on, they aren’t the right people for an agile implementation.
If you don’t have all the pieces you can’t complete the puzzle. And if you don’t have the right people, you can’t put the pieces together in the right order. Again, you might be round, but you might not be a marble.
Human Centered Development for the People You HAVE
As with any custom software development project, the people who implement are key to your project’s success. Implementing agile changes the dynamics of how teams communicate and work. It changes the roles and expectations of all aspects of your project from executive management to human resources and budgeting.
Agile may work wonders for one company or team, but that success doesn’t mean that it will work wonders for YOUR team. Especially if all stakeholders do not understand the implications and needs of the process or they lack the appropriate aptitudes and skills.
In other words, if these methods don’t work for your people, don’t beat up yourself or everyone else. Instead, focus on finding a method that works for you and for your people.
Agile is not the only solution …
Why do people select agile? People implement agile because they have a problem to solve. However, with the agile approach managers need to step back and let people figure things out themselves. And that is not easy. Especially when managers are actively vested in the outcome. Most people are not prepared to step-back and let their teams just “go.”
Maybe you have done the training, received the certifications, and theoretically “everyone” is on board. And yet, your company has yet to see Allstar success. Are you the problem? Is it executive management? Is it your team? What is wrong?
I cannot over emphasize that the answer is as simple as the people you have. Consider that the problem is unrealistic expectations. The assumption when using agile and scrum is that it is the best way to do development, but what if it is not the best way for you?
If you don’t have the right people or the right resources to implement agile development correctly, then you should probably do something else. At the same time, don’t hesitate to take the parts of agile that work for you.
Nonaka, H. T. (2014, August 01). The New New Product Development Game. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from https://hbr.org/1986/01/the-new-new-product-development-game