Not all situations will be as easy as that one! Particularly
if we’re dealing with complex knowledge work that involves a variety of interactions
with different (complex) people. And therein lies the trick. We need to determine
which “agile knobs” to turn – practices – that will be impactful.
Based on my experiences, I’ve found that the three principles
in this post help to set expectations and guide conversations when it comes to applying
agility to non-software work.
Principle #1: Establish a Working Partnership
If we’re going to be successful at applying agile principles
and practices to non-software work, everyone involved needs to agree to making
a small investment in time to explore and shape an approach. The most
effective solution will be the result of experts in the details of the work at
hand and any associated workflows along with experts in agile coming together
and co-creating that solution.
This guidance is rooted in the history of the Agile Manifesto. The crafters of the Agile Manifesto were
experienced thought leaders in software development who had independently
developed alternative approaches to, “documentation driven, heavyweight
software development processes.” The
Manifesto for Agile Software Development was created in 2001 as these
practitioners discussed what was common with their respective approaches.
Bottom line: If you want to save time and reduce frustration
levels, establishing a working partnership is vital. A
candid, robust exchange of perspectives and ideas is the fastest route to
identifying and evaluating options for applying agility to the work at hand.
Principle #2: Use a Customer-Focused Lens
What we’re after here is to provide ourselves with a frame
of reference that enables us to readily understand where we can improve.
Whether we are talking about software or non-software work, there is a related
agile principle that we need to adhere to: our priority and purpose is to
deliver value in the eye of our customer.
Maintaining a customer focus in everything that we do gives
us full visibility and insight into what it truly takes to satisfy our
customer(s). It helps us understand where various forms of waste –
inefficiencies – exist. Individuals, teams, etc. – whoever plays a part in the
overall, customer-facing delivery – should seek to optimize value delivery in
the eyes of the customer.
Without this perspective we run the risk of optimizing in ways
that can interfere with customer delivery. We can inadvertently create overhead
and delays with well-intentioned efforts to drive efficiencies in the various
steps in the process or functions involved. One way we do this is by defining rules
of engagement to request and manage work across these steps and specialists,
oftentimes increasing the amount of information required to hand off the
work with minimal (or no) interaction required by the participants. And
pressure to keep specialists fully utilized can lead to the generation of lesser
valued work that may strain other parts of the customer delivery chain.
I’m not says that efficiency is evil! However, efficiency at
delivering customer-facing value can be a very different thing than efficiencies
focused on the delivery of intermediate outputs or keeping a certain subset of
functional specialists fully utilized by working in a narrowly defined specialty.
Our objective is to eliminate counterproductive sub-optimizations and instead
seek to optimize the whole.
Principle #3: Model Interaction Patterns to Determine Impactful Solutions
This is based on an observation that is all too-easily
overlooked: All knowledge work is not
equal. By that I mean that all knowledge work is not the same as software
development work, which typically (but not always) demands that multiple
specialists closely collaborate in order to shape a high-quality,
customer-facing outcome.
I’ll refer back to my experience with marketing groups to
illustrate my point. In one organization I worked with there were various
marketing teams dispersed to align with product areas targeting specific
customer segments. Drilling down to the team level, these marketing teams were
using Scrum, with the key benefits being:
- They had a shared understanding of the marketing objectives that the team needed to accomplish
- They understood their capacity
- They prioritized key deliverables
- They could visualize their work and track progress, enabling them to focus on getting things to “done” in short cycles (Sprints) and on a regular cadence
There were times, however, when the marketing function of
the organization benefited from close collaboration. It was highly desirable to
design and develop consistent marketing messages and campaigns that spanned customer
segments and/or resonated with customers who engaged with the company in
different ways. Other situations, such as company-wide marketing events naturally
required both coordination and collaboration. (I’m obviously generalizing a
great deal, but hopefully you get the idea.)
The takeaway here is that understanding the nature of the
work along with understanding the frequency and depth of interactions required
to deliver customer-facing value are the key factors in creating an impactful
solution. Some key questions that need to be answered include:
- What work needs to be performed?
- Are there different sub-types of work with different needs?
- Who needs to play a role in shaping the work?
- Can the work be performed independently?
- Does the work require coordination (synchronization) with other individuals or teams?
- Is there a need for more than one individual or team to interact closely to collaboratively shape ideas, exploring and building upon each other’s thoughts?
Once these elements are understood, specific practices can
be recommended. And as always, with the goal of maximizing delivery in the
shortest amount of time, for the least amount of effort.
In the example above, a monthly or quarterly cadence might be required for multiple teams (or key representatives) to come together to shape marketing priorities and campaigns, whereas teams focused their day-to-day efforts primarily based on individual contributions and lightweight coordination, tactically collaborating when it makes sense, such as creating a targeted email blast.
In the example above, a monthly or quarterly cadence might be required for multiple teams (or key representatives) to come together to shape marketing priorities and campaigns, whereas teams focused their day-to-day efforts primarily based on individual contributions and lightweight coordination, tactically collaborating when it makes sense, such as creating a targeted email blast.