Chapter 1 - 4

Project Management
and Leadership Challenges,

Volume IV
Project Management
and Leadership Challenges,
Volume IV
Agility in Project Management
and Collaboration
M. Aslam Mirza
Project Management and Leadership Challenges, Volume IV: Agility in Project
Management and Collaboration
Copyright © Business Expert Press, LLC, 2018.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2018 by

Business Expert Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.businessexpertpress.com
ISBN-13: 978-1-94744-178-1 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94744-179-8 (e-book)
Business Expert Press Portfolio and Project Management Collection
Collection ISSN: 2156-8189 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2156-8200 (electronic)
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services

Private Ltd., Chennai, India
First edition: 2018
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America.

Abstract
The project management approach for businesses making advance-
ment in strategic direction for desired success may fall short with-
out agile practices, lean project management, creating collaborative
workplaces and a supportive collaborative culture. Chapter 1 catalogues
the numerous benefits and the limited drawbacks of agile. The discus-
sion provides an understanding of agile practices that are now combined
with PMBOK Guide 6th Ed for the benefit of practitioners. C hapter 2
addresses Lean thinking, which consists essentially of maximizing value
while minimizing waste, creating more value for the customer with fewer
resources. Managing waste should utilize the Muda, Muri, and Mura
approaches in quest of the right solutions. The chapter examines Lean
project management and agile, which are common in some respects but
differ in many others. The application of Lean or agile for achieving the
right results is explained. The agile mindset needs to be created and efforts
to make up gap from existing to turning into an ethic of contribution that
requires agile leadership. Chapter 3 presents collaboration as a necessity
rather than a choice, and leaders are urged to pursue it to achieve peak
performance in projects. An account of collaborative skills is presented
for project implementation, and insightful tips are provided for making
successful collaborative endeavors.
Chapter 4 argues that strategy goes through culture for full execu-
tion, and warns high-performing organizations against falling into the
trap of misaligned culture. It notes that collaborative culture accelerates
performance and advancement in project implementation. The chapter
provides the principles for guidance and outlines what makes collabora-
tion actually work with what training.
Keywords
agile project management, collaboration, collaborative culture, ethic of
contribution, lean project management, lean thinking, scrum
Contents
Acknowledgment.....................................................................................ix
Chapter 1 Agile Project Management.................................................1
Chapter 2 Lean Project Management................................................39
Chapter 3 Collaboration...................................................................71
Chapter 4 Collaborative Culture.......................................................97
Bibliography........................................................................................123
About the Author.................................................................................125
Index..................................................................................................127
Acknowledgment
No endeavor reaches the desired outcomes without support from family,
dear ones/close ones, contacts, and particularly the blessings of almighty
ALLAH for a favorable environment. My gratitude is offered to all for
their timely support and a helping hand in any possible way and manner.
Thank you all. Indeed!!
CHAPTER 1
Agile Project Management
Introduction
Agile project management is a value-driven approach that allows
project managers to deliver high-priority, high-quality work on

projects, particularly those of high uncertainty and high complexity.
It’s nothing like the poky, costly, and error-prone approach to
project management that has delivered inconsistent results for years.
Agile project management continuously evaluates time and cost
as primary constraints. Rapid feedback, continuous adaptation, and
quality assurance best practices are built into the team’s committed
schedules, ensuring top-quality output and proven processes.
Agile project managers look at proactive, real-time delivery metrics
such as velocity, burndown and cumulative flow versus frequently
out-of-date Gantt Charts, spreadsheets, and irrelevant or impossible
project milestones.
Resultantly, you have fewer costly end-of-project surprises, and the
working product is delivered in weeks rather than months.
Discussion in the chapter is focused on an understanding of the
agile approach.
Objectives
An understanding of agile project management methodology
that uses short development cycles called sprints to focus on
continuous improvement in the development of a product or
service. Awareness is provided in the chapter as noted.
Create an understanding as to why agility
How agile development may go wrong
2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES, VOLUME IV
How to ensure agile strategic alignment

How to change agility for strategic implementation and change
management
What to understand for change agility and building change agility
Find reasons why managers in general are skeptical about adapting
agile in management
The discussion covers the following aspects:
• Why Agility
• Four Signs of Doing Agile Development Wrong
• Agile Strategic Alignment
?? Change Agility for Strategic Implementation and Change
Management
?? Understanding Change Agility and Building Change Agility
• Why the Case Against Agile
An “Agile” approach to project management blends older traditional ideas

and newer discoveries to create innovative products and services.
They are built around flexibility, where teamwork occurs in short
bursts on small-scale, functioning releases of a deliverable. Each release
is tested against customers’ needs, instead of aiming for a single result
that is released only at the end of the project. It is lightweight, flexible,
collaborative, and adaptable to frequent change, yet highly disciplined.
Agile project management is a value-driven approach that allows
project managers to deliver high-priority, high-quality work and look
like rock stars to their stakeholders. It’s nothing like the poky, costly
and error-prone approach to project management that has delivered
inconsistent results for years.
Software projects change constantly. When customers are expected to
finalize requirements before they can test-drive the prototypes, overhead
and long delays often cripple the project. Agile project management is
about embracing change, even late in the development stage. It’s about
delivering the features with the greatest business value first and having
real-time information to tightly manage cost, time, and scope.
Agile project management reduces complexity by breaking down the long
cycle, stretching over many months, of building requirements for the whole
Agile Project Management 3
project, building the entire product, and then testing to find hundreds of
product flaws. Instead, small, usable segments of the software product are
specified, developed, and tested in manageable, 2- to 4-week cycles.
The end product of an agile project may be very different from the
one that had originally been envisaged. However, the checking process
helps team members ensure that the product is being built in line with
the customer’s requirements. This gives you the structure of the rational
model from the last century along with the market and technological
sensitivity to manage 21st-century projects.
It makes agile practices appropriate for new or fast-moving businesses,
particularly for those in a fast-changing environment, or for highly
complex situations where managers need to “feel their way forward” to
achieve the optimum business results. It’s also helpful with urgent p rojects
that can’t wait for a full, traditional project structure to be set up.
Particularly in software development the approach is witnessed as
noted.
Software Development
Moira Alexander (2017), adapted the following:
Although Incremental software development methods go as far

back as 1957, agile was first discussed in depth in the 1970s by
William Royce who published a paper on the development of
large software systems.
Later in 2001, the agile manifesto, a “formal proclamation of four

key values and 12 principles to guide an iterative and people-centric
approach to software development,” was published by 17 software
developers. These developers gathered together to discuss lightweight
development methods based on their combined experience. These
are the 12 key principles that still guide agile project management
today, noted following;
1) Customer satisfaction is always the highest priority; achieved

through rapid and continuous delivery.
2) Changing environments are embraced at any stage of the process
to provide the customer with a competitive advantage.
3) A product or service is delivered with higher frequency.

4) Stakeholders and developers closely collaborate on a daily basis.
5) All stakeholders and team members remain motivated for optimal
project outcomes, while teams are provided with all the necessary
tools and support, and trusted to accomplish project goals.
6) Face-to-face meetings are deemed the most efficient and effective
format for project success.
7) A final working product is the ultimate measure of success.
8) Sustainable development is accomplished through agile processes
whereby development teams and stakeholders are able to maintain
a constant and ongoing pace.
9) Agility is enhanced through a continuous focus on technical
excellence and proper design.
10) Simplicity is an essential element.
11) Self-organizing teams are most likely to develop the best architec-
tures, designs and meet requirements.
12) Regular intervals are used by teams to improve efficiency through
fining-tuning behaviors.
Agile approaches crept into practice more than a decade ago and quickly
became the predominant paradigm for managing projects, particularly in
the IT industry. However, it continues to spread throughout the worldwide
marketplace, including the public sector (i.e., government projects).
An agile facilitator and leader are required to perform the following
key roles and responsibilities:
• Provide guidance
• Motivate the team to deliver the project on time
• Remove obstacles
• Provide timely, effective communications
Proponents of the technique claim that
• It is the most consistent project management technique since it

involves frequent testing of the product under development.
• It is the only technique in which the customer is actively involved
in the product development.
• Its disadvantage is that it is used only when the customer has

agreed to get actively involved in the project for enough time when
required.
• There are different approaches to agile adoption for different sce-
narios, as noted here:
?? First, when strong support is available for a quick rollout of
the new method, but, with little buys-in from the governance
functions, there is significant resistance that may slow down the
overall adoption.
?? Second, a grassroots effort at building an agile framework and
building a consensus to support its introduction may take very

long to go forward with consensus.
?? Third, when there is an initial focus on building strong politi-
cal support for the initiative, followed by a quick methodology

development with plenty of resources and management focus.
Of the three, this has been the most successful.
How it differs from traditional project management can be seen in

Table 1.1:
Table 1.1 Comparison of agile project management with traditional

project management
Agile practices in project
management Traditional project management
Teams are self-directed and are free to Teams are typically tightly controlled by
accomplish deliverables as they choose, as a project manager. They work to detailed
long as they follow agreed upon rules. schedules agreed at the outset.
Project requirements are developed within Project requirements are identified before
the process as needs and uses emerge. the project begins. This can sometimes
This could mean that the final outcome lead to “scope creep” because stakeholders
is different from the one envisaged at the often ask for more than they need, “just
outset. in case.”
User testing and customer feedback User testing and customer feedback take
happen constantly. It’s easy to learn from place toward the end of the project,
mistakes, implement feedback, and evolve when everything has been designed
deliverables. However, the constant and implemented. This can mean that
testing needed for this is labor intensive, problems may emerge after the release,
and it may be difficult to manage when sometimes leading to expensive fixes and
users are not engaged. even public recalls.
(continued )
Table 1.1 Comparison of agile project management with traditional

project management (Continued)
Agile practices in project
management Traditional project management
Teams constantly assess the scope and Teams work on a final product that may
direction of their product or project. This be delivered sometime—often months
means that they can change direction at or years—after the project begins.
any time in the process to make sure that Sometimes, the end product or project is
their product meets changing needs. This no longer relevant, because business or
means, however, it may be difficult to customer needs have changed.
write a business case at the outset because
the final outcome is not fully known.
1.1 Why Agility

PMI-Pulse of Profession-in-depth Report 2013 “Organizational Agility”
adapted the following:
It is arguably the most important concept for an organization

that wishes to thrive in the 21st century and bring change in line
with environmental demands. The driving forces that are c ausing
companies to become more adaptable and flexible are going

to stay in market. There are fundamental shifts in the business
environment, rather than some newly conceived bright idea.

Change has always been a constant in the world, but what is
different now is how quickly you are expected to react and adapt
to it. Agile organizations that are in the business of continuously
evolving are the ones that won’t fall in challenging circumstances.
Such a volatile marketplace demands organizational agility, a

three-pronged approach effectively leverages it:
• Risk management
• Change management
• Standardized project, program, and portfolio processes
Organizational agility, where speed meets strategy, is the fi
nding of
research by The Project Management Institute’s Pulse of the P rofession®
In-Depth Report—Organizational Agility (2013) that organizational
agility enables companies to respond faster to changing market condi-
tions (71%), improve organizational e fficiency (55%), boost customer
satisfaction (54%), and drive more profitable business results (44%).
The Pulse of Profession In-Depth Report indicates: “In an econ-

omy where resources remain scarce and speed to market can mean
the difference between victory and defeat, organizations must
respond rapidly to shifting market conditions.”
R isk Management
A fundamental element of organizational agility, risk manage-

ment helps organizations both mitigate negative influences and
leverage positive opportunities. Amid high macroeconomic
and financial volatility, top threats include uncertain economic
growth, overregulation and a lack of available talent, say CEOs in a
2013 survey by PwC. “One thing is clear: The threats facing CEOs
are coming from all directions; they’re coming harder and faster;
and they’re coming in more subtly varied forms. Confronted with
this changing risk landscape, CEOs recognize that traditional risk
management techniques aren’t enough.”
“You can’t invest in all things, but with a good risk strategy, you
can make a finite number of strategic investments to hedge your
bets,” Dr. Tallon says.
Change Management
No organization can keep up with economic and market shifts

without aggressive change management processes. Six out of
10 business leaders agree that technology d isruptions will c ompletely
change their vertical market by the year 2020, according to a 2012
Economist Intelligence Unit report. And one in 10 respondents
expressed fear that their organization will disappear altogether.
The only way to elude failure during this sustained period of
volatility is to have the organizational agility to change along with
the market. The Pulse report shows that 92% of organizations
highly effective at change management report high or moderate
agility—almost three times more than their m inimally effective
counterparts. The most agile organizations build a culture that
embraces change as an inevitable—even positive—part of the
current economy.
Good companies wait for change. Innovative companies initiate

change. Organizations willing to make bold bets and embrace
change are the ones that end up controlling the market.
—Paul Tallon, PhD, associate professor, Information Systems,

Loyola University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
“There is a cost to doing nothing,” Dr. Tallon warns. “You have to

be willing to change or you won’t stay relevant.”
Standardized Practices
Standardized project, program, and portfolio management prac-

tices give organizations and their project teams a road map for
today’s volatile and fast-paced project environment. They are better
able to forecast costs, pick projects aligned with business goals,
manage schedules, and keep projects on track. In short, standard-
ization is an enabler—not an enemy—of organizational agility.
Standardized project management practices drive better decision-

making and create early-warning systems. They enable organi-
zations to prevent the problems that derail projects, rather than
dealing with them after they happen.
Organizations Achieve Greater Agility
PMI Today (2018), adapted the following:
The Critical Need for Cross-Functional Support that drives for

greater agility is perhaps nowhere more visible than among project
teams.
This report examines the lines of business and how companies can
create a culture that encourages dynamism and innovation.
• Greater organizational agility correlates with success.

• An organization’s culture can foster higher levels of agility
with their lines of business.
• Functions with high agility operate smarter, better, faster than
others.
• Functions with high agility receive more organizational

support from other parts of their businesses that they depend
on to accomplish their work.
• PMO support is critical in creating agility at the line of
business level.
The Vital Role of Culture and Commitment
This report, developed in collaboration with KPMG, explores key

factors that will help accelerate your organization’s transformation
and offers a clear path to greater agility. The report recommends
focusing on the following areas for a successful agile transformation:
• Take a top-down (or PMO-first) approach, rather than trans-

forming and then scaling.
• Establish a formal agile transformation program that reports
to the CEO.
• Divide up the effort to control change impact. Coordinate
change management across the enterprise.
• Focus on the people with training and coaching to transition
to their new roles.
• Transform in waves with associate business, technology and
infrastructure groups becoming agile together.
• Monitor and drive maturity to prevent the program from
stalling and to achieve maximum benefits.
Being Agile
Aggressively starting a project means getting ready to solve the emerging

issues as the team advances with the implementation. The agile, iterative
approach has certain rules, but the beauty lies in its built-in flexibility.
Sometimes many teams believe they are agile because they are
following prescribed agile practices; when a team may think they are agile
because they are doing daily stand-up meetings, sprint planning m eetings,
retrospectives, and so forth.
The mistake is that they tend to treat these practices as “ceremonies,”
thereby focusing more on getting the “ceremony” done and not enough
on doing it right to derive the benefit that the practice is intended to
provide. For example, a daily stand-up meeting is useless until the

team said to be agile achieves the following benefits through these
meetings:
• Instilling a clear sense of purpose about what needs to get done

• Focusing on efficiently moving the work forward
• Identifying risks and blockers early in the process
• Team members helping each other with shared obstacles
However, teams are self-deceiving with stand-up meetings and not

delivering any of these benefits, or, worse, have anti patterns.
Doing agile practices does not translate into being agile unless there is
a focused effort by all team members to derive the intended benefits from
that practice. Teams need to be conscious about why they are doing a prac-
tice and should aim to keep improving the maturity level of that practice.
Teams are agile only when they understand that agile is an adjective
and constantly work t oward it and also adopt the agile mindset.
In other words, treating agile as a noun is futile. The mindset for change
is required to make the transition from just doing agile to being agile.
Whether to be agile or not is not the question anymore, since agile
adoption is on the rise, and there seems to be no turning back. The real
question is whether you are focused on boiling agile down to a list of
prescribed practices or dedicated to embracing and internalizing the core
values and principles of agility. Focusing on “doing” agile over “being” agile
could be the reason some organizations do not p roduce hyper-performing
agile teams. The current thinking of many agile p roponents suggests a
solution to the problem—a value-based road map for agile adoption
consisting of five steps as follows:
• Collaboration
• Evolutionism
• Integration
• Adaptation
• Encompass
Help teams and organizations embrace principles over practices.

Crystallize your thinking about the issue of agile versus agility, the true
values of agility, and how choosing a proper course affects the healthy
propagation of agility throughout the team and the organization.
The following tips have been learned from agile adoption:
What works
• Adopting a “disciplined” agile approach to reduce resistance
• Engaging the governance groups early to gain their input into agile
development
• Providing consistent training to all stakeholders
• Building political support early with senior management and the
broader stakeholder community
• Carefully selecting early pilot projects that have a good chance of
success to both gain lessons learned and to show skeptics that it
does work in the organization
• Modifying both project management and technical practices
(e.g., business analysis, software development, and quality assur-
ance) to support agile practices
• Providing guidance on which projects are best suited to the new agile
approach and which projects may benefit from the older approach,
and using the new agile team practices to drive c ultural change that
may eventually improve projects using the older approach
What to avoid
• Forcing the agile approaches onto the organization without first
training and building political support
• Grassroots deployments with little upper management support
and ignoring governance stakeholders
• Allowing pilot projects to vary their agile practices too greatly,
reducing the broader applicability of any lessons learned
• Replacing the existing processes completely with new agile processes
Enablers for “Being” Agile
• Empowered, self-organized, self-disciplined, self-aware, long-lived,

psychologically safe teams.
• Willingness to develop generalizing specialists.
• Sufficient coaching support for leadership and agile team until

behavioral changes stick.
• Human resources and procurement policies and practices need to
be aligned with agile delivery.
• Committed delivery and control partners and vendors.
• Dedicated primary roles within agile teams.
• Minimal standards for key development information capture.
1.2 Four Signs of Doing Agile Development Wrong

Erik Weber (2014), adapted the following:
Agility is the ability for development teams to respond quickly,

deliver value sooner, and change products along with changing
customer needs and market opportunities. Implementations of
agility vary widely, but face a common problem: most o rganizations,
at least initially, get mired in the details of v arious agile t echniques.
They start implementing a new framework, such as Scrum, and
soon they’re spending a lot of time and energy discussing the
intricacies of pair programming, test-driven-development, or the
mechanics of a sprint review.
The four warning signs that may take your attention off the big
picture and the risk of not getting what need out of the “agile
thing”:
1) A Failing “get done”

Agility demands producing completed, and potentially
releasable product every few weeks. You are not agile when
taking longer than a few weeks to turn an idea into a
ready-for-production feature.
The basic building block of agile teams is making it happen
every few weeks. Lacking of such capability is very expensive and
not possible to respond to changing customer needs quickly.
Agile techniques for development and the test at the end
cause the problem. It may sure, improves your development
practices, but misses the mark of being agile. Agility demands
testing and everything else that has to be done in order to

make the product shippable. Agile drives all the risk of product
development of iteration, and allows for an empirical process.
2) Launching Failure
Challenge to a team is to release the product earlier than
wanted in line with requirement of agility big picture. It is
possible only with overcoming a mindset of “must have all
features” a trap for waiting.
Getting to “done” limits the product development risk in
iteration, and actually releasing a product to customer early
limits the market risk overall. When you release a version of
your product often, you test the market often, and get an
opportunity to make needed changes.
3) Scope stagnation
Agility is all about that one can’t possibly know everything
up front, and the best way to create the most valuable end
product is to gather market data, get individual feedback, and
change up the features in the product. It is to get a product
into users’ hands quickly and as often as possible, and then
listen to them. The honest feedback on product is made
possible and no matter how hard it may be, listen to it.
4) Unhappy developers
Agility demands deep involvement of product developers,
who are emotionally aligned with the project. When unhappy,
find something’s wrong with your agile process and may be
one of the three points noted above.
Teams love to develop products and releasing something
to users that one actually sees in use and building products
that customers love are hugely motivating. The many short
feedback loops built into a highly functioning agile product
development environment feed this motivation and keep

team members engaged in their work and happy.
Job satisfaction is a goal and a symptom of a modern agile
business where a team is central to the organization, and help
growing a culture to keep team members happy. Happy teams
build great products.”
Be Watchful for Wrong Footings

You need to be honest with yourself about where are you heading in your
agile journey. Be smart about saying what you can do and then back it
up by doing what you say. Watch how your organization defines what it
means to be agile or explain why it needs it, or even how it will benefit.
It will be nearly impossible to work in an agile way under such a lack of
awareness and an understanding.
Committing to delivery in an agile way is impossible in the face of the
following shortcomings:
• Nonexistent dedicated teams for working within an agile

methodology.
Dedicated team with know how of the methodology is essential.
All backlog planning is based on the team’s strengths, velocity, or
ability to deliver. It is imperative to have a strong team with strong
practitioners who are familiar with the principles of whichever
agile method you are using and working in this manner.
• Unwilling client for working in an agile way.
Work with your client to help understand the benefits and set
their expectation that they must become more involved in order
for this approach to work. Typically, clients are involved as the
product owner, a role on the team that has the steepest learning
curve. Someone on the team must be assigned the task of regularly
writing user stories, prioritizing them, and ensuring the project
vision is carried out. When a product owner is the client, they
must be diligent in collecting feedback from the stakeholders so
that the project does not go off track in any given sprint cycle.
• Fixed costs, deadlines, and scope are tricky. Ensure that your
Statement of Work (SOWs) do not work against you.
Generally a real fear among clients about unknown or u ncontrolled
project cost typically lead to wanting cost and deadlines determined
up front at the onset of a project. When you are planning to run
a digital project using Scrum or another agile method, then you
should accept that having a fixed scope with fixed hours to deliver
specific things will be difficult. However, funding by project and
not by team creates a real detriment to adopting this kind of
approach. Ultimately, they care about what you are supposed to

deliver for them, not the fact that it is done in an “agile” way.
One way of dealing with this would be to establish a service-level
agreement (SLA) around the team’s velocity. Help the client

understand what kind of output you are committing to deliver for
a defined duration.
• Agencies typically may not be structured to support an agile
culture.
The biggest problem is that agencies “don’t know what they don’t
know.” They roll out agile by diving in all at once. Then they get
frustrated when they hit barriers. They don’t know the way out of
this situation. The entire process gets derailed, and they’re back
where they began. Or they get 33 percent of the way through and
say, “That’s good enough, we’re Agile, let’s start talking about that in
our marketing pitch.” But the team has not taken full advantage yet.
Most agencies start with the Scrum framework first because it is
the most popular agile approach and provides a set of well-defined
“guard rails” for the team to work within. It is a common starting
point for teams that are just dipping their toe in the water.
Scrum is simple to understand but difficult to master. Agencies
will say: We just have to have these meetings or look at these charts.
Following agile practices within an agency environment means
navigating through a number of layers of legacy thinking that
lends itself to a waterfall approach.
You must be able to break through the layers in order to estab-
lish the new line of thinking and change within an agency environ-
ment. Transformation and adoption of this approach must occur
across the entire organization from sales to deployment when you
can expect to be able to deliver in an agile way with your clients.
Define what being agile means to you, and start your agile
journey being honest with yourself. You need to drive transfor-
mation, determine how you will benefit from it, and then invest
in it. Then you will have a much easier time being upfront with
your customer about why you work in an agile way and what it
will do for them. When you help in shaping and transforming the
workflow, your relationship with the customer becomes stronger.
1.3 Agile Strategic Alignment

Getting aligned through strategy must go through culture, the key is
organizational alignment. The high-growth pursuit often puts work-
place culture and business strategy at odds with each other and leads to
troubles.
The business strategy provides the true north to ruthlessly prior-
itize investments and to make tough decisions. Your corporate cul-
ture guides your business practices and keeps behaviors, beliefs, and
assumptions on the right path to execute your strategy in a way that
makes sense.
Your business strategy needs to be clear, believable, and imple-
mentable for your marketplace or corporate culture, because only then
will it be possible to create an aligned and high-performance culture. You
believe that “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” but you cannot create an
aligned and high-performance culture without first developing a clear and
compelling strategy.
Strategic clarity almost always leads cultural change. You need to
know where you are headed to provide the context for “how” you will
get there. Once your strategy is clear, you must take the time to purpose-
fully align your corporate culture to your specific strategy to maximize all
chances of success.
A strategy and culture that are misaligned may lead companies of f
target, detract from the image of being a “great place to work,” lose
your top talent, spark a decline in team-member engagement, and
prove less attractive to the “A” players you need to succeed. It is very
much in your interests to ensure that your culture remains healthy
and positive; otherwise, you will lose the competitive edge required
to grow.
Your leaders are the ones who need to fully commit to the desired
strategy and culture and alignment process. This starts at the top and
demands the active involvement of the entire organization. The leader-
ship must “live” it in both their words and their actions. The Board, the
CEO, the senior managers all need to buy into and model the strategic
direction, behaviors, and values of a high-performing organization.
Every team player needs to understand what is expected, and they will
be held accountable, as will every leader.
Tools and
Methodologies
Practices
Behavior
Mindset
Figure 1.1 Recommended approach for agile
As a result, your corporate values and behaviors will be aligned with a clear
and compelling strategy, and your team players will be set up to think and act
as one, making for a true alignment and setting the pathway to high growth.
Agile Transformation
Practitioners recommend the adoption of the approach shown in

Figure 1.1 for effective results.
It starts from cultivating the mindset among the stakeholders for
creating a strong footing that will help support the type of behavior suited
to the pursuit of the practices and application of the required tools and
methodologies that yield the desired outcomes.
The real challenge is faced in cultivating the mindset and changing the
behavior of stakeholders for the practices and then reaping the benefits
with the application of tools.
Mismanagement is fatal when the agile transformation approach is
carried out in the reverse order, starting with “tools and methodologies.”
An agile transformation is very expensive, causing significant disruption to
an organization. You have to ask yourself why you would want to do this.
Choosing the wrong reason, namely that “everyone else is doing it,”
dooms an organization to failure. There is no purpose to rally behind
and no measurement of success to indicate that it’s actually working. It’s
important, therefore, to choose the right goals in order to receive a real

return on a transformation effort.
Certainly, there are benefits to adopting agile, but organizations often
choose the wrong goals or don’t go far enough to realize those benefits,
usually failing (at some level) or at least becoming disillusioned and fall-
ing back on familiar methods.
Organizational change is never easy, and agile adoption is no different.
It is important that while some benefits may be seen early, most benefits
will be realized only when the entire organization embraces the necessary
cultural changes.
Agile transformation is not easy, nor is it cheap, but with commitment
and support from leadership, combined with drive, mindset, and empow-
erment from teams, an organization can realize its goals and improve its
competitive edge.
At its core, agile focuses on providing customer satisfaction, maximiz-
ing team members’ engagement, and building high-quality products that
a customer actually desires. Here are the benefits realized through an agile
transformation:
1. Speed to Market
Customers receive product improvements more frequently and,
potentially, put a company ahead of the competition. Return on
investment is realized sooner, and earlier customer feedback helps
guide future product development. The advantage forces competi-
tors into follow-up mode rather than leading.
2. Customer Satisfaction:
• User help teams better understand their customers
• Transparency ensures that stakeholders understand the state of
the work at all times
• Right product at the right time, shifting focus from project to
continuous value delivery
• Constant contact with the customer improves the relationship
and understanding
3. Team Morale
Agile encourages continuous improvement not only in product
and processes, but also in skills and team-member interactions.
People with skills seek opportunities for further improvement and

are keen to learn new things, building their morale and keeping
it high.
4. Improved Product Quality
Agile has a strong focus on using high-quality practices to improve
overall product quality. Quality directly impacts customer satisfac-
tion and actually improves speed to market as changes to the product
are easier to accommodate.
5. Reduced Project Cost
Focusing on value, eliminating waste, and meeting customer needs
are measures that typically reduce project cost as a side effect of an
agile transformation. Traditional organizations attempt to control
costs by rigidly controlling change, often rejecting change even if it’s
the best thing for the customer.
6. Improved Budget and Schedule Accuracy
Traditional practices often encourage “moving on,” while an impedi-
ment is slowly removed or workarounds are found. Agile encourages
directly and promptly confronting the impediment so that the team
remain focused on the activities as prioritized.
7. Project Transparency
Transparency comes with a potential cultural shift. Many organiza-
tions may not value transparency, but may instead have a practice of
“messaging” to leaders and stakeholders to ensure good feedback and
to reduce political blowback.
8. Risk Reduction
• Building opportunities to experiment and prototype
• Prioritizing riskier items early in development
• Interacting regularly and piecemeal advancement
• Planned feedback cycles ensuring the customer direction when
needed
9. Business Alignment
Improved alignment is the most difficult benefit to realize. Agile is
seen as an IT process and is limited to what the technical teams do.
Transformation needs to encompass all functions in your organiza-
tion to take effect and continue to function as they always have,
while expecting to reap all the benefits promised by agile.
10. Flexibility in Managing Change

• Large projects are broken down into smaller incremental
deliverables
• Infrastructure and support systems accommodate rapid deploy-
ment of the product to customers
• Quality remains high
• Priorities are aligned across the organization, ensuring that teams
are functioning at optimal efficiency by focusing only on few
things at a time (limiting work in progress)
11. Looking and Feeling Good
Teams are able to make advancements along a faster track, getting
acceptable results that make them feel confident about bettering
their performance and making the organization look good to stake-
holders with enhanced market image and value.
Preparing for Strategic Agile
Andy Jordan (2015), adapted the following;
Over the last couple of years, there has been an explosion of

approaches to agile that are designed to elevate it to a more strate-
gic, enterprise-wide level. Some of the models are relatively simple
and straightforward, others are remarkably complex and involved.
Like any other methodology, the right approach depends on the

needs of the organization and its ability and willingness to a bsorb
change. However, regardless of the chosen approach to strate-
gic agile, a lot of foundational work needs to happen before an
organization can succeed—and you need to make sure how much
awareness there is for that shift.
Here the focus is on agile from a portfolio execution perspective.

That has a number of different names depending on which strategic
agile approach is being referenced, but you are essentially looking
at annual planning, project selection, and project execution.
In organizations, that is a fairly well-established process that

involves a period of several weeks up to a few months where
potential projects are identified, prioritized, undertaken a formal

business casing (or similar), and are then selected or rejected.
A number of teams may be involved in the earlier stages of the

process, but by the time an organization gets to the final review
and selection process, the stakeholders are usually restricted to key
executives and/or decision makers. Those individuals understand the
strategic priorities and make decisions based on their expectations
for the best mix of initiatives for achieving the organizational goals.
The problem is that it isn’t good for even successful o rganizations

that are faced with a significant amount of change at the
portfolio level, as priorities shift, as projects exceed or fall short
of expectations, and as new opportunities arise. The fundamental
issue is that this is an annual planning approach, and organiza-
tions simply can’t reliably plan that far in advance.
Applying Agile to the Strategic Layers
Recognizing the challenges: the strategic layers of stakeholders need to

be prepared. Agile is a disruptive approach, and preparing solid ground
will only help overcome resistance and rejection.
Building foundations for strategic agile: the strategic approach
has very little to do with the agile concepts. Those are generally well
understood from the experiences at the project level, and while some
stakeholders may still struggle to accept them, the results speak for them-
selves when agile is done well.
The foundation for strategic agile success requires stakeholders to
adapt to a more iterative planning and prioritizing approach. There are a
number of elements, which are listed here:
• Creation of an iterative approval framework: Organizations

practice allocating the full project budget up front simply b ecause
there needs to be a perceived alignment between goals and the
projects that deliver against those goals. The amount of p ortfolio
change that occurs in the traditional model of approving a full year
of projects up front, the logic behind a phased-approval approach
is clear. A phased-approval and funding model is needed for an

organization to be able to move to agile portfolio execution.
• Reliable, timely decisions support information: Current and
accurate market/environmental information should be available
on the external factors impacting the organization. The iterative
decision-making benefit is that it creates an environment for
“better” decisions and removes the uncertainty associated with
longer timeframes. The reality of what has occurred is considered.
However, the accurate and complete information available from
the project portfolio management (PPM) is necessary.
• Commitment to active, ongoing strategic engagement: The a ctive
engagement of strategic stakeholders is essential if agile is to be more
than simply shorter-term reviews of the portfolio. The evolving
information has to be transformed into decisions that actually improve
the organization’s performance, and when strategic backlog is never
updated, there is no point in paying lip service to the process.
Agile
Agile is an umbrella term for multiple project management practices,

including:
• Scrum—A holistic approach to development that focuses on

iterative goals set by the product owner through a backlog, which
is developed by the delivery team through the facilitation of the
Scrum Master.
• Extreme Programming (XP)—Also called pair programming, this
method uses small groups and has a highly prescriptive test-driven
development (TDD) model.
• Extreme Manufacturing (XM)—An agile methodology based on
Scrum, Kamban, and Kaizan that facilitates rapid engineering and
prototyping.
• Crystal Clear—An agile or lightweight practice that focuses on col-
location and osmotic communication.
• Kanban—A lean framework for process improvement that is
frequently used to manage work in progress (WIP) within agile proj-
ects. Kanban has been specifically applied in software development.
• Scrum bans a mixed Scrum and kanban approach to project

management. Instead, it favors the flexibility of kanban and the
structure of Scrum to create a new way to manage projects.
Change Agility for Strategy Implementation
The increasing complexity of business environments demands greater

change agility. The importance of deeper organization-wide change
readiness comes into even greater focus with the prevalence of change
in today’s marketplace. Organizations currently operate in a world of
unprecedented change. Though change has always been a constant in
business, the pace has increased dramatically since 5 or 10 years ago.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG, 2013) research notes that the
volatility of business operating margins has more than doubled since
the 1980s. Moreover, turbulence—defined as volatility in demand,
competition, margins, and capital market expectations—occurs more
frequently today. More than half of the most turbulent fiscal quarters
of the past 30 years have occurred in the last decade. Across multiple
industries, there is considerably more churn as companies in the top
three positions are being overtaken by stronger competitors. And market
leadership is no longer a guarantee of financial success—the former strong
correlation between market share and profitability has faded significantly
in a number of sectors. This creates risk for companies that cannot keep
up and opportunities for those that can.
BCG’s research points to the tension between strategy implementa-
tion and change readiness, not unlike that experienced by the financial
industry in the wake of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
Pulse of the Profession® In-Depth Report: Organizational Agility (PMI,
2013) reports that executives recognize that today’s turbulent e nvironment
demands organizational agility to support the need for innovation and
change. However, only 12 percent of organizations surveyed in 2012,
compared with 23 percent in 2008, felt they were highly agile. Organiza-
tions report a lack of organizational agility for change.
The need for organizational change agility could not be clearer. Most
organizations use change management as a means to deal with the needs
of a specific change. But if they can leverage elements of change agility as
part of an overall corporate strategy, and thoughtfully plan to diminish
barriers and enhance supporting culture, systems, and structures, the

change management efforts of any given project or program will be less
onerous and more likely to succeed. Planned change agility paves the way
for successful strategy implementation.
Change Agility
Change agility can be described by what it is, how it is accomplished, and

what it intends to impact to improve the frequency and completeness of
strategic change:
What: Change agility is the intentional and planned preparation of

the organization to enhance the likelihood that its strategies—
realized through portfolio, program, and project management,
including the change management components—will produce the
intended strategic benefits.
How: The change agility review process assesses and leads to e nhanced
organizational agility and operational capability to respond effec-
tively to opportunities or challenges.
To What End: It is aimed at creating an environment of personal
and organizational norms, structures, and processes that are more
fluid and adaptive. Change agility supports strategy implementa-
tion realized through projects and programs.
Scope: Duplication of change management activities across the
portfolio of programs and projects is reduced. For example, a
change agility strategy to develop a common understanding of and
commitment to sponsorship responsibilities reduces the need in
every program/project for change management activities to secure
enthusiastic, ongoing sponsorship.
Schedule: Change agility provides for smoother strategic change
implementation with fewer impediments.
Cost: Much of the cost overrun in any program or project is caused
by unforeseen risks—or foreseen but more stubborn or impact-
ful risks—than anticipated. Change agility enhancement works to
mitigate risks that are endemic to the organization.
Benefits Realization: As noted by CEOs in many studies, strategy real-
ization is often incomplete. A change may have been implemented,
but the intended result was not fully realized. Change agility en-
hancement addresses factors most commonly associated with un-
derachievement of the benefits of a change program.
Understanding Change Agility
Individually, we seek stability, and research has shown that even when we
accept and internalize the value of change, we frequently fail to change.
Change is difficult, individually and organizationally. Kegan and Lahey
(2009) suggest that even when we set clear goals, we simultaneously and
unconsciously erect barriers that undermine those plans—competing
commitments, assumptions, behaviors, and beliefs.
This is the “knowing/doing gap.” A familiar example of this is pro-
vided by someone who believes in and commits to the personal value of
healthy exercise but fails to carry it out in practice because of competing
time commitments and fears that exercise will be too hard. There is a
similar tendency organizationally. Amburgey, Kelly Barnett (1993) cite
earlier work by Hannan and Freeman in which they offered a theory of
structural inertia, noting:
They argued that organizations exist because they are able to

perform reliably and, if questioned, to account rationally for their
actions. Reliability and accountability are high when o rganizational
goals are institutionalized and patterns of organizational a ctivity
are routinized, but institutionalization and routinization also
generate strong pressures against organizational change. Thus, the
very characteristics that give organizations stability also generate
resistance to change and reduce the probability of change.
“Routinization” coupled with organizational culture, namely, the set

of beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors shared in the organization, make
the change more difficult. Going against what has worked in the past may
fail without influencing culture that calls into question an organizational
belief system that feels time tested. An attempt to address change agility
faces ingrained personal and organizational DNA. Change agility is hard
because change is hard.
Characteristics of a Change-Agile Organization
When change agility is the planned preparation of the organization to bet-

ter implement its strategies, the first question to be asked is “What do you
need to make an impact?” A thematic compilation and review of decades
of research identified the hallmarks of the change-agile organization.
This research review pinpointed the hallmarks crucial to organizations’
successful and complete strategy implementation.
Key Operational Systems of Change Agility
Operationalizing change through programs and projects requires effective

execution in the 10 Knowledge Areas outlined in A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide) (PMI, 2017). Within
those Knowledge Areas, the most change-agile organizations have laid the
groundwork to improve time management by paying careful attention
to improvements in three areas of stakeholder management: leadership,
work norms, and learning and sharing. By improving these operational
systems organization-wide, the change-agile organization:
• Levels the road for the implementation process.

• Creates the conditions for faster and more sustained adoption of
the change.
The change-agile organization focuses improvement efforts on four

operational systems that most significantly influence agility.
1. Time: Rapid triage, response, decision making, strategic implemen-

tation—and rapid change because culture, leadership interests, busi-
ness models, processes, and people’s knowledge are aligned. Time is
supported by the three other dimensions.
2. Leadership: Trust built through transparency and openness to chal-
lenges and innovation risk, and an unwavering interest (individu-
ally and as a leadership team) in creating, delivering, and sustaining
well-considered innovative strategies. Leadership supports the re-
maining two dimensions.
3. Work norms: Supporting holistic, integrated, collaborative work

with broad involvement, both inside the organization and with out-
side partners, customers, suppliers, and even competitors.
4. Learning and sharing: Intentional and intensive knowledge shar-
ing through lessons learned from both experience and from multiple
types of expertise and supported by institutionalized processes for
strategy development and implementation.
The change-agile organization is distinguished by certain drivers of

its capacity to respond to change effectively, rapidly, and with sustained
success:
1. Culturally, the organization, its leadership, and employees are:

• Tuned to their market environment, responsive to trends, and
innovative in thinking ahead to their next moves;
• Holistic and integrative, marked by boundary fluidity (including
boundaries outside the organization);
• Lean in organization structures and decision making;
• Collaborative and coordinated in work styles, with interactions
marked by trust
• Inviting of all data points, input, and challenges as part of a
healthy dialogue about the organization’s future and best options
to get there; and
• Insistent on knowledge sharing and personal, team, and organiza-
tion development.
2. The organization and its leaders commit to change as a productive
way of life:
• They accept change as inherent and seek out sources of volatility
and complexity in their environment;
• They build an attitude of change as normal and work to ensure
successful change as the experienced norm;
• They are ruthless in triaging change opportunities and culling
those that are poorly aligned with values or poorly matched with
cultural and resource capabilities;
• They both accept challenges to direction and insist on above-board
debate rather than below-the-surface complaints; and
• They are active in supporting change efforts before, during, and

after implementation to ensure ultimate strategy achievement.
Commitment is supported by the culture.
3. The organization’s business models, processes and systems (capaci-
ties) support:
• Lean and adaptable business models and processes;
• A digestible inventory of change;
• Well-understood and well-used processes for idea development,
change management, and organizational portfolio, program, and
project management;
• Constant improvement of these processes;
• Inclusive, respectful, iterative—and rapid—plan development and
decision making;
• Development of resource accessibility, capability, and expertise in
key areas needed for the organization’s changes; and
• Reward systems that are supportive of all of the foregoing themes.
Capacity is supported by leadership commitment.
Building Change Agility
It is not a destination or a defined state of maturity but a continuous

quest informed by changing internal and external factors. Change agil-
ity is enhanced through an intentional management process of con-
tinuous improvement in the organization’s ability to both respond to
environmental change to remain competitive and to proactively initiate
change to leverage opportunities. This intentional process is an internal
strategy process focused on developing and sustaining organizational
capability, much like a talent development/succession planning pro-
cess. A talent d evelopment strategy aims to define the organization’s
overall talent needs for the future and to influence such things as what
people learn during their careers, how they behave and interact in the
organization, and how people are selected to fill certain roles. Similarly,
a strategy for change agility considers what the organization’s needs
are for change over time and influences such things as what people
need to know, how they behave and interact, and how they perform
roles. Building the attitude of team members demands attention to the
following guidelines:
What Looks Like Change Agility?
• Being flexible and able to change

• Suppressing the need to control
• Operating effectively with risk and uncertainty
• Accepting the missing information and complexity
• Trusting the gut in the face of the unknown or unexpected
• Dealing with ambiguity and impact of ambiguity
So the improvement of change agility is best positioned as an internal

strategy aimed at improving the organization’s capability and capac-
ity to change rapidly and effectively when the need arises. Like other
internal strategies that position the organization to be effective (talent
development and succession planning, strategic sourcing, sales force

selection and d
evelopment, etc.), change agility deserves intentional
strategic discussion and planning.
As with any internal improvement strategy, the quest for change
agility includes the following steps:
Defining the Desired State. In undertaking a strategic review of
organizational change agility, the process of defining the desired state
consists in staking out a few key areas that will best aid the organization
in becoming more agile. It may be completed before assessing the current
state or after that activity.
Assessing the Current State. This assessment helps to tease out both
the visible impediments and the underlying causal drivers and highlights
more clearly what measures will be most effective in improving agility.
In conducting an assessment of the current state, it is critical to gain
an accurate picture of both the obvious and the hidden attributes.
Performing a Gap Analysis. The purpose of a gap analysis is to define
the richest areas for improvement. The thematic compilation of areas for
improvement gathered in the current state assessment is the primary
input to this work. If a desired state was defined before the current state
assessment, it will also be input to the gap analysis.
Developing and Executing the Program. Once the strategies are
selected, on the basis of the gap analysis, the strategies need to be worked
out and programs and projects identified to carry them out. As with
programs and projects planned as part of other company strategies, change
agility programs and projects are appropriately governed as part of a port-

folio of efforts being undertaken by the organization. This g overnance is
well served through a portfolio management process and function that
gives clear authority for monitoring both the programs of work and the
environment in which they are to be implemented.
Reassessing/Measuring to Determine Success. Arguably, it is even
more important to assess the success of change agility efforts than of any
other organizational change. Whenever change touches on culture and
peoples’ behavior, there is a strong tendency to return to life as usual
if there is little commitment to ongoing measurement and reassessment
of the success of the changes over time. As with any other program or
project, measures of short- and long-term success of the change agility
program will be established as part of the journey from strategy to execu-
tion and realization of benefits.
This five-step process is not a one-and-done activity. The entire pro-
cess should be repeated on a periodic basis.
Change Agility and Change Management
It is important to emphasize the value to an organization of purposefully

integrating the crucial capabilities of change agility, change management,
and organizational project, program, and portfolio management to maxi-
mize the organizational capability for successful strategy achievement.
Strategies are realized only when they are well implemented, and that
is true for change agility strategies as well. And projects to implement
strategies are less effective in delivering those strategies when there is no
clear set of organizational systems ensuring the smooth transition from
strategic direction to actual results.
More organizations are beginning to realize that project management
means more than just having good project managers. An integrated lead-
ership, management, and support environment is just as critical for the
delivery of strategies.
Defining a good strategy and action plan is only part of the p
icture. No
strategy operates in a vacuum. It must be integrated with and p rioritized
against other work efforts, resourced, championed, supported, and moni-
tored. A portfolio management function (whether in a formalized enterprise
PMO function, a strategic planning organization, or, in smaller organiza-

tions, combined into program management activities) plays c ritical roles
in ensuring the successful delivery and adoption of the strategies—external
and internal—through such activities as:
• Translating strategies into programs of work;

• Assessing and ensuring the inventory of strategic work is not placing
undue demands on any part of the organization and that the full
inventory is digestible by the organization; Aligning resources of the
organization with work needed to implement changes; Identifying
the ways in which the success of the strategy will be measured; and
Monitoring the environment continually to adjust the portfolio of
programs and projects as conditions change. Effective delivery of strat-
egies is cemented by skilled capability and thoughtful application of
program and project management, with the support of equally well-
rounded change management processes. The portfolio, program, and
project management processes also contribute to the organizational
learning loop that drives future change agility strategy development.
• Projects and programs identify lessons learned that demonstrate
both helpful and impeding cultural norms, commitment behav-
iors, and organizational capacities.
• Portfolio management functions identify such pervasive issues as
change overload, resource holes, and poor understanding of the
external environment that impact strategy success.
The success of change agility strategies requires the same purposeful

implementation system as do external strategies.
Internal strategies also impact one another. A change agility strategy
may require, in part, an effective talent development strategy or sourc-
ing strategy—and a strategic sourcing strategy may require one or more
change agility strategies.
The important message is that these strategy implementation systems
must be holistically viewed and targeted for optimal delivery of the
company’s strategies. In fact, the purposeful development of this set of
linkages and expertise is, in itself, a worthy change agility strategy for
many organizations.
Why Do Managers Hate Agile?
Stephen Denning (2015a), adapted the following:
A Paradigm Shift in Management
So managers need to recognize that they are dealing with a

paradigm shift in the strict sense laid down by Thomas Kuhn
(n.d.), involving a basic shift in our understanding of how the
world works. Of course, the phrase “paradigm shift” has been
thrown around in management for such a long time that it has
become something of a joke. That’s because the claimed paradigm
shifts always turned out to be “more of the same.” Gurus cried
wolf too often. But now it turns out that we have a real wolf on
our doorstep.
Now we are dealing with a genuine paradigm shift. It’s a different

way of understanding how the world works. This insight can help
us understand the reasons for the lack of acceptance of the new
way of managing in the creative economy, despite its advantages.
The cycle is shown in Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 The Kuhn cycle

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1957),

explained that paradigm shifts work in four phases:
Phase 1: “Normal science” proceeds on agreed assumptions.

Phase 2: Anomalies appear and “fixes” are introduced, but they
don’t fully solve the anomalies.
Phase 3: Forward thinkers recognize the need for fundamental
change.
Change is strongly resisted by the powers that be.
Long-standing attitudes, values, and assumptions support the
status quo.
Phase 4: The new paradigm is generally accepted.
We are right in the middle of Phase 3 of a paradigm shift in

management.
Forward thinkers in management now recognize the need for

fundamental change. But change is being strongly resisted by
the powers that be, and long-standing attitudes, values, and
assumptions support the status quo. We need to recognize that
this is normal in Phase 3 of a paradigm shift.
Such shifts can take a long time. Thus, it took the Roman C
atholic
Church three hundred years to change its mental model of the
world and remove the ban on even discussing the idea that the
earth revolves around the sun.
With management, it’s not going to take three hundred years,

because the economics are forcing change. The old way of managing
is becoming less and less productive, and the ongoing disruption of
existing business models demonstrates. Once you get behind the
booming stock market, built on cheap government money and
financial engineering, you find that the rates of return on a ssets
and on invested capital of U.S. firms have been on steady decline
since 1965. Firms which are run in the old way are being put out
of business. The options are basically: change or die. Some firms
are opting to die. But the change will happen regardless.
So, the question is not whether the transition is going to happen.

It’s when. The question is: Will the change be agonizingly slow and
ugly and bloody? Or will it be quick and elegant and intelligent?
The movement toward the creative economy, with agile, Scrum,
lean, DevOps, and its analogs, is about generating the latter
outcome”.
1.4 Why Case Against Agile?

Agile—A Reality—Why Software People?
The management world remains generally in denial and is indifferent to

the discoveries of agile by the software people.
The reality remains that the agile management discoveries were not
made by academics in business schools or highly paid managers in big
corporations. The discoveries were made by people whom you would
think least likely to have solved a management problem: geeks.
In retrospect, it’s not hard to see why they solved the problem. In the
1990s, huge sums of money were being lost because the work of software
development was always late, over budget, and plagued by quality prob-
lems. Clients were upset, and firms lost money. The developers were seen
as the culprits and were punished. They worked harder and harder. They
labored evenings and weekends. They got divorced. It made no difference.
The software was still late, over budget, and full of bugs. They were fired,
but their replacements did no better. The standard prescriptions of man-
agement didn’t work with software development.
Something different had to be found. Yet they continued their
efforts and a multiple trial-and-error approach led to success in mak-
ing the discoveries.
Managers Hate Agile
In a poll of some 400 employees of many different firms where the

practices known as agile and Scrum are being implemented, 88 percent
reported tension between the way agile/Scrum teams are managed in their
organization and the way the rest of the organization is managed. Only
8 percent reported “no tension,” says a survey results (Denning, 2015a,
2015b).
Two Different Worlds
You cannot ignore the reality that “management” and “agile” are two dif-
ferent worlds.
“Management” is vertical. Its hierarchies and mindset are also vertical.
“Strategy gets set at the top,” as Gary Hame often explains. “Power trickles
down.” Big leaders appoint leaders down the line in hierarchy, individuals
compete for promotion, and compensation correlates with rank. Tasks are as-
signed. Managers assess performance. Rules tightly circumscribe discretion.
The vertical world serves the purpose of making money for the shareholders,
including the business executives. Generally, the communication is top–down.
The values are efficiency and predictability. The approach to succeeding in the
vertical world is tight control where dynamic is conservative: to preserve the
gains of the past. Its workforce is dispirited. It has a hard time with innovation.
The companies in the vertical world are being systematically d isrupted,
and economy—the traditional economy—is in decline.
The “agile” mindset is horizontal, and the natural habitat is low with
flat hierarchies spreading rapidly like a virus and has already established
footholds in most of the tall, vertical organizations. Its purpose is to focus
on customers, team members, and quality of product, where making
money is the result, not the goal, of activities. The dynamic is enabling, not
control. The communications tend to be horizontal conversations with a
focus on continuous innovation. It facilitates the full talents of those doing
the work. It is oriented to understanding and creating the future. It helps
the economy, particularly the creative economy that is thriving.
Adults in the Room
The vertical world of management likes to position itself as “the adults in the
room.” The following extract from an interview with Sam Palmisano, for-
mer CEO of IBM, in the Harvard Business Review in June 2014, is typical:
You’ve got companies in great runs right now, the Googles and
the Facebooks. Good ideas, great returns, but then all of a sudden,
you need an act two. Well, jeez, is act two going to propel you
from [US]$30 billion to [US]$100 billion? That’s a little tougher.
It’s the Microsoft challenge.
So you have to say, “Well, I need a different view. I can still create
shareholder value, but I can do it a different way. I can rethink
capital allocation.” Recognize where you are on your maturity
curve, as a management team, and behave accordingly. Don’t give
a speech as CEO as if you just got out of Stanford and you came
up with an iconic interface and you called yourself a piece of fruit.
Sadly, the real world is the opposite of the imaginary world that
Palmisano inhabits.
The firms with “names like pieces of fruit” are not “[US]$30 b illion
firms.” In fact, some of them are now much larger than the old 20th-century
“giants.” Apple, for instance, is now more than four times the size of IBM.
Whereas firms with a vertical mindset at the top, like IBM, are struggling
with declining revenues and bloody cost cutting reorganizations, firms in the
horizontal world of agile, like Apple and Google, are busy growing and invent-
ing the future. Their second, third, and fourth acts are already well under way.
Summary
The competition in a business environment is continually increasing,
and time to market is also shrinking; agile offers numerous benefits and
limited drawbacks. Its application in multiple industries makes it an
attractive methodology, and with all the benefits offered by agile project
management, this methodology is to stay for time to come.
References
Alexander, A. January 12, 2017. “Agile Project Management: A B eginner’s
Guide.” https://www.cio.com/article/3156998/agile-development/agile-
project-management-a-beginners-guide.html
Boston Consulting Group (BCG). 2013. “Strategic Initiative Management:
The PMO Imperative.” https://www.scribd.com/document/355154659/
bcg-strategic-initiative-management-pdf
Denning, S. 2015a. “More on Why Managers Hate Agile.” http://www
.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/01/28/more-on-why-managers-
hate-agile/#5e0eb7a83a58
Denning, S. 2015b. “Why Do Managers Hate Agile.” https://www.

forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/01/26/why-do-managers-hate-
agile/ #3c3831ee3a57
Jordan, A. June 18, 2015. “Preparing for Strategic Agile.” https://www
.projectmanagement.com/articles/296723/Preparing-for-Strategic-Agile
Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L. 2009. Immunity to Change. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Kuhn, T. n.d. “Prescience.” http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Pre-
science.htm
PMI. 2013. “Project Management Institute’s Pulse of the Profession®
In-Depth Report—Organizational Agility.”
PMI. 2017. “PMBOK Guide, 6th ed.”
PMI Today. January, 2018. “Achieving Greater Agility.” PMI.org/learning/
thought-leadership/series/achieving-greater-agility
Shaughnessy, H. 2015. Shift: A Leader’s Guide to the Platform E conomy.
Boise, ID: Tru Publishing. https://www.goodreads.com/book/
show/24509733-shift
Weber, E. 2014. “Four Signs You’re Doing Agile Development Wrong.”
http://www.informationweek.com/strategic-cio/executive-insights-
and-innovation/4-signs-youre-doing-agile-development-wrong/d/
d-id/ 1174135
Index
Adaptive project life cycle, 49 benefits of, 18–20
Agile, 22–23, 35–36 Apple, 36, 111
applying to strategic layers, 21–22 Asynchronous collaboration, 75
approaches, 48–49, 67–68
case against, 34–36 Being agile, 9–11
versus iterative method, 48 enablers for, 11–12
Agile adoption, 10–11 Boston Consulting Group (BCG), 23
benefits of, 57–58 Bottom line, 106
Agile facilitator, key roles and Business process mapping. See Value
responsibilities, 4 stream mapping
Agile leadership, principles of, 64–67 Business value, 54–58
Agile Manifesto, principles behind,
51–52 Ceremony, 9–10
Agile mindset, 58–63 Change agility, 24–25
Agile Project Leadership Network, 49 building, 28–30
Agile project management and change management, 30–32
agile strategic alignment. See Agile characteristics of, 26
strategic alignment key operational systems of, 26–28
being agile, 9–11 for strategy implementation, 23–24
enablers for, 11–12 understanding, 25–26
case against agile, 34–36 Change management, 7–8
change agility. See Change agility and change agility, 30–32
four signs of doing agile Citibank, 110
development wrong, 12–15 Collaboration
introduction to, 1–3 and agile leadership, 65–67
versus lean, 47 barriers to, 104
organizational agility. See benefits of, 77–79
Organizational agility critical skills for, 80–82
similarities between, and lean, 46–47 elements of, 79–80
software development, 3–6 importance of, 73–75
versus traditional project ingredients of, 74–75
management, 5–6 introduction to, 71–72
Agile strategic alignment, 16–17 leadership for, 86–92
applying to strategic layers, 21–22 levels of, 76
paradigm shift in management, leverage, 93
32–34 manage sustaining, 84–86
preparing for, 20–21 skills for project implementation,
project management practices, 22–23 77–93
transformation, 17–20 steps to manage team, 82–83
Agile techniques, 59. See Extreme tips for success, 93–95
project management training endeavors, 119
Agile transformation, 17–18 at workplace, 75–77
128 INDEX
Collaborative culture DuPont, 114

ambiguity from top, 104–105
barriers to, 104 Ethic of contribution, 111–112
building, 107 “EverQuest,” 119
creating a collaborative Extreme Manufacturing (XM), 22
infrastructure, 112–113 Extreme Programming (XP), 22
developing processes, 112 Extreme project management, 47–48
ethic of contribution, 111–112 agile approaches to, 48–49
evolution, 113–114 agile practices and principles, 49–50
facilitating and maintaining
collaborative Facebook, 111
environment, 113 Footprinting, 83
fueling participation and
innovation, 99–100 Gantt Charts, 46
habits of highly collaborative General Motors, 114
organizations, 114–115 Google, 111
importance of, 98–99
improving workplace, 106–107 Hewlett-Packard, 111
introduction to, 97 Highly collaborative organizations,
life cycle of, 107–110 habits of, 114–115
make advancement, 100–101
loosening control without losing IBM, 36, 110
control, 102 Iterative method versus agile
misaligned, 105–106 method, 48
principles of, 102–104
shared purpose, 111 Kaiser Permanente, 110–111
training, 115–120 Kanban, 23
virtual interactions, 110 “Knowing/doing gap,” 25
Collaborative environment, 113 Kuhn cycle, 32–33
Collaborative evolution, 113–114
Collaborative infrastructure, 112–113 Leader, key roles and
Collaborative leadership, 86–92 responsibilities, 4
skills for, 91–92 Leadership
Collaborative leverage, 93 principles, 90–91
Collaborative success, tips for, 93–95 styles, comparison of, 89
Collaborative training, 115–120 Lean enterprise, 40
objectives, 116–117 Lean project management, 43–45
required skills, 117–118 versus agile, 47
virtual teams, 118–120 agile mindset, 58–63
Commitment, 9, 65–66 business value, 54–58
Communication, 65–66 contemporary views, 67–68
Crystal Clear, 22 cultural gap, 63–67
Cultural gap, 63–67 Deming Cycle, 45
Culture, vital role of, 9 extreme project management,
Customer Feedback surveys, 46 47–48
agile approaches to, 48–49
Deming Cycle, 45 agile practices and principles,
DMEDI, Lean Six Sigma phases, 46 49–50
INDEX
129
introduction to, 39–40 Risk management, 7

Lean Six Sigma, 46 Root Cause Analysis, 46
principles, 41–42 Routinization, 25–26
Scrum. See Scrum
similarities between, and agile, “Scavenger Hunt,” 119
46–47 Scope stagnation, 13
waste, types of, 40–41 Scrum, 22–23, 50
Lean Six Sigma, 46 history of, 50–51
Lean system, 40 principles behind agile manifesto,
Lean thinking, 41–42 51–52
radical management, 52–53
Management, 35. See also Specific Service-level agreement (SLA), 15
management Shared purpose, 111
Managers hate agile, 32–35 Silo mentality, 84
Microsoft, 111 Social Enterprise Tools, 100
Motivational value system Social media, 119
(MVS), 108 Soft skills, 77–78
Muda, 41 Standard Oil, 114
Mura, 41 Standardization, 43
Muri, 41 Standardized practices, 8
Statistical Process Control (SPC), 46
NASA, 110 Strategic agile
building foundations for, 21–22
Organizational agility, 6–9 preparing for, 20–21
achieving greater, 8–9 Synchronous collaboration, 75
change management, 7–8 Synergy, 73–74
risk management, 7
standardized practices, 8 Team collaboration, 82–83
Theory Y, 102
Pair programming. See Extreme Traditional, versus agile project
Programming (XP) management, 5–6
Paradigm shift, 32–34 True engagement, in organization,
PDCA, Deming Cycle phases, 45 98–99
Program evaluation review technique Trust building, 73, 82, 86
(PERT), 47 Turbulence, defined, 23
Project implementation, collaboration
skills for Value stream mapping, 43, 46
benefits, 78–79 Virtual games, 119
critical skills, 80–81 Virtual interactions, 110
elements, 79–82 Virtual teams, 118–120
steps to manage team, 82–83
Waste, types of, 40–41
Radical management, 52–53 Work in progress (WIP), 23, 63
Reframe perfection, 62–63 Workplace collaboration, 75–77,
Resilience, 62 106–107
Return on investment (ROI), 54 “World of Warcraft,” 119
OTHER TITLES IN OUR PORTFOLIO AND
PROJECT MANAGEMENT COLLECTION
Timothy J. Kloppenborg, Editor
• Improving Executive Sponsorship of Projects: A Holistic Approach by Dawne Chandler
and Payson Hall
• Co-Create: Harnessing the Human Element in Project Management by Steve Martin
• Financing and Managing Projects, Volume I: A Guide for Executives and Professionals
by Nand L. Dhameja, Ashok Panjwani, and Vijay Aggarwal
• Financing and Managing Projects, Volume II: A Guide for Executives and Professionals
by Nand L. Dhameja, Ashok Panjwani, and Vijay Aggarwal
• Agile Management: The Fast and Flexible Approach to Continuous Improvement and
Innovation in Organizations by Mike Hoogveld
• A Practical Guide for Holistic Project Management by Lex van der Heijden
• Project Management and Leadership Challenges-Volume I: Applying Project
Management Principles for Organizational Transformation by M. Aslam Mirza
• Innoliteracy: From Design Thinking to Tangible Change by Steinar Valade-Amland
• Project Management and Leadership Challenges, Volume II: Understanding Human
Factors And Workplace Environment by M. Aslam Mirza
• Project Management and Leadership Challenges, Volume III: Respecting Diversity,
Building Team Meaningfulness, and Growing Into Leadership Roles by M. Aslam Mirza
• Why Projects Fail: Nine Laws for Success by Tony Martyr
Announcing the Business Expert Press Digital Library

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research
This book can also be purchased in an e-book collection by your library as
• a one-time purchase,
• that is owned forever,
• allows for simultaneous readers,
• has no restrictions on printing, and
• can be downloaded as PDFs from within the library community.
Our digital library collections are a great solution to beat the rising cost of textbooks. E-books
can be loaded into their course management systems or onto students’ e-book readers.
The Business Expert Press digital libraries are very affordable, with no obligation to buy in
future years. For more information, please visit www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians.
To set up a trial in the United States, please email sales@businessexpertpress.com.

Chapter 1 - 4

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chapter 1 - 4

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Project Management

and Leadership Challenges,

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published in 2018 by

ISBN-13: 978-1-94744-178-1 (paperback)

Business Expert Press Portfolio and Project Management Collection

Collection ISSN: 2156-8189 (print)

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services

First edition: 2018

Printed in the United States of America.

Agile Project Management

How to ensure agile strategic alignment

• Why the Case Against Agile

An “Agile” approach to project management blends older traditional ideas

Moira Alexander (2017), adapted the following:

Although Incremental software development methods go as far

Later in 2001, the agile manifesto, a “formal proclamation of four

1) Customer satisfaction is always the highest priority; achieved

3) A product or service is delivered with higher frequency.

Proponents of the technique claim that

• It is the most consistent project management technique since it

• Its disadvantage is that it is used only when the customer has

building a consensus to support its introduction may take very

cal support for the initiative, followed by a quick methodology

How it differs from traditional project management can be seen in

Table 1.1 Comparison of agile project management with traditional

Table 1.1 Comparison of agile project management with traditional

1.1 Why Agility

It is arguably the most important concept for an ­organization

Such a volatile marketplace demands organizational agility, a

The Pulse of Profession In-Depth Report indicates: “In an econ-

A fundamental element of organizational agility, risk manage-

No organization can keep up with economic and market shifts

Good companies wait for change. Innovative companies initiate

—Paul Tallon, PhD, associate professor, Information Systems,

“There is a cost to doing nothing,” Dr. Tallon warns. “You have to

Standardized project, program, and portfolio management prac-

Standardized project management practices drive better decision-

Organizations Achieve Greater Agility

PMI Today (2018), adapted the following:

The Critical Need for Cross-Functional Support that drives for

• Greater organizational agility correlates with success.

• Functions with high agility receive more organizational

The Vital Role of Culture and Commitment

This report, developed in collaboration with KPMG, explores key

• Take a top-down (or PMO-first) approach, rather than trans-

Aggressively starting a project means getting ready to solve the emerging

provide. For example, a daily stand-up meeting is useless until the

• Instilling a clear sense of purpose about what needs to get done

However, teams are self-deceiving with stand-up meetings and not

Help teams and organizations embrace principles over practices.

Enablers for “Being” Agile

• Empowered, self-organized, self-disciplined, self-aware, long-lived,

• Sufficient coaching support for leadership and agile team until

1.2 Four Signs of Doing Agile Development Wrong

Agility is the ability for development teams to respond quickly,

1) A Failing “get done”

testing and everything else that has to be done in order to

Be Watchful for Wrong Footings

• Nonexistent dedicated teams for working within an agile

approach. Ultimately, they care about what you are supposed to

1.3 Agile Strategic Alignment

Figure 1.1 Recommended approach for agile

It is arguably the most important concept for an organization

The problem is that it isn’t good for even successful o rganizations

So the improvement of change agility is best positioned as an internal

So, the question is not whether the transition is going to happen.