How Failed Agile Transformations Can Still Have Value

Not all agile transformations are successful in the same way; in fact, I think it’s possible to get tremendous value out of a failed attempt.

About a year ago, I was asked to help an office space design group and an IT solutions delivery group. The problem presented to me was this: “We have worked on multiple office build projects, but we keep missing important dependencies and struggle with timely communications. Can you help us combine agile with building offices?”

Though I knew applying agile in a construction project space would be a big challenge, I proposed a few techniques that might help them start their projects in an agile-friendly way. I emphasized that they would be creating an agile hybrid, and their ownership of what they built and how they built it, as teams across groups, would be essential.

After I gave them an overview of agile, they were drawn to decentralized planning. We held a mapping session with the technical leads, designers, project managers, and even stakeholders. Within an hour, they were discovering dependencies and having conversations about pain points and lead times that they had never talked about before. More importantly, they had a shared mental model of what they were building. It was a small step but a good one.

I wish I could say that the teams went on from that point to become self-organizing units embracing agile culture. But they did not. Arguments over tooling and meeting frequency frustrated them. Support for agile itself was muddied with each change in leadership. Continuity waned. Enthusiasm sputtered.

Still, they did not give up. Pockets of healthy agile culture were hanging on. Rethinking the agile principles for their “product” ignited imaginations and got them trying new things to improve. Some were seeing value.

They acknowledged a year earlier that this effort would be a hybrid. Though it had been evolving, they had reached a point where they wanted to create a new baseline. That was the ownership I was looking for.

I facilitated that reset with them. Here’s what they told me they learned from their previous year that they wanted to build on:

• “Continue decentralized planning; it ensures clear engagement. “
• “Where mapping helped with early projects, multiple other projects are getting started without it. Our project prioritization and initiation processes need fixing.”
• “Two-week iterative planning (in tune with the overall timeline) gives us better visibility and earlier identification of problems.”
• “Our regular arguing over the value of agile ceremonies has led us to question the value of all project meetings. We are empowered to eliminate anything that wastes time.”
• “Email updates in lieu of attending standups are a massive waste of time. Standups have a valuable purpose but require discipline.”
• “Retrospectives have given us many great ideas and ensure at least some continuous improvement.”

Are they agile now? No. Are they borrowing some of agile’s values? Absolutely.

So, while they had failed at an agile transformation, they are succeeding in fixing their problems—and then some.

Arjay Hinek is presenting the session Tear It Down to Build It Up: Using Agile in Construction Project Management at Agile + DevOps East 2018, November 4–9 in Orlando, Florida.

• Login or Join to add your comment