Challenges during the implementation and the paradox in the Agile Methodology (Part 1)
By: Pedro Rueda
The implementation of the agile methodology brings many challenges, some of them will be exposed below with the objective that organizations that want to implement this methodology take them into account and can create different mechanisms that reduce the risk that these challenges could bring. A significant challenge that organizations have when moving to the agile methodology is to make all their employees move in the same direction. In the example and implementation analyzed above, it is possible to observe that the three organizations consider that the implementation is a whole "journey," and it is not a process of change that happens radically. The challenge, in this case, is not to make people move or start the process of transformation, to recognize the concepts and internalize the issues that bring the agile terminology. The challenge is that, along the path of transformation to be traveled, all teams are "walking" in the same direction. That is why the creation of a vision that transforms the mindset of employees is necessary and is an integral role of the leaders to make all employees live that vision and recognize where the organization will be after implementation and the importance of the change management process.
Another element that generates a challenge for the implementation of agile methodology is what could be defined as the anxiety that the constant need for change brings. In the book The Agility Shift, the author calls it from "False security" to "Anxious Confidence"*. In this sense it is considered that instead of working with the false security of having everything stable and having "sure" what will happen later and what should be delivered as a result, without learning to improve the project, it is good to have a level of healthy anxiety that psychologists call it "anxious confidence"**. Individuals know that at any moment something can happen that is not expected, and that is not planned; however, they are in the capacity to assume these changes, so that anxiety does not translate into something negative, but on the contrary, they know and are clear about the goals and the established vision. The challenge at this point is to find a relationship or positive tension between the anxiety with new scenarios, the inability to plan precisely and the unpredictable events and the self-confidence that can be demonstrated by an individual or an agile group. They are willing to see the obstacles as opportunities so a characteristic of agility will be the confidence that a person generates in their ability to face unpredictable events beyond the confidence that a person can generate due to the ability to plan with an amount of time in advance.
One of the challenges of agile companies is the paradox between stability and flexibility. In the design and implementation of the methodology, the question arises between maintaining the speed of execution and creating stability in the business. Generally, small companies could be considered to adapt more quickly to an agile methodology since they do not have as many bureaucratic processes as in a large company. When considering the implementation of the agile methodology, it is possible to contemplate that it is necessary to choose between flexibility and stability when the company starts to grow, however, the challenge is to be able to maintain a combination between these two.
Start-ups are a clear example of companies that, often intuitively, take parts of the agile methodology without realizing it. According to the consulting group of McKinsey***, a truly agile organization is the one who manages to maintain both sides of the paradox actively, on the one hand, stability, efficiency and resilience and on the other the flexibility, speed, and adaptability. To achieve this, companies have the challenge of creating a "fixed backbone" where dynamic, changing, and adaptable elements can be continuously added. In the article "Agility: It rhymes with stability," McKinsey compares this paradox with a Smartphone and considers that companies that want to implement an agile methodology should compare with a Smartphone. A cellphone of this type usually maintains standard hardware, a body that gives it the stability and the ability to execute several applications. That hardware is the core of the telephone where all the processes are administered; however, it has applications that are updated continuously and that are installed or deleted according to the needs of the end-user. For McKinsey, telephone hardware refers to the stability that an organization must have in terms of three main elements: structure, governance, and process. The applications correspond to the dynamism and the capacity to be flexible that the organization must have. Example of this dynamism or these "apps" that are installed and uninstalled depending on the user's need are the "self-organized" teams established for particular specific objectives, talent reviews, allocation of resources to projects and feedback.
To be continued.
* Meyer, P. The agility shift. Creating agile and effective leaders, teams, and organizations. 2015. Pp. 82
** Mirvis, P. Variations on a theme-practice improvisation. Organization science. Vol. 9., No. 5. September-October 1998. Pp. 586-592.
*** Aghina, W., De Smet, A., and Weerda, K. Agility: It rhymes with stability” McKinsey Quarterly, McKinsey. December 2015. Retrieved September 2018, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/agility-it-rhymes-with-stability.
