Understanding Prompt Engineering

Prompt engineering involves creating inputs that elicit specific responses from AI systems. This process requires understanding the model’s capabilities, iterating on prompt designs, and fine-tuning outputs for accuracy and relevance. It’s a blend of creativity, technical skill, and an understanding of natural language processing (NLP) nuances.

Applying Agile Principles to Prompt Engineering

In the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, the art and science of prompt engineering has become a critical skill. This field focuses on designing and refining prompts to guide AI systems, particularly language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4, to generate desired outputs. Integrating Agile methodologies into prompt engineering can enhance efficiency, adaptability, and collaboration.

Prompt engineering involves creating inputs that elicit specific responses from AI systems. This process requires understanding the model’s capabilities, iterating on prompt designs, and fine-tuning outputs for accuracy and relevance. It’s a blend of creativity, technical skill, and an understanding of natural language processing (NLP) nuances.

Agile methodology emphasizes iterative development, collaboration, and flexibility. Originally developed for software engineering, its principles can be adapted to various fields, including AI prompt engineering. The core values of Agile—individuals and interactions, working solutions, customer collaboration, and responding to change—align well with the dynamic nature of AI development.

The first principle of Agile is iterative development and continuous feedback. In prompt engineering, this translates to developing prompts in short cycles, testing and refining them continuously merits of prompt engineering for agile user stories  and many more. This helps in quickly identifying what works and what doesn’t. Involving stakeholders, such as end-users and data scientists, in the feedback process is crucial. Their insights help fine-tune prompts, ensuring they meet the desired objectives.

A collaborative environment is another Agile principle that can be applied to prompt engineering. Assembling cross-functional teams with diverse expertise—NLP specialists, domain experts, and UX designers—leads to more effective and nuanced prompt designs. Regular stand-up meetings to discuss progress, challenges, and ideas keep everyone aligned and foster a culture of continuous improvement.

Focusing on delivering value to the customer through close collaboration and understanding their needs is central to Agile. In prompt engineering, this means tailoring prompts to meet the specific needs and preferences of end-users. Conducting user research and usability testing ensures that prompts are intuitive and effective. Being prepared to pivot and adjust prompts based on user feedback and changing requirements is crucial for maintaining relevance and effectiveness.

Agile principles also emphasize embracing change. In prompt engineering, this involves developing flexible prompts that can be easily adapted and modified. Creating modular prompts allows for adjustments without starting from scratch. Staying updated with the latest advancements in AI and NLP is essential. Integrating new techniques and best practices into the prompt engineering process ensures that teams stay ahead of the curve.

To implement Agile prompt engineering effectively, start by clearly defining objectives and success criteria. This sets a clear direction and benchmarks for your iterations. Develop your initial set of prompts based on the defined objectives. Deploy these prompts in a controlled environment and collect feedback from users and stakeholders. Analyze the results to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Refine the prompts based on feedback and test again. Repeat this process, continuously improving and adapting the prompts to better meet the objectives. Once the prompts meet the success criteria, scale their deployment. Continue to monitor performance and optimize as needed, ensuring the prompts remain effective over time.

Conclusion

Integrating Agile methodologies into prompt engineering can significantly enhance the process, making it more efficient, adaptable, and collaborative. By applying Agile principles, teams can develop more effective prompts, respond quickly to changing requirements, and deliver greater value to users. As AI continues to evolve, the synergy between Agile and prompt engineering will become increasingly vital in creating intelligent, responsive, and user-friendly AI systems.

Der Beitrag Prompt engineering the Agile way erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

It is true to the motto: outside Hui – inside ugh. Staff units do not know what to do, internal projects are delayed up to 12 months or have stood still for years and nothing is moving. At the same time, however, external projects are still being carried out very successfully. The question now arises: What can agile program management look like internally? How can I be just as successful internally as externally.

In the following I would like to explain my idea and also show how the projects can be monitored (controlling) in a meaningful way. I assume that internal projects are always done alongside day-to-day business and that the goals of board members are vague for employees. So I want to solve the following questions:

• How can board members’ goals be translated into measures in a meaningful way?
• How can employees be drafted?
• How do we do it with a maximum of 1 FTE?
• How can we carry out internal projects without fixed internal resources (day-to-day business comes first)?
• How can we measure internal projects?
• How can we measure our strategy progress?

Step 1: quarterly planning

The first step is for the board to set goals. Often the goals of boards are seen as vague. Eg we improve the quality of service or we want to become faster. I think that’s OK and board members should no longer communicate. It is up to the employees to design the goals in a meaningful way.

My recommendation is therefore to collect 3-5 goals from the board in the first step per quarter. Now there is a full-time FTE which, together with the board members, creates very large program epics (P-Epic). This is a translation of the goals into software such as Jira (plug-in portfolio). The process step takes 8-16 hours per quarter. Examples are: improvement of service management or the introduction of an ITSM tool as a P-Epic.

Step 2: Conception of epics and involvement of employees

Now it goes to the 2nd step. Together with the program team (1 FTE), the department heads must name specific measures in the form of epics, which “pay off” for the respective goal. For example, we take measures 1, 2, 3, … to improve product quality. I recommend that each department head name 3 specific projects that he would like to implement and prioritize them according to 1,2,3.

Together with the program team and the department heads, these 3 measures per goal are presented to the board and approved. This happens within the first 14 days of the quarter. Thus, with 3 department heads, 9 major measures per quarter for the implementation of the strategy can be guaranteed. The department heads coordinate the measures with the respective employees. Thus, the inclusion and the possibility of design is given. Now it’s time to implement it.

Step 3: implementation

Now the 2.5 month implementation phase follows. On the one hand, the program team and department heads can continue to throw in new epics, and on the other hand, the board can flexibly throw in new topics. So that this is regulated: Change for free and Money for Nothing:

• Any epic not started can be exchanged for a new epic of equal value
• Every started epic can be exchanged for a new epic of equal value and costs the currently invested time + 20% of the hours (set-up time)

You will find that by doing this you are also in a way educating the board that changes are thought through and not bombed out all the time. The context switch is also compensated for with the 20% additional effort. In this way, you really show honestly which work flows into which tasks.

My tip for measuring work progress and building up pressure: hold a meeting every Wednesday. Each employee is allowed to talk for 90 seconds for each epic that is currently being processed. So you can go through 20 epics in 30 minutes. The regular status puts pressure behind the epics, creates transparency and clarifies questions.

The employees themselves are now busy working through the epics. After a quarter is over, a release train leaves. The so-called (agile) release trains are a metaphor. A train is never late – it leaves on time and takes everyone with it! Thus, all epics are presented to the board at the end of the quarter. No matter what the status is.

Step 4: new quarterly planning and agile controlling

Reporting (agile controlling) is now carried out. This reporting also helps to carry out the new quarterly planning. Goals can either be continued or new goals can be added. After step 4, you will start again in the next quarter at step 2. I would now like to explain agile controlling to you.

Agile controlling

Controlling is very simple in this case. On the one hand, you can book working time on the epics and also assign story points (internal currency) on the value of a story. I myself think that the following should flow into the story points of the Epic:

• Risk (1-5 points awarded the points in reverse – high risk: 1)
• Benefits for the company (1-5 points)
• Effort (1-5 points awarded the points conversely – high effort: 1)
• Merit (1-5 points)
• Now calculate the points. An epic can have a maximum of 20 points. Example: If an epic has a high benefit (5), little effort (5), good earnings (5) but a high risk (1) it is 16 points.

Based on these two figures, I can tell at the end of the day: How many hours have we invested in a goal of the Board of Management and have we achieved many points? Above all, the points help to see: are we really doing what is essential and important?

Example of the evaluation at the end of the quarter

I would like to give you another example. You can see in the picture below that I have two very vague targets. These are implemented through concrete epics. As a board member, you can now say that you have improved the quality of service for over 900 hours. You had two sub-goals and five specific projects.

You will also notice from the points that, especially in the point of service management, significantly more profitable epics than in point 2 have implemented technology framework. Maybe you should keep focusing on service management or Epic 4? You have to decide this now.

Reading tip: Agile controlling

Conclusion

It is often chaotic in internal project management or program management. Problems are unclear requirements and a misunderstanding of the strategy. For this reason, I propose an agile approach for internal program management. For this purpose, the objectives of the Board of Management are translated and measures are derived. These are implemented every quarter and supplied with the necessary delivery pressure through a release train. The progress is measured in hours and points. As a company, you can say exactly where the effort goes and how we implement a strategy.

Der Beitrag Agile internal program management and controlling erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

For this purpose, I had employees tell me in various telephone calls through interviews how such managers are shielded. I would like to show you the shielding of managers in a funny way in the form of a case study and then give you tips for solving the scenario. The following story is of course completely exaggerated and I use typical clichés.

Reading tip: Case study: Scrum in a corporation

A funny story: the top management and the shielding lines

Take a look at the fictitious case study from TechCom AG. TechCom AG consists of three department heads, each with a personal assistant, and three team leaders, who have jointly introduced a new structure. Four agile teams create value for the company and generate money. TechCom AG is very successful in the market. Now look at the picture in peace.

TechCom AG’s problem is that top management is in a constant war against each other. In addition, all three department heads are unfortunately in a severe self-crisis and suffer from narcissism or similar quirks. Each of the department heads has an assistant that they are very happy to have. Department head 1 seems very lonely and has the only friend in the assistant. Department head 2 treats the assistant like a second wife, who also buys gifts for him privately for his wedding day and helps organize his private life. Department head 3 sees the assistant as his best friend and has an affair with the assistant of department head 2.

Reading tip: Dark triad

First line of shielding by the assistant

In short: it is like in a circus and it is along with every labor law and professionalism. Old gray men have women as their assistants, who shield them from the workforce through an anteroom. The department heads are distracted by the assistance and are busy with themselves most of the time anyway. In this way, they cannot cause any damage to the workforce through their unprofessional behavior.

Second line of shielding by the team leader

The team leaders have long pursued the strategy that they simply tell the managers what they want to hear – regardless of whether it is true or not. This creates a second line of shielding. The team leaders organize the teams in an agile manner and deliver high added value. TechCom AG is so successful thanks to its agile teams that they are market leaders and continue to grow by 20% annually.

Shielding the managers is part of the budget

TechCom AG is so successful thanks to the agile teams that the costs for the three managers (each 150,000 euros per year) and the three assistants (each 50,000 euros per year) can be borne. The sad thing is that 450,000 euros per year in salary do not bring any value to the company and even damage it. With a further 150,000 euros in salary per year for assistants, these must be shielded by the company.

Shielding managers as part of the recipe for success

Due to the success and growth, the top managers are not fired and the behavior is tolerated. The managers also manage to hide their behavior very well and to cut a good figure in front of the board of directors. The shielding is part of the team leader’s recipe for success, as the interference of the top managers would probably turn the company into a foundation in 2-3 years. Even small interference by top managers can cause great confusion on some days. The two lines of shielding do not always hold up enough so that the agile teams can usually work undisturbed.

Solutions to this scenario

Unfortunately, one is often very powerless in such a situation. The team leaders acted “sensibly in the unreasonable” and built a protective wall. Of course, the scenario is bad and it can be angry. My recommendation would now be to try to clarify the situation with the top managers. If this is unsuccessful, the team leaders could talk to the board of directors. Especially their cohesion gives a high chance of success in order to transparently represent the success of the company despite the top managers.

If all attempts to clarify the situation have failed and the situation is increasingly stressful for the psyche of team leaders and employees, then you should change areas or companies as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, there is often no other chance before you risk your health. The other option is of course to have a good working life while maintaining the protective wall. Read more about this in my reading tip.

Reading tip: Boss is a narcissist

Conclusion

Of course, this story is very exaggerated and portrayed in a funny way. Unfortunately, this scenario is often a reality in companies in a weakened form. Unfortunately, I experience numerous experts in my office hours on the blog, who tell me that the company works well despite the poor management. From the discussions I was able to construct this exaggerated case study with the successful concept of shielding.

Such top managers are not fired, especially in successful companies. So it is important to deal sensibly with bad managers. One solution to this is for the team leaders to use the solidarity and approach the board together. If this is unsuccessful and the stress hits the psyche, there is no other way than to leave the company.

Bildquelle: Geburtstag Foto erstellt von asier_relampagoestudio - de.freepik.com

Der Beitrag How companies successfully shield managers – agility despite bad managers erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

In the course of my role as a consultant to the board of directors, I worked out a model for a company to sensibly establish squads in the company with both classic hierarchies and agile departments. Of course, an agile coach can now say: It is not intended that way – but agile concepts always apply to the current situation – and that is often the classic hierarchy in the company to be adapted.

Reading tip: What is the Spotify model

Classic squads

I have two possible concepts to be derived from squads. Concept 1 are classic squads. The squads divide a team vertically and fit perfectly into any classic hierarchy with a team leader. The team leader assigns a specific topic to selected groups of people and appoints a squadlead who is available as an escalation instance for the topic and a contact person for the employees. He reports directly to the team leader. Outwardly, he is authorized to represent the subject.

The classic squad divides an existing team into individual subgroups according to existing industries / customers or technologies and is very stable. You should therefore choose topics that are part of a team, have a long history and do not have much to do with each other. The following applies: The topics in the squad are close together while the topics in the squads themselves are far apart – similar to clusters. “The core idea of a cluster is that objects in the same cluster have” similar “properties and are different from objects that are not in the same cluster” (Source Wikipedia ).

In this model, the squad leads report to the team leader and are, so to speak, sub-groups of teams.

Agile squads

The second concept is agile squads. A department or large team has to organize itself according to an agile model. Team leaders are directly responsible for the disciplinary issues of the employees (people management). In this case, the respective squad leads are, for example, product owners or project managers and report to the department head.

Each squadlead has an assigned group of employees, which he leads professionally. The organization of the department and squad leads is based on technical topics. Each squad lead (product owner) is the contact person for a technical topic and the members of a squad change significantly more frequently than with classic squads.

The main difference to classic squads is that the squad leader is integrated horizontally in the organization and reports to the department head. He is also the contact person for a topic and has various employees available while in the first model the team leader is the contact person.

In the following I show the transformation of a department with many technical topics. The team lead was actually constantly jumping and very overwhelmed. For this purpose, it can make sense to outsource the topics to product owners who are technically responsible for the complex topics. The team lead takes over the resource management.

Another approach can be used in a project-oriented department. For this purpose, the projects can simply be divided up between project managers who take on responsibility. This concept in particular can be implemented very quickly and easily. It is only important that the management is partially transferred to the project manager together with HR.

Conclusion

The two models shown help that squad concepts can be established in a classic organization. Of course, these are not 100% agile, but such a high level of agility does not always make sense and it is important to introduce agile concepts into the classic organization in order to improve iteratively.

It is also possible to establish the squad models in job advertisements and organizational charts together with the HR department. It definitely helps to be able to take the first step in coordination with parts of the company. Agile concepts do not remain isolated solutions but are officially anchored in the company.

Afterwards it is possible to go one step further to Tribes or simply to keep the status, since a significantly higher flexibility and agility in the company is already achieved. It is important to precisely define the position of the squad lead and to firmly anchor the appointment process.

Reading tip: Spotify in traditional companies

Der Beitrag Spotify Squads in companies – two ways of implementation erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Especially at higher management levels, it is important to assess managers quickly and correctly. Imagine: when a manager does not seem to agree on a job and has been approaching a project or organizational development incorrectly or not at all for months. Not only his performance incl. Salary does not generate any benefit, but also the team with often up to 20 employees.

High costs in the case of misjudgments by executives

I would like to start with a concrete example: I recently had my telephone consultation again and the following happened: A department head had a team leader with a team of 8 people (Scrum Team). The team was supposed to develop software and unfortunately after a year it turned out that this software would never be finished. This wrong decision cost the company around 500,000 euros due to salaries.

The head of department was bent and wondered why he couldn’t notice this sooner. In response to my questions, we noticed that the team leader could not show any backlogs, did not disclose the sprint results and reacted aggressively to questions. So was it obvious that the team leader had to fail?

Lack of planning and systematics

After the conversation, I also summarized my last projects, which I experienced in practice and did not go so well. 90% of them had one thing in common: The team leader or manager had a clear goal but unfortunately no plan or methodology for how to achieve this in a structured manner. Shrugging of the shoulders, aggressiveness or “let’s just make it agile” were the most common answers. In fact, I was recently accused that my inquiries meant a lack of trust in the team and that everyone was very disappointed in me. In particular, the emotional possibility of nipping inquiries in the bud seemed efficient to me, as it blinded a top manager I knew for almost 2 years.

The majority of managers fared like the figure in the picture. The task is clear: there is a cliff to be crossed. But there is no plan and no system of how the crossing should take place. It will work out somehow or we will “just make it agile”. In my opinion, doing this will never result in the figure crossing the water. So, as a department head, I would 99.9% assume that the project will fail. I would do the following:

• Request a project plan and after some time
• provide a project manager and then
• take on the topic yourself

In practice, I often experience that the project manager is hardly involved and that asking for a project plan directly leads to aggressiveness from the manager. Often it was already clear to me: There is no other option than to disempower the manager. The ego may get in the way of admitting that the topic is a bit too big and that help is needed. Self-defined practitioners in particular have problems with abstract subjects.

Reading tip: Why practitioners have problems with methodology

Achieving the goal with methodology and systematics

Now let’s look at the opposite. With the help of a clearly defined procedure, the figure wants to build a bridge and slowly starts to build it. Task packages are defined and progress is shown per week. Regular reports are also provided.

Reading tip: Agility as an excuse for lack of plan

My doctoral thesis was also very complex and at the beginning I set up a clear research plan, which I followed for five years. In the end I got there and was able to show my doctoral supervisor where I stood. I can also say from my own experience: The more complex the topic, the more important it is that I follow a clear plan and a methodology, e.g. Scrum or Kanban.

Conclusion

Success in complex environments cannot be planned. However, only method adherence helps against unplannability. Even with a marathon you never know what’s coming, but there is a very clear training plan for the runners. Here, too, a systematic and methodical approach is not used. So always check your managers carefully and rely on methodology in complex environments!

Reading tip: Success is a marathon!

Der Beitrag How do I test the performance of managers in uncertain environments? – With methodology to success erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

The problem is that, especially in agile organizations, changes represent chaos for management and the HR department (self-organization -> HR department loses track of things) and are often almost impossible in classic organizations due to the sheer number of regulations. So how can an organization change itself in a self-learning manner and this in coordination with management and HR?

In this article I will only devote myself to the organizational structure. Of course, you still have to anchor processes and culture in a meaningful way. I have the following reading tips for this:

• Changes according to Kotter
• Command agility?
• Change management blueprint

Step 1: write standard procedures

In the first step, you should do a precise process analysis and see which standard procedures there are, i.e. types of change. In my opinion they are:

• Form a team / squad
• Disband team / squad
• Transfer team to department / tribe
• Dissolve team in department / tribe
• Relocate employees
• Rename team / squad
• Rename department / tribe

Define the necessary steps incl. Contact person for change types in the organization and publish this list in updatable lists (Wiki, Confluence, Sharepoint, …).

Step 2: apply this to the organization

With the help of this list you as a manager can define the project: organizational change and with the help of the lists every squadlead, project leader, team leader etc. can carry out a change in the organization himself and always knows what needs to be done. I would like to show you the great advantage using an example.

Example of implementation

In the following I would like to use a practical example to show how one can change the structure of an organization using standard procedures. In the example we have an IT service provider with a requirements analysis department and a software development department divided into frontend, backend and operating. We want to split some teams due to their size and set up a new department for operating.

As a manager, you have now defined this target image. Now look at how by applying the standard procedures you get the target image. In the example it would be as follows:

• Set up a team conception (set up a team)
• Transfer employees from UX design and analysis to conception (transfer employees)
• Establish the Frontend Finance and Automotive teams (2x create a team)
• Relocate employees from Team Frontend to Team Frontend Finance and Team Automotive (relocate employees)
• Establish a new operating department (establish department)
• Establish teams of operating server and operating software (2x create team)
• Transfer employees from Operating to Operating Server and Operating Software (transfer employee)
• Dissolve Team Operating (Dissolve Team)

You notice that as a manager you can easily assign the standard procedures to the change in the organization. Now you can simply send a project manager the plan incl. of the standard procedures and he can make the change. Alternatively, you can transfer the change project to the various department heads, as everyone knows what to do based on the standard procedures. The only thing that matters is the sequence.

Conclusion

Changes are important and these must also be coordinated with management and human resources in constantly changing organizations. This should also be possible for all departments and teams without any problems. The recommendation is to design standard procedures and apply them to the organization over and over again, as in object-oriented programming. In this way, you can let the organization change itself again and again in coordination with management and human resources.

Der Beitrag Change organizational structure: This is how it works in self-organization erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Reasons for negative attachment to agility

But what can be the reason? Why do meeting participants smile when the word becomes agile or why do employees maliciously turn away as soon as agility appears in a sentence? The reason is that agility is often used as an excuse to blur the lack of methodology or the non-compliance with deadlines. You hear sentences like:

• We’re agile – we’re done when it’s done
• We are agile – I have to let the team do it
• I can’t provide status because the team is agile
• We are agile – there is no booth
• We used to be really agile

Reading tip: Command agility? Does it make sense?

Agile is not The synonym for chaos

In the meantime, agility has unfortunately become a bad word in many organizations. The last sentence in particular: “We used to be really agile” shows that agility is often equated with lack of planning. But the problem is not the method but its half-baked implementation.

The following applies: Agile methods, if carried out correctly, leave no room for chaos. For example, there are clear deadlines. The agile method Scrum, for example, requires a usable product to be delivered to the customer every 2 weeks. The processes through the Scrum Guide are also completely clear and it is clearly defined which features are to be delivered in the next 2 weeks. It is by no means a chaotic procedure, but a strongly ordered procedure with the necessary flexibility for market-related changes.

I notice again and again: Agile methods are clear and binding. They also need discipline and a sense of responsibility.

Agility is not a lack of plan

Managers in particular like to use agility as an excuse for a lack of strategy documents. Of course, in times of digitization and complexity, it is not easy to clearly define a strategy, but it is possible to define guard rails and guidelines.

The only thing that helps against unplannability is adherence to the method, and even in fog we don’t leave without a plan. We know our goal and the rough way to get there. It is clear that by no method will we set and adhere to a 5 year plan. But a rough plan can be defined and, in short periods of time, tested, changed, adjusted and defined more finely by management. How to steer through the fog of the complex world!

Conclusion

Agility is an important part of companies. Of course it is not the holy grail as described in the picture and the solution of all problems, however, agility can help to find meaningful solutions in complex environments and to break new ground. In no case should it be equated with chaos or structured chaos.

Therefore try to understand the basic idea of agility exactly and limit uncertain subject areas with goals and values. Describe complex content with the help of guidelines and see management as a beacon that can shine the direction, but does not dictate how an employee can achieve the goal. But stand by each employee with words and deeds and do not hide behind agility.

Reading tip: Studies on agility

Der Beitrag Why: “We do it agile” is NOT THE SYNONYM OF PLANNESS AND CHAOS erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

But I also noticed that companies can break down when they grow. “The numbers are great, but it is no longer so exciting to work there.”, Employees told me. I noticed that different crises can arise depending on the growth. In this article I will show you what these are and how an SME can cope with them.

Tip: The model is based on the ideas of the Greiner models . However, this was too easy for me and important aspects are missing. Which is why I designed my own model.

Limitation: This is a model from my experience. It should simply represent reality and serve as a guide. It can also be that every company is a little different. I would like to provide orientation with this model. It has not been scientifically proven but reflects my experiences.

Excursus: What are SMEs

KMU stands for small and medium-sized companies. It includes 99.3 percent of all German companies (3.5 million). It is divided into:

• Small business (up to 9 employees)
• Small companies (up to 49 employees)
• Medium-sized companies (up to 249 employees)
• Large companies (from 250 employees or often from 500 employees)

Most businesses – almost 85% are small businesses. I myself have based myself on the definition from my research and also from my professional life as a management consultant, but have also added my own threshold values. I will explain these values at the appropriate places in the course of the article.

Small and strong (10 employees)

The company is still small and not that old. Everyone knows each other – the official channels are short. We talk a lot with each other. What strikes me in particular is that everyone does everything – the employees are very versatile.

The first crisis starts with 10 employees or more. The founders are busy managing the new employees, so strategic planning falls by the wayside. There is a leadership crisis because it is no longer possible to discuss everything personally. This phase is pretty easy. It is enough to give the employees more freedom and possibly to define rather loose roles.

Management crisis (50 employees)

The company demonstrated its strength primarily through creativity and the high level of commitment of the first employees. Everyone learned and does everything. The main thing is that the customer is satisfied. Decisions are mainly made by the founders and there is creative chaos in many places.

This is exactly where the first crisis starts. Here it is important for the founders to let go. The highly dynamic interaction reaches its first limits from 10 employees and can still be maintained up to 50 with the first team leaders (professional leadership). The need to set up initial structures and managers is becoming apparent, since everything can no longer be done on the founders’ desks alone. A management team and 2-3 disciplinary leaders are required. This includes not only all technical aspects but also “soft” topics relating to the qualification, development and support of employees.

In this phase it is up to the founders to let go and build management structures. Much interaction is required with the founders. The founders can no longer process all the information. Some employees, who can no longer clarify everything with the founders, will also feel uncomfortable and one or the other will certainly go back to a small company.

Cultural crisis (100 employees)

It changes slowly but continuously. The biggest change is that not everyone does everything – everyone has their own special field. New employees are being sought for special tasks and there are first internal teams such as controlling and HR.

Due to the specialization of the individual employees, everyone still knows each other, but the information must be given along a chain after the first processes. This is the phase in which the company changes most noticeably:

• There is a struggle in the company between the new employees and the old long-term employees. You will no longer find your company and its culture shaped by founders as they did in the past. There is a lot of talk about the past.
• Due to the new specialization, there are not yet enough strengths for everything – the consequence with internal tasks: Nobody feels responsible anymore. The company becomes slow and inflexible.

Competition has arisen between the two cultures. The uniformity towards the customer is lost. Processes are defined, but there is wild growth. It is now important for the founders to employ good managers who convey and represent the company’s processes and values.

In this phase, companies easily lose agility as they have reached critical mass. There is also the risk here that the company will break apart in the middle due to the cultural dispute. Often, external service providers are also added during the phase to advise on the development of the organization. It is important to change the culture of the company in a targeted manner and to preserve traditions.

Bureaucratization (250 employees)

The first complete areas of responsibility have now been structured. The consequence is departments or regional responsibilities. Profit centers, business areas and the first cross-sectional functions, such as internal process management, are formed. Due to the internal chaos, more and more processes and structures are being built. Everyone optimizes their area and there is always talk of interfaces.

Here, companies notice that, despite increasing sales, profits are falling somewhat. More formal planning is used and new employees are hired for overall coordination. Certain functions are also controlled centrally and you have to turn to an often overloaded point that often does not deliver in time.

Often, however, the limit of what is necessary is exceeded. The company is starting to get caught up in its own bureaucracy. Structures are firmly specified by the board, processes are clearly defined and compliance is monitored. To this end, an internal department drafts instructions, checklists and reporting templates. The leadership also takes some decisions back to itself. Uniformity is demanded again.

The only problem is that standardized processes make the company immobile and a task is often discussed longer than it is done. Decisions are often based more on guidelines and principles than on customer benefit. Many companies lose many employees at this threshold.

However, the market demands quick decisions and employees are quickly frustrated. Of course, some form of bureaucracy is necessary, but the company only has 250 employees and not 5000. The task now is to break open the rigid organization using agile methods.

Silo crisis (400 employees)

Now strong departments have been established and slowly the bureaucracy is being dissolved and more freedom is given. The challenge now is that the new departments, areas and business areas continue to work in the interests of the company and not create closed silos. But especially after the reduction in bureaucracy, some employees are strongly opposed to it.

Competition has arisen between the departments. Uniformity towards the customer is lost and power struggles begin. In this phase, the founder is challenged. He now has to tear down rigid silos and small kingdoms that some department heads have built up hard over the years. This is followed by the dissolution of the silos and mixing according to cross-functional departments according to agile methods. Unfortunately, some executives also have to be removed during this phase and, in my experience, they are often long-term friends of the founder.

If this change does not take place, the company becomes more and more bureaucratic and rigid until the department heads have such a high degree of autonomy that there are so strong silos that are no longer controllable by the founder. It is no longer clear who is doing what exactly, as the department heads have sometimes created a strong lack of transparency to the outside world.

In this phase, soft skills such as social control, empathy and self-discipline, which replace the formal processes, are particularly important. The solution is problem-solving, interdisciplinary teams, open meetings with all those responsible and skills. Compensation models for entire groups are also good, rather than just an entire bonus. This change is particularly difficult for everyone who helped set up the formal processes.

Conclusion

Growing an SME is not easy and there are many phases. As a founder you have to constantly change and experience many phases as an employee. Every employee has a form where he feels most comfortable, e.g. I know many who only work in the autonomy and chaos sector and who always leave companies of 100 or more people.

For a better summary, I have visualized the phases again and structured them according to leadership and bureaucracy. Sure: not every company goes through the phases like this, but there is a clear tendency to recognize that I think most SMEs feel that way. Take the picture as a guide and classify your SME there.

Der Beitrag The growth and crisis phases of a company from a small to a large company erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Download the final brochure

structure

There are almost 120 pages with over 10 exciting articles on agile work. The articles are from experts from Ver.di, T-Systems and renowned universities such as FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg. The topics are agile scaling project work, leadership for good work, models of agile work and a self-check as well as virtual good work.

content

In the following I can summarize some aspects of the project. For more information, see the brochure read. Scrum and agile project work is becoming more and more popular outside of software development. Teams with a higher level of self-organization work faster and more flexibly, but psychological stress and intensification and extensification of work are not less.

The research consisted of quantitative surveys, qualitative employee, manager and expert interviews, observations and workshops. Recommendations for action are derived on how agile work can be meaningfully successful in companies.

With regard to the implementation of agile work, the study shows that a sustainable pace, at which work progress is based on a realistic average load, is a central component. In particular, the study looks at the pace of work and overtime. The study says: “The planning for the sprint must not be changed by external interventions, for example by managers or customers. Disruptions are the main causes of increased work intensity and overtime. “

Furthermore, recommendations should be given as to which good agile project work can support. The study developed tools and design measures for this purpose. It turns out that the introduction of Scrum does not automatically represent the implementation of good agile work. The study says: “An inadequate qualification and half-hearted design of the methods lead to stress instead of realizing the potential for the employees.” The study also debates communication and the use of digital technologies.

Recommended extension: self-check Good agile project work

The research project also offers a self-check. Here the question is addressed: What exactly defines good agile project work and what starting points are there? For this purpose, the project identified 7 criteria, which are checked through questions. You will then receive an overview of the quality of your agile project work.

You can do a self-check here

Conclusion

I think the study gives a lot of exciting information, which I can understand from my research and my work life. I notice that the authors put a lot of work into the research. It really turned out to be a very nice and non-commercial study that you can download for free.

Download the final brochure

Der Beitrag Research project report: Good Agile Work erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

A good alternative to face-to-face courses is video training that takes place online. The company: die.agilen gave me a taste of a video training session and I would like to try it out for you. At the end of the article, I’ll give you a summary of the training and the general suitability of video training for professional development.

I have to admit that I was also very classy in this area and read a few books for my professional development and attended my 2-3 face-to-face training sessions a year. That’s why I’m particularly excited about the video training.

Video training on OKR

In the following I would like to give my impression of the video training. To do this, I first show some general data, then go into general use and at the end on the content of the training.

General

The training revolves around Objectives & Key Results (OKR) and was designed from more than 9 years of practical experience in more than 500 companies and through the training of more than 4,500 certified OKR masters. The video is divided into 37 lessons and takes just under 3h 30min. It can be played in almost any browser and the lessons are between 10 and 30 minutes long. The training costs 159 euros net.

Look and feel

The training is clearly presented in lessons with 2-6 videos each. In each video, a separate topic is covered briefly and to the point with many examples. I watched the training spread across the board. Some lessons in the evenings after work or on the weekend and a few others on the side on the treadmill in the gym or in the subway. It always worked out well to work out a small part of the material piece by piece.

The progress bar always showed me which chapter I was in and where I could continue learning. Depending on how important the lessons were for me, I watched them between one and three times. While you can ask questions in face-to-face training, the advantage here is that you can watch videos repeatedly.

Content

In general, OKR is a management framework for collaboration. The two coaches include the following dimensions in the OKR framework:

• Critical thinking
• discipline
• collaboration
• Focus of effort
• Create measurable contributions
• Moving the company forward

Generally speaking, OKR means Objective and Key Results. An objective is a precise statement about a comprehensive qualitative goal that the organization tries to drive in a desired direction. It is usually derived from the company’s mission statement.

As the English term suggests, a key result is a key result of the objective. Each objective can have any number of key results. The coaches recommend measuring such a key result according to the well-known smart criteria and even add a few “A” to “SMAAART”:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Accepted
• Ambitious
• Derived from the objective
• Realistic
• Terminated

But how can the OKR framework be implemented sensibly? The two coaches recommend the following in the training:

The first step is to derive objectives from the company’s mission statement. The coaches also recommend setting so-called mid-term goals MOKRS. The training says: A clear mission and aligned OKR – whether monthly, quarterly or annually – help to ensure that the work done in the short time fits the long-term purpose and goal of the company. The coaches suggest a period of 6-12 months for this.

A fixed cycle now follows, which regularly checks compliance with the objectives by checking the key results. A so-called OKR master should monitor this. The OKR Master has 5 roles: coach, facilitator, expert, process monitor and change agent. He is responsible for the process and therefore its owner. Its mission is to make sure the company has continued success with OKR.

The control loop consists of OKR planning, OKR weekly, retrospectives and reviews. All of this is monitored and moderated by an OKR master. Of course, I could only briefly touch on a fraction of the training in this text. There are still many examples and explanations for organizational development and agility. For a deeper insight, it is worth taking a look at the training on the die.agilen website.

Conclusion

In times of Corona, further education is still the be-all and end-all. But especially in stressful times, it is impossible to deal with a topic for days without being disturbed or to attend full-day classroom training due to the pandemic. One solution for this is video training, which offers short and concise lessons.

I tried such a training with the video training on OKR from die.agilen. Especially the short lessons with progress bar make it easy for me to watch 1-3 short videos every day on the way to work or even in the gym. The short video units in particular make it possible to watch the training piece by piece. I believe that video training is a great alternative and that it will certainly move more and more into the focus of professionals.

The content of the training was well prepared and followed a clear line: Theoretical constructs underpinned with practical examples. I particularly liked the excursions into organizational development. It is important for me to understand: Why are we currently doing what we are doing, why do we want to change it and, above all, where are we going?

The training was moderated by two friendly trainers who put a lot of effort into the training. I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity that I was allowed to watch this. If you also feel like training, you can find the descriptive OKR training on the die.agilen website, for example.

Image source: Screenshots from die.agilen

Der Beitrag Video training in times of COVID-19 – my experience with the OKR training from die.agilen erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.