Awarded the German Study Prize

The master’s thesis behind the whitepaper was awarded the GPM German Study Prize for the best master’s thesis 2016 on project management. Attached you will find Participant brochure and the Certificate .

Agile in the Waterfallworld

The whitepaper was created from my master’s thesis, which I wrote in 2015. The whitepaper is a summary of the results of the master’s thesis. For example, SCRUM and Kanban have been established as successful models in software development for a number of years. However, incorrect synchronization with other methods often results in decisive change management, unclear roles and tasks, a significant loss of cooperation in the course of the project, errors in project estimates and a lack of reactions to changes. Based on specific best practices, this whitepaper is intended to present a model with which agile methods can be successfully established in waterfall-typical organizations without changing the positive properties of existing structures. Through interlocking coordination across the entire project, massive change requests and errors are significantly reduced.
See also for more information Information page too agile in the Waterfallworld! Here I have prepared the content graphically and put it online as Powerpoint.

Safe download through virus scan

For absolute security, the whitepaper is regularly checked for harmful software. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology as part of the “IT Security in Business” task force. You can download it anytime without worry.

Download the whitepaper for free!

Download the whitepaper for free after registering for the newsletter. I pay close attention to the newsletter data protection !
[newsletter] [fotolia]

Der Beitrag Agile in the Waterfallworld – agile teams in waterfall organizations erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

What is agile Agile companies

In this article I will give a brief introduction as well as a quick definition. Then I’ll go into the measurability and dimensions of agility.

In order to define agility precisely, I first looked at numerous books and assigned various properties to agility. Then I provide a second definition from the typical practice books about Laloux, Gloger and Co.

Tip: I have already published this definition in an academic publication so that it can easily be cited for further use. (Lindner et al. 2017)

A quick definition

If you only want a rough definition in one sentence, then I recommend my personally favorite definition. Agility is (Lindner and Leyh 2018 and Termer 2016):

… the ability of the information function of a company to make preparations in order to react very quickly to changing capacity requirements and changed functional requirements, if possible in real time, and to be able to use the possibilities of information technology in such a way that the technical scope of the company is expanded or even can be redesigned.

Agility as an ability, skill and behavior

Be it in practical literature or in the academy: Agility is always described as a behavior, ability or skill as well as a mindset. But what does that mean? My colleague Termer (2016) already outlined the differences:

ability : Agility is understood as an organism’s existing potential to be able to do something. However, the potential does not have to be used.

skill : Agility describes the actual ability and the actual application of abilities of an organism that is evoked by an activating component.

behavior : Agility represents an organism’s own contribution in the form of actions that are directed towards the environment. Agility becomes visible through actions.

Tip: Take a look at Termer’s book .

Excursus: Can I measure agility?

Managers and students often try to measure agility in the company when doing their theses. This is only possible to a limited extent and depends on the perspective.

We see Agility as a skill then an evaluation is not possible. Agility is either there or not. It is just being used. Examples of skills are comprehension and assertiveness. You will find that you either have it or you don’t. However, it can only be measured with the help of gut instinct and can hardly be influenced.

We see Agility, however, as a skill It is possible to measure it on the basis of objective comparison criteria, since skills are task-related (Termer 2016). It’s like cycling, swimming or sprinting. You can rate the elegance or measure the time taken for a route. Agility can be trained and is also used based on one’s own motivation. Agility can also be learned from this perspective.

Agility as behavior is possible in terms of target achievement. Examples are speaking, listening, being kind, and aggression. Agility is triggered by stimuli. It should use certain emotions to steer a situation in one direction (goal). For example, you want to intimidate the other person by yelling at them and convince them of your opinion. So you can measure agility based on target achievement.

Definition from the academy

Agility is not clearly defined in the context of companies. There is a new definition in almost every paper. For this reason, I looked for the most cited publications and examined aspects that connect them to agility. A total of 7 aspects could be found, which were named unanimously in all 10 publications.

• speed
• Adaptation
• flexibility
• dynamics
• Networking
• trust
• self-organisation

The property speed is mentioned in all 10 publications in connection with agility. For example, Lu and Ramanurthy (2011) assign agility a quick reaction to change, as well as a quick implementation of products or services that can be changed quickly.

Another characteristic of agility is flexibility. Nissen and Rennenkampf (2013) describe agility with a so-called Staff flexibility in the sense of well-trained and versatile IT employees who favor the reaction to unforeseen changes. Sambamurthy et al. (2003) also see the implementation of changeable and flexible solutions as a characteristic of agility.

According to Termer (2016), agility is the ability to adapt to changing framework conditions and new market situations. According to Nissen and Rennenkampf (2013), the continuous improvement and flexibility that agility offers is the basis for this pronounced adaptability.

Furthermore, dynamics are mentioned in the context of agility. “Agility represents the use of a certain form of mobility” (Termer and Nissen 2015). According to Termer and Nissen (2015), movement in the context of agility means that a person’s position in relation to their environment changes over time. Agility means creating this flexibility out of your own drive, usually even before a situation or event makes this flexibility necessary or necessary, according to Termer and Nissen (2015).

Agility requires strong communication in a network of individuals (Appelo 2010). For this reason, Appelo (2010) also ascribes a high degree of networking to agility, since properties such as flexibility and trust are based on the relationship and communication between individuals.

Conversely, networking is also based on trust. Termer (2016) justifies this from the fact that flat hierarchies and autonomous working groups with short decision-making paths must be established through the promotion of creativity and a culture based on trust.

Self-organization also plays a role in the context of agility. According to Gloger and Rößner (2015), self-organization is a controlled and intensive learning process. Self-organization in the context of agility is also complex, people-oriented and an autonomously controlled and intensive learning process.

Definition from practice books

What is agile According to the dictionary, agile means: agile, lively and agile. According to Gloger and Margetich (2014, p. 5), agility is an attitude, i.e. a behavior and is based on the agile manifesto:

• Individuals and interactions instead of processes and tools
• functioning software instead of comprehensive documentation
• more cooperation with the customer instead of contract negotiations
• Responding to change instead of just following a plan

In the course of the blog, I relate agility to the entire organization and orient myself to the principles of agility according to Brandes (2015, p. 6):

• Deliver what is needed
• Really understand customers
• Invigorate organizations together
• Honestly inspire people
• New perspectives open up new perspectives

… as well as the principles of agile management (Appelo 2010, p. 11):

• self-organisation
• simplicity
• Team decisions
• transparency

In summary, agility is a mixture of principles and therefore behavior (Gloger & Rösner, p. 87).

Reading tip: Take a look at that too Book of Brandes and Appelo .

Further definition

Roberston (2015, p. 4ff) defines an agile organization as “a developing organization” – that is, as a company that changes with current circumstances.

Laloux (2015, p. 43f) defines an agile organization as an evolution of consciousness towards complex, refined behaviors and forms of relationships. These organizations are subject to constant change in that they build on strengths, deal with adversity, show wisdom beyond rationality and strive for wholeness – i.e. have a corresponding foresight and willingness to change (Laloux 2015, p. 51). In summary, Laloux (2015, p. 53) describes these as self-guiding and changing systems.

Reading tip: Take a look at this Book of Laloux or in that Book by Robertson .

And when should I be agile?

The Stacey Matrix below shows when agile methods should be used. For simple tasks such as routine tasks or recurring tasks, agile methods often do not make sense. Complicated things are understandable problems and the requirements are often quite clear at this point. It becomes chaotic or complex as soon as requirements and / or methodology become increasingly nebulous and you have to reckon with many unknowns. Then comes the time of agile methods.

Conclusion: agile companies!

It should be noted that the definition is not yet clear and we therefore do not yet have a clear answer to the question: “What is agile?” can deliver. It is also unclear which one Framework for agility actually now really fits the definition of evolutionary and agile companies. One approach could democratic, holocratic or sociocratic companies be. But it is still not clear which of the three models is really evolutionary and agile. In the course of my research, I will examine all three forms and publish a first approach for a clear definition. For this purpose, I will carry out various case studies in companies.

Der Beitrag What is agile in the context of a company? erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Why do we need more agility?

• Structural changes due to the digital transformation will take place in all areas of the company
• IT and technology merge
• Classic departments will increasingly expire by 2025 (< 50%)
• The responsibility for the transformation will come from the management
• By 2025, companies will need fewer staff, but up to 25% will only rely on experts
• Knowledge has to be built up and maintained in-house

Swell: iOT study by Detecon

The need for agile structures is increasing!

Is this necessity of agile structures on everyone’s lips or do German entrepreneurs see this as no answer to the challenges of digital transformation. Apparently it does! 95% consider this to be important for the future viability of the company. The study (p. 19 and 21) shows not only the importance, but also the increasing proportion of agile structures by 2025. We are noticing a significant increase in agility in companies.

According to the study, agility will not only concentrate on IT, but will also affect many, even almost all, areas of the company far outside of IT. This agile reorganization will take place in the next 3 years. It is for this reason that we are dealing with precisely these agile departments in research (Detecon study p. 25/26). If you read deeper, you will notice that agility and the growth of technology in particular go hand in hand. Production and logistics are at the forefront after IT. Marketing and finance are also heavily affected by digitization. So in 3 years we will be faced with the situation that more than 65% of the companies have already completed the agile reorganization. So there is not much time left. I will accompany some of these 17%, which are already starting, with a case study on their journey. I am surprised by the involvement of HR, as some sources can be found here and I see a great need. Overall, however, the study shows that IT, sales, logistics and production will require a high level of agility.

The implementation is not yet entirely clear

A precise implementation of what an agile and sustainable company looks like is not yet clearly defined. In the course of the research were already Frameworks for agility found from literature. With the help of experts, case studies and round tables, we will jointly find a way to implement these and meet the digital transformation in companies with agility. Also read my other articles on the subject digital transformation and Digital leadership .
[werbung]

Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Digital transformation and agility erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Reinventing Organizations

In his book, Laloux gives an insight into his research on organizational development. In addition, the author even moves back up to 100,000 years. He assigned a color to each of the epochs and characterized them precisely. This is how we start our journey through time of over 100,000 years of organizational development. I will only go into the individual phases of development very briefly in the text, as I do not want to reveal too much of the actual content of the book.

Development stages of organizations

It all started 100,000 years ago. We put ourselves in people’s shoes at this time. The world was ruled by powerful tribes and chiefs. Laloux calls such tribes impulsive organizations and gives them the color red. This scenario can be compared with the structures of the Mafia or street gangs. Command authority and constant exercise of power were the order of the day. A tribal chief or alpha wolf in a wolf pack had to assert himself daily and fight his opponents as well as give clear instructions.
Let’s travel a few more years and go back only 1000 years. The world is dominated by the church and the military. Laloux defines these as conformist organizations and assigns them the color amber. Formalized roles in the shape of a pyramid and stability were the highest scores. This epoch was shaped by group norms and rules of the community.
A few centuries later we reach the industrial revolution and the time of the first real companies. We are seeing the first profitable organizations as we know them today. Innovation and reliability were the order of the day. You had to be better than the competition. The employees were now given initial freedom in how they could complete tasks.
But what’s next? Where are modern companies headed? What characteristics will modern organizations have to have? According to Laloux, this will affect the color “green or teal”: so-called pluralistic organizations, comparable to a family. Values, inclusion of all stakeholders and orientation towards a culture describe this new form.

Conclusion and colors

If you look closely at Laloux’s “Reinventing Organizations” diagram, you can see how quickly organizations change. It used to be several centuries, but now there are only a few years left to the next stage of evolution. Let’s summarize the development again based on the colors.

• Red: give me what I want
• Amber: rules and norms of the group
• Orange: Success and Innovation (Knowledge)
• Green: togetherness and harmony (values)
• Teal: purpose of organization, service to the world, identification

And what’s next?

Laloux even goes a step further and suggests the next color petrol. He calls such organizations “evolutionary”. According to color theory, the color petrol has a calming and powerful effect at the same time. However, Laloux has not yet disclosed any further information.

Is green or petrol the same as Holacracy, sociocracy or democracy?

So does one of these last two colors stand for the concept of Robertson and Co.? I already detailed about Holacracy, democracy or sociocracy Written in another article and in summary I have to say that basically any of the models can be the color petrol in Laloux’s model. This can be seen in the strong focus on the purpose of organizations. But the similarities with biology based on the case studies of molecules and atoms also sound like exactly this evolutionary form of company to me. So have we already reached the next level? This should become a topic of the roundtable on agility, because we cannot currently be sure whether these model companies can really shape evolutionary or whether the change actually depends on other factors.
[werbung]
Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Reinventing Organizations: Organizations Yesterday and Today erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

Why are companies suddenly agile?

In his book Nowotny shows which reasons actually speak for becoming an agile company and how managers lead more agile. In addition to the reasons already mentioned in the blog for the necessity of agility (customer satisfaction, etc.) Nowotny provides another approach that is very exciting: namely, the demands of generations on companies are growing.

You can clearly see in the picture that every generation makes more demands on companies. While the Baby Boomers were apparently still satisfied with being in the company at all, Generation Y is only screaming for participation and managers don’t want to imagine what requirements Generation Z will have. This approach clearly makes sense, since employees are the greatest asset of a company and many companies are desperately looking for employees. I always notice this myself when I get new offers to change companies every day through my consulting job. I also notice that many companies cannot cope with the fact that an applicant has more options or a permanent employee could change at any time. So how can you, as a company without agility, find an employee at all when they have 30 more offers? There is even already Agile HR approaches which will be explained in another article. The aim of every company should therefore be: lead more agile in the face of demographic change.

What actually is an agile company and can we lead in a more agile way?

The reasons are really very well listed and there is a lot to suggest that agile companies are also future-proof companies. But it is still not entirely clear what exactly the interpretation of an agile company is. Scrum alone is not enough to be really agile. Maybe it is one of the concepts around Sociocracy, Holocracy, or Democracy the answer. But it is not yet certain and we still have to do some case studies whether this is really agile and evolutionary. I have already described what about this in another article agile and evolutionary companies . As the research continues, I will now observe agile companies and conduct case studies. The aim is to find out whether this really brings an improvement and whether the models are really agile.
[werbung]
Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Leadership in agile companies is more agile erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

The agile company

In principle, the agile company is a company that has committed itself to striving to adhere to the agile principles. In terms of research, it is also a company that is agile outside of IT. An overview of agile departments see another article on my blog. However, agility is not yet precisely defined and so I try to define the term more precisely and clearly in the course of my research. But in short: an agile company is ready to scale classic agility and its principles in the company.

What does holocracy mean?

Robertson’s (2015) concept is currently on everyone’s lips. It regulates the management of organizations despite transparency, which makes it possible to get involved at all levels. It puts the purpose of the organization first, not profit. Robertson shows impressively how managers in a holocracy do not assume the position and the pompous status of the manager, but the role and the responsibility of the manager.
I don’t want to just use the next definition from Robertson’s book ( here is the current Amazon link ), but try to use the interviews that arose in the course of the research to explain the holocracy using the example of the illustration by Pfläging (2014, p. 59). As a reading tip: Pfläging published 2014 “ Organizations in Complexity “and the 2nd part in 2015: Complexity methods . Imagine a small 8-person consulting house.

At the center of this little holocracy we have a leadership group that controls all activities and problems. Anyone who wants to get involved in the company can take part in it and play a role there. Various other roles have been set up around the management team, B. the business developer or the consultant. These roles can consist of one or more people and change constantly. If there is an effect from outside, i.e. from the customer, the respective group (the persons concerned) takes a corresponding reaction and makes a decision about it autonomously and independently. The customer would like B. award a new order and person X changes from the role of Consultant to the role of Sales. If desired, the management team can now support this person (e.g. looking for a suitable employee). As soon as the situation has been resolved, this person takes on the role of IT consultant again. However, a new group has now formed, which consists of 2 people (person X and the new consultant for the job) and is clearly assigned to the customer. This model is illustrated again in the abstract in the illustration by Robertson (2015, p. 64). So we have different circles in the company that deal with a specific topic that helps the organization. The entire organization is also to be understood as a circle. Aside from the circles, there are many different roles. As an employee, I can be in several circles and always contribute something to the purpose of the organization.
In this way, the company is controlled dynamically and is primarily oriented towards the purpose of the organization. Roles replace positions and hierarchy, and there is a lively structure above rigid organizational charts. So we are always able to change our current organization and react to any changes. We already know this shape from somewhere, right? Exactly – from biology. The holocracy is made up of different circles called holons that enclose other things. In a holon there are several molecules (roles) and a molecule has several atoms. The atoms and molecules in a holon do not change, but they can develop new properties through a new combination. This has worked in nature for millions of years. Just imagine that these molecules first have to ask a management whether they are allowed to reunite.
Reading tip: Extensive article on Holacracy and Sociocracy

Agile companies and holocracy

Holocracy and agility have a lot in common – the former can in any case be seen as one of the agile frameworks. However, the model is still very abstract and requires some observation and use case formation. In the course of my research, I will report on it further at this point. The focus is primarily on practical examples for implementation. An absolute reading tip for you is the book “ Reinventing Organizations “. Here, the author examines how organizations have developed over the past 50 years and what stage we are now at. I also have the key messages in discussed in another article and compared to the concept of holocracy.
[werbung]
Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Agile companies and holocracy erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.