Agile for PMs – why is Agile different?
The “Agile for PMs” articles are written for experienced project managers who are interested in exploring how Agile development differs from classical project management.
In these articles, “Agile” is generally capitalised (and sometimes used as shorthand for “Agile development). The Agile Manifesto is described in more detail in other Plays on this site.
As we saw in the AgileProjects article, Agile development shares many characteristics with Programmes which we look at in these articles. But what is it about Agile development which aligns better with Programmes than with projects?
A temporary flexible organization … (AgileTeams) … created to coordinate, direct and oversee … (AgilePlanning) (AgileEstimates) (AgileRisk) … to deliver the organization’s objectives (AgileProjects) (AgileComplex).
Managing successful Programmes
In the AgileProjects article we see that projects assume a single goal. The goal is identified, a team is pulled together to achieve the goal and a budget is obtained. A work breakdown structure identifies the work that needs to be done, and a plan is built from this from which a schedule can be obtained. The sequence is something as shown below.
Goal ( Scope) –> Budget and Team (Cost) –> Work Breakdown –> Planning –> Schedule
The Work Breakdown Structure (and related views such as a schedule) becomes a key tool in managing a project. It is the key link between the goal and the final plan.
Work Breakdown Structure – A hierarchical decomposition of the total scope of work to be carried out by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and create the required deliverables
PMBoK Lexicon of Terms
But what if creation of the Work Breakdown Structure is not possible?
Not just difficult, or time consuming, but actually not possible.
Consider two types of environment.
Complicated environments
In one, which we can call a “Complicated” environment, we can, undoubtedly with some hard work and research, break the big goal into small work items. Even though the original goal is complicated, the resulting work items are simple. We can understand and estimate those work items individually. Most importantly, because the work items are independent, when we re-assemble them we have a plan to achieve the overall goal. This is a “Reductionist” approach in which the whole plan is the sum of the parts.
A good analogy is a clockwork device. The back of a clock has many detailed parts all working in unison, but it works predictably ticking every second.
Complex environments
The alternative we can call a “Complex” environment. My apologies for the teminology here. Yet again, two very similar words which causes confusion, especially to people for whom English is not a first language.
In a Complex environment we may not be able to identify individual elements. These elements may not be simple enough to analyse. Or the interactions between components are such that understanding the individual elements still does not allow you to predict the whole.
We no longer can take a “Reductionist” approach and need to consider an “Emergent” approach.
Low certainty and agreement
What causes this complexity? Ralph Stacey researched complex adaptive systems and their application to organisations. In his model, he considers two dimensions:
Certainty
Work which is close to certainty is similar to work we have done before.
We understand it and can use past experience to predict what will occur.
If work is far from certainty, cause and effect relationships will be unclear and we will need to incorporate learning in order to proceed.
Agreement
Work which is close to agreement has aligned and shared opinions on how to proceed.
There is consensus on the objectives and the direction to take.
If work is far from agreement, goals will be unclear and we will need to negotiate, accommodate change and delay commitment.
Stacey concludes that traditional management approaches focus on the “high certainty, high agreement” environment. This includes both traditional line management (“Scientific Management”) and project management. As we tend towards the other extreme we need to develop new and different ways to plan and organise work.
… that human action is nonlinear, that time and place matter a great deal, and that since this precludes simple evidence bases we do need to rethink the nature of organizations and the roles of managers and leaders in them.
“Complexity and Organizational Reality” – Ralph D. Stacey
Project environments
In a project environment we have high levels of certainty and agreement.
The initial setup of the project is designed to allow us to make more accurate prediction. In this environment, it is effective to break down the goal into small parts.
A work breakdown structure is a key tool which will allow us to build and track a plan.
Agile environments
As certainty and agreement decrease, the path and the goal itself will become less clear.
Work becomes emergent, learning is required from the work before the plan can be made and frequent change makes it waste to invest heavily in plans which may not be delivered.
An approach based around accommodating change and learning becomes more important than one aimed to track against an expected reality.
Leave a Reply