Skip to main content

Making Agile Stick

So many experts tell us mgmt is broken. Agile would fix many problems. Why is mgmt innovation so hard to apply?" I asked this question Friday in my Radical Management Thought for the Day. Don Reinertsen quickly replied, "Status quo is often a Nash Equilibrium."

For those of you (like me) who need to look it up, the Nash Equilibrium was named for its inventor, John Forbes Nash, the schizophrenic Nobel Prize winner who was the subject of 'A Beautiful Mind'.  Given a group of several players in game, "a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others." (wikipedia) This does not optimize for all players achieving the maximum gain possible. Some higher profit strategies may expose an individual player to higher risks if the other players do not share a common goal (which they probably do not).

I have long believed that command-and-control hierarchies are dynamically stable. Now I understand why. As a manager, if you do not play your hand optimally, sooner or later, you will lose. Someone else will get promoted or you will get a black mark on your record which means 'no future here.' So managers follow a 'make no mistakes' strategy. Everybody wins a little bit, nobody loses, and everybody tacitly accepts that the overall result is suboptimal. (Today, "suboptimal" means sooner or later, your company will die or get acquired, but that is a separate issue.)

How do you ensure a successful transition to Scrum, Kanban, Agile or some other Radical Management framework? All these frameworks offer superior overall performance, but, as substantial changes in strategy, they may expose the early adopter to risk of losing as long as significant portions of the company are still playing by command-and-control rules.

Based on the successful (and indirectly from the non-successful) Scrum transitions I have seen, I think the following will be necessary for a long-term successful transition:
  • A culture of trust, especially in the transition phase. People must be able to change without risk of loss. They must also be discouraged from attacking others during this time.
  • Broad support for the new framework throughout the company.
  • A fairly quick transition. If the new rules are competing with the old rules, the proponents of the old rules may well strike back.
  • Measurements and rewards which reinforce the new framework. New social controls must also support the new framework.
In short, your Lean/Kanban/Agile/Scrum/Radical Management framework must become the new status quo. You need to create a new Nash equilibrium.

Want to make it happen? Join us for the Zurich Gathering For C-Suite Leaders with Steve Denning and myself: Zurich, Sep 12, 2011

Comments

jmeydam said…
>> John Forbes Nash,
>> the schizophrenic Nobel Prize
>> winner who was the subject
>> of 'A Beautiful Mind'

Ah - that Nash! :-)

I think there was a scene in the movie illustrating the idea of the Nash equilibrium.
Peter said…
I think the formal term was "Governing Dynamics." It may well be remembered for the case study "Ignore the blond."
jmeydam said…
Great case study! :-) That's the scene.

Popular posts from this blog

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Explaining Story Points to Management

During the February Scrum Breakfast in Zurich, the question arised, "How do I explain Story Points to Management?" A good question, and in all honesty, developers can be an even more critical audience than managers.

Traditional estimates attempt to answer the question, "how long will it take to develop X?" I could ask you a similar question, "How long does it take to get the nearest train station?

The answer, measured in time, depends on two things, the distance and the speed. Depending on whether I plan to go by car, by foot, by bicycle or (my personal favorite for short distances) trottinette, the answer can vary dramatically. So it is with software development. The productivity of a developer can vary dramatically, both as a function of innate ability and whether the task at hand plays to his strong points, so the time to produce a piece of software can vary dramatically. But the complexity of the problem doesn't depend on the person solving it, just …