Agile transformations – are we selling ourselves short and risking success?

I suspect that, at least in some cases, a myopic perspective is presented when discussing agile transformation. I believe that discussions typically focus too much on ‘agile’ principles & practices (e.g. the Agile Manifesto, Scrum, SAFe, etc.) and related cultural change; but that’s selling it short. Successfully transforming an organisation requires many dimensions to be considered – something that is often overlooked – perhaps because it seems scary when viewed in its entirety.

Would folks understand transformation better if we explained the various dimensions of change that’s typically necessary? Would they then be more successful? Or would they be less interested, having potentially been scared off?

I honestly don’t know the answer – I guess because it would be impossible to generalise and would depend on individual circumstances. And perhaps this is true of a bottom-up transformation more than a top-down version? But I’m guessing.

Although I suspect things would indeed be better; surely it would be helpful for organisations if they were more fully informed before going in to a transformation.  If nothing else, then they are less likely to overlook some critical success factors – which will surely lead to a higher likelihood of success.

A sign that any given organisation might have a myopic perspective going in to a transformation, is when their espoused principles or objectives (that is driving their activities) are essentially reflective of agile principles, and are no broader.

In fact, most of the successful organisations we often see / refer to as success stories / case studies are driven by principles that are much expansive in nature (check out some of their culture books and you'll see what I mean). So, from a certain perspective, you can view agile adoption as a symptom / consequence of these more general principles, and not the driver of. Adding weight to the notion that your transformation shouldn’t be driven by agile principles – it’s too narrow a perspective.

So I like to think of a transformation in more a holistic manner, involving:

• Agile principles and practices (obviously) – incorporating continuous improvement, Lean/Lean systems thinking, etc. Including methods / frameworks for scaling agile across the organisation
• Other, complimentary principles and practices, such as; The Growth Mindset, Management 3.0 / New Ways of Leading, Agile Product Management / Human Centred Design / Rapid Experimentation,
• Culture change / mindset; Driving changes in attitudes and behaviours – which, again, should be influenced by all the things mentioned above, not just agile principles
• Organisational change; Even if this is in a ‘virtual’ sense, it’s often necessary to re-shape the organisation to support a new way of working
• People & HR changes; e.g. changing the way folks are remunerated and the role titles they hold
• Technologies / architectures, systems and processes to support agile practices; which is often overlooked until it becomes an obvious blocker to progress. Often organisations utilise technology, tools and processes that are inherently cumbersome and block the flow of work. A significant investment is often required to enable teams to work at pace.
• New ways of strategic planning that emphasise learning and adapting in shorter cycles

If you establish objectives (and monitor your progress towards them) that reflect all of the above, then I’d suggest you have a greater chance of succeeding.

The above recognises that agile doesn’t succeed in a vacuum, and it should be noted that each one of these is a major undertaking in, and of, itself.

So, are we doing ourselves a disservice by using terms like ‘agile transformation’? Is that, in fact, imposing unintended limitations on the degree of transformation? Does it cause myopia?

This is oftentimes why transformations aren’t labelled as just ‘agile’. You are increasingly seeing terms like ‘New Ways of Working’ or ‘Future Ways of Working’ because they recognise that it’s much more than just doing ‘agile’ well.

I’d be interested to know your thoughts – especially on what major items are missing from the above list?