The program has missed a key deadline.
The program has missed a key deadline.
Managers and Stakeholders leap into action.
"We have to do something!"
The problem is analyzed: an unexpected change has occurred. The requirements were wrong or misunderstood. A change has occurred in the market forcing the business to pivot to a new strategy.
A solution is designed: more detailed planning, more process controls, more documentation, stricter reviews. By doubling and tripling the process overhead we can prevent unexpected change from ever happening again.
Managers and Stakeholders congratulate one another for the very smart response they have made to this crisis that will surely prevent unexpected change from occurring again.
Two Months Later
The program has missed a key deadline again. Unexpected change happened again. Again the team repeats these analysis and solutionizing steps and when the planning and process control solutions fail, the team is blamed because they haven't followed the 17 additional process controls closely enough. No need to look any further, we just need more planning and better requirements, right?
领英推荐
It seems like this is always the response and it's always the wrong response.
More planning and better requirements won't save you.
Change is inevitable. Disruption is opportunity.
In Agile we're supposed to be adaptable to change. But how can we adapt to change if there is no room in the schedule to maneuver and every team is red-lining capacity? How can we say we're being agile if the solution to every problem is more process and tighter controls?
So what does a more Agile solution look like?
In the Dune series by Frank Herbert, "The slow blade penetrates the shield".
Agile is the slow blade. Go slow to move fast.