Are Team Autonomy and Flexibility Enough for Agile Transformation? A Review of Transformed Practices in a Public Sector Organization

This is a summary of our paper, which was presented at the ECSCW 2023 conference in Trondheim, Norway. For reading the full paper, you can find it here, https://dl.eusset.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/06cbc5ec-2d64-4621-8b22-12acda283f03/content

Applying private sector-developed agile methods to public services can have benefits and drawbacks(Sutherland, 2014)

Agile software engineering emphasizes iterative development over planning-based methods like waterfall models (Sommerville, 2016). This approach, while granting teams more autonomy and flexibility, also heightens organizational demands for agility. In the public sector, particularly in digitalizing services, there's a growing push for agile transformation due to demographic shifts and cost-cutting pressures (Mergel et al., 2018). However, applying private sector-developed agile methods to public services can have benefits and drawbacks(Sutherland, 2014).

Public services operate within complex ecosystems involving various stakeholders. Simply aiming for internal efficiency is insufficient; broader public value must be considered (Moore, 1995).

This paper discusses an ongoing case study of agile transformation in Norway's NAV (Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration, abbreviated as NAV), a major public welfare agency providing services like unemployment benefits and pensions (NAV, 2022). Since 2015, NAV has prioritized agile transformation, employing digitalization to acquire software. The organization now operates autonomous product teams responsible for digital services related to unemployment and sick leave. This paper presents initial findings from an ongoing case study on the impact of agile transformation on public value. The study uses interpretative methods and draws from 16 qualitative papers focused on agile transformation in NAV.

Between 2012 and 2016, NAV underwent a strategic shift in response to factors like government digitization goals, project failures, and negative media coverage. They decided to insource application development and modernize architecture, employing 800 IT staff. Agile methodologies were introduced in 2016 to address issues like slow deployment, low user satisfaction, and internal procedural gaps. In 2017, a significant change in NAV's IT ecosystem was initiated. This led to the forming of small, agile teams with product owners and developers focusing on product improvement. By the end of 2019, NAV transitioned to product-focused teams, resulting in higher release volumes and increased ownership among IT staff. In 2021, the organization boasts seven cross-functional product teams and four specialized product areas, marking a transformative journey likened to a toddler maturing into adulthood by senior executives. These shifts have significantly boosted productivity and staff satisfaction (Kohansal & Haki, 2021; Mikalef & Parmiggiani, 2022; Mohagheghi & Lassenius, 2021).

All of these changes serve to enhance the agility of the organization, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective software development.

The analysis reveals significant changes in software development at NAV, including the emergence of internal agile teams with greater authority over product development. Platforms have been established to facilitate continuous software development, allowing teams to adopt the most suitable architectural options. As a result, the role of the organizational architecture department has shifted from hands-on development to that of a consultant and advisor. Service-oriented and modular architectures have been employed to further empower the development teams by providing more freedom and control over creating digital services. This autonomy extends to knowledge mining, business intelligence development, and data management. The development teams completely own data products, from designing and implementing reporting structures to creating analytical frameworks. All of these changes serve to enhance the agility of the organization, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective software development.

The organization's inherent bias towards development teams and internal efficiency seems to hamper effective collaboration and undermine democratic participation, a fundamental value of the public sector

The analysis of NAV-transformed practices revealed two key elements: authority and flexibility. The organization changed to allow development teams to be more autonomous and flexible in their projects. However, the organization's inherent bias towards development teams and internal efficiency seems to hamper effective collaboration and undermine democratic participation, a fundamental value of the public sector. According to Saldivar et al. (2019), Democratic participation involves including all stakeholders in the decision-making process and building consensus rather than relying solely on the power and authority of a select few.

A key issue here is to broaden from a focus on only the dev side and a sole focus on autonomy and flexibility and embrace more complexity to address the boundary work involving the users/business side of the organization.

The review of papers found that the NAV agile transformation is an internal/administrative development. The organization is undergoing a large-scale agile transformation, which poses significant challenges to conventional notions of large-scale agile implementation. This transformation requires the development of boundary and address the “boundary work and boundary infrastructures that are required for working across contexts resolving and coordinating complex socio-technical interdependencies” (Rolland et al., 2016, p.2). This discussion points to how we must expand notions of large-scale agile transformation to move beyond internal/admin concerns like internal efficiency and address public value. A key issue here is to broaden from a focus on only the dev side and a sole focus on autonomy and flexibility and embrace more complexity to address the boundary work involving the users/business side of the organization.

As we look to the future, it seems essential that agile transformation studies shift their emphasis toward closely examining how public institutions change in relation to how they align with public values. We welcome and value your insights and comments on our research. Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

References

Kohansal, M. A., & Haki, K. (2021). Enterprise Architecture’s Ups and Downs Over Time: A Case of De- and Re- Institutionalization.

Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.04.003

Mikalef, P., & Parmiggiani, E. (Eds.). (2022). Digital Transformation in Norwegian Enterprises. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05276-7

Mohagheghi, P., & Lassenius, C. (2021). Organizational implications of agile adoption: A case study from the public sector. Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 1444–1454. https://doi.org/10.1145/3468264.3473937

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university press.

NAV. (2022). What is NAV? https://www.nav.no/en/home/about-nav/what-is-nav

Rolland, K. H., Dings?yr, T., & Fitzgerald, B. (2016). Large-Scale Agile Development. Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin.

Saldivar, J., Parra, C., Alcaraz, M., Arteta, R., & Cernuzzi, L. (2019). Civic Technology for Social Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28(1–2), 169–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9311-7

Sutherland, J. V. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time (First Edition). Crown Business.