If You Do Not Believe in the Conventional Process, Agile Won’t Work

Agile is a popular topic in numerous industries, recognised for its versatility, flexibility, and accelerated experimental processes. However, many people fail to understand the core of Agile, merely considering it a way to achieve faster results. In reality, Agile is a structured set of procedures, regular inspections, and gradual enhancements. It is a philosophy that embraces the balance of process and flexibility. Without belief in the foundational process and “the basics,” Agile devolves into chaos and ineffectiveness.

?

Understanding the Process: Rahul Dravid vs Gautam Gambhir

To appreciate this fine balance of process and agility, let us borrow an analogy from the world of cricket and two popular cricketers, Rahul Dravid and Gautam Gambhir. Each one had an extraordinary amount of success, but their methods illustrate different schools of thought.

Rahul Dravid represents faith in the old system. Dravid, known as “The Wall,” was known for his patient, disciplined batting and adherence to classical techniques. He was always concerned with mastering the basics — be it his stance, shot selection or temperament when the pressure was on. Success, for Dravid, was a byproduct of meticulous preparation and steadfastness. He had absolute faith in the process, even when it came up short, knowing that it would eventually pay off. For instance, in the historic match at Kolkata against Australia in 2001, he exemplified his utmost belief in the roots while stitching the partnership with VVS Laxman. By following the process of building the innings slowly, he produced one of cricket’s greatest comebacks.

On the other hand, you can think of Gautam Gambhir, who was equally capable but belonged to a more Agile mindset. His ability to adapt to changing game situations often put him ahead. Much like Ashwin, Gambhir was a big risk-taker and would change his game based on the bowler or match context. His Agile decision-making was on display with the ability to anchor the innings while also playing aggressively, as exemplified during the 2011 World Cup final. Gambhir was brilliant at responding to immediate challenges, but to put his plans into execution, he depended on a base that was strong in basics.

?

The Interplay of Process and Agility

Agile beliefs are what fuel the process in a way that can be executed to perfection. The approach gives structural integrity, and Agile injects the ability to pivot in response to surprises. When organisations or individuals fail to follow the process, they tend to misrepresent Agile as a way of being random or underprepared.

Consider a software development team that is trying to go Agile. Agile’s iterative cycles will yield chaos rather than improvement if the team does not value planning, defining user stories or testing rigorously. And, for agile, you basically need to trust the cycle, plan, execute, review, and improve. Without that foundation, Agile’s adaptability is its Achilles’ heel.

In the same way, Gambhir’s success as an Agile player in cricket was a product of doing the real work well. Regardless of how adaptable one may be as a cricketer or a professional, without a bedrock of discipline and preparation, it is a perennial struggle.

?

Examples of Failures Without Process

Agile is a methodology based on a structure that helps guide work through standard processes like backlog grooming, sprint planning, and retrospectives. These processes are not optional; they are the fundamental mechanisms that ensure that Agile projects stay on track with goals, deadlines, and quality standards. If you skip these steps, it’s like taking the engine out of a car—it might keep rolling downhill for a bit, but sooner or later, it will stop going anywhere.

Let’s talk about an organisation for which Agile is a buzzword. In this context, Agile has been misperceived as a carte blanche to abandon planning and rush to execution. Backlog grooming, for example, ensures the team knows what’s there to be done, clears up priorities and prepares what’s coming in the next sprints. Without this step, the backlog is simply a messy pile of unordered work items that does not help anyone get on the same page and work towards the same goals. Likewise, omitting sprint planning takes away the team's ability to align on a clear invocation and plan a deliverable that can be done within reason. The result is that sprints are unfocused, and team members end up working on unrelated tasks without a common aim. Retrospectives (one of the pillars of agile) are the opportunity to reflect, inspect and adapt. When retrospectives are neglected, teams overlook the insights that could refine processes, resolve conflicts, and increase morale.

These critical processes are at the heart of the Agile framework; without them, the Agile framework is empty. Sprints become cyclical activity theatre and result in a jumbled mess of half-delivered backlog items, missed deadlines, and decreased quality. Teams then lose sight of what and why they should be doing what they do instead of only focusing on getting things done for the sake of so-called “production” instead of “value.” This disarray causes a cascade effect. There is a lack of trust among stakeholders and a decrease in productivity that causes the project to go off course.

To borrow from Sports, imagine a jock who has a better straddle than a delivery. For example, a cricketer who only focuses on improvisation, ignoring basic skills like footwork, timing and shot selection, might be successful in spurts. They can win a freaky matchup or a Herculean singular innings — but neither is sustainable. If they don’t get the basics down well, then they are inconsistent and take a lot of time to adjust to different conditions or better opponents.

Similarly, an Agile team that skips over foundational processes may achieve some short-term wins or isolated victories but does not have the sustaining capability for success over the long haul of even a single project. Agile is structured and flexible if used the right way. These two elements are a balancing act, which ultimately helps to create an environment in which teams can embrace change while keeping the destination in sight. But that balance is only achievable by respecting the core processes and actually following them.

Most organisations mistake Agile to be a silver bullet, offering nothing more than a shortcut; we need to take that out of our heads because Agile is a disciplined way to do work properly with proper planning, execution and retrospection. Some of the processes others perceive as overly bureaucratic are, in fact, the backbone of Agile’s flexibility. An organisation not only ends up doing a disservice to the methodology by skipping these steps but also risks not getting meaningful results. As such, when it comes to long-term success, whether in Agile or sport, it all comes down to preparing rigorously, working consistently as a team and learning and adapting constantly, which is a lesson that cannot be learned enough.

?

Conclusion

Gautam Gambhir’s Agile adaptability and Rahul Dravid’s unswerving belief in the process are not conflicting philosophies but confluence of complementary. It is not a replacement for the process; it is an improvement that is found on solid foundations. There are basics to Agile, and if you cannot commit to them, then you are not going to succeed. Only then can agility exert its transformational force. Agile is a fundamental aspect of success, be it on the cricket field or in the corporate world, which resonates the most when rooted in discipline, thorough preparation, and a dedication to incremental advancements.

?