Agility is the answer to the new challenges of the VUCA world. Responding flexibly is the order of the day. However, this is often easier said than done: traditional organizational structures and management concepts hinder the introduction of agility in many cases. However, it is worthwhile for companies to remove these obstacles. Stefan Vieweg explains why in an interview.

"Agility is not a fashion"

Katja Heumader: You have been involved in the introduction of agility in organizations for several years, both in the private sector and in public administration. Why should we focus on agility in the future?

Stefan Vieweg: There is no doubt that we live in the much-cited VUCA world under constant pressure to change. Digitalization and cyber risks, climate change with ESG risks and, most recently and quite obviously, pandemics, lead to a short-term need for adaptation if you want to be successful in the long term. This means nothing less than that your own processes must be set up in such a resilient and flexible way that changes in priorities and new requirements are not perceived as a disruptive factor, but rather that your own structures learn to deal with them well.

And this brings us directly to the topic of agility: the effective and efficient use of all resources available in an organization means that the necessary precautions have been taken to successfully adapt to these rapid changes. In concrete terms, this means that decentralized, detailed operational knowledge at working level can be used to make quick decisions in order to take advantage of opportunities and avoid risks. This is precisely what agile teams offer, as they take on operational responsibility and implement decisions, receive feedback in short cycles (iterations or sprints) and are able to make decisions via Transparency build trust both internally and externally. This only works if the management also accepts the changed role of "challenging and coaching", makes centralized decisions and lets the teams "do it" operationally. On the other hand, the members of an agile team must also accept the responsibility assigned to them.

In circles mostly driven by traditional project management, agility is often seen as a "buzzword", and "hybrid" approaches even suggest that the agility "wave" can be subsumed under the classic "business as usual".

"Agile management is based on a contemporary and customer-centric mindset"

As a "classically" trained project and program manager who has focused more and more on agile management over the last 15 years, I see things differently: on the one hand, agility is not a fashion that will soon disappear, nor is properly implemented agility merely a methodological and technical competence. Agile management is based on a different - contemporary and customer-centric - mindset.

Incidentally, perhaps a rather interesting insight from the historical management context: starting with the Fayol's understanding of hierarchy With the efficiency and stability of the well-functioning bureaucracy of the line function, the "don't care how you do it" management-by-objective approach of the 1960s then increasingly paved the way in the 1990s and 2000s for project management expertise to tackle complex and novel - but unique - pre-digital challenges with dedicated project teams and (Fayolian administration?). Since the beginning of the digital age with the dotcom wave, this has become passé, agile alternatives have been developed. This led to the famous agile manifesto back in 2001. In this respect, it is consistent that the respective zeitgeist with its particular challenges also needs and finds adequate solutions. In the software age of the 2020s, this is agility, paired with a suitable understanding of leadership such as servant leadership and trust-building transparency.

Of course, there are still clearly defined tasks that can be successfully completed in a very stable environment.

With increasing dynexity (an artificial word made up of dynamics and complexity), a flexible approach is needed that enables the organization to build sustainable solutions and resilient processes - and this is exactly what well-implemented agility can offer.

KH: What obstacles do you repeatedly encounter in your projects?

SV: To put it bluntly: as a systemic change manager, I repeatedly have to deal with three different types of stakeholders, which are not only to be found when it comes to introducing or improving agility in the organization:

1. The keepers"Why change, it's fine the way it is at the moment." People here do not (yet) accept that a change is imminent - for whatever reason.
2. Those left alone"We want to and we can, but we're just not allowed to." There is a lack of clear support from the decision-maker level to consistently pursue a new path. As a result, those who see a new approach such as agility as an opportunity for real improvement and want to get involved quickly lose their intrinsic motivation. This can even lead to inner resignation.
3. The advice-resistant half-knowledgeable"We have Scrum, so we are already agile". Although there is nothing wrong with individual agile nuclei, it is the continuous learning process, the openness to learn from the best and to want to develop further. This is what makes the difference between an agile team and an successful agile team.

However, a major challenge when introducing agility is rethinking the role of the management level. Many managers initially find it difficult to stay out of operational problems and let the teams work independently. Well-established agile working methods offer the management level even better control than classic project management in the milestone approach ever could: the timing in, for example, two-week sprints with reviews of the actual work results makes it much quicker to see what has actually been achieved and which topics need to be focused on.

In short, letting go and letting the agile teams take responsibility for implementing the priorities they have set themselves sometimes feels bad as a "traditional" manager. But I can only encourage you: the trust that managers place in the members of their teams quickly pays off in the form of higher employee satisfaction and ultimately better work results.

SAFe® provides a clear framework

KH: You mainly work with SAFe®, the Scaled Agile Framework. Processes and methods are defined in great detail. How do these strict guidelines fit in with the idea of working more flexibly and freely?

SV: Many people who have not yet had the opportunity to take a closer look at agile management have ideas of a lack of planning, chaotic flexibility (today this, tomorrow that), no documentation whatsoever, and so on. The myths are endless...

I like to compare the lean-agile approach, as implemented with SAFe® - by far the market-leading framework for scaling agility in organizations - with a production line: in order to be able to produce high quantities of high-quality end products in a short throughput time, you need coordinated stations with well-coordinated teams. This is exactly what SAFe® offers, for example, with the organization of these "stations" in so-called "Agile Release Trains" (ART) or in the larger context of several ARTs to "Solution Trains". This is where innovations are continuously identified, developed, implemented and prepared for "market launch".

The composition of the ARTs can be derived directly from the value stream characteristic of the respective organization: If the individual agile teams in an ART continue to develop such a main process in a coordinated manner, then the entire organization also improves. Examples: Payment processing at a public financial services provider, admission and enrolment process at a university, crime prevention at a police authority, etc. This also applies to areas of application that are not necessarily "only" about software development.

The framework is clearly structured with SAFe®: shared backlog (potential worklist), daily stand-ups, two-week sprint changes with review / system demo, retrospective, quarterly large planning and coordination rounds (PIP - Program Increment Planning), and much more. These structures are the basis for transparency and coordination between the teams, building trust, commitment and acceptance of responsibility. The result: significantly shorter lead times, better quality, higher employee satisfaction and - as my own empirical research on this topic shows - also higher profitability.

While these structures are a prerequisite for cross-functional coordination between teams, it remains the responsibility of the individual agile teams to define goals within the framework set by management, to have them confirmed in the PIP and to work through the work packages (so-called "features" and "stories") in a self-organized manner.

Success factors for the introduction of agility

KH: SAFe® is time-consuming: After all, it requires comprehensive methodological expertise. Why is this investment worthwhile?

SV: As already mentioned, the success story of SAFe® not only shows better and faster work results with higher employee satisfaction - already a considerable advantage - with good implementation, the agile maturity level of the organization is quickly so high that the investment also quickly pays off economically.

KH: What advice would you give to organizations that are considering switching to agile working but still have doubts?

SV: The success factors of such a change process have been well known since the world bestseller "Leading Change" by John Kotter - and the implementation roadmap recommended by SAFe® also contains precisely these elements. At this point, we would just like to point out three aspects that are often considered difficult, particularly in public sector organizations:

1. First of all, it needs a Clear commitment from the decision-maker level to the new type of cross-functional, agile collaboration. This also means that active participation and acting as a role model are essential. For example, it sends an extremely strong signal to the organization if managers seriously engage with a method such as SAFe® by participating in appropriate training and obtaining the certificate.
2. Every member in the organization should with the new methodfor example through training, be familiarized withideally also acquire a corresponding certificate. This investment pays off in the form of avoiding misunderstandings and ultimately fewer problems when practising new behaviors and procedures. If you save too much up front, you will have to reckon with a much longer introduction period before the new routines pay off.
3. "Do - do": Start in a manageable (promising) area and learn the necessary adjustments for a further rollout from this pilot area.

KH: Mr. Vieweg, thank you very much for your initial insights into the establishment of SAFe® and the switch to agile management. In the second part of your interview next week, we will be looking at the introduction of agile methods in public administration.

The interview with Prof. Dr. Stefan Vieweg was conducted by Dr. Katja Heumader for the TCI editorial team.

Source cover image: © Asha Sreenivas | Adobe Stock