Recently, I was faced the statement: „Agile is outdated!“ The Forbes magazine even titled: „The end of Agile“. What should we think about this? Was Agile only a short intermezzo in management and something that can be put aside, now that new issue have entered the agendas of the management boards, such as digitalization?
To put it in a nutshell, my impression is that the today’s criticism is a counterstrike to the enthusiastic hymns on Agile. Thus, the declining hype about Agile is a good chance to take stock of this phenomenon and to evaluate what’s worth to retain and what what about agility was superstition. A key to give an answer on that is to know what Agile really is. If Agile is considered to be a trendy accessory that is a decorative feature but irrelevant for success, critics might be right. Yet, it’s more likely that the meaning of agility has not been recognized by those people, and hence, before finally disposing Agile, we should probe a little bit deeper.
While one group proclaims the end of agility, others still put their hope in this rather new approach that promises to cope with the accelerating dynamics and complexity in business. However, many of both parties have in common that their knowledge about agility is vague and thus, it’s not a surprise that misunderstandings and fairy tales stick in the minds of people like chewing gum on boots. One of my explanations why Agile is widely misunderstood is that the term has rapidly been used as a wildcard and ‚medicine‘ for all challenges of our contemporary management, next to the fact that it is often reduced to Scrum (see my blog Agile beyond Scrum). Executives have recognized that established approaches have partly become ineffective and thus a new mantra was born: We have to do it in different way – we have to do it agile! Today, in the post-hype era we are faced questions, such as: Is Agile a synonym for Scrum, or does it imply anything else beyond iterative project management? Or, is it the idea of wearing t-shirts instead of suits, and sneakers instead of ties? So, in the end the burning question remains: What the f… is Agile?
Definitions of agility are as numerous as the facets of business. Scholars have examined agility from countless viewpoints and therefore have used different foundations and definitions for Agile. Some argue that this diversity is a severe pain point of the management concept, others see it in a positive light stating that the notion of agility itself is kept agile. Anyway, this ambiguity is a fact that has to be accepted.
A very early and general definition of agility is provided by Brown and Agnew (1982). They state that corporate agility is „the capacity to react quickly to rapidly changing circumstances”. This is a useful starting point to capture the nature and facets of agility, as it leads us to three major issues being headlined with a where, what, and why question.
The Where relates to the object that is supposed to be agile. So, do we talk about companies, business units, departments, teams, or individuals?! Maybe this seems trivial but is an important side note, since agility can be applied on any object on different levels. Hence, the scope is important not only to specify the focus for management, but also in terms of the characteristics and measurements that are different for each object. (The issue about the right measurements of agility addressing specific approaches and indicators is crucial and thus is worth to be discussed in an extra blog, later on).
This leads us straight to the second question: What characterizes Agile? Typically, Agile is described by certain attributes where the above-mentioned definition points to a set of key characteristics: Agility is about speed and responsiveness, being aware that these are just umbrella terms that have to be operationalized for management purposes. Breaking down these bullet points, we obtain more tangible traits, such as time-to-market, lead time, innovation and flexibility, just to name a few important notions. Let’s probe a little bit deeper into the latter one, as it is often asked if there is a difference between agility and flexibility.
Qumer and Henderson-Sellers (2006) define flexibility as „the ability or behavior of an entity that allows adapting to changes whenever it is required.“ This reveals a strong relationship to agile, however the definition implies that flexibility is strongly associated with systems, methods, work cells, etc. what is aligned with other academics that relate flexibility typically to operations and the factory floor. Including further literature sources, it can be concluded that agility exceeds flexibility by the traits of pro-activity, creating anything new and speed. In this sense, flexibility can be seen as a chief enabler of agility.
Finally, the question shall be discussed briefly why agility is required. Addressing those who like Agile just because it can be used as an excuse for not wearing a tie, or a justification to ignore processes and standards, must be disappointed at this stage. Agile is not an end in itself and it’s not a rebellion against established systems (rather a supplementation). Agile is not more and not less than an answer on fast changing environmental conditions implying turbulence, uncertainty and complexity. Dynamics in business have been increasing tremendously within the last three decades and reached a threshold where traditional management has come to its limits, and thus new approaches are required. However, the probably most interesting question of how to achieve agility is unfortunately not addressed by our foundational definition above.
Nevertheless, Agile also provides answers on the question how to attain and manage the agile characteristics, and consequently can be considered as a management concept. Yet, this concept is quite complex and contains several levels, namely values (addressing culture and attitudes) which are applied in practices and principles (being most important for agile management) that in turn are utilized in methods and tools, such as Scrum, Design Thinking, Kanban, etc. (representing the‘ Agile quick-fixes‘).
From a theoretical point of view, the whole agile concept is rooted in a set of organizational and systems theories, notably named dynamic systems theory and theory of self-organization. The respective implications for practical management can be concluded shortly: Executives can adopt agile methods as a kind of ‚ready-to-go‘ tool-set to foster agility. However, a mindless use of those methods entails the risk that expected effects will not show up, since a stupid ‚copy and paste‘ will not work in all cases. Thus, to avoid major drawbacks and disappointments, an effective application of Agile by selecting and adapting distinct practices requires a deeper understanding about the mechanisms of agile principles, particular when a comprehensive agile transformation is aimed comprising leadership aspects, culture, processes and structures.
By now, we can conclude the following:
Agile is a performance outcome. Agile is not an end in itself but is supposed to yield success, and thus, it is no coincidence that agile is often associated with Darwin’s famous quote: „It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.“ In fact, numerous scientific studies have proven that agility promotes business success on different levels. Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that measuring success leads us to a further problem, as there a numerous and non-established metrics for this attribute. However, in a general way the outcome of agility is often described by an over-average performance and competitive advantages.
Agile is a set of characteristics. In order to make Agile more tangible, there are diverse traits linked to agility that describe the nature of Agile more accurate. These attributes are often used to measure agility but also to define a desirable state that is aimed.
Agile is an adaptive capability. Achieving the agile characteristics does not just happen, it requires capabilities. Simplified, agility can be replaced by the term adaptability for describing the general adaptive capacity of an object. In my opinion, adaptability or changeability are appropriate synonyms that are understood by everyone without playing ‚Bullshit Bingo‘ and using all the agile buzzwords. In context of business agility it might be helpful to specify and talk about a ‚creative adaptability‘ that is more than just a reacting behavior on environmental circumstances, but also comprises a component of intelligence that is future oriented, such as a predictive capability is utilizing change by creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit.
Agile is a never-ending endeavor. In contrast to relate Agile to distinct outcomes, some academics argue that even striving for agility by applying any activities is enough to declare an object to be agile. This viewpoint highlights the aspect that Agile may not a temporary issue on the management agenda but must be a constant endeavor of the whole team.
Agile is a management concept. In order to achieve a preferred or required level of adaptability, Agile provides answers how to foster agility by utilizing principles of organizational and systems theories. Like the peak of an iceberg, the best-known part of Agile is represented by diverse methods that are based on some of the agile principles and provide standardized management practices for certain use cases.
Agile is a stance and philosophy. However, for achieving comprehensive corporate agility, Agile must become alive in the culture and mindset of people to make the tools of agile management effective.
Being aware that there are many perspectives on agility, a summary can also be made in a completely different way. Interestingly, Agile has a lot in common with the nature of love. It is complex, multi-faceted, intangible, sometimes very simple – sometimes extremely difficult, it’s a necessity, it might be frustrating or even painful, but it can also be a powerful motor, some aspects are logic, other facets are rather magic.
Would you say love is outdated? The same applies to Agile. Maybe the wild and extremely emotional period is over. Now, we rather approach a mature level of love – pardon, agility.