At the program level and above, the choice of a people focus or a process focus is not between two competing paradigms. They are two sides of the same coin.
People are the raw material for teams, for not only Agile Program Management teams, but for almost every human based endeavor. But teams need a framework in which to work. This is obvious but many times lost when discussing agile processes. No matter the approach, success comes to those with skill and daring and a bounding framework. † There are two schools of thought on how to improve the execution of teams. One school emphasizes people, while the other emphasizes process. The people school has two divisions. Get the best people (A players), put them on the toughest problems and incent them to perform. [3] Another approach improves the average employee and the whole organization will improve.
A second school emphasizes process and starts with the assumption that firms don’t intentionally “hire bad people,” so a framework in which to work is needed. [1]
Research shows firms using both approaches deliver better results. Attention to both people and process produces superior results, while the focus on one or the other ignores the underlying issues from the missing element. The approach for increasing the performance of people outside the small group level includes:
- Develop a model for execution that fits culture, skills, needs, and capabilities of the participants of the initiatives being managed by the program.
- Choose the right metrics for the program and projects. Metrics that connect strategy with execution and measure the increasing maturity of the identified capabilities.
- Planning is not “plan and forget” but an ongoing dynamic activity that peers into the future for indications as to where a solution may emerge and treat the plan as a complex situation, adapting to an emerging solution. ‡
- Continuous performance assessment by measuring the right thing. “Real-time” performance measurement as a natural artifact of agile processes.
- Communicate the elements of the strategy, initiatives, capabilities, programs and projects up and down the execution chain.
† In 1992, Honeywell’s defense avionics division in Albuquerque New Mexico reorganized their entire 1800 person business unit into multifunctional teams. Division management searched among their supervisors for people who could facilitate loyalty, communication and decision making within a group and complete the change in six months. According to the division’s general manager, senior management "took a ‘burn the bridge’ approach because we wanted people to know we were serious. If we hadn’t made a big fuss, this would have died a natural death." One of the successful teams developed a data storage system for Northrop Grumman’s B–2 bomber. The team leader managed the group by taking actions that created team loyalty and focused their effort on the Air Force’s needs. The leader saw his job as helping the team “feel as if they owned the project by getting whatever information, financial or otherwise, they needed. I knew that if we could all charge the hill together, we would be successful” [2].
You cannot have an execution culture without robust dialog – one that brings reality to the surface through openness, candor, and informality. Intense debate brings up all sides of an issue, even if it makes people uncomfortable. ... from Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Larry Bossidy.
Results
In many principle-centered approaches to agile, results are implicit and at times left to the end. The means for reaching these results are presented first. Agile Program Management starts with the results – what does Done look like?
Putting the principle of value into practice demands that results be described in the units of measure defined by the stakeholders, not the supplier. A critical aspect of these units is they must come in small packages with 0 percent or 100 percent completion. No partial deliveries, no partial done.
† In 1992, Honeywell’s defense avionics division in Albuquerque New Mexico reorganized their entire 1800 person business unit into multifunctional teams. Division management searched among their supervisors for people who could facilitate loyalty, communication and decision making within a group and complete the change in six months. According to the division’s general manager, senior management "took a ‘burn the bridge’ approach because we wanted people to know we were serious. If we hadn’t made a big fuss, this would have died a natural death." One of the successful teams developed a data storage system for Northrop Grumman’s B–2 bomber. The team leader managed the group by taking actions that created team loyalty and focused their effort on the Air Force’s needs. The leader saw his job as helping the team “feel as if they owned the project by getting whatever information, financial or otherwise, they needed. I knew that if we could all charge the hill together, we would be successful”
‡ This idea comes from Mike Dwyer, IT Program Manager, American Healthways, Westborough, MA. It is used with permission.
[1] Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Larry Bossidy, Crown Business, 2002.
[2] "What Team Leaders Need to Know," S. Caminiti, Fortune, Feb 20, 1994
[3] Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Other's Don't, Jim Collins, Harper Collins, 2001.
