Slide 3:
A few years ago I used to teach the entire ITIL V3 suite of courses and one of the things I observed was that many people in IT operations did not like change – which seems counterintuitive.
I later realized that their resistance was based on the fact that their primary interest revolves around maintaining stable and secure IT operations.
I only bring this up, as for many, what it meant in the classroom was that they were not open to new ideas or new ways of looking at things and would constantly bring up the “that’s not how we do things around here”.
As a result, they had a hard time with the exams.
Their prior experience had unfortunately become an encumbrance to learning new things - CLICK
On the other hand, when I ran across relatively inexperienced people, I noticed the complete opposite.
They did not have the reference point of experience to cloud their viewpoints or willingness to learn.
This group tended to do very well on exams – in fact they consistently outscored the experienced IT people.
As PMPs many of us cut our teeth on traditionally managed projects which mean we mostly used a waterfall-type approach.
Agile is the complete antithesis of this approach.
To not recognize that basic reality means that like Nan-in’s visitor and the folks in IT Operations, our mind will be closed to fully understanding agile thinking as well as Agile frameworks, practices, and techniques.
So for those who have extensive work experience using waterfall, it is very true in my experience as Yoda says, that you must unlearn what you have learned about managing projects using a waterfall approach to be able to lead projects that follow an agile approach – they are that fundamentally different.
Ray Kurzweil – The Sigularity
Within a quarter century, non-biological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nano-robots will be deeply integrated in our bodies, our brains, and our environment, overcoming pollution and poverty, providing vastly extended longevity, full-immersion virtual reality incorporating all of the senses (like “The Matrix”), “experience beaming” (like “Being John Malkovich”), and vastly enhanced human intelligence. The result will be an intimate merger between the technology-creating species and the technological evolutionary process it spawned.
Non-biological intelligence will have access to its own design and will be able to improve itself in an increasingly rapid redesign cycle. We’ll get to a point where technical progress will be so fast that unenhanced human intelligence will be unable to follow it. That will mark the Singularity.
I set the date for the Singularity—representing a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability—as 2045. The non-biological intelligence created in that year will be one billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today.
Our traditional management models and therefore the patterns of thinking they entail do not apply to the new problems and pace of change that we face.
e.g. Creative disruption breaks all the risk management rules as it no longer works when the number of ‘unknown-unknowns’ outnumber the rest
e.g. It isn’t that risk management does not get done, it just doesn’t get done in the same way as before. Risk Spikes, Risk Census, Risk-adjusted Burn-down Charts, etc.
It’s like trying to apply an old set of assembly instructions on a completely redesigned product. A cathode ray tube TV and a SmartTV are both TVs but that’s where the similarity ends
Many organizations continue to believe that they are dealing with these new problems; but why can’t they find solutions through the same tried-and-true problem-solving methods they’ve always used?
It comes down to the speed of change. Our traditional management models and the patterns of thinking that they entail do not apply to the new problems and pace of change that we all now face.
Traditional thinking limits options. One of the tenets of traditional management thinking is that an organization can control change. However, customers and markets are changing at an increasing rate, which means leaders and organizations need to recognize that they have less control than ever, coupled with more change than ever. We have to learn how to tolerate ambiguity – in our planning, in our people, in our products and in every other aspect of our organizations.
Adherence to formal job descriptions limits agility and promotes dysfunction. Organizations need people to innovate at all levels of the organization. They need individuals to take responsibility for issues they encounter within their sphere of influence and find ways to resolve them quickly.
Innovation and problem-solving within an organization requires independent thought and the belief that the organization will back up the best efforts of their people, even (or especially) when they fail.
This kind of independent action isn’t possible when people are checking job descriptions before acting.
The Information Age has given rise to culture shifts that affect workplaces in which collective intelligence is valued over individual knowledge and hierarchies are ineffective in decision-making. Business issues have shifted from discrete problems to holistic messes that require networked thinking and approaches to resolve.
Moore's Law:
“In 1965, Gordon Moore observed that the number of transistors on a silicon chip doubled every technology generation (12 months at that time, currently 18-24 months). He predicted that this trend would continue for a while. Forty years later, Moore's Law continues to hold.” (Lundstrom)
In 15 cycles you are over 18 thousand times the starting point
Business and IT leaders are finding that the new normal is that there is no normal. Change is happening far too quickly.
Moore’s Law now applies to our business environment such that we can no longer use the past to predict the future; precipitating a fundamental and irrevocable shift in leadership and management thinking.
The idea that you cannot use the past to predict the future is a fundamental shift in leadership and management thinking.
Creative disruption is such that whole industries are being usurped – 3d printing is being tested in for manufacturing parts in space to manufacturing personal medicines based on a person’s DNA.
4D printing is focused on manufacturing materials that self-shape over time.
The so-called ‘tried and true’ management models don’t fit this emerging world of work.
Slide 13: So how does all of this relate to project leadership?
When we are doing planning from a traditional project management perspective we tend to think that we are planning around the things we already know we need to do – these are the known-knowns and are our identified deliverables.
These known-knowns are the basis for the deterministic planning aspect of traditional project management. CLICK
The things we feel might happen to our projects that are not part of that deterministic plan and that may delay or threaten our project are the known-unknowns – that is we know what they might happen, but we just don’t know if they will happen to our project in particular. We tend to call these Risks CLICK
Then there are the things that we cannot anticipate as they have never happened before – these are the unknown-unknowns - AKA the HOLY CRAP what do we do now moments in our project? CLICK
But are these really risks and holy crap moments or are they indicative of an emergent and deeper understanding of the problem we are solving that we did not know existed until now? So instead of calling them risks or holy crap moments I refer to these events as examples of emergent problem understanding. CLICK
So maybe we should consider that these emergent understanding events should be assessed in terms of what might need to be included in the product(s) we are building that we had not originally planned CLICK
A similar concept to this is called the Stacy Matrix – traditional project management tends to work best when our problems are in the simple or slightly complicated domains. CLICK
Traditional management practices tend to struggle when our problems enter the highly complicated or complex domain. CLICK
They mostly fall part entirely as our problems move towards the edge of chaos – which was a topic for one of my recent LinkedIn posts. CLICK
The reality is that due to the speed of change in the modern world, more and more of the problems we are solving, as well as the environments in which we are solving them, are in the area near the edge of chaos.
Value agility and delivery agility enable us to both recognize and adjust to emergent problem understanding that occurs as we approach the edge. Rather than causing us to run in the other direction, they allow us to take a considered and thoughtful approach to what we do next.
This is a basic insight we need to recognize so that we can change from a project management premise that is deterministic, to an agile project leadership premise that is based on empiricism, on inspection of what we find, and one that positions steers us towards an adaptive change bias in how we lead our project teams and ourselves.
Agile Thinking which is a bit of a broader concept that Agile alone:
Embodies the concept of “minimally viable” for products, processes, and documentation. This means only doing what is necessary to achieve stated goals and results. The minimally viable concept is also in line with Lean thinking which focuses on eliminating waste. Within agile thinking, we go a step further by not introducing waste in any form in the first place.
Includes any practice that supports agility whether at the team, portfolio, department, organizational or across organizational boundaries
Can blend different aspects of different practices as needed
Sees any practice that supports agility as potentially being an agile one
Recognizes that existing agile practices are always evolving and that new ones are always emerging so practice or framework zealotry is its antitheses
Recognizes that practices, even agile ones, may need to be adapted to the context in which they are being used and that the teams themselves are best suited to making practice adaptations or innovations to suit their context
Recognizes that individual competency is a contribution to value creation rather than a role that is defined by job descriptions and governed by hierarchies
A new breed of organizational leader is emerging that recognizes that part of the answer lies not in trying to control change but in finding ways to embrace it. These leaders are creating organizations that thrive, not in spite of these changes, but because of them.
It is likely you have some experience with at least one non-traditional technique or methodology. You might have learned about Agile through a ScrumMaster course or your team might use a Kanban board to track your workflow. You might attend daily standup meetings, share a collaborative workspace, or participate in a peer evaluation process.
There are many frameworks and methodologies that include non-traditional techniques. Key practices include:
Focuses on Strategic Iteration over strategic planning
Adopting a growth mindset
Understanding intrinsic motivators (carrots and sticks don’t work)
Welcoming change by focusing on the final goal rather than rigidly adhering to planned tasks
Integrating disparate teams and departments using simple rules and self-organizing teams rather than trying to enforce centralized, detailed coordination
Adapting methods to context rather than rigid process adoption, which also means evolving the approach as you learn what works for your organization
Developing the ability to synthesize and apply information rather than training individuals to follow processes; a trained mind is a closed mind and a closed mind is not open to the serendipity that drives innovation
Emphasizing innovative thinking over content expertise – you will no longer be valued only for what you know now, but also for your ability constantly learn and innovate
But do these new techniques really work in today’s real-world businesses? And how can you know which approach will work for you? Let’s start by looking at a company that has demonstrated success through the use of its non-traditional management techniques: W. L. Gore and Associates.
Running continuous experiments and adjusting what we do next based on what we observe about what we just did (that is use an OODA approach)
Looking for and at patterns and developing our ability to both recognize the familiar ones as well as uncovering new patterns
Having a networked leaders and networked teams perspective that includes both internal and external players
https://www.dsdm.org/sites/default/files/agile_project_framework_handbook_images/4.7%20-%20Principle%206.png
Slide 36:
If you have any questions following the webinar about this topic or if you’d just like to connect, feel free to contact me using any of the ways shown.
Also, we have our own BrigthTalk webinar channel if you’d like to check us out.
Slide 37:
So now I’ll open it up to some questions.