AGILE IN ACTION

If you keep doing the same thing you'll keep getting the same results. If you don't try, you'll never succeed.

Via InfoQ . Tim Lister translates the Declaration of Interdependence into plain language in his introduction to agile leadership . Here's the gist of Tim's message: 1. We increase return on investment by making continuous flow of value our focus.

We've been beavering away on the second iteration of the beta Website . We'd welcome any feedback. The links top-left of the page aren't working yet so they're just underlined keywords at the moment. Next week we'll put the site live.

As an organisation matures it develops a way of working that is typically borne out of progressive trial and error. In a young organisation, change occurs often and changes are often big. But as time progresses changes become smaller and smaller and less frequent until eventually the organisation settles into a steady state. Of course, change for change's sake is a bad thing. But without continued effort to undertake change that specifically brings about improvement, and enables the organisation to be responsive, innovative and competitive in a rapidly changing business world, the steady state becomes a lacklustre default. Sure it works. People are working and managers are managing. There's not really a 'buzz' anymore and it's unlikely to produce 'eureka moments' resulting in product breakthroughs that will take the market by storm. But it's plodding along nicely, shareholders seem reasonably happy, people are in their comfort zone and they don't see anything wrong. In a more critical light, I might say that the default state is stale and fails to push the boundaries. Managers are often leading the inevitable. They spend their time managing plans and events that, in all likelihood, are going to happen anyway. There's little invention and practically no investment in continuous improvement . If problems are identified - "what we have here is a communication problem" - they're simply talked about. Action is seldom taken to identify and deal with the root cause . It's simply enough to label the problem, perhaps make some superficial changes to address some of the symptoms, and then basically ignore it, hoping it will go away. It doesn't go away and so people learn to live with it, accepting it as 'just the way it is'. What happens when someone realises the market is leaving the organisation behind, and fast? Executives become nervous and request more effort, managers become pushy and people become stretched. Processes that worked in the default state now either hold things up or cause failure. And all the while the pressure is building. The default state doesn't cater for innovation and responsiveness. It isn't geared to take the organisation to a new level of success. Real change is required. A tweak to the organisation chart won't cut it. Extraordinary results require extraordinary ideas from extraordinary people using extraordinary processes. Everyone sees that the company is broken and that people are miserable, but nobody has the courage on their own to start changing things. Change is seen as too painful and too disruptive. It's going to get painful anyway whether change is attempted or not. Pain is inevitable. Misery is a choice. And change doesn't have to be disruptive. Don't be too busy chopping wood to sharpen the axe. Set things up for success. Create a sense of urgency. Focus on achieving behavioural change and be sensitive. Communicate intent clearly, openly and up-front to neutralise uncertainty and anxiety. Maintain transparency. In parallel, start working with people to define a shared vision and strategy while empowering more people to take action to bring about the changes they feel are required to improve how they work. Look for quick wins. Success is addictive and motivating. Build momentum. Share experiences and knowledge. Initiate a culture of continuous inspection and adaptation and improvement.

R&D expenditure can expensed or capitalised. When it's expensed, the total expenditure is declared as expense in the current period, reducing current profits by that amount. When it's capitalised, part of the expenditure is declared as expense in the current period and part is declared as expense in future periods, increasing current profits and reducing future profits. Capitalisation can provide a signal to investors about future benefits of current R&D projects, whereas expensing can reveal strategic information about R&D to competitors. I'm not an accountant and I admit there's much more to this than I currently understand, but I'm wondering if the motivation to use capitalisation is to give the perception of greater current profits. Is this short-termism?

My company, think-box , will be winding down in the coming weeks or months but you can't get rid of me that easily. It's purely an administrative move to make room for the new company, Energized Work (logo concept to the right), which I've co-founded with Gus . We've worked together over the last year and it's simply been awesome. We've achieved some great things, experienced the highs and lows on some rough rides but we've always had lots of fun. We work extremely well together and the combination of our skills, experiences and approaches is entirely complementary and is proving to be very effective. The Web site is under construction but there's a holding page up with some introductory blurb. This blog will continue, as will Gus' wiki, but they'll both be re-branded eventually. Our goal is to work together at clients and we also want to pursue other avenues too:

I've decided to take a plunge and have proposed a session for XPday . It's a world cafe version of the open discussion about Compromised Agility that I ran at the inaugural Agile Practitioners Forum . The aim of the proposed session is to debate whether adaptations that compromise values and principles actually degrade a team's agility, impacting their ability to deliver successfully. It would be appropriate for anyone who is working, or who has worked previously, with agile methods regardless of their level of experience. Here's the description of the session:

A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent. - Anonymous

On the Agile Forums , Brian Marick said "a lot of people think the Agile Alliance is irrelevant". What do you think? The poll is anonymous. And if you're working with agile methods your opinion is important so please don't leave without voting. And please share this poll with your colleagues. Simply click 'yes' or 'no'.

What is your organisation's view towards your agility?