Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next?

The maturity model approach to describing organizations and processes comes and goes out of fashion.  It is a repeating framework de jour.  In the game of agile jargon whack-a-mole, the agile maturity model is poking its head up again.

Agile Maturity Model

Ellen Gottesdeiner, author of Requirements by Collaboration, tweeted (@ellengott) a few hours ago with a link to an article proposing a set of maturity models.  She graciously passed on the opportunity to comment about the “agile maturity model” when pointing out her like of the collaboration maturity model.  The article proposed the following as an agile maturity model:

Agile Maturity Model (AMM)

0 – Dormant

1 – Speed: Focusing on being expeditious.

2 – Reactive: Focusing on acting relative to change from the perspective of the moment rather than a longer timeframe.

3 – Responsive: Focusing on acting relative to change from the perspective of the moment balanced with a longer timeframe.

I didn’t find it to be a particularly useful model.  Although descriptive, it won’t help your organization improve.

What Does Maturity Mean?

I wrote a series of articles a couple years ago that explored the CMMI and RMM – the capability maturity model and the requirements maturity model.  These are two different models that use maturity as a concept for articulating different levels, or grades (or enlightenment, or rigor), with respect to organizational behaviors.  At the time, there was both momentum and confusion around the notion of a requirements maturity model.  CMMI is a description of an organization’s rigor in “saying what it does, and doing what it says.”  RMM is an assessment of the level of critical thinking incorporated into the ways an organization is using requirements to develop products.

The problem is that people were incorrectly assuming that an organization “at level 4 CMMI” would approach requirements management at a comparably enlightened level.  The problem is that they are putting entirely unrelated concepts into similarly named classifications.  An organization could be at CMMI 1 and RMM 4 or RMM 2 and CMMI 3.  That series of articles explored what it would mean to be in any of the combinations of “maturity” for those two models.  Check out all the articles in the series if you want to put it all in perspective:

Making a Maturity Model Useful

Why bother with a maturity model?  Not so you can “keep score” relative to others – rather, so that you can improve your own organization.  For a maturity model to be useful, you have to be able to do two things.

  1. You must be able to determine where your organization is in the model.
  2. You must be able to identify actions you can take to “improve” your organization relative to the model.

If you can’t measure maturity, and the model does not provide guidance about how to improve, it’s useless.  One challenge with maturity models is that they risk becoming contextually narrow in their application.  The more concrete a measurement or suggestion becomes, the less extensible it is likely to be.  Ideally, your model would be broadly applicable to many organizations.

With an agile manifesto that emphasizes people over process, it is ironic to consider applying a metric that measures your agile process.  So – goal #1 is immediately undermined.  Goal #2 – improving your organization, is, however, very valuable.

Improving An Agile Process

I’ve worked in several agile environments, both as a practicioner and as someone helping to transform organizations to become agile (or better at agile).  I’ve worked in enterprise software, helping large teams adopt agile processes; with a SaaS consumer product team, and in large IT departments with collections of teams adopting agile processes at varying paces.  I’ve played on both sides of the fence (delivery/QA & product management/ownership).

Going from zero to sixty on agile is a big task.  You can’t solve all of the organizational, practical, and interpersonal challenges at the same time.  Or at least you would be more effective tackling and resolving each issue in sequence.  In fact, you should solve the most important / largest problem first – then move on to the next, and so on.  You can call it agile agile adoption, or you can call it eating the elephant.

One powerful use of a maturity model is highlighting the next-biggest hurdle you have to overcome.  Unfortunately, most communication about maturity models is “look which hurdle we just overcame” – but the focus should be on “what’s next?”

When helping organizations be effective with agile processes, there are some clear “you have to overcome this first” challenges, that if unresolved, make other challenges irrelevant.

If you’re a software developer, I’m sure you’ve experienced the following scenario:

  • A bug is reported.
  • You fix the bug, and write some tests to prevent it from reoccuring.
  • While testing, you discover another bug that was hidden by the first bug.

Fixing that second bug doesn’t do any good until you’ve fixed the first one.

If you’re a product manager or business analyst, think about it in terms of capability enhancements.  Is a faster search important if the current search algorithm is not returning the right results?  Get good results first, then make it faster.

You have to solve the biggest/closest/roadblockiest issue first.  Then move on to the next issue.  That’s how you should use a maturity model – as guidance about “what’s next?”

When assessing / improving your organization’s ability to be agile, you need to be addressing whatever is next.

What’s Next?

Let’s discard the “maturity model” notion and focus on “what’s next?” instead.  And that of course starts with “what’s first?”  Here’s how I’ve presented an agile hierarchy of needs to in the past:

  1. Staffing the engineering team correctly.  People over process is the right emphasis.  If you can’t find people that are “good enough” you might as well go home.  Doesn’t matter how agile you are if you don’t have the horsepower.  You also need people who are excited to “do agile” – they like to communicate, they enjoy the project and team dynamics of an agile process.  You’re also better off with specializing generalists – ideally, every member of the team can do any work that is needed.  This is an efficiency play – you risk introducing bottlenecks when you have a specialist who is the “only one” who can do particular types of work – because you will not have a consistent mix of types of work from release to release.
  2. Assuring Quality is in your team’s DNA.  Arguably, this is part of what’s first, but there are a lot of teams that get cood at cranking out code, before they get good at cranking out good code.  Continuous integration is the approach you must have.  Test-driven development, spec-driven development, and other testing-integration approaches are extremely important, but are really reflective of different flavors of agile and quality, not different degrees.
  3. Reducing overhead in the release process.  There’s a cost associated with releasing a product.  Once you get good at releasing, and are releasing good product, your next focus is on finding the right release cadence.  There are three factors that essentially dictate your release frequency.  The size of atomic deliverables (user stories and use cases, non-functional requirements, etc) your team is creating, the overhead (time and cost) of releasing, and your customer’s capacity to consume the releases.  My anecdotal experience is that teams are usually constrained initially by the cost of releasing – dedicated hours to creating a build, code freezes, etc.  Automating the build process (to reduce both costs and errors introduced while building) is first.  Integrating automated build and automated test processes together is next.
  4. Feeding the beast.  Once you have an engineering / delivery team that is operating efficiently, you run into the problem of making sure they have enough important work to do.  There’s pressure on product owners and  product managers to schedule something because it is easy to define, not because it is important.  It is also important that the team understand the context and importance of what they are doing.  So you have to focus on making sure your product management team has enough capacity to keep the engineering team busy on delivering really valuable stuff.  The “right” solution to this depends on how the problem manifests in your organization. Is your product manager spread too thin across multiple products?  Too junior?  Too bogged down in sales support or trade show attendance or or or?
  5. Managing stakeholder expectations.  A big challenge in changing an organization to become agile is in resetting and managing the expectations of stakeholders.  Execs are used to having an annual budget exercise where they dedicate X dollars in the pursuit of Y objectives.  We’ll set aside the reality that they’ll only achieve 1/3 of the objectives, at 2X the cost, much later than originally forecasted.  We aren’t looking at the failings of waterfall, we’re looking at the risks of agile.  There’s a ton of stuff here, from doing damage control to reverse perceptions that “people who want to do agile just don’t want to be accountable” or addressing the “we can’t tell you what X dollars gets you” message.  Again – the particular solution is a function of how the problem manifests in your organization.  Once your team is delivering valuable stuff efficiently, you have to make sure your management team is happy and engaged and knows what to expect.
  6. Continuously learning from your markets.  This is really what differentiates an agile organization from an organization with an agile development team.  Agile processes do enable you to develop code more efficiently.  If you aren’t taking advantage of the faster development, feedback loops, and ability to change that agile enables, you’re leaving money on the table.  And one of your competitors will pick it up.  There’s a whole community of MBAs that talk about business agility without once thinking about software development.  They’re talking about an organization’s capacity for rapid response to changing market conditions.  It’s what separates the winners from everybody else.  And agile development makes business agility possible.  As long as your team is able to identify and value industry trends, competitive threats, and market opportunities.  When you’re good at this, you have an agile organization.  And you win.

Conclusion

Any agile “maturity model”, irony aside, needs to be structured to help organizations progress through the stages of enlightened operations – continuously providing insights into “what’s next?” for those teams to grow.

I know there are many readers here with years of agile experience – how would you improve the list above, to better provide a framework for “what’s next?”  When that framework is solid, we can do some wordsmithing and repackage it as a maturity model.  Until then, just focus on “what’s next” – that’s all a maturity model should be used for anyway.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

This article was published on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pm and is filed under Agile, Process Improvement, Product Management, Software development.
You can leave a comment on this post

8 Comments

  1. I “buried” the call to action in the article – but I would really love to have our agile practicioners and experts chime in on the hierarchy of ‘what’s next’ that I’ve observed.

    TIA!

  2. If there’s one basic thing I recommend agile teams do, it’s time-boxed iterations with demos. I call it “demonstration-based agile (DBA)“.

  3. Scott,

    I am working on my Masters and looking at organizational decision-making through Agile principles. One of my interests is to try and identity the qualities of an Agile organization, and then map those through adoption: causality, if you will.

    The result looks a lot like a maturity model in the sense that an organization could use it to assess their level of adoption (authenticity and maturity). This is a work in progress, I would be interested your though thoughts. The model can be found at: http://openmasters.wordpress.com/agile-causality/

    Thank you,
    Patrick

    • Thanks Patrick, and welcome to Tyner Blain. I’ll have to noodle on that diagram some. Not sure I’m immediately bought in to some of the “causal” relationships you identified – but let me think before I form a “more baked” opinion.

      Folks – check out Patrick’s diagram, and engage in the conversation on his site!

  4. Thanks Scott and please feel free to rip it up. I would really appreciate the feedback (anyone!)

  5. I really like this. I especially like that you talk about how once people give lip service to “people over process,” they spend a lot of time tracking process.

    In terms of refinement, I’m thinking a lot these days about “staffing the engineering team correctly.” I’m not sure I agree in practice that you can or should try to staff all teams with “specializing generalists,” or at least not as taken to an extreme. (If you’ll forgive the self-promotion, I talked more about this here: http://pagilista.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-blender-zone-cross-functional-doesnt.html.)

    I’ve seen other articles “solve” the problem of people over process by saying you need “collocation” or “enthusiasm.” I wonder if it’s possible to be more scientific around the cultural steps and changes needed to get a whole organization to be staffing teams with the right people, without all of those people being newly hired.

    Let me know what you think. Thanks for this post!

17 Trackbacks

  1. By Jim Holland on June 30, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Agile Maturity Model by @sehlhorst http://bit.ly/efyz5 – 6 great points and read for #agile #prodmgmt #leadership

  2. [...] Reply to Comments on the Agile Maturity Model (AMM) This is a brief reply to Scott Sehlhorst’s / Tyner Blain’s comments on the Agile Maturity Model (AMM). The article proposed the following as an agile maturity [...]

  3. By links for 2009-07-01 • Bare Identity on July 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    [...] Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? | Tyner Blain "You have to solve the biggest/closest/roadblockiest issue first. Then move on to the next issue. That’s how you should use a maturity model – as guidance about “what’s next?”" (tags: tynerblain scottsehlhorst requirements cmm maturitymodel) [...]

  4. By Agilebuddy on July 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    #Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? http://ow.ly/gm4z

  5. By Gustavo_Veliz on July 2, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    jajaja hace rato era Madurez Agil RT @Agilebuddy #Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? http://ow.ly/gm4z

  6. By David Alfaro on July 2, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    Amazing Article: #Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? http://tinyurl.com/npuhon (via @Agilebuddy)

  7. By ZenBeatz on July 3, 2009 at 8:29 am

    very cool #agile #maturity-model http://bit.ly/efyz5

  8. By unto the breach on July 5, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Getting a New Team to do Cool Stuff…

    Bootstrapping a New Engineering, Product and Design TeamWhen I took on my current job I was given an established product team and a mostly-new engineering team. We also had a brand new engineering man……

  9. By Roger L. Cauvin on July 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    Commented on new Tyner Blain post at http://tr.im/r77C. #agile #prodmgmt

  10. By Val Workman on July 6, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    @rcauvin liked your comment at http://tr.im/r77C #agile #prodmgmt but not sure conclusion follows. Care to discuss?

  11. By Mike Burrows on July 9, 2009 at 5:12 am

    nearly scared off @sehlhorst’s “Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next?” by the title, but it’s good! http://bit.ly/iXjFe #agile

  12. By Scott Sehlhorst on July 9, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    RT @asplake: nearly scared off @sehlhorst’s “Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next?” by the title, but it’s good! http://bit.ly/iXjFe #agile

  13. By Scott Sehlhorst on July 9, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    R @YoavShapira strategy session exposes the ‘what _exactly_ are you trying to complete?’ issue too http://bit.ly/iXjFe #prodmgmt #agile

  14. By Juha Riissanen on April 13, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    "agile hierarchy of needs", steps to become an agile organisation by @sehlhorst in the end of http://bit.ly/bBdMmP

  15. [...] Scott Sehlhorst suggests a similar approach but identifies different dimensions for agile maturity – Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? [...]

  16. By Deon van Niekerk on June 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    RT @sehlhorst: Agile Maturity Model – What's Next? http://t.co/QTglOfVT

  17. By Deon van Niekerk on November 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    By @sehlhorst: Agile Maturity Model – What’s Next? http://t.co/zZIYGNAF

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>