While working with one of my customer on designing the vision of his organization as an agile enterprise, came the question, and how do measure it?
Making sense and value-driven are undoubtedly the most used two words in Agile. All the people aspects (PX), customer-centric issues (CX), and process optimizations (SX) are well documented. But in a business context, you find a lot of incoherence when considering budgeting, funding and return-of-investment.
Speaking about projects in an agile context is always funny. In January, I had a conversation with my friends Mike and Michael in Vienna, and when addressed the point of project management, they began getting very emotional. In their positions as agile trainers, there is no project management in Agile. My perspective was precisely on the opposite.
Programs are a collection of projects and support activities supporting a single significant initiative. In an agile and empirical manner, you never start a program as such. You start with a project that once reached its goal becomes larger. The agile way of working supposes that all projects or programs are “greenfield” by default.
Initially Hoshin Kanri has been influenced by Deming PDCA´s and Drucker´s management by objective. The Agile way of doing it is to assume that the first strategy is maybe wrong and it will be improved empirically over time.
In AO, the thesis is that the focus is given to the role and not function or job (Structure). You will have three principal characters: Purpose keepers, Organization keepers and agents.
The AO phases are simple achievalbe milestones for a coherent agile change.
The purpose of “Structure” is different than for “Organization”. “Structure” is feeding itself by enforcing the robustness of the enterprise. That idea was valid from an “ordered” point of view for a business model remaining the same forever.