Many organisations have updated their revenue-generating business units' operating models to a value-stream or product-based model, increasing the flow of customer value and creating better business outcomes. However, updating the operating model of supporting corporate functions can also unlock significant value. Designing a corporate function operating model requires careful consideration and the work often differs significantly from designing the operating model of revenue-generating business units. 

This article shares how we have approached this. We will refer to two different types of business units: 

  1. Revenue-generating Business Units - a business unit that creates products or services that generate revenue.
  2. Corporate functions - business units that support revenue-generating business units, such as People and Culture, Marketing, Procurement, Corporate Affairs and External Communication, Finance and Commercial, Risk, Assurance, Legal and Compliance, and Sustainability.

corporate-service-operating-model
Why are organisations focusing on corporate functions?

CEOs are looking to obtain better value from their corporate functions. According to Gartner, more value from corporate functions is one of the top three concerns of CEOs, jumping 63% among survey respondents.

There are three key reasons for this:

  1. There has been less investment in corporate functions. Many revenue-generating parts of organisations have invested to move to more end-to-end, value-stream-type operating models. The benefits they are enjoying are faster delivery, increased customer value flow, and better business outcomes.
  2. Corporate functions are not keeping up. Now that they are fast and lean, the revenue-generating business units have the same high service expectations for the corporate functions that support them. Yet, these corporate functions are working with operating models that have become outdated. The result is the creation of “shadow functions” within the revenue-generating business units as they seek greater control and faster results that are better aligned with their needs. While this short-term fix might solve their immediate issue, it does so at considerable cost to the organisation, creating inconsistency and waste. Ultimately, this can lead to confusion, politics, and organisational fragmentation.
  3. Pressure to improve organisational cost and efficiency. With less stable environments and more intense competition in many markets, there’s a mounting emphasis on performance results. At the time of writing, 75% of our customers have a cost reduction agenda. In addition, corporate profit margins are at their highest since the 1950’s, meaning there is little “headroom” for increasing revenue. One of the only places left to find profit is cost. These pressures are forcing corporate functions to:
    1. Boost operational excellence further, usually while reducing costs
    2. Consolidate and centralise duplicate roles and design engagement approaches that allow for speed and independence.
    3. Improve Governance, Planning & Prioritisation to continually ensure the most valuable work for the business is the focus and being delivered continuously.

In their attempt to achieve this, many corporate functions have flipped back and forth between centralised and decentralised models, often the result of incoming new leadership or on the advice of a consulting firm. Over time, they’ve become bloated, expensive, slow, and confused. In reaction to this, revenue-generating business units are left with little other option than to “opt-out” by creating shadow functions. 

Finally, patchwork fixes are frequently applied to solve specific problems without the proper buy-in and change management or a greater understanding of the organisational context. As a result, over time there is diminished clarity and coherence of how everything works together, low ownership to maintain and champion the change, and often an unintended increase in complexity. 

Through our work with executives and business leaders, we see recognition of the above, with increased focus on ensuring that corporate functions are set up to support organisational growth better. As a result, leaders are investing in increasing delivery speed within corporate functions.

 

Challenges

Corporate functions are often in a constant battle to balance their strategic priorities while also meeting the needs of the revenue-generating business units they serve. Tensions arise when these become imbalanced.

  • If it is more weighted towards the enterprise's strategic priorities, the BUs feel that the corporate functions are adding more work and slowing them down, and in some cases, they prefer to work in isolation.
  • If it is more weighted towards the needs of the business units, there is a lack of strategic coordination.

corporate-service-operating-model

Knowing how to enable the right balance is essential but hard. The struggle to find this balance lies in three key pain points:

  1. Authority and decision rights - Is the ownership and decision-making authority with the revenue-generating business unit or the corporate function? 
  2. Value definition and prioritisation—In a world where there’s always more work to be done than time or resources, it’s easy to misalign what work is valuable (and what isn’t) and whether/when/how the work is resourced. What is our definition of value?
  3. Expectations on services - Without intentional conversations and alignment, there is often a mismatch of what is expected from the revenue-generating business units (demand) and what is provided by the corporate function (supply) in terms of speed of delivery, level of expertise or contextual understanding, quality of work, level of ownership, type of engagement, etc.

corporate-service-operating-model-commentary

A reconfigured corporate function operating model is a holistic and systemic way to solve these challenges.
 

What is an Operating Model?

operating-model-diagram

Simply put, an operating model helps teams and individuals turn strategy into results.

It is a framework that operationalises strategic plans by translating and managing the big-picture thinking into coordinated day-to-day actions needed to achieve tangible outcomes. An organisation’s operating model defines how their capabilities are managed to achieve their strategic goals, and the success of an organisation depends on the interconnectedness of five core elements.

  1. Governance:  the framework used to plan and prioritise the work. It’s a critical process to align day-to-day work priorities with the organisational strategy so people can deliver results. It’s composed of a regular cadence of activities and events that breaks down the organisational strategy into long term objectives, then shorter term goals with tangible outcomes, then incremental plans on how to deliver. 
  2. Ways of Working: the practices, processes, methodologies, and behaviours that guide how work is planned, executed, and managed. It provides clarity and consistency to how people collaborate, communicate, and execute their tasks to achieve organisational goals. 
  3. Future Capabilities: these are the skills, processes, technologies, and structures that an organisation needs to develop or enhance in order to achieve its strategic goals and remain competitive in a changing environment. In an operating model, future capabilities act as enablers that allow an organisation to meet future challenges, seize new opportunities, and adapt to evolving market demands. 
  4. Leadership & Culture: the behaviours, values, and practices set and demonstrated by leaders and embraced by the organisation. Together, they define the tone, environment, and mindset that drive how work gets done and how employees experience the organisation.
  5. Structure: in the context of an operating model, organisational structure refers to the framework that defines how tasks are divided, coordinated, and supervised within an organisation. It outlines how people and responsibilities are organised to achieve the organisation's strategic objectives and deliver its value proposition. 

Structure brings all the elements together, and because it is also the most visible and tangible part of the operating model, it’s often easier to start with that, then integrate the other elements. However, Ways of Working are highly interconnected with Structure, so these must be front of mind during the design process.
 

Start with Strategy & Principles

An operating model starts with the strategy so this needs to be right before moving into design, and Radically often helps clients relook at their strategy as a first step. With a corporate function, because its core purpose is to enable the Business Units to achieve the organisational strategy, a highly differentiated or clearly expressed strategy doesn’t need to be a prerequisite. Instead, it can be helpful to articulate clear shifts they want to target. Below is an example.

corporate-service-operating-model-logic

 

The Radically Teaming Model

Conventional hierarchical structures make it challenging to visualise how teams and their roles align with how they engage with their internal consumers. Often, our roles are made more complex and slow due to a lack of clarity on decision rights.
The Radically Teaming Model ensures consistency in how we discuss team structures and whether they enable or hinder our ability to get work done. By introducing distinct team and interaction types, we create clarity and focus on the organisational structures.

 

What is a Teaming Model?

Teaming models refer to organisations' frameworks or structures to form, manage, and optimise teams to achieve specific goals. ​These models provide guidelines on:​

  • How teams should be composed
  • How they should operate​
  • How they should be supported to maximise their effectiveness.

Different teaming models are suited to different types of work and organisational needs. Teaming models help organisations maximise efficiency through:

  • Improved resource utilisation​
    • Optimisation of skills allocation by aligning the right skills and expertise with the right tasks​
    • Flexibility to respond quickly to changes in workload or priorities
  • Removing duplication​
    • Elimination of duplicate roles and tasks​
    • Standardised processes with clear ownership of implementation and maintenance ​
  • Faster decision-making​
    • Clear roles and responsibilities, both within the function and between the function and its consumers​
    • Decision-making authority where the work happens​
  • Increased ownership and accountability​
    • Clear ownership of tasks based on how functions engage with and support their customers​
    • Ability to build feedback loops and monitor performance

 

Why use the Radically Teaming Model?

There are three key reasons why you should use a teaming model:

  1. It provides a common language and toolkit across the organisation, which builds clarity at scale and allows leads to refine and improve the model over time.
  2. It streamlines the design process from something that would take 3-6 months to 2-4 weeks. This means significantly reducing the cost and distraction of a longer design process and the ability to benefit from the new operating model sooner.
  3. Returns 20-30% efficiency gains by improving clarity on the teams, roles, and how the service is consumed.

corporate-service-operating-model

Radically Teaming Model Components?

There are two components to the Radically Teaming Model:

  1. Team Types: A category of teams for individuals who are homed together based on what work they do, where they sit and who directs their work.
  2. Interaction Types: A category of interactions based on level of control by the corporate function.

 

Team Types

For Corporate Functions, the Radically Teaming Model has four different team types.

corporate-service-operating-model

corporate-service-operating-model

Interaction Types

The Radically Teaming Model has four interaction types, which define how the four teams above interact.

corporate-service-operating-model-interaction-types

Designing the Operating Model

We take a co-creation approach to design, leveraging the Radically Teaming Model. We believe you know your business better than anyone, and by collaborating with our highly experienced team of experts, we can co-create a model that works for your specific situation. 

Clarity on the strategy is always the starting point as an operating model brings strategy to life. Given the enabling nature of corporate functions, this can be as simple as defining how it will support the organisational strategy to achieve its goals.

While structure is often the most visible part of the operating model, its harmonisation with governance, ways of working, future capabilities, and leadership and culture determines how well the organisation’s strategy is translated into results. 

Embedding the new operating model requires focus, tenacity, and patience. With guidance, teams will mature as they build a rhythm in the new processes, gain confidence in decision-making, and feel ownership of their work. This will ultimately increase the speed of delivery and build an adaptive culture.

corporate-service-operating-model-3-step-process

If you are considering an operating model change, discuss partnering with us on your journey.

Contact edwin@radically.co.nz

 

The roles of Product Owner and Product Manager often intersect, leading to confusion and potential conflicts. These roles play a crucial part in product delivery, yet their distinctions are not always clear-cut. Understanding the nuances between a Product Owner vs Product Manager is essential for organisations to reduce friction, optimise their product development processes, and ultimately deliver high quality outcomes for the customer, faster and more reliably.

This blog aims to shed light on the key differences and similarities between these roles, exploring the challenges they face and the misunderstandings that can arise. We'll delve into the scope of their responsibilities, decision-making processes, and approaches to stakeholder management. By examining these aspects, professionals and executives will gain valuable insights to help them navigate the complexities of product development and foster more effective collaboration within their teams.


Defining the roles: Product Owner vs Product Manager

Product Owner responsibilities

Ideally, the Product Owner role is a sponsor or entrepreneur for the product, who are in charge of the business case and budget, and have the authority to make decisions. They should be invested in the product's success and have overall strategic and management responsibility.

However, in some organisations, the Product Owner's role has been reduced to that of a scribe or proxy. There's a tendency for Product Owners to take on the role of "story writer" and "project manager," adopting a project mindset of requirement order-taking and managing scope, budget, and timeline.

Product Manager responsibilities

Product Managers have their eyes set on the horizon, focusing on vision, strategy, and communication. They gather insights, understand customer needs and plans for the future of the product, whilst also maintaining the product roadmap. Their core responsibilities are to drive innovation, meet long term business objectives, and keep the organisation’s products relevant in competitive market contexts.

It's worth noting that in some organisations, especially smaller startups, one person may perform both roles simultaneously. This approach can work, but it's important to understand the core responsibilities required to ensure effective product development.

As Dan Teo, CEO & Partner of Radically puts it, “Someone needs to manage the strategy, value, and backlog of work; everything else is open for tailoring. I would start with a blank sheet and list the core things that need to be done. Then within the context see what roles are required. In a cost-constrained environment, the concept of “hats” instead of roles is a good solution.”

 

Key Differences and Challenges

While there's significant overlap between these roles, there are key differences which are sources of common tensions.

product-owner-vs-product-manager

Scope and Time horizon: Long-term vs Short-term Goals

Product Managers are responsible for setting the overall direction of the product, which involves making strategic decisions that align with the company's long-term objectives. Product Owners, on the other hand, are more concerned with short-term goals, such as delivering specific features or improvements within a sprint.

This difference in time horizons can lead to disagreements about priorities and resource allocation. Product Managers might push for initiatives that have long-term benefits but require significant investment, while Product Owners might advocate for more immediate, tangible results that satisfy current customer needs.

Decision-making: Strategies vs Tactical Focus

Product Managers typically focus on the broader product vision and strategy, while Product Owners tend to concentrate on tactical, sprint-level decisions. This difference in focus can lead to tensions, especially when responsibilities overlap. Product Managers need to maintain a long-term perspective, overseeing the entire product lifecycle and developing the product roadmap. In contrast, Product Owners often find themselves more involved in the day-to-day aspects of product development, managing the product backlog and working closely with development teams.

Stakeholder Interactions

Product Owners work closely with development teams, and act as a bridge to other stakeholders to maximise the value of the product. A key group is the customer, as they often represent their needs and translate them into product requirements. 

Product Managers have a broad scope of stakeholder interactions. They focus on the product vision and strategy, communicating with stakeholders to ensure alignment and gather insights. They oversee the entire product lifecycle, from conception to launch and beyond. Product Managers also develop and maintain the product roadmap, outlining the future direction and planned features.

Product Managers need to balance the needs of various stakeholders, including executives, customers, and development teams. They are responsible for making higher-level strategic decisions that align with the company's long-term objectives.

 

Overcoming Tensions

Establishing clear distinctions between a Product Owner and a Product Manager’s role can help with overcoming decision-making conflicts. Some useful strategies include:

  1. Role clarity: Because these roles work together closely and responsibilities can vary greatly from organisation to organisation, it’s important to clearly articulate the scope and responsibilities of each role to minimise confusion. 
  2. Regular communication: Encourage continuous open dialogue between Product Managers and Product Owners to ensure alignment on product goals and priorities.
  3. Collaborative planning: Involve both roles in strategic planning sessions to allow both the long-term vision and short-term execution needs to be surfaced and tradeoffs be worked through.
  4. Shared metrics: Establish common success metrics that both roles can work towards, balancing short-term wins with long-term objectives.

product-manager-vs-product-owner


Conclusion

The relationship between Product Owners and Product Managers has a significant impact on the success of product development initiatives. Their distinct yet overlapping roles require clear communication and collaboration to navigate the challenges of scope definition, decision-making, and stakeholder management. By understanding the value and  responsibilities of each role,  fostering an environment of mutual respect, and addressing these challenges head-on, organisations can create a more harmonious and effective product development process.

Want to learn more?

If you’d like to learn more, feel free to get in touch at tiffany@radically.co.nz

 

Developing your company's purpose is one of the most critical steps in building a meaningful and successful business. Gone are the days when work was solely about trading time for money. Today, employees seek a deeper sense of purpose, often valuing it more than financial compensation. In this blog, we explore the significance of company purpose, why it matters, and how to develop your company's purpose to inspire your team and create a basis for sound future decision-making.

When I started my career, the philosophy was that work was a transactional exchange where you performed a role in exchange for money. The assumption was that you always wanted more money and therefore would happily modify your performance and behaviour to achieve this.  Yet, as a consultant, I worked with teams that completely defied that notion. They worked for something else.

This concept fascinated me and drove me to understand what motivates people. My employer noticed this and moved into a management position. While I found this incredibly exciting, I struggled to find good role models to learn from. The system of work in which I had grown up was a leftover from the last century, devoid of good examples for a hungry mind. Thankfully, my timing was good, and work was about to undergo a seismic shift.

Fast-forward 22 years, and we have a very different world of work. It turns out that why we work (purpose) is extremely important to people—at times, more important than money.

There are a lot of different reasons for this, but the two major trends I see are:

  1. Societal shifts: People used to obtain most of their meaning and purpose outside the workplace, largely from community groups, churches, and neighbourhoods. These are now in obvious decline, and people’s need for purpose has turned to the workplace.
  2. Advances in behaviour science - we now understand a lot more about what motivates people, and what provides purpose and meaning.

 

Societal Shifts

Humans have an inherent biological need for social connection. Traditionally and instinctively, we have developed a sense of meaning and purpose through social groups. However, attendance in social groups is declining.

In Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, he illustrated the decline in civic participation, from community groups to religious organisations, and its link to the breakdown of social capital. Younger generations, such as millennials and Gen Z, are significantly less likely to join local groups, further accelerating this decline.

Church attendance has steadily declined since the early 2000s, a trend confirmed by multiple surveys from reputable research institutions. In the United States, less than 50% of the public now attend church regularly - for the first time, it has dropped below 50%.

We used to find meaning and purpose in society. With that in the decline, we seek to fulfil this basic human need at work.

Behavioural Science

Neel Doshi and Lindsay McGregor's book Primed to Perform is a compelling reward on the topic of human motivation. They categorise work into two types:

  1. Tactical performance is "how effectively your organisation sticks to its strategy." Good tactical performance (rules, checklists, and standard operating procedures) is essential for certain types of work.
  2. Adaptive performance is “how well your organisation diverges from its strategy." It’ shows up as creativity, problem-solving, resilience and innovation.

Over the last century, we have excelled in tactical performance. But as our world becomes increasingly Brittle, Anxious, Non-Linear and Incomprehensible, adaptive performance is critical.

Six factors impact adaptive performance - three positive and three negative:

  • Play - when you are motivated by the work itself.
  • Purpose - you work because you value the work’s impact
  • Potential - you grow and learn from the work
  • Emotional pressure - you work because some external force threatens your identity.
  • Financial Pressure - you work to gain a reward or avoid a punishment.
  • Inertia - you dont know why you work. You go to work because you did yesterday.

It turns out that why you work affects how well you work. Purpose really matters. For a deeper dive into this see this webinar we did with Neel Doshi.

Finally, the Better Up Meaning and Purpose Report highlights a compelling and confronting statistic : 90% of people surveyed said they would sacrifice up to 23% of their future lifetime earnings for work that is more meaningful.

That is twenty-three per cent of their earnings for the rest of their lives to have meaningful work.  

If businesses haven’t clicked yet, purpose and meaning are very important.

What is Purpose?

We’ve discussed the importance of Purpose and will shortly dive into how to develop yours. But first, we need to clarify what exactly purpose is.

The purpose is the underlying reason why your company exists. It’s the broader impact your organisation aims to achieve in the world. It ignites people with the energy, passion, and motivation to get out of bed each morning.

Examples:

  • Amazon: “To be Earth's most customer-centric company.”
  • CVS Health: Helping people on their path to better health.
  • eBay: “To empower people and create economic opportunity for all.”
  • Apple’s Purpose: “To empower creative exploration and self-expression.”

A good purpose statement leaves freedom and scope on the how. As a founder, you want your people to think about new and innovative ways to achieve the company's purpose. If any of our team approached me with a new idea, I would first apply the purpose filter—“Does it help us achieve our purpose?” It needs to make sense commercially, too, but purpose comes first.

How to Develop your Company's Purpose

The work required to develop your company's purpose is significantly more challenging than you might first think. It took me over six months in my second company, Clarus, as my first attempts felt cheesy and too lofty.

What I (eventually) learned was to let go of the need to “get right.” Remember, perfect is the enemy of good.

Start with your underlying beliefs and passions. Why are you putting all this effort into a business? What is the rallying cry that will inspire others? Why should anyone care? Ponder these questions and then write down your top five ideas. Now go share them with others. Don't just read them out; tell a story about the problem this business solves and why it is important. Watch how they respond. Are they motivated by it, or are they ambivalent?

If you are an existing business looking for your purpose, try this. One of the best techniques I’ve used came at Clarus. One of the team members, Robbie May asked, “What would the world look like if Clarus disappeared tomorrow? What is the hole we would leave in the business landscape? THAT is our purpose.” I found that an excellent way of thinking about it. As a team, we could answer this immediately.

If you are a new business, your purpose will likely come from

  1. Market research -  what unmet needs or problems does your proposed business solve? Look at what your competitors are doing and understand what needs are not being addressed by their products or services.
  2. A strong understanding of your customers' needs -  it is very hard to develop a purpose statement if you dont know your customer's needs. The best way to understand these is NOT surveys and polls. Get out from behind your laptop and talk to them. You will be surprised by how much you will learn.

Start with these, understand how your business can solve a particular problem and develop a starting purpose you can then iterate on.

Example: Developing our Company Purpose at Radically

When Dan and I started Radically, we knew the problem we wanted to solve. Companies told us they needed help to modernise how they delivered work. Many of them had tried agile but failed to make any meaningful impact.

At the time, the only option was one of the Big Four consulting firms, and it was clear that firms engaged them reluctantly. Dan and I were both tired of seeing people roll their eyes and complain about these companies, and we felt we could do a much better job. In short, we wanted to show that consulting doesn't have to suck.

We also wanted to be an upstart that would challenge the status quo but had clear business acumen and the credibility to work with executives. We wanted to be alternative but corporate.

This was our starting purpose:

We help leaders transform their organisations to achieve radically better outcomes.

We started with clients who already knew us, trusted us, and worked incredibly hard to meet our purpose and started earning a good reputation. After our first year, we realised our purpose statement needed to be narrower. We pivoted to

We help businesses adapt to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.

This worked well for us for many years, but as the company grew we knew we needed a purpose statement from our people. At a company offsite, we discussed who we are and what we believe in. Out of that came our refined purpose statement of today:

We design and build future-ready businesses by bringing together high performance and humanity.

This purpose statement now clearly defines who we are, why we exist and what we do. We passionately believe that a future-ready firm needs to be at the intersection of high performance and humanity.

Notice it also suggests what we aren’t and don't do. We dont high-performance at any cost. We dont believe in armies of soulless consultants in suits, largely made up of graduates straight out of university, billing every minute possible.

Don't get hung up trying to get it perfect. Start with what you have and iterate over time.

Summary

Humans are hardwired to come together in social groups to achieve something bigger than ourselves. Tapping into this is both ethically and commercially astute. A strong purpose drives good decision-making, aligns stakeholders, and inspires employees by providing meaning and direction.

This approach is the future of business. It creates places where people want to work and inspires belief, promise, and hope.

In my next post, I will discuss the challenges of running a purpose-driven firm. It is hard and requires a lot of new leadership skills!

If you are interested in discussing anything here (or any other lessons), please contact me over LinkedIn.

 

 

In today’s business world there is a tension between flexibility and certainty, and organisations find themselves torn between predictive and adaptive approaches. Combining Agile and Traditional Project Management has become a hot topic, as businesses try to use the best parts of both methods without compromising quality. This mix aims to blend the structured planning of the waterfall model with the adaptability and ongoing improvement of agile techniques creating a strong hybrid approach that can adjust to different project needs and hurdles.

This article explores how to blend predictive and adaptive approaches to create successful initiatives. We'll look at key considerations when putting this combined approach into action, including project type, communication strategies, and tools that support both approaches. The piece will also tackle common problems that arise when mixing these different project management philosophies and offer practical ways to solve them.

 

Integrating Predictive and Adaptive approaches for successful initiatives

The integration of traditional project management with agile methodologies has become more common in large-scale organisations. This blend brings together the organisation and planning of traditional methods with Agile's quick responses and adaptability. But setting up and operating a hybrid approach has its own challenges which require careful alignment between the project team, organisational objectives, and project implementation.

To better understand the challenges associated with implementing hybrid models, interview data was collected from eight experienced Agile coaches who have implemented Agile in non-software industries. The practical actions identified for managing these challenges can be categorised into three levels: aligning planning and delivery approaches, effective risk management, and stakeholder engagement.

agile-project-management

 

Planning and Delivery

A crucial part of combining predictive and adaptive methods involves striking the right balance between planning and delivery. Traditional project management puts emphasis on detailed planning up front, while Agile focuses on iterative delivery and adaptability. To integrate these, organisations should establish a plan that provides direction and clarity of intended outcomes, while allowing for some flexibility as more information arises with each iteration. It’s important to have a plan to forecast, predict and manage dependencies, and iterative delivery with frequent feedback loops to allow projects to navigate the uncertainty inherent in today’s projects.

At the beginning of the project it’s crucial to clarify the intended outcomes of the initiative and create at least a high level plan of how they will be achieved. The optimum level of upfront planning required will be determined by the type of work and level of certainty, but in most cases the work in the near future will be more certain than the work further in the future, and the level of granularity of planning should reflect this. There is often little value in planning every detail of a task that will happen 3 years from now because it is likely to change and can be solidified closer to the time!

Once a plan is established, the iterative delivery of adaptive methods allows for the project team to react to change by checking progress on a regular cadence and making more informed decisions as the work progresses and more information is available. Ensuring that the main project plan is continually kept updated, and transparent to team members and stakeholders is crucial to ensure alignment across the project.

Risk Management

Effective risk management is crucial when combining predictive and adaptive approaches. Traditional risk management techniques such as identification, mitigation and monitoring strategies are important, but can be complemented by the proactive risk mitigation approaches of Agile practices such as limiting work in progress and increasing transparency. Regular risk reviews and retrospectives also allow teams to identify and address potential issues promptly. By fostering open communication and encouraging proactive risk management, organisations can manage the risks they can predict and navigate the ones they can’t.

Stakeholder Engagement

Engaging stakeholders is essential for the success of hybrid projects. Traditional project management often involves formal communication channels and structured stakeholder management processes. Agile, on the other hand, emphasises frequent interaction and collaboration with stakeholders. To effectively integrate these approaches, organisations should follow the valuable traditional approach of stakeholder identification and engagement planning, but also establish clear communication protocols that facilitate regular feedback loops and stakeholder involvement. This includes conducting regular demos, showcases, and review meetings to keep stakeholders informed and aligned with project progress.

By defining and aligning planning and delivery approaches, creating effective risk management practices, and meaningfully engaging stakeholders, organisations can successfully navigate the challenges associated with implementing hybrid models. The insights gained from experienced Agile coaches provide valuable guidance for practitioners seeking to effectively combine predictive and adaptive approaches in their project management practices.

 

Key Considerations

When integrating Agile and traditional project management approaches, several key considerations need to be taken into account to ensure a successful implementation. The approach taken for any project should be based on the type of work and the problems to be solved. Generally, if work is more predictable, a traditional approach may be more suitable, while if work is more uncertain and requires more flexibility, an Agile approach may be more appropriate.

Assessing Project and Programme Type

The project and programme type and requirements play a crucial role in determining the most suitable approach. It is essential to assess the nature of the project, its complexity, and the level of uncertainty involved. This assessment helps in deciding whether a predictive, adaptive, or hybrid approach would be most effective in delivering the desired outcomes.

Evaluating Team and Organisational Culture

Another critical consideration is the team and organisational culture, as well as stakeholder expectations. Agile methodologies heavily rely on collaboration, transparency, and a willingness to embrace change. The organisation's culture should support these values to facilitate a smooth transition towards Agile practices. It is important to align stakeholder expectations with the chosen approach and ensure their buy-in and support throughout the project lifecycle.

Adapting Stakeholder Engagement

Effective stakeholder engagement is often the key success factor for initiatives and can make or break a project. To ensure stakeholders are kept informed and engaged, one must consider the current expectations and mindsets of key stakeholders and tailor the stakeholder engagement and communication approaches accordingly. For example, a key stakeholder who is accustomed to traditional reporting and governance styles will expect to be engaged in this way and these practices may be required to win their trust, but involving them in regular iteration reviews and showcases can introduce them to a different way to engage.

Tailoring the Approach

When integrating Agile and traditional project management, it is essential to consider the project and programme type, team and organisational culture, and stakeholder expectations. By carefully assessing these factors and adopting a tailored approach, organisations can successfully blend the strengths of both methodologies to deliver successful initiatives.

 

Tackling Obstacles

Integrating agile and traditional project management approaches can present several challenges that organisations must navigate to ensure successful implementation. These challenges often stem from resistance to change, misalignment of processes, and stakeholder management issues.

agile-project-management

Addressing Resistance to Change

One of the primary obstacles is the resistance to change within an organisation. Transitioning from a traditional, hierarchical structure to an agile, collaborative environment requires a significant shift in mindset and culture. Employees may be hesitant to embrace new ways of working, fearing the unknown or feeling uncomfortable with increased transparency and accountability.

To overcome this resistance, organisations must invest in the change journey for their people. Training and education programmes can help employees understand the benefits of agile methodologies, but experiencing a different way of working is often required to shift mindsets. Choosing a strategically important project to pilot Agile ways of working creates focus and dedication, but often requires external support to ensure a sound application of Agile approaches. Leadership leaning in and encouraging teams to embrace change and adapt to new ways of working is also an important success factor.

Aligning Agile and Traditional Processes

Another challenge lies in the misalignment of processes between agile and traditional approaches. Providing clarity on which approaches will be adopted, how the project will operate and how roles and teams will interact is crucial for success. Investing time at the beginning of the project to agree ways of working (project structure, roles and responsibilities, forums and cadences, etc.) will ensure that team members understand how work is done and how information flows through the project.

Managing Stakeholder Expectations

Managing stakeholder expectations can be difficult when they are accustomed to one approach over the other. To overcome this mismatch in expectations, organisations must educate stakeholders on the benefits and strengths of each approach in different contexts, and how each approach requires different stakeholder engagement and behaviour.

Ensuring that stakeholders feel engaged and updated is important to win and maintain their project support. Especially if agile methodologies are new to some stakeholders, ensure that they are involved in planning and review meetings and actively elicit their input. Creating and maintaining transparent reporting practices which clearly communicate status and progress can also be a great way to ensure stakeholders stay informed and engaged.

Managing stakeholder expectations can be difficult when they are accustomed to one approach over the other. To overcome this mismatch in expectations, organisations must educate stakeholders on the benefits and strengths of each approach in different contexts, and how each approach requires different stakeholder engagement and behaviour.

Ensuring that stakeholders feel engaged and updated is important to win and maintain their project support. Especially if agile methodologies are new to some stakeholders, ensure that they are involved in planning and review meetings and actively elicit their input. Creating and maintaining transparent reporting practices which clearly communicate status and progress can also be a great way to ensure stakeholders stay informed and engaged.

Embracing a Proactive Approach

By addressing resistance to change, aligning processes, and effectively managing stakeholders, organisations can successfully overcome the challenges associated with integrating agile and traditional project management. It requires a proactive approach, clear communication, and a willingness to adapt and continuously improve. With the right strategies and support, organisations can harness the strengths of both methodologies to deliver successful projects and drive business value.

 

Quick Recap

The integration of Agile and traditional project management approaches provides a powerful toolset to tackle complex initiatives. By blending the structure of traditional methods with the flexibility of Agile, organisations can adapt to changing requirements while maintaining a clear direction. This hybrid approach has a significant impact on project outcomes, enhancing team collaboration and stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle.

As the project management landscape continues to evolve, mastering this integrated approach becomes crucial for success. Teams that embrace this methodology are better equipped to navigate challenges and deliver value consistently. By adopting a balanced perspective and continuously refining their approach, organisations can unlock new levels of efficiency and innovation in their project delivery.

Want to learn more?

If you’d like to learn more, feel free to get in touch with me at ryan@radically.co.nz

 

Meet Ryan Jones.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up outside of Atlanta, Georgia in the USA, went to uni in the UK, came over to New Zealand in 2017 and have absolutely loved it here.

 

Do you have any hobbies? What do you enjoy doing outside of work?

I’ve been a musician since I was young and have always loved listening to and making music. I’ve been in many different bands growing up, and nothing can beat a good jam session with mates. My wife Rachael and I also love getting out into nature and we go camping and hiking as often as we can. We’ve managed to do 8 of the 10 Great Walks and hope to do the other two soon!

 

What made you get into consulting?

The modern office world can be a very strange and unnatural environment and I’ve always been passionate about making a dent in this to help people become more engaged and at ease in their workplace. Eventually in my career I realised that as a consultant I can use my skills to make a bigger dent!

 

Where do you see yourself in the next 5 years?

My wife is currently pregnant with our first child, so in 5 years I see myself fulfilling the most important job title of my life - Dad!

 

Throughout your time at Radically, what is one key thing that you have learnt?

Organisations are modern day tribes and are made solely of people and relationships, so the more that you can make each interaction and relationship as rich and meaningful as possible, the healthier the organisation will be! 

Also, I’ve seen many organisations struggle to deliver at pace because information has to flow up to the top levels of management for decisions to be made, which results in slow pace and ill-informed, biased decisions being made. When clear strategic direction is given by leaders and decision-making authority is delegated to people who are closer to the work (with clarity on constraints and guardrails), it results in better and faster decisions, and a more empowered and engaged workforce.

 

What advice do you have for other leaders?

Because organisations are solely made of people, relationships and interactions, make your interactions more meaningful by prioritising richer communication channels. Just remember “walk, talk, write” - if you have a significant message for someone, walk over and talk to them if you can, if not pick up the phone and call them, and rely on email and messaging only if necessary!

I've recently been asked by a few of our clients on how to improve psychological safety. One of the most insightful things on this topic is to realise that psychological safety is often not a binary question. There are many factors influencing psychological safety, however the first step is to understand the different levels of psychological safety, so that as leaders we can create experiments to provide intervention to foster more safety for our people and teams.

Understanding the Levels of Psychological Safety

Psychological safety isn't a one-size-fits-all concept. It actually comes in different levels, and understanding them is key to creating a truly supportive workplace. Let's explore these levels:

 

Level 1: Basic Safety

This is the starting point. At this level, team members feel safe enough to do their job without fearing punishment or humiliation. They know they won't be reprimanded for making honest mistakes. It's like a safety net that catches you when you slip.

Practical Tip: Encourage open dialogue about challenges and share your own mistakes to set the tone.

 

Level 2: Sharing Ideas

Moving up the ladder, this level is about people feeling comfortable sharing their ideas without feeling judged or dismissed. They're willing to put their thoughts out there, even if they're unconventional or untested. It's like opening the door to innovation.

Practical Tip: Praise and acknowledge creative thinking, even if an idea doesn't pan out.

 

Level 3: Taking Risks

At this level, your team members feel confident enough to take calculated risks without worrying about blame. They're not afraid to venture into uncharted territory, knowing they have your support. It's like the fuel for growth.

Practical Tip: Encourage calculated risk-taking and celebrate lessons learned, not just successes.

 

Level 4: Honest Feedback

At the highest level, your team feels free to give and receive honest feedback. They trust that their input will be used constructively, not as a weapon. This is where you see constant improvement and genuine collaboration.

Practical Tip: Foster a culture of feedback, and lead by example by actively seeking and welcoming input.

 

The Big Takeaway

In a nutshell, psychological safety isn't just a yes-or-no thing; it's a spectrum. The higher you can climb on this ladder, the more your workplace will thrive. So, take these simple steps, start adding more psychological safety in your workplace. Want to improve psychological safety for your workplace? Join us on our 1 day workshop on Psychological safety here.

Many self-managing teams struggle to reach a truly high-performing state. When an organisation moves to a self-management model, a key service centralised management traditionally played – giving feedback – is often ignored, leaving teams struggling to truly grow.  In this article, we share how to give effective feedback to improve both team and individual performance.

Models for high-performing Teams

There is a clear and obvious pattern across the models for high-performing teams. Dr Patrick Lencioni’s 5 Dysfunctions of a Team says the trust and the ability to productively process conflict are critical foundations. Trust is built on being vulnerable, being prepared to ask for help and not being afraid to make mistakes in front of others.

Team model for feedback and performance

In addition to this, Tuckman's model shows the importance of keeping a team together to give them the opportunity to work through the stage he called Storming. This is where differences surface and they learn how to process conflict productively.

The result of this is a set of team norms that guide how the team works. Eventually, when a team stays together long enough to build on these norms, it can increase performance. Productivity often suffers during Storming as they learn how to manage conflict and truly become a team.

Tuckman on performance and effective feedback

Google’s Project Aristotle made another significant contribution. In one of the largest studies of its kind, Google gathered some of their best statisticians, psychologists, sociologists, engineers, and researchers to try to understand what makes a high-performing team. They found Psychological Safety was the single most important factor. An individual’s belief that it is safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of their teammates was the most important factor of all.

Project Aristotle effective high performing teams

It turns out trust matters big time.

“There’s no team without trust” - Paul Santagata, Head of Industry at Google

While this work is a major step forward in what we need to create high performing teams, the question of how to do it is often left unanswered.

An approach we take at Radically is to help our clients develop a culture of feedback.

How to give effective feedback

Many organisations we work with have no consistent approach, training, or support for their people how on to give effective feedback. We believe this inhibits a critical feedback loop in individual and team development. When feedback is given, it is often clumsy, sugar-coated or worst of all, toxic. When it is received, it is often painful, upsetting and manipulative.

There are better ways! It just requires practice and support.

A useful starting point is Radical Candor – a model developed by Kim Scott during her time at Google. The model is really simple, which is one of the reasons we like it.

Radical Candor how to give effective feedback

The way we use it is to first assess your intent on the Y-axis. Do you care about the person you are giving feedback to? Be honest with yourself. If you are in the bottom two quadrants, then you are better to keep silent and take some time.

Assuming you are on one of the top two quadrants, you now need to decide whether you will “be nice and say nothing”, or whether you will be honest with them.  In my experience, this is where most people come unstuck. They tell themselves “best say nothing” or “I will just avoid working with them next time”. This isn’t helpful.

Kim Scott suggests you start your feedback by showing you care personally. Think about the benefit for the receiver and position it this way. Example – “I know you do a lot of public speaking, and this is an important area of your career, so are you open to some feedback on some suggestions I have?”

In my personal experience, you genuinely need to care about the person and want them to do better. If you don’t, it shows through and feels hollow.

Now share the feedback

The next step is to share the feedback. This introduces the second model we use extensively, again because of its simplicity.  The Situation-Benefit-Impact (SBI) model is a fantastic way of constructing the feedback in a way that focuses on the problem, not the person.

It helps you structure your feedback into

  1. The specific situation - when was it, during what part, who was there, what was going on.
  2. The behaviour you observed. What did the person say or do?
  3. The impact – what was the impact on you from the behaviour. This is the part that is impossible to argue with because the impact is the impact you felt.

SBO for how to give effective feedback

Here is a good example:

Example of positive feedback

Notice how the situation, behaviour and impact are clear and specific. The impact also doesn’t pass judgement. It simply expresses the giver's concerns.

Also notice how the feedback focuses on the problem, not the person. That is the entire objective, and it now gives you an opportunity to work together to address the problem.

Finally, use curiosity. You can’t assume you are right and they are not. There may be many other factors involved.  Here is how:

  1. Adopt a learning mindset, assuming you don’t have all the facts. State the behaviour as an observation.
  2. Engage them in an exploration discussion. For example, “I imagine there are probably a few different factors at play. Perhaps we could uncover what they are together?”
  3. Ask for solutions. The other person may well hold the key to growth. Ask directly, “that do you think needs to happen?” Or, “wow could I support you?”

By shifting our energy away from unhealthy conflict, to solving the problem, trust is built. As per the high-performing team models - it is safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of my teammates.

Don’t forget positive feedback

While feedback on areas to improve is important, just as important is feedback on areas where someone is doing well. But in what proportion?

Research suggests there’s a golden ratio for high-performing teams. The ideal positive-to-negative ratio is 5:1. Meaning, for every piece of feedback about something that to improve, you need to share five positive comments as well.

The research showed

  • high-performing teams has a 5:1 ratio
  • medium-performing teams 2:1 ratio
  • low-performing teams had a 1:3 ratio meaning three times as much negative feedback as positive.

Positive feedback is important! Here is another example.

Example of positive feedback

How to bring effective feedback to life

Now that you know how to give effective feedback, you need to make it a habit. The way we tend to do it is to mentor individuals and teams using both Radical Candor and SBI. At first, it requires time together to work through how they give the feedback effectively, and perhaps even practice together, but like most things, practice makes perfect.

What to watch out for

When we first established Radically, we set out to create a strong feedback culture. Along the way, we learned a lot of important lessons and it is fair to say there are definitely some gotchas to watch out for. Here is what we learned:

  1. There is such a thing as too much feedback! We got to a point where it all became a bit overwhelming and we had to tone it down. Some of us had moments of “for goodness sake – enough with the feedback!” Each organisation needs to find the right balance for them. Inspect & adapt.
  2. It is okay to say no. We always ask if someone is open to feedback and if they say no then you need to respect that. Sometimes people might be having a bad day or going through tough times elsewhere in their life and now is simply not the time.
  3. Culture, upbringing and mental models impact people’s attitude to feedback. For example, many of us Kiwis have been raised in a culture of Ruinous Empathy. We are generally a kind bunch, but we are very indirect. We prefer suggestions, hints and innuendo over directness. Overcoming this can feel very uncomfortable. Other cultures are comfortable being more direct as this is normal. Others still tend to be hierarchical and would never give feedback to a more senior person. These are all challenges to discuss with your people and work through. Find what works for you.
  4. SBI can be weaponised. I have seen SBI manipulated into “when you do this is makes me feel like that” with the implication that you need to stop what you are doing. In one situation many years ago, I had to give feedback to a consultant who had gone to the client site dressed inappropriately. He said, “when I have people tell me what I can and can’t wear it challenges my belief system and makes me feel anxious. The impact on me is that I need to take the rest of the day off.”
  5. Timing is everything. Sometimes, impromptu feedback is best. If the moment is right and the situation has just occurred, that can be the right time. Other times, it is better to stop, wait and think it through. This is all down to your own professional judgement.
  6. Feedback isn’t just a tool or practice – it is a culture. An organisation is a living, Complex Adaptive System where the system influences the behaviour, and the behaviour influences the system. For change to be successful you need to influence both. There is no point in expecting a certain behaviour if your system does not encourage or reward it. This is why we try to focus on a culture of feedback, not just a practice or tool.

Finally, there is also an art to receiving feedback. During our “too much feedback” crescendo, I wrote this guide on how to receive feedback for all the Radically team. I have now published this as the sister article to this.

Do you have experience on how to give effective feedback? How has it worked for you and what challenges did you experience? Please feel free to share in the comments below so we can learn and grow together!