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

 

Does this scenario sound familiar? Your company has embraced agile and teams now enjoy greater focus and clearer collaboration. Yet the anticipated business benefits have not materialized. Delivery is slow, expensive and a source of frustration.

Although agile has markedly improved organisations, the full benefits are unattainable unless the entire work system is aligned with agile principles.

With over 20 years of experience in helping organisations achieve high performance and adaptability, I've gained valuable insights into agile system design. In this article, I will share some of these insights and discuss one of the most effective frameworks for optimizing organizations for peak performance: value streams.

Organisational Design

For the past century, reductionism has been the prevailing method of organizational design. In this model, the work of the organization is progressively broken down and assigned to functional units. Centralized management then coordinates these functions, aiming to ensure that the right people perform the right work at the right time. This approach has historically been reasonably effective, contributing to the development of many goods and services we now consider essential.

However, over the past three decades, as the world has grown increasingly fast & complex, the limitations of the reductionist approach have become painfully apparent. It presents several challenges:

  1. Frequent hand-offs between teams or business units that hinder rapid end-to-end delivery.
  2. Ambiguities in team roles and interactions, leading to internal friction and confusion.
  3. An inability for the organization to swiftly adapt to external market changes as work is stuck in progress.

 

Slow delivery

 

Consider a traditional organisation design where individuals are grouped based on their skills into specific functions, such as Sales, Marketing, Product, and R&D. When a customer makes a purchase or request, the responsibility for fulfilling this request flows across these various functions. Each participant handles their segment of the request before handing it off to the next function, like a relay race. If errors occur, the work must be returned to a previous stage for corrections.

Coordination of these efforts typically falls to a manager, whose task is to orchestrate these activities efficiently—a nearly impossible job. Often, when work arrives at a function, that group is already engaged with other tasks, forcing the new work to wait. This leads to significant delays.

Furthermore, since each group focuses only on their specific part of the process, they may lose sight of the overall customer outcome. This can lead to misdirected efforts and costly mistakes.

While a functional structure makes sense from an internal efficiency standpoint (let's group everyone who does similar work together), it creates significant waste and fails to streamline the delivery of value to the customer. And in a hyper-competitive world that just doesn't cut it.

Agile Emerges as a Team-Level Solution

Agile provided major improvements at a team level via cross-functional teams. To eliminate hand-offs between functions, teams were cross-functional and worked collaboratively to deliver a shared customer outcome.

Jeff Sutherland, co-creator of Scrum, took inspiration from The New New Product Development Game.

"Under the rugby approach, the product development process emerges from the constant interaction of a hand-picked, multidisciplinary team whose members work together from start to finish. Rather than moving in defined, highly structured stages, the process is born out of the team members’ interplay (see Exhibit 1).

In the rugby approach to product development, a specially selected, multidisciplinary team collaborates continuously from the project's inception to its completion. The development process evolves through the dynamic interplay among team members, rather than progressing through rigid, predefined stages. This method emphasises the fluid and collaborative nature of the team's interactions (refer to Exhibit 1)."

The New New Product Development Game

Exhibit 1 - Sequential (A) vs. overlapping (B and C) phases of development

 

In a cross-functional scenario, a team would be made up of individuals from Sales, Marketing, Product, and R&D, all collaborating as a single unit with a clear focus on meeting the customer's needs. Progress!

 

Collaboration

 

 

However, complications arise when the work requires multiple teams. Handoffs lead to work accumulating in queues, awaiting the next person, team or business unit.

This delay is glaringly obvious in the production of physical goods, where work visibly stacks up. Consider a production line where goods must go through several stages to be completed. Queues immediately highlight where the bottlenecks are and we can identify areas to investigate.

Yet in knowledge work, the queues are largely invisible. Work sits in a queue, waiting for a team or business unit to pick up once they get what they are currently doing completed. Consider all the items sitting in your email inbox, pending your action to move forward!

In many organizations, only 5-10% of the total time required to deliver a piece of work is the time spent actively working on it (adding value). The rest, a staggering 90-95%, is spent waiting. This is known as process efficiency and understanding this can fundamentally change how you view organisation design.

 

Process efficiency

The traditional functional organisation design results in significant waste. The value-add work is only 5 days yet elapsed time is 23 days. This is surprisingly common.

 

Value Streams

Agile revolutionized more than just software development, quickly gaining traction with other business units such as legal, finance, and marketing.

Value Streams extend the agile philosophy into organizational design by organizing multiple teams around a clear, customer-oriented mission, aiming to minimize hand-offs and establish clear team scope and interactions. By aligning cross-functional teams towards a unified goal, value streams reduce unnecessary hand-offs and have become an essential element of contemporary organizational design.

Value Stream model

In a Value Stream-based model, the design is optimized to reduce hand-offs and wait times, with clearly defined team scopes and interactions.

 

When structuring teams, Team Topologies by Matthew Skelton and Manuel Pais offers valuable guidance. It outlines four distinct team topologies:

  1. Stream-aligned team: aligned to a flow of work from (usually) a segment of the business domain
  2. Enabling team: helps a Stream-aligned team to overcome obstacles. Also detects missing capabilities.
  3. Complicated Subsystem team: where significant mathematics/calculation/technical expertise is needed.
  4. Platform team: a grouping of other team types that provide a compelling internal product to accelerate delivery by Stream-aligned teams

 

Leveraging Value Streams

While value streams are a highly beneficial concept, adopting a value stream-based operating model represents a significant undertaking. It alters the fundamental ways in which people work, disrupting roles, accountabilities, reporting structures, and performance metrics. Managing this transition requires strong change management.

Such transformations are inherently risky. Each organization possesses a unique blend of people, processes, culture, mindset, governance, management, and leadership. Successfully implementing a value stream model involves thorough consideration, meticulous planning, and careful adaptation.

We have achieved considerable success using a strategy that involves co-creation with stakeholders and pilots.

Co-creating a Value Stream Operating Model

Co-creation involves collaborative workshops where we design the operating model together. Our approach is grounded in the belief that while Radically provides deep expertise, no one understands the intricacies of your business as well as you do.

Our clients consistently tell us that this collaborative approach is a breath of fresh air. Many have had negative experiences with traditional consulting firms that isolate themselves in a conference room for weeks before unveiling their model in a grand reveal. Experiencing change imposed upon you can be unpleasant. Participating in the process of change is far more empowering.

Naturally, no model is flawless. This type of work is fraught with complexities and many "unknown unknowns." This is where conducting pilot projects proves invaluable, allowing for iterative testing and refinement.

 

Pilots

The field of Complex Adaptive Systems has significantly influenced our understanding of organizational design. Such systems, characterized by "unknown unknowns," defy straightforward planning and implementation. Instead, effective solutions tend to emerge organically through active engagement and practical experimentation.

The purpose of a pilot is to implement a crucial piece of work using agile, uncovering likely "unknown unknowns" before scaling further. Typically, a pilot focuses on a specific segment of the business, such as a single value stream, a strategic initiative, or a major project. At Radically, we establish these pilots based on the principles, desired culture, leadership style, and operational methods we aim to promote.

We assemble a cross-functional team drawn from different business units. Their role is to

  1. Guide the change.
  2. Observe the emerging patterns and interactions.
  3. Use the insights gained from these observations to refine and enhance the operating model design.

In this approach, we work in short cycles, continuously reviewing and adjusting our progress. During these iterations, we identify any aspects that may need modification to successfully scale the model, such as reporting structures, incentive schemes, key performance indicators, mindsets, skills, and communication methods. Over several months, this iterative process yields critical insights—insights that only become apparent through actual implementation. We then determine solutions for these issues before scaling further.

By leveraging co-creation and pilot projects, we collaboratively design and test a model that truly works. When the people doing the work participate in the model design, it not only enables smoother change but also makes acceptance and adaptation of the model substantially easier.

Co-creation

Summary

Adopting a value stream-based operating model can significantly reduce waste and increase adaptability across many organizations. When combined with agile ways of working, human leadership, and a strong emphasis on value, companies can greatly enhance both performance and customer satisfaction, while also improving organizational culture and the workplace experience for their employees.

Designing such an operating model involves numerous collaborative design workshops, effective communication, active listening, and thoughtful discussions, all underpinned by careful change management. Strong executive sponsorship and support are crucial; without this model being a priority among the top executive concerns, successful implementation is unlikely. Transitioning to a new operating model is a substantial and disruptive endeavour, but the benefits make it a worthwhile investment.

 

Want to learn more?

If you’d like to learn more, we can run a one-day deep dive Designing Value Streams workshop for you. Just drop me a line and we can discuss.