by Robert Roßbach
A long time ago, a friend of mine embarked on an ambitious journey with an “around-the-world-in-one-year” ticket. This ticket, while offering the flexibility to change flights for a minimal fee, required initial bookings of all flights. With a spirit of adventure, he and a buddy from Germany decided to start their journey heading west around the world.
Their first major stop was the Caribbean. It was here that they realized they had different interests and visions for the trip. They decided to part ways, believing it would allow them both to get the most out of their individual experiences.
As if on cue, nature threw a curveball. A hurricane approached, and my friend found himself waiting it out. His journey took a challenging turn in Panama City, where he faced the misfortune of being robbed. He continued on to Australia, skipping New Zealand, because of his delay. There he decided to take a longer stop to work and fund the rest of his travels. Therefore he had to skip Vietnam and Cambodia. Nepal was another significant stop. Having visited several times before, he had a network of friends waiting. The familiar faces, the allure of the Himalayas, and the rich culture made him extend his stay.
However, every choice has its trade-offs. Due to these extended stays, he had to make the tough decision to skip some destinations he had initially been excited about.
Now you might be asking why I told you this story.
This journey can be seen as a metaphor for the difference between traditional and agile project management. Traditional project management is like booking all your flights in advance, sticking to a rigid itinerary regardless of changing circumstances. It’s a linear approach, where deviations from the plan can be seen as failures, which need to be fixed.
On the other hand, agile project management is what my friend did. While there’s an overarching goal, there’s flexibility built into the journey. Just as my friend and his buddy realized their different visions and parted ways, agile teams understand that priorities can shift, and they must be ready to adapt. The hurricane and the robbery represent unforeseen challenges that projects often face. Instead of being derailed, agile teams find ways to adapt and move forward.
The decision to work in Australia and the extended stay in Nepal highlight the agile principle of responding to feedback and leveraging opportunities. Agile teams iterate based on newly gained information, feedback, past experiences, and stakeholder input.
In essence, while traditional project management is about sticking to a predetermined path, agile is about making your journey with all its twists and turns, always focused on delivering the best possible outcome given the circumstances.
When we discuss agile project management with our clients, we typically encounter two common reactions:
1. “I’m perplexed. This is exactly what I do every day. Why is this being highlighted so much?”
2. “Wow. This is a novel approach to project management. It’s intriguing, but I wasn’t aware of it.”
While these statements might appear contradictory, they can both be true simultaneously.
The first reaction reflects the inherent “agile” mindset many researchers possess. Evaluating the nature of a researcher’s work reveals numerous instances where their actions mirror those of an agile project. Agile emphasizes hypothesizing, testing, observing, and iterating. After each experiment, results are reviewed, lessons are learned, and variables are adjusted for the subsequent test. This continuous cycle of trial, feedback, and refinement ensures that the final solution is aptly tailored to the problem, even if it diverges from the initial hypothesis. For instance, receiving unexpected preliminary data from an experiment for a grant proposal doesn’t deter you; instead, you adjust your subsequent work and the proposal’s content based on this new information. This adaptability embodies the essence of agile.
The second reaction pertains more to the structured processes and frameworks. Agile (project) management differs from merely “working agile.” I’ve enclosed “project” in brackets to indicate that this approach can be broadened to a more general management style. Agile management aims to establish robust systems and adhere to them rigorously. These systems and techniques maximize the benefits of an agile work environment.
Consider the SCRUM framework. It necessitates the creation of a structure where the three foundational pillars of Scrum—Inspect, Adapt, and Transparency—and the five values: commitment, courage, focus, openness, and respect, are consistently upheld by all team members.
This requires structured systems, not just a mindset. Thus, it’s understandable if you resonate more with either reaction #1 or #2.
Agile management is especially beneficial for research due to:
1. Iterative Approach: Research ventures into the unknown, necessitating frequent recalibrations. Agile’s iterative nature ensures research remains relevant.
2. Flexibility: Research’s unpredictable nature aligns with agile’s adaptability.
3. Feedback Loops: Agile’s feedback emphasis fosters continuous enhancement in research.
4. Incremental Progress: Agile’s phased approach complements the staged progression of research.
5. Collaboration: The collaborative ethos of agile is vital in research, where diverse perspectives can address intricate challenges.
6. Risk Management: Agile’s modular approach facilitates early risk detection.
7. Transparency: Agile practices keep everyone informed, which is essential for research projects.
8. Value-driven: Agile prioritizes high-value tasks, optimizing resources in research.
The volatile and evolving nature of research aligns seamlessly with the adaptive and flexible tenets of agile management, far more than with traditional methods. We suggest that if you haven’t already, you incorporate more agile techniques into your project management and daily operations, as they dovetail so well with a research environment.
– Robert