I’m sitting down to sketch out a seed for a ‘playbook’ (really a glorified checklist) for our coaching engagements, which has me thinking about structure and its role in agility.
That’s a topic that burns about 50% of the words in agile communities and on LinkedIn among agilists who either bash the idea of imposed structure (typically in the form of explicit frameworks) or strongly defend it.
As the title suggests, I lean more toward the defending side than the challenging one – with some very strong limitations.
Let’s talk about why.
And yes, what he says is powerful and resonates. BUT HE WAS A MASTER OF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT STYLES OF MARTIAL ARTS AT THE TIME HE SAID IT.
He didn’t walk into Ip Man’s studio and start to “express himself as a complete human being;” he walked in and learned foundational Wing Chun. In fact, he probably walked in and learned how to put on his uniform.
I’ve taught folks how to do Agile practices for over 20 years; first as a delivery leader then as a “make stuff better” consultant. I’ve been decently successful at it. I’ve also taught sailing, climbing, and a bit of martial arts.
There are some common patterns that I want to suggest.
First, and most obvious, people at different levels face very different problems in learning.
Without thinking too hard about it, I’ll suggest six ‘buckets’:
Absolute beginners (great film, BTW…)
Advanced beginners
Solid intermediate
Advanced intermediate
Rule-following expert
Rule-making expert
Each level also serves as a filter – some people leave, some people plateau, some people advance – which means that the numbers get smaller at each level. Not everyone who makes it past beginner will become an expert; they may not have the desire or the capacity or the capability.
As I’ve said in the past, I think that’s fine. Not everyone who rides a bicycle is going to ride the Tour de France; not everyone who jogs is going to run Boston. I’ll argue they’re still better off riding 10 miles at 10mph or knocking off a mile and a half at a 12min pace than they were sitting on the sofa.
What does this have to do with frameworks or explicit structure?
The problems people face in the range from absolute beginner to solid intermediate are almost entirely about mastering fundamental skills. Mastery here shifts from basic learning to competent execution of basic skills, to unconscious competent execution of basic skills.
In the real world, that’s usually enough. I sailed Wednesday Night ‘beer races’ with a neighbor (who had the boat and skippered while I ran the crew and called tactics). We never had a consistent crew, just random friends who could come out for a Weds or two. Our strategy was simple - we’d do the basic stuff flawlessly, not try anything fancy, and finish 3rd or better in every race.
And it worked.
Because the other boats had relatively inexperienced crews as well and then they tried fancy stuff, they wound up sailing over their spinnakers.
Similarly, in clients I’ve worked with competent execution of agile fundamentals of whatever framework made notable change.
Did it bring 10x change? Nope. But were they enough better off to justify the work and cost involved in change? Yup. Performance (value delivery), predictability, coordination (reduced friction), satisfaction (customer and team) all improved.
That’s what frameworks bring.
Is it enough? For some. Just like some students who never go past a green belt and feel they got enough.
What’s missing - and where I’d love to see the pro-and anti-frameworks folks come together - is having a clue what someone should do once they master the fundamentals. And by ‘clue’ I mean a repeatable process / structure / whatever that can take people past competence to excellence.
Because there’s a lot of room there.
Meanwhile, let’s go get the fundamentals down.