Understanding the order of agile practice introduction: Comparing agile maturity models and practitioners’ experience

Nurdiani, Indira; Börstler, Jürgen; Fricker, Samuel; Petersen, Kai; Chatzipetrou, Panagiota

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.035

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A baseline maturity model developed confirms that agility is implementable in granular levels too (Gunsberg et al, 2018; Nurdiani et al, 2019). It is also equally important to note that knowledge diffusion and deep insight into the same is essential for the teams formed using this model.…”

Section: Safe®: Scaled Agile Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In such cases of multi-team functioning, the employees may have to be tracked, so as to confirm the supply of sufficient manpower for the project. Since each organization has a different objective, it has a different aspect of maturity, which leads the organizations to devise their own agile maturity model (AMM; Turetken et al, 2017; Nurdiani et al, 2019). Developing a business case, building and facilitating a digital team, lucid outcomes and an audit on the digital outcomes are required in the SAFe® environment (Bhatta & Thite, 2019; Thite, 2019).…”

Section: Safe®: Scaled Agile Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Proposal on Developing a 360° Agile Organizational Structure by Superimposing Matrix Organizational Structure with Cross-functional Teams

Nagini

Devi²,

Mohamed

2020

Management and Labour Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the growing business opportunities and expanding boundaries, the organizational structure of the companies is becoming highly dynamic with several levels flattened out and branching out horizontally, instead of being vertical. With agility required in all fast-evolving organizations, it is essential to check out for the suitability of the modern organizational structures prevalent, being classified by Mintzberg as ‘entrepreneurial or simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisional form, and adhocracy or innovative’ (Mintzberg, 1980; Lunenburg, 2012). In this article, we propose a 360° Agile organizational structure which is a hybrid of the matrix organizational structure superimposed with cross-functional teams (CFTs). This article discusses the possibilities of forming smaller teams without compromising the incidence of the essential ‘skills– talents–competencies’, necessary for every single project, thereby superimposing the matrix organizational structure and the CFTs. This article also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed organizational structure. A possible cross-check with regard to the scalability issues has also been made with the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe®) agile HR practices.

show abstract

Section: Safe®: Scaled Agile Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Safe®: Scaled Agile Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposal on Developing a 360° Agile Organizational Structure by Superimposing Matrix Organizational Structure with Cross-functional Teams

Nagini

Devi²,

Mohamed

2020

Management and Labour Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Making future preference or requirements of the companies customers more certain necessitates strong connection and cooperation with customers (Baran and Woznyj, 2020; Rigby et al, 2016). In the Scrum methodology this is ensured be the product owner who puts the requirements for software engineering through a kind of lens (Nurdiani et al, 2019). For a full organizational inclusion of agile linkages also suppliers should be aligned as strong agile partners (Appelbaum et al, 2017b).…”

Section: Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the same step processes and workflows should always be examined with the purpose to reduce their complexity. As complex materials or situations are hard to plan or forecast the outcome, an iterative working practice helps to do small steps into the right direction (Baran and Woznyj, 2020; King and Badham, 2019;Nurdiani et al, 2019). This process reflects an organizational learning approach (Appelbaum et al, 2017b).…”

Section: Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That way it is closely linked to customer partnerships and iterative work approach with constant discussions and reflecting like in the Scrum methodology (Nijssen and Paauwe, 2012). This way clear user stories or in other words customer requirements and preferences minimize ambiguity (Nurdiani et al, 2019). The development of a product through to the end based on believed customer preferences is not intended anymore but rather an experimental attitude with several options which leave the final solution open and enable customer response integration.…”

Section: Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Link Between Organizational Agility And VUCA – An Agile Assessment Model

Bundtzen

Hinrichs

2021

SEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper summarizes the elements of agility listed in contemporary scientific literature and aligns them to the four different forces described by the acronym VUCA. There is a general consensus that organizational resilience and agility are crucial elements to gain sustainable competitive advantage especially since the arresting economic changes during the pandemic year 2020. There is little agreement though how precisely organizational agility responds to volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). By systemization of frameworks and models from the literary sources the aim is to create a combined model. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to develop a model that can practically be employed to evaluate the agile status quo of an organization. It should support practitioners to distinguish between the different requirements each part of the VUCA acronym requires. The design of this study is a conceptual paper which proposes a new corporate agility model with direct linkages to the requirements of VUCA forces. It derives from, and builds on, existing scientific literature while integrating a comprehensive set of existing agile frameworks. The result of this research is a model which defines distinct enablers, sensing capabilities, agile practices, and responses as answers to VUCA forces. It highlights that certain elements reinforce and link to each other to transform an entire organization agile. Surprisingly, leadership and strategy are not incorporated as elements but rather seen as conditions that subordinate the iterative learning approach of this model. Originality is given as the created model provides a set of elements leaders can implement or use to assess organizational agility. Furthermore, it supports how to deal with strategy and leadership in the transitional process. Relevance is given as during the worlds COVID-19 crises the economic and governments changes in terms of volatility and uncertainty were especially challenging for organizations.

show abstract

Adopting Agile Software Development Combined with User-Centered Design and Lean Startup: A Systematic Literature Review on Maturity Models

Zorzetti

Moralles

Salerno

et al. 2021

Enterprise Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of Agile in the software development industry in the past two decades revealed that it is lackluster in some aspects, such as in guaranteeing user involvement and assuring that the right software is being built. There are reports that combining Agile with Lean Startup and User-Centered Design (UCD) helps in overcoming these shortcomings while also yielding several other benefits. However, there is not much documentation on how to use this "combined approach" and adapting existing organizations to use it is a challenge in of itself, in which the use of an instrument to guide or assess such transformations is typically pivotal to their success. As such, in this paper we seek to identify maturity models that assess the use of Agile, Lean Startup, and UCD. We conducted a systematic literature review of maturity models for these three methods published between 2001 and 2020. We characterized the maturity models and determined how they see maturity, how they are applied, and how they were evaluated. As an extended version of a previous paper, we augmented our analysis criteria and further classified the models in how they interpret maturity and what strategy they suggest when undergoing an improvement process, in addition to providing new insight on various aspects of the models. We found 35 maturity models, of which 23 were for Agile, 5 for Lean thinking, 5 for UCD, and 2 for Agile and UCD combined. No models for the combination of the three methods were found (nor for Lean Startup), as expected due to the novelty of the approach. Existing models mostly focus on practice adoption and acquiring continuous improvement capabilities, and are typically developed with a specific context in mind. We also note a lack of proper evaluation procedures being conducted on the majority of models, which could be due to the lack of well-established maturity model development methods and guidelines.

show abstract

Understanding the order of agile practice introduction: Comparing agile maturity models and practitioners’ experience

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

A Proposal on Developing a 360° Agile Organizational Structure by Superimposing Matrix Organizational Structure with Cross-functional Teams

A Proposal on Developing a 360° Agile Organizational Structure by Superimposing Matrix Organizational Structure with Cross-functional Teams

The Link Between Organizational Agility And VUCA – An Agile Assessment Model

Adopting Agile Software Development Combined with User-Centered Design and Lean Startup: A Systematic Literature Review on Maturity Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About