calaix[À]gil


CAT | ESP | EN



Mike Beedle's legacy and cultural differences in the application of agility

CAT, ESP, EN

calaix[À]gil | Articles (EN) | Articles d'opinió
Data publicació: 18/10/2024
Última modificació: 18/10/2024
Mike Beedle, PhD in theoretical physics, gradually took his knowledge towards software engineering. Both vocations allowed him to stand out in the understanding of complex systems and the efficient management of these environments. He was the co-author of the Agile Manifesto, which, as we know, marked the fundamental principles of what we know today as agile development

Resulta que hi ha persones que han fet molt pel moviment Agile al llarg dels anys. It turns out that there are people who have done a lot for the Agile movement over the years. Some have aligned very well, so to speak, with the “official current” established by Jeff Shuterland and Ken Schwaber. And others have more or less obviously shown some differences with what we could consider the canon of agility; especially from Scrum in particular.

As time has passed, more and more proposals for agile best practices and tools have appeared; that have enriched the toolbox of all of us who work in it. But it has also made it more obvious that there is no canonical agility applicable to all possible scenarios.


A little Mike Beedle story

Mike Beedle is surprised by this fact. Many do not know him, but he was probably one of the most important people for the constitution of what we understand today as the Scrum Framework. If you look at the agile manifesto you will find him as an original signatory of the first manifesto, along with much better known names, such as Martin Fowler, Ken Beck, and the aforementioned Jeff and Ken.

Mike Beedle, PhD in theoretical physics, gradually took his knowledge towards software engineering. Both vocations allowed him to stand out in the understanding of complex systems and the efficient management of these environments. He was the co-author of the Agile Manifesto, which, as we know, marked the fundamental principles of what we know today as agile development. He also authored many articles and publications on agility and the Scrum framework. His reference publication is probably Enterprise Scrum: An Adaptive Method for Project Success, published in 2013 by Addison Wesley.

Beedle particularly emphasized the fact that agility is not just a technical matter, applicable only to the most operational part of the production chain. Something we’ve all learned a lot about now, but in the early 2000s it wasn’t seen that way, and Beedle was a pioneer in that regard. Agility taken beyond the team, and applied to the entire organization is a fundamental part of Mike Beedle’s work. In this sense, he was a pioneer in what is now known as Scaled Agile.

Also, and entering a little into his personality, he showed a clear conviction in the defense of collaborative works, creative commons and the wider scope of the concept of transparency. All of this as part of an ecosystem that allows society to share knowledge and make great strides in innovation. And this fact probably defined very well his role in agility, based on discretion and collaboration; and why it is not as well known today as it deserves.

Mike Beedle passed away prematurely and abruptly in 2018, leaving behind a legacy that goes beyond his work, as he left a unique and authentic way of looking at agility, collaboration and transparency, as the essential axes to change organizations.


What have we learned from his legacy?

One thing that surprised Mike Beedle was his excellent knowledge of Spanish. Unfortunately, there aren’t many videos where you can watch Mike Beedle’s speeches. But there is one that has special significance, not only because Mike speaks in Spanish, but because of what he says in this video. You will find the video link at the end of this article.

Among others, we can find very valuable contributions, such as:

Two key aspects of new organizations: 
	1. continuous innovation. 
	2. The customer at the center

Scrum is older than the literature says. 
Scrum inherits directly from Lean development and Kaizen already in the 50s

Only in the face of a crisis are people and organizations ready to change

The 3rd agile revolution consists of the transformation of business 
over organizations and teams

All agile trends are converging. The goal is common, and 
the similarities are more important than the few differences

The application of agility is very dependent on the social culture 
of the country or the organization. In countries based on organizational 
hierarchies, they are used to being reactive, and waiting for orders. 
This makes the application of Scrum difficult. Whereas in the Scandinavian 
countries, 80% of companies apply Scrum

Cultural differences in the application of agility

Regarding the last quote in the previous section, it is a fact that there are cultures that show a better affinity with agile trends than others. Organizations are nothing more than a reflection of the society in which they are located. What a society and its members are like will depend a lot on how that society faces the challenges of innovation and adaptation.

Some relevant aspects to take into consideration are:

  • Organizational and decision-making hierarchies; and how these allow the adaptation of teams and the business to new situations
  • The relevance of the leader as a controlling director, or as a role model for the team
  • The tolerance for risks and how they are managed allows us to be more or less adaptable to changes and innovation
  • The greater or lesser degree of individualism of people
  • Reactivity versus proactivity. The more hierarchical a society is, the more reactive it can be. That is, to wait for orders in which he is told what and even how to do a job
  • The importance given to communications and their formality, i
  • The importance given to planning; and whether this imposes more or less polychronic views* of the projects

Here I imagine that everyone can draw their own conclusions. What is our society like? Hierarchical, reactive, individualistic and monochronic? o Collaborative, proactive, tolerant and polychronic?

I dare not say what my country is like in general. Above all because there are many nuances that escape my ability. But each of us can establish whether or not our organization is hierarchical, whether our teams and individuals are more or less individualistic, and whether the attitude of team members is more or less reactive or proactive. If there is tolerance for changes, and if these changes are perceived with resistance or with the will to adapt.

Whatever your answers to these questions are, it will give you crucial information regarding the degree of effort required in the implementation of good agile practices. And, why not say it, of your odds of success in this transformation.


(*) Polychrony is a conception of time that is characterized by being flexible and circular, in which multiple events can happen simultaneously. In polychronic cultures, interpersonal relationships are prioritized over strict schedules and adaptability to changes in plans is encouraged.



Referencias