-en.svg)
This is another post inspired by a podcast – this time Tim Hartford’s Cautionary Tale on The South Pole Race: David and Goliath on Ice. I believe that there are important lessons that we learn from that story that we can apply to agile transformation.
To set the scene, here is Tim’s summary of the story. I recommend listening to the whole podcast for more detail.
1910: Two men are racing one another to be the first to reach the South Pole. Captain Robert Falcon Scott heads a well-financed, technologically-advanced expedition – aiming to reach the pole in the “proper” and heroic way… on foot. Roald Amundsen’s effort is more modest, relying on cheap sled dogs to carry him to victory.
Scott – for all his money, for all his fancy equipment, for all his institutional-backing – is doomed to failure in the ice wastes of Antarctica. Why?
https://timharford.com/2022/07/cautionary-tales-south-pole-race-david-and-goliath-on-ice/
Was it poor leadership, or bad luck? Could Scott have simply implemented the plan better? My takeaway from the conclusion was that there were three reasons; Scott’s expedition was over-resourced, under-focussed and incoherent. Let’s unpack those slightly and explore what we might learn in terms of agile transformations.
Over-resourced
Firstly, Scott’s expedition was a big solution, with large investments from numerous stakeholders. As a result, this added unnecessary complexity, and set unreasonable expectations of the success of the mission. On the other hand, Amundson had a much smaller boat and crew and kept his mission low-key.
How effective are agile transformations that are set up with huge budgets, spent on a multitude of teams, with expensive training and consulting? Conversely, would a smaller, simpler and lower key approach deliver better results? Are there elements of your agile transformation that you could get rid of?
Under-focussed
Secondly, while Scott publicly said that the goal of the mission was to be the first to reach the South Pole (i.e. speed), his investors had other priorities. Therefore, while racing to the pole, they also wanted Scott to perform scientific research and experiment with new innovations. Both of these additional pursuits ultimately slowed him down. On the other hand, Amundson had the single focus of reaching the South Pole first.
How effective are agile transformations that have unclear goals, or multiple competing priorities? Conversely, would a single, clear intent deliver better results? Does your agile transnformation have a single, clear intent that everyone is aligned to?
Incoherent
Finally, the combination of the above two reasons resulted in a mix of big choices and decisions in advance. These ultimately contradicted each other and didn’t work together as a whole when put into action. Consequently, the desire for research meant that they landed further away from the pole. Similarly, the desire to innovate meant that they took equipment that slowed them down. On the other hand, Amundson was set up with just what he needed to get to the South Pole quickly, with all aspects complementing each other.
How effective are agile transformations that are pre-designed and pre-defined solutions which don’t fit the context? Conversely, would a more harmonious and flexible approach, which can better adapt to the context deliver better results? Does your agile transformation have just what is needed, with elements working together to achieve the goal without unnecessary conflicts or contradictions?
So what?
In conclusion, I believe these three lessons can help in thinking about how to take a Strategy Deployment approach to agile transformation (or any transformation). To summarise:
- Start small and simple with what you have and know now. (e.g. Present Thinking)
- Have clarity of intent which aligns everyone on a single common goal (e.g. a True North).
- Take small, compatible rational steps toward the goal and learn on the way. (e.g. Improvise)
It also strikes me, that these 3 heuristics are remarkably similar to how Mike Burrows describes a Wholehearted organisation. I don’t think that’s a coincidence!