Nima Haghshenas
Agile transformation, from classical- to agile project management in a
multidisciplinary production environment, a case study
Project Management MSc thesis
Semester: Spring 2021 Supervisor: Henrik Bergman
Abstract
The increase for project efficiency has led to some businesses adopting the agile project management model. This research project has studied how a project- oriented manufacturing company has introduced the agile model in its Research &
Development organization. The report here is based on qualitative analysis of 9 interviews with respondents and intends to evaluate how far the agile
transformation in the Research & Development organization has progressed. The report further aims to describe how the respondents have perceived and have been affected by the agile transformation.
The respondents in this study have been working as developers and have experienced the agile transformation in the organization from day one. The respondents´ experiences have been analyzed using Self-Determination Theory and the mediating role of psychological safety. Furthermore, previous studies on project transition and agile transformation have been used in the analysis.
This research study has also sought to learn how the temporary organization has introduced internal improvements in its organization through the introduction of the agile model.
Keywords: Project Management, Agile Project Management, Agile
transformation, Project Transition, Self-Determination Theory, Psychological Safety
Preface
I would like to thank everyone who has helped me during my thesis, first and foremost my team members Tatiana, Helena and Pauliina for their constant support, rewarding and fruitful discussions.
My particular gratitude towards our teachers, Henrik Bergman, Johan Netz, Fredrik Hjärthag and Carin Lindskog at Karlstad University for their continuous guidance.
Special thanks go to all the respondents who shared their experiences, and without whom this study would not have been possible.
Last but not least, thanks to all previous classmates and teachers whom, during the past years, I have had the pleasure of working with and learning from.
Content
1 Introduction ... 1
2 Previous Research Studies ... 2
2.1 Purpose ... 5
2.2 Objectives ... 5
3 Theory ... 6
3.1 Classical Project Management ... 6
3.2 Agile Project Management ... 6
3.3 Behavioral Science & Motivational Theory... 8
3.3.1 Self-Determination Theory ... 9
3.3.2 Psychological Safety ... 11
4 Method ... 12
4.1 Case Study ... 12
4.2 Selection of Candidates ... 13
4.3 Interview Design ... 13
4.4 Data Analysis ... 14
4.5 Non-Remunerated ... 14
4.6 Procedure ... 14
4.7 Validity & Reliability ... 15
4.8 Ethics ... 15
5 Results ... 16
5.1 Lack of Road Map ... 16
5.2 Frustration over Extra Work adds no Extra Value ... 18
5.3 A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig ... 19
6 Discussion ... 21
6.1 Lack of Road Map ... 21
6.2 Frustration over Extra Work adds no Extra Value ... 25
6.3 A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig ... 27
7 Conclusion ... 29
8 Risks and Ethics ... 30
9 Future Work ... 30
10 References ... 31
Appendix, Interview Guide ... 37
Appendix, Table over Potential Themes & Main Themes ... 39
1 Introduction
Historically, mankind has organized activities in all sorts of ways. However, formal use of projects was first documented for projects involving development of submarine systems, during the 1950s and 1960s (Fondahl, 1987). Nowadays, projects are very common and used in all sorts of fields, from agriculture to automotive industry (Edmondson, 2002).
Over the years, project complexities have increased (Baccarini, 1996; Williams, 1999; Hillson & Simon, 2007; Remington & Pollack, 2007; Philbin, 2008;
Harvett, 2013). When a project complexity increases so does the risk of, for example projects having to deal with changes, having to update plans and synchronize with stakeholders (Nightingale, 2000; Winch, 2001; Hillson &
Simon, 2007; Bröchner & Badenfelt, 2011; Harvett, 2013). What was previously considered as weak in project management was project-oriented organizations´
unawareness or disregard of the latest research on the subject, to adapt and to make improvements to project executions (Sanjuan & Froese, 2013; Fernandes et al., 2015).
Complications in project execution can derive from organizations undermining the significance of the people who are doing the actual work (Remington & Pollack, 2007). There is a certain unreliability to people doing the work. People are quite aware of their surroundings, they are driven, they are dutiful, and with many more attributes. Therefore, it is argued that project methodologies alone are not
sufficient or appropriate to be implemented in projects (Remington & Pollack, 2007). Thus, management teams should pursue a management style that also incorporates a more diverse thinking. This could for example involve people management, showing interest in common workers´ need and concern (Remington
& Pollack, 2007).
Previously, common ways of practicing project management were according to traditional- and classical project management style (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001;
Jansson, 2015). The classical project management style is based on the different segments in a project, being separated, and treated sequentially, however. Project complexities raise new concerns and challenges on how to manage unforeseen and unpredicted obstacles (Baccarini, 1996; Williams, 1999; Hillson & Simon, 2007; Remington & Pollack, 2007; Philbin, 2008; Harvett 2013). As several research studies show, a more flexible and dynamic approach is needed in order to meet these challenges (Remington & Pollack, 2007; Sohi et al., 2020). Some research studies suggest that a combination of classical project management with a more flexible approach is favored (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Koppenjan et al., 2011; Heikkilä et al., 2017).
This research project has studied how a project-oriented manufacturing company, previously working according to classical project management, has changed its practice of project management and implemented a new project management model in its Research and Development (R&D) organization.
The implemented project management model in the organization was the agile project management model (Beck et al., 2001; Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015; Sohi et al., 2020). Agile project management differs from classical project management (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001; Jansson, 2015). The agile model has for example faster deliveries, less administrative work, requires higher
communication level and offers more project flexibility (Rose, 2010; Kannan et al., 2014).
When an organization is going through a change, there are important aspects to keep in mind (Jansson & Ljung, 2004; Andersen, 2006; Sanchez et al., 2019). For example, productivity needs to be preserved for the organization to stay
competitive and financially strong (Jansson & Ljung, 2004).
While it is important to maintain the same flow of project activities, the
organization will also have to make sure that everyone involved has been properly informed and educated regarding the implementation process (Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Andersen, 2006). Sanchez et al. (2019) explain, project members who are involved in the transition might not completely be familiar with the new working strategies or they might not be aware of the new obstacles they will be facing.
Therefore, leadership skills such as the ability to guide and to motivate project members are equally crucial in order to preserve project delivery efficiency (Pinto
& Slevin, 1988; Remington & Pollack, 2007). Furthermore, project transition must be a slow process and it needs to be adapted to the ongoing projects in the organization (Remington & Pollack, 2007). Adapting projects during the project transition should be carried out with great care and patience. Otherwise projects are in a danger of being severely damaged if the project transition is not given sufficient time to adapt and to adjust (Remington & Pollack, 2007).
2 Previous Research Studies
Traditionally, the practice of project management has required hard project management and strict control of the project development processes (Larsson et al., 2018). Hard project management requires project-change-minimization (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). This means securing and minimizing risks that involve time, cost and objectives, the cornerstone of every project (Berggren &
Lindkvist, 2001). As a consequence, hard project management lacks flexibility (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Sohi et al., 2020). Therefore, a different approach might be needed to make up for the lack of flexibility (Boehm & Turner, 2004;
Koppenjan et al., 2011; Heikkilä et al., 2017).
Agile project management is regarded as the most flexible project management model to be developed (Beck et al., 2001; Jansson, 2015; Sohi et al., 2020). Agile project management differs from traditional project management on how to execute and manage projects (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001; Kannan et al., 2014;
Jansson, 2015). The agile model has faster deliveries, less administrative work, requires higher communication level, offers more project flexibility, etcetera (Rose, 2010; Kannan et al., 2014; Sohi et al., 2020). The agile model relies on constant feedback with regards to the changing environment, where the focus is more on the end-product and the customer (Collins, 2013). The dynamics of projects in agile rely therefore on teams´ and groups´ level of communication, creativity, and flexibility using available resources (Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Hayes, 2008; Henriksen & Pedersen, 2017).
Hayes (2008) stresses the importance of having a good communication strategy at the start of the project transitions. Good ccommunication is vital for making informed decisions, listening, actively seeking information, and finding solutions to problems in order to reach the objectives. According to Hayes (2008) it is an important criterion for establishing creative dialogue between employees in the organization, and to ensure that the employees are aware of where the project transition is heading.
Project-oriented environments are dynamic and dominated by new objectives and new ways of working (Andersen, 2006). They require knowledge sharing and
good communication strategies (Hayes, 2008; Schroeder, 2015). During a transition, there is likely to be no common consensus of what is central, distinctive, or lasting in a project (Andersen, 2006). An organization should therefore seek to establish good communication strategy with its employees (Pratt
& Foreman, 2000; Hayes, 2008). Additionally, it is beneficial if top management teams are more involved in the project development processes, to deliver the desired needs for organizational change, and to make sure of its success (Schroeder, 2015). Authority figures will need to withhold excellent
communication skills, to gather input from different areas in the organization, to make adjustments and improvements, to steer, to negotiate if necessary, and to align all parties towards a common goal (Remington & Pollack, 2007; Schroeder, 2015). More often though, top management teams tend to take a back seat and not get involved as much as one would have hoped for (Schroeder, 2015).
Forssell et al. (2013) argue that project success is dependent on decision- and policy makers involvement in the project development. Their study reveals that authority figures´ lack of ability or capacity to get involved in the project
development process can limit the level of project success. A worst-case scenario, projects in these situations lead to bureaucratization (Forssell et al., 2013).
As pointed out, with change there is always a certain degree of difficulty, for example if the employees perceive the change as controlled or forced (Werder, 2000). This situation will pose a risk for project development. It can lead to employees being less in favor or less supportive towards change. Werder (2000) further explains that all parties should be involved in the decision making.
Creating open dialogues where every party involved can express its needs and give suggestions should be prioritized when making changes. It will benefit everyone and ultimately the system and the organization itself (Werder, 2000).
A reorganization, as in the case of project transition, is most likely accompanied by changes in routines and shift in responsibilities within the organization
(Sanchez et al., 2019). Employees will need to adjust to new ways of working and familiar themselves with the new working concepts. It will be necessary for any company to understand the needs and the hurdles that come with such
reorganization, to make the transition effective (Sanchez et al., 2019).
Andersen (2006) defines reorganization as:
A temporary organization, established by its base organization to carry out an assignment on its behalf.
Andersen (2006) further states that during a reorganization project members may not follow strict behavioral patterns. According to Remington and Pollack (2007) the human factor adds more uncertainty in the project development process.
Humans bring different experiences, competencies, and they behave and act differently, depending on the situation they are in. Strong leadership skills are therefore needed, to lead and to encourage project members during change (Remington & Pollack, 2007).
A temporary organization with the objective to carry out an organization´s transition from classical project management to agile project management will have to assess for example available resources, scheduling, selection of skilled personnel, etcetera (Boehm & Turner, 2003; Andersen, 2006). Project members will then have to make changes, and leaders will have to ensure that the
adjustments are in accordance with the correct procedures (Sanchez et al., 2019).
To successfully accomplish a smooth transition, from classical project
management to agile project management, it is also necessary for the temporary
organization to understand the key principles of classical project management and agile project management (Andersen, 2006; Sanchez et al., 2019). Sanchez et al.
(2019) refer to this as Project Management Maturity. In their work they emphasize on making correct assessment of the practiced project management model´s- and the agile project management model´s main domains, such as the involved parties, the processes, and the properties of the projects. Finally, based on the assessments, defining a road map for agilification and how to execute the transition (Sanchez et al., 2019).
Research has shown that project managers´ leadership styles can contribute in a balanced way to achieving project success (Turner & Müller, 2005; Rehman et al., 2020). Leaders´ and managers´ leadership behaviors can have significant impact on the subordinates. Different leadership styles can be used, depending on the situation, to support and to create a productive working environment. The literature suggests different leadership behaviors, for example the task-oriented leadership and the relation-oriented leadership (Svensson et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2020).
Rehman et al. (2020) explain how different leadership behaviors can affect subordinates’ performances. In their published work they argue that employees who perform best are those who are guided according to a high task-oriented leadership. The leadership behavior scoring second highest in performance is the practice of high relation-oriented leadership (Rehman et al., 2020). Practicing task-oriented leadership means being involved and taking any necessary action to meet the objectives. It includes planning, scheduling, structuring and similar (Svensson et al., 2018). Practicing relation-oriented leadership behavior on the other hand emphasizes on building trust, good relationships and being supportive towards the subordinates (Svensson et al., 2018). By adopting certain behaviors, leaders can assist and enhance subordinates’ performances (Turner & Müller, 2005; Rehman et al., 2020). Which leadership style is most suitable is up for debate, however, the most common practiced leadership style consists of a mixture of both.
Svensson et al. (2018) argue that while leaders need to show task-oriented leadership behaviors they will also need to have good relationship with their subordinates, by helping and supporting their teams. It also means motivating their teams to commit and to apply their knowledge and skills effectively (Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Clark, 2003; Ormrod, 2004).
Team motivation is related to team members´ decisions to consciously choose to carry out a task and maintain a goal-oriented mindset (Ormrod, 2004). Deci and Ryan discuss motivation and in 1985 they proposed a psychological theory, the Self-Determination Theory, SDT, describing how a person gains motivation and fulfills its needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It describes how individuals are inspired and aspired to participate in activities, through their inner will or through outer influences.
SDT describes first and foremost intrinsic- and extrinsic motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). The difference between these two is that intrinsic motivation comes from within while extrinsic motivation is more governed by external factors and the surrounding environment.
Intrinsic motivation is based on personal satisfaction and is realized once, to a certain degree, a specific act is challenging and successful (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Extrinsic motivation, however, relies on external factors.
The agile model can be viewed as a way to arrange a psychological working
environment, beneficial for teamwork (Jansson, 2015). SDT is a modern
psychological assessment tool used to describe an individual´s understanding of its surrounding, how that individual relates to its surrounding, and his or her motivational needs and behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Poor project performance or poor project achievement can be linked to lack of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Clark, 2003; Ormrod, 2004). It can however simply occur due to change of personnel, leadership or teams consisting of too many team members (Wheelan & Burchill, 1999; Wheelan, 2009). Group
development theories suggest that team development can depend on many factors (Buzaglo & Wheelan, 1999; Wheelan, 2009; Gren et al., 2016). Theories on group development explain the dynamics within the teams and how to make necessary improvements for teams to be more effective (Gren et al., 2016).
Psychological safety is another psychological tool used to evaluate the dynamics within a team (Edmondson, 2002). It was first introduced by Schein and Bennis in 1965 and describes the sentiment at workplace, to be allowed to express views and ideas.
Edmondson (2002) explains that in a team with high psychological safety, team members have high trust towards each other. Team members are more transparent towards each other and they are more understanding of the different views
existing within their teams.
In a team environment where trust is high, people are seldom to engage in small matters (Edmondson, 2002). They conform to well thoughts and new ideas. Team members have also high tolerance towards failures. Therefore, teams experiencing high psychological safety tend to perform better.
Psychological safety describes the risks of having to put yourself out there, to allow yourself to be vulnerable, whether asking difficult questions, being critical towards a subject, or expressing views about colleagues (Edmondson, 2002).
Psychological safety means that within a group a person feels safe to express him- or herself, and to receive feedback without having to be afraid of the
consequences. Psychological safety at work describes how individuals can relax and be themselves (Edmondson, 2002).
SDT and psychological safety are the psychological tools used for analysis in this study (Deci & Ryan 2000; Edmondson, 2002).
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study has been to gain understanding of employees´
experiences of the agile transformation, while working at a manufacturing company´s Research and Development organization. The employees have been project members belonging to different work teams.
The project members´ experiences have been analyzed through Self-
Determination Theory and the theory of Psychological Safety. The research project has partly been concentrated on how project members have been affected by the introduction of the new project management model.
2.2 Objectives
The objectives of this study can be summarized in the following questions:
1. How did the project participants experience the new project management model?
2. How were the changes made perceived by the project participants?
3. How did the practice of the agile model affect the project participants?
3 Theory
3.1 Classical Project Management
There are numerous ways of managing projects, but the most common way done in the past is through the waterfall model (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001). What signifies the waterfall model is that all the segments in a project are separated and come in sequential. A segment of the project is started once the previous segment has been completed (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001). Issues and problems occurring in the waterfall model are normally isolated within the specific development segment. Therefore, the waterfall model would require continuous feedback during the project. However, it is a slow process and could be a cause of concern for projects with short delivery timelines (Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015).
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the waterfall model are listed in table 1 (Kannan et al., 2014).
Waterfall model advantage Waterfall model disadvantage
Easy to have an overview and understanding of the project
Each segment in the project is separated and processed one at a time, without overlapping
Projects are easy to manage
Efficient for smaller projects with low complexity
Requirements and objectives are clearly defined
Difficult to go back and make changes once a product is in the testing phase
Not optimal for software development as there are more suitable models available
Projects with high complexity and changing objectives makes it difficult to predict impediments
Change implementation will not occur in the ongoing development process but earliest in the next development process Table 1. List of advantages and disadvantages of the waterfall model.
3.2 Agile Project Management
Agile development is an umbrella term that also includes other agile
methodologies (Kannan et al., 2014; Sohi et al., 2020). Example of such methods are Scrum (Schwaber, 1995), Extreme Programming, XP (Beck, 1999) and Feature-Driven Development, FDD (Coad et al., 1999). The reason for creating the agile model was the need for adaptability and the need for flexibility towards change (Beck et al., 2001; Remington & Pollack, 2007; Kannan et al., 2014; Sohi et al., 2020). It was first used by software development companies but has since grown to gain general acceptance and recognition throughout the whole world.
The model is a tool to assess project risks and making development process improvements (Kannan et al., 2014; Jaibeer, 2013; Jansson, 2015).
The company that has been studied has chosen to work according to agile scrum (Schwaber, 1995). In the agile scrum model, a team of developers work together
in creating new products (Jansson, 2015). A whiteboard is used to visualize the planning. The scheduled work is divided into several development cycles. At the end of each cycle the team gathers and presents the progress made. Anyone benefiting from the team´s work, for example the customer or other concerned parties are also invited to take part (Jansson, 2015).
The team is guided by a scrum master (Gustavsson, 2016). The scrum master tries to stimulate and help the progress of the team. The team´s representative towards any dependencies outside of the team is the product owner. The product owner is also responsible for prioritization and approving the team´s working progress.
The team´s schedule is divided into sprints (Jansson, 2015). A sprint is a limited period when the team works to complete scheduled tasks. Each sprint begins with the team prioritizing and planning. During a sprint there will be several short meetings for briefing. At the end of each sprint the team presents the progress made before closing the sprint (Jansson, 2015).
The agile model offers transparency, faster responses, and better cohesion within the team, providing better conditions for project deliveries (Sohi et al., 2020).
This gives more flexibility within the team and within the project. Therefore, the agile model enables rapid and continuous small project deliveries during the project development process. However, the benefits of using the agile model are limited for complex projects (Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015). Jansson (2015) explains that research on agile methodologies outside the scope of software development has been limited. More research is therefore needed to understand how businesses outside the IT-industry can benefit from the agile practice. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the agile model are listed in the table 2 (Kannan et al., 2014).
Agile model advantage Agile model disadvantage
Team-oriented development process
Does not dictate the need for documentation
Planning process is easy and flexible
Fast delivery of sub-projects
Continuous communication and feedback within and outside the team
Best suited for non-physical project delivery processes, for example for software development
Not suited for handling of high complex dependencies
Even though it does not require initial planning it still requires a good
management system, agile leaders like product owner and scrum master
Executing and completing work within a strict time interval with high quality makes it difficult to manage
The need to get the customer involved in the development process in order to avoid failures
The lack of documentation might lead to new team members having difficulties to adjust
Not suited for projects with well- defined objectives
Requires high backlog maintanance Table 2. List of advantages and disadvantages of the agile model.
As mentioned previously, the increase in project complexity means projects require a certain level of flexibility (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Remington &
Pollack, 2007; Koppenjan et al., 2011; Heikkilä et al., 2017; Sohi et al., 2020).
Agile methodologies are more flexible, they are more people-oriented and they also minimize being controlled from higher up in the organization hierarchy (Kannan et al., 2014; Sohi et al., 2020). The agile methodologies allow the teams to work with more freedom and creativity, allowing the teams to alter and to personalize the project execution in order to fit the project requirements.
When companies move towards agile there are several topics that need to be addressed, for example how the traditional organizational roles are transferred towards agile roles (Jovanovic et al., 2017; Sanchez et al., 2019). Jovanovic et al.
(2017) suggest a few solutions to roles that can be perceived or interpreted as burdens or unnecessary in the new organization. In their publication they focus on the role of the scrum master. In their study, the scrum master role is perceived as extra workload by the employees and thus less attractive to pursue (Jovanovic et al., 2017). Therefore, some teams have adopted rotational systems for the scrum master role. Every team member has the chance to work as a scrum master for a period. The reason for doing so is to balance the workload (Jovanovic et al., 2017). Another way to tackle this issue is by introducing a reward-system. By doing so, the scrum master role can become more appealing and more attractive for employees (the scope of the reward-system is not presented in the article).
The research project presented here argues that reward-systems and similar measures, like in Jovanovic et al. (2017) publication, are appropriate ways of offering support and encouragement for roles or tasks perceived as extra workload, unnecessary or burdens.
Another study on agile transformation is carried out by Fuchs and Hess (2018).
The researchers examine two different companies´ large-scale agile
transformations. The companies´ agile transformation are explained through several different phases. The first phase for both companies involves creating a plan for the agile transformation. The next phases involve identifying the mistakes that had occurred previously. For example, more sourcing and more coaching support, or in case there is a need to recruit new personnel (Fuchs & Hess, 2018).
Fuchs and Hess (2018) write that the companies´ flow of actions within the phases differ from the flow of actions in between the phases. Whilst there is a continuous flow of improvements within the phases, the transition from one phase to another occurs more distinctively and sudden (Fuchs & Hess, 2018).
Fuchs and Hess (2018) suggest that, in order to further provide organizational improvements in the context of the agile transformation, it is even more
advantageous if organizations work with improvements within phases, as well as in between phases. These improvements can range from providing training and external coaching, to establishing communities of practice (Fuchs & Hess, 2018).
3.3 Behavioral Science & Motivational Theory
Human beings behave differently in different situations and why is that
(Remington & Pollack, 2007)? There is the biology, the heritage and the social community among other things that influences a person on a daily basis (Kite &
Whitley, 2018). However, our personal understanding of these behaviors shape how we see and how we behave towards our surrounding. The development of formal theories in behavioral science are established through systematic empirical observations and valid until new theories are introduced, proven, and again approved by the scientific community, however, new theories can either
strengthen or even sometimes contradict old theories (Wegner & Vallacher, 1977).
Behavioral science is split into three categories: research creating knowledge, knowledge based on theories, and practical use of the knowledge (Mitroff &
Kilmann, 1978). The research in this study involves the first two categories. For more information on research in behavioral science, read Mitroff and Kilmann (1978).
Behavior and motivation go hand in hand (Schreiber, 2016). A certain behavior can be a consequence of neurological or social aspects. Ormrod (2004) defined motivation as:
An internal state that arouses us to action, moves us in particular directions, and keeps us engaged in certain activities.
In other words, a driving force to direct a person to pursue a goal or an objective, and how long to stay engaged (Ormrod, 2004).
When wanting to increase a certain behavior, reinforcers are used (Schreiber, 2016). It means shaping a certain behavior by adding correct procedures. If one is to decrease a certain unwanted behavior punishment can be applied, although maybe not always the best possible alternative as it will not have an everlasting effect, if such is to be desired (Schreiber, 2016). Punishment and other
reinforcements are so called extrinsic motivators (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Schreiber, 2016).
Harter (1982) writes that the three main areas, the cognitive competence, the social competence, and the performance competence, are of great importance when seeking active change. Cognitive competence is related to academic or cognitive performances. Social competence is related to how easily one engages in social activities, and performance competence relates to those who are driven by psychical activities and have a need to push themselves. All together, these areas can be further explained by intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Schreiber, 2016).
Agile methodologies provide opportunity for team members to be effective in their work and to continuously participate and build a working framework, that will not only help their team but also enables them to support the organization to which they belong (Beck et al., 2001; Kannan et al., 2014, Jansson, 2015).
Caring for the personnel and listening to their views on issues such as producing commercial products and the involvement of appropriate stakeholders, are
important topics for any organization (Pratt & Foremann, 2000). It also applies for a temporary organization, to manage and motivate its personnel on key issues (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Clark, 2003; Ormrod, 2004, Andersen, 2006).
3.3.1 Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory, SDT, mainly describes two different motivation factors, intrinsic- and extrinsic-motivation. These factors also shape how a person acts and behaves (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
According to Deci and Ryan (2000), being intrinsic motivated means having the urge and the need for example to learn and to improve. The behavior is associated with the positive experiences that come with exercising an activity. It acts on one’s inherent interests, helping to achieve set goals. It depends on core values, interests, and a personal sense of moral.
On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is the drive to behave in a certain way based on external sources (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Such sources could include
grading systems, employee evaluations, awards, and the respect and admiration of others.
SDT can be divided into three branches of needs, competence, autonomy and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT depicts that human beings´ efforts and performances are strongly connected to how they relate to these needs. According to SDT, an individual´s drive to seek fulfillment of these needs leads to
experiencing intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation.
Competence is about learning and gaining more experience (White, 1959).
Autonomy is based on the desire to have an internal self-control, to act according to one´s moral and ethics, and relatedness referrers to the will to interact with others (Van Assche, 2018; Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation could therefore be quite opposite to each other (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is a driving force related to the “ideal self” while extrinsic motivation is about how a person relates to the standards of others. Intrinsic motivation is autonomous while extrinsic motivation is controlled. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation are therefore
differentiated by Ryan and Deci (2000).
If a person is carrying out a task or acting due to external influences, that person is experiencing extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Rationalizing the
advantages and the benefits of carrying out such task is referred to as
internalization (Jansson, 2015). Internalization of extrinsic motivation towards intrinsic motivation is illustrated in fig. 1.
Alvesson and Sveningsson (2007) explain that motivational factors differ from person to person and that inner motivation is influenced from within, as from the outside. Many types of external factors can influence a person´s behavior. Having supportive friends, colleagues and leaders guiding and encouraging a person are examples of positive impacts, motivating and helping a person´s development process. However, it does not mean that all external factors act positively on motivation, for example feeling of being pressured from the outside (Amabile, 1996). Being pressured from the outside when lacking belief influences the motivation differently and is described by extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Agile project management and SDT have similar commonalities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Beck et al., 2001; Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015; Sohi et al., 2020).
SDT encourages teamwork and togetherness, and it promotes self-learning, being engaged and having self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These are the aspects on which agile project management are based on (Beck et al., 2001;
Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015; Sohi et al., 2020).
Figure 1. Illustration of extrinsic motivation internalization in relation to self- determination, according to Jansson (2015).
Nevertheless, project transition might be perceived differently by different people (Andersen, 2006). Some may be encouraged, and some may be less encouraged by a project transition. Some may experience hurdles due to unexpected
interferences and some may not experience any complications at all. SDT can therefore be a fitting psychological tool when analyzing employees´ experiences regarding the practice of agile methodologies (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kannan et al., 2014; Jansson, 2015; Sohi et al., 2020).
3.3.2 Psychological Safety
Psychological safety describes a workplace where employees feel free to express their views, to work in a constructive problem-solving way and without having to worry about any consequences (Edmondson, 2002). It is a matter of enjoying the workplace and being able to socialize.
According to psychological safety, the social context of work influences a person´s psychological safety. It will ultimately determine the extent to which an employee is willing to invest psychological and physical energy in his or her performance (Edmondson, 2002).
Edmondson (2002) explains the relationship between psychological safety and trust. Trust describes a person´s belief and expectation on future actions, making a person willing to be vulnerable to those actions. Psychological safety and trust have much in common. Both describe the perceptions of risk and vulnerability, the need to minimize negative consequences, and if possible how to benefit from the positive outcomes. It is especially important for work groups and organizations (Edmondson, 2002).
The feeling of psychological safety is based on employees developing a sense of organizational ownership and having quality relationships within the organization and their colleagues (Yang, 2020). Yang argues that a fun workplace contributes and facilitates proactive behaviors. For employees, a fun workplace environment is quite appealing which ultimately the organization they belong to benefits from.
Fun at work mediated by psychological safety will enhance employees’ creative mindsets. Employees who feel psychologically unsafe on the other hand are more likely to experience and behave the opposite (Edmondson, 2002; Yang, 2020).
Psychological safety promotes environments where employees have the
possibility to learn (Edmondson, 2002). Leaders are in a position where they can create such environments (Clark, 2003; Turner & Müller, 2005; Svensson et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2020). Through appropriate leadership behaviors and guidance leaders can promote and facilitate an effective learning environment for their subordinates. However, when for example leaders fail to acknowledge vulnerability, show lack of interest or are unavailable, it can have a negative effect on team members´ learning processes (Edmondson, 2002).
Research has shown that positive leadership styles are strongly positively
connected to group psychological safety (Chen et al., 2020). Group psychological safety is influenced through leadership support, and the interaction between group members and their leaders. A well-functioning work atmosphere where the
employees feel they are treated with respect, where they have the freedom to decide on their own will facilitate creativity, whereas stressful environments have the opposite effect on the creativity (Chen et al., 2020).
4 Method
The company gave permission and allowed the researcher to conduct interviews with its employees. Interviews were held with volunteers having experienced the agile transformation. The volunteers at the company belonged to the Research and Development organization, the R&D. The volunteers were selected based on a list of criteria, given in sec. 4.2.
The gathered data from the interviews were put through thematic analysis (Clark
& Braun, 2006). Thematic analysis generated a total of 207 different codes and in total 66 pages of interview material. Furthermore, the analysis resulted in 19 potential themes. Potential themes sharing similar contents, referring to or describing similar subjects were put together and formed single main themes. In this study, the researcher analyzed 3 main themes. The potential themes and the main themes are illustrated in table 4, Appendix.
4.1 Case Study
This case study involved a leading European manufacturing company that had tried to facilitate and make improvements to its R&D organization, to meet the growing demands in the world market and to remain competitive. The company had introduced the agile model to its R&D organization (Beck et al., 2001). The different departments within the organization had different introduction dates.
Every department in the organization had numerous parallel ongoing projects.
Traditionally and prior to the introduction of the new project management model, these projects were handled according to classic project management (Berggren &
Lindkvist, 2001; Jansson, 2015).
The development of new technologies and better products have always been top priority at the company. As time is of the essence, as projects are faced with limited time and budget, and with the growing demands in the world market it was crucial to evolve in order to stay competitive.
The organization had also introduced SAFe, Scaling Agile Framework (Beecham, 2020), and agile scrum, (Schwaber, 1995) in their product development streams.
Company Case: Agilification at R&D
Industry Manufacturing
Technical fields E.g. Electronics, Polymer Technology & IT
Employees > 1000
Number / Dates of Interviews 9 / October 2020 – November 2020 Interviewees´ positions Developers
Interviewees´ genders 3 females & 6 males Interviews´ length 45 – 120 minutes Table 3. Overview of sample and interviewees.
With the SAFe model introduced in the organization there was a need to adapt the agile methods and to scale-up the agile development beyond a single oriented team (Beecham, 2020). The scale-up could involve teams collaborating in
producing different subsystems of a single product or producing separate products that were part of a larger and more complex end-product.
Scale-up framework has previously been carried out for different agile methods, including scrum (Schwaber, 1995; Jansson, 2015; Beecham, 2020).
4.2 Selection of Candidates
The researcher decided that 9 interviews were sufficient for data gathering.
Collecting data from less than nine interviews would risk not having enough data and collecting data from more than 9 interviews would probably exceed the amount of data needed for this research project. Thereafter, the researcher
contacted 3 managers at the company to help him find 9 volunteers to participate in this study.
The participants involved in this study were 3 female volunteers and 6 male volunteers.
The criteria on which the participants were chosen were:
The volunteer had participated in the agile transformation from day one.
The volunteer was a developer in a group regardless of his or her main job description.
The volunteer had minimum 1 year experience working at R&D, at the company, prior to the agile transformation.
4.3 Interview Design
Interviews were designed for the volunteers to recall and further to describe their experiences on the agile transformation at the company. Before the interviews literature studies were carried out on previous organizational agile transformation (Heikkilä et al., 2017; Jovanovic et al., 2017; Fuchs & Hess, 2018; Paasivaara et al., 2018). The interview guide, see Appendix, was designed to have open questions with no bias, (King et al., 2018). The previous studies carried out by Heikkilä et al. (2017) and Paasivaara et al. (2018) inspired the design of the interview guide. The interview guide was divided into six sections. The four first sections in the interview guide began with general questions. For example, the volunteers were asked to describe their background and to recall the work they had been doing during the past years. A reason for the general questions was to establish mutual trust between the researcher and the volunteers.
The objective of the interview guide was to have open questions, relating to motivational arguments. The interview guide was modified after the first two interviews. The researcher believed that more emphasis needed to be put on the follow up questions relating to outer- and inner motivation (Arkes & Garske, 1982; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The objective was to explore how the volunteers gained more determination and motivation to do the job they were assigned to do.
For example, did the volunteers feel motivated participating in a nice gathering or gaining valuable experiences, or if it was more to do with being rewarded and gaining some sort of recognition? Therefore, the researcher would ask follow-up questions and try to focus on what motivated the volunteers to carry out their
duties, the best way they could (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Another reason for the alternation in the interview guide was to allow the volunteers to better reflect on their experiences, to describe how they felt at a specific point of time, and to improve the quality of the interviews. The interview guide was to be altered for every new interview session thereafter. The alternation did not mean any significant changes to the content of the interview guide but rather a way to improve the quality of the interviews. For example, by changing the order in which the questions were asked the researcher hoped to avoid any unnecessary interruptions in the discussions. Thus, more harmonious, with better flow in the dialogues between the researcher and the interviewees.
4.4 Data Analysis
The analysis needed to interpret patterns in the collected data, the collected data from the interviews. First, the collected data were run through transcription. The transcribed data were later analyzed through thematic analysis (Clark & Braun, 2006).
Thematic analysis is a qualitative method common within psychology. It is flexible and can be used through a range of scientific theories, offering versatility, and potentially providing a rich but thorough account of the evidence.
Thematic analysis provided 19 potential themes of which 8 potential themes combined to form 3 main themes, table 4, Appendix.
4.5 Non-Remunerated
Of the 19 potential themes found in this study, only 8 potential themes formed the 3 main themes, however. The remaining 11 potential themes were not part of the analysis. All potential themes and main themes are presented in table 4 and table 5 in the Appendix.
4.6 Procedure
The participants were randomly selected by each manager. The managers belonged to different departments in the R&D organization. The selection was based on a list of criteria, sec. 4.2, given to the managers by the researcher.
The volunteers received an introduction letter before agreeing to participate in the study. The introduction letter explained the reasons and the objectives for the study and that the collection of data would be processed confidentially. In addition, the volunteers were free to end their participation at any point of time, before, during or after the interviews. All interviews were held via digital communication tool Microsoft Teams.
The interviews always started with the researcher asking the volunteers about their names, their background, and their level of experience. These questions were not decisive for the data analysis, sec. 6, however, it was as a general way to start the interviews as well as gaining the volunteers´ trust and making the volunteers feel more at ease.
Whenever the researcher would ask a question, the researcher would let the interviewee speak until finish, pause a few seconds, and briefly re-describe what had been said. Using this technique was to slow down the interview process and to allow the volunteer to add more comments that he or she had not thought of at first. Hopefully, the recorded new data would reveal more information that would otherwise have been hidden from the researcher. Another reason for using this
technique was to further establish mutual trust, the researcher showing that the volunteer´s experiences and feelings had been acknowledged.
During the interviews, sometimes a pre-explanation was needed regarding a specific question. For example, before asking ”What is your educational background”, the researcher would briefly explain that the topic of the next question would be about education, simply for the volunteer to be prepared.
4.7 Validity & Reliability
Validity expresses the degree to which a designed study manages to conduct measurements and retrieves data in accordance with what it was designed for (Bryman, 2011). In addition, validity also explains the accuracy of the retrieved data representing the whole population from which a sample was taken.
Reliability expresses the degree to which the results can be replicated (Bryman, 2011).
Validity: The interview guide was designed to have open questions, with no bias, for the volunteers to express how they experienced the agile transformation. With over thousand employees at the company, this study is based on 9 individuals, 9 volunteers´ experiences, independently.
The implementation of agile did not occur simultaneously for all
departments. When this study began, various groups and sections under the same department had gained different agile maturity levels. Volunteers experiences are therefore partly in correlation with their gained agile maturity levels and could differ from one person to another.
Reliability: The collection of data was based on 9 interviews. It is probable that other test samples and interviewees would have expressed other experiences and shed light on other important topics relevant for this study.
The researcher had, to some extent, a general understanding regarding some of the impediments during the agile transformation. Therefore, it is assumable that there were some presumptions regarding the questions asked. On the other hand, it benefited the overall discussions. Hence, the dialogues would be more harmonious and with better flow, with more time to focus and reflect on the interviewees´ experiences. However, the conclusion in this study is a
generalization of the whole company, based on gathered information from a few individuals. The conclusions here are therefore open for debate.
4.8 Ethics
This research project has followed the rules and principles of WMA Declaration of Helsinki, developed by World Medical Association (2013).
It was vital to inform all parties involved about the objectives of the research project, how the research project was to be conducted and who was to participate in the research project. It was important for the researcher to have a neutral and non-bias perspective and treat the collection of data from the participant with great care. Therefore, to avoid any conflict of interest and prestige, the planning and the design of the study were to be carefully executed not to inflict any harm to the participants, to the company, science or society. It was also vital for all parties to have given their consent before the start of the research project.
The company had given the researcher permission to conduct the research project.
The participants in this study were volunteers. The volunteers had been informed about the objectives of the research project through an introduction letter, and the volunteers had given their consent to be interviewed and having their interviews recorded.
The volunteers in this study were to remain anonymous. They were free to choose and end participation and take no further part in this study at any point of time, before, during or after the interviews, without any further explanation. The collection of data from the interviews were to be deleted if the volunteers chose not to take any further part in the study. The collection of data would however be deleted once the thesis was approved.
5 Results
During the interviews interesting subjects were brought up. Some of the subjects were particularly interesting as they especially reflected how the agile
transformation was executed. The discussed subjects were also related to how the volunteers had experienced the agile transformation. The recorded discussions during the interviews served as interview data which later generated different codes. An example of how codes were generated from the data is given below:
Whenever the respondents pinpointed or emphasized on a specific topic like “We tested different setups”, ”We tried and failed and had to try again” or “We made a few different attempts”, these comments served as pure data. The extracted information from these statements referred to having repeatedly tested different ideas and different ways of working. These statements were replaced by a single code, Trial and Error. If Trial and Error proved to be a significant and important topic from the interviews, it would be the basis of a potential theme. Potential themes sharing similar characteristics and features were put together and formed a main theme.
According to the explanation given above, 8 potential themes formed 3 main themes. These themes were:
1. Lack of Road Map
The first theme referred to the respondents not exactly knowing how to get to their destinations. They knew where to go but not how to get there.
2. Frustration over Extra Work adds no Extra Value
The second theme referred to the respondents spending time working on different issues. It was important that the time spent working on different issues generated results benefiting the company.
3. A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig
The third theme referred to the fact that almost every respondent felt that the ways of working, before and after the introduction of agile were quite the same.
5.1 Lack of Road Map
This theme is a conjoint of three potential themes, which are “Try, Fail, Try again, Fail again, but Fail better”, “Senior officers showing fitting leadership skills” and
“Road map”. These three potential themes combined to form a main them, “Lack of Road Map”.
One of the potential themes, “Try, Fail, Try again, Fail again, but Fail better”, portrays the participants´ efforts during the transition. It illustrates how project
members would not give up and would not be discouraged by failures. As Beckett (1983) put it:
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Lack of Road Map, however, is not only about not giving up. The theme illustrates the significance of having realistic objectives, working towards those objectives, and maintaining a high professional work ethic in order to reach those objectives.
Giving this theme a fitting name was quite easy. One of the respondents had mentioned earlier that they did not have a road map to organize work according to.
Thus, Lack of Road Map reflects how the respondents had perceived the
instructions that had been given to them. This theme illustrates project members´
understanding of their objectives that were, according to many, a bit unclear. It also illustrates how the workload and responsibilities were shared between leaders and their project members.
The agile transformation was to reshape the organization. As the transition was not going to happen overnight but rather over a period, it meant that the participants had to gradually adjust to the new ways of working. When the respondents reflected on the changes they had made, most of the respondents felt they needed more instructions on how to work and how to manage the transition. In the
beginning, the respondents felt they did not know exactly how to make agile fit in their daily routines. Many respondents expressed they were not working according to a specific guideline. The general understanding however was that discussions triggered new ideas.
The respondents felt they were engaged in many activities, for example taking agile courses, raising questions on important topics, being involved in seminars, etcetera. They felt they were involved in the agile transformation process and they did that because they wanted to make an impact and bring improvements to their teams and the organization they belonged to. Even if the respondents felt there were more suitable options than the options presented by the organization or within their teams, they were willing to accept them, try them and work on them if it meant it would benefit first and foremost the team, second the organization, and ultimately the company.
Often, the instructions they had received were a bit unclear and/or not specifically designed for their technical fields. For the respondents, this was a concern. One respondent said:
“To me, no one has ever demonstrated the way agile is supposed to work.”
and later in the discussion:
“I feel powerless when it comes to the agile transformation. I had the drive and the curiosity, coming with suggestions, what to do now!
Everyone was very much involved. It is now a sensitive subject, a bit the opposite. It has less effect now when earlier there were things you could talk about; you choose not to really bring it up... I haven´t really any real examples on it but if you get the stick each time and ultimately you quit suggesting it. It feels ok, but you don´t know what to fight for.””
The feelings of not quite knowing how to proceed was not due to poor leadership, lack of interaction with senior officers, or leaders not willing to engage in
discussions. On the contrary, managers, agile leaders, and senior officers were
very much involved in the discussions. Leaders were also quite open with the fact that the agile model they were using was not entirely complete and that it also required further improvements.
Many respondents expressed their thoughts on managers´, leaders´, and senior officers´ limited knowledge on practical use of the agile methodologies, to guide them and help them through the various tasks. As another respondent added:
“We have developed a working model with the help of agile coaches, and I got the impression that it was not complete. The answers we got from the teachers were quite vague and they were also quite open with the fact that it is still a work in progress.”
The traditional ways of working were easy. Previously, the employees knew where to go, who to talk to, and how to execute a specific task. It would take a while before getting the agile ways of working to fit. The benefits of working agile were not entirely transparent in the beginning. When this study had started, looking back, the respondents´ views on the subject had changed. The respondents had gained more maturity and were benefiting from the work they had put in. They had reached a level of agile maturity. They were more satisfied with the models and the work processes they had created and had adapted to. Yet, some were not fully convinced the agile methodology was proper or adequate project
management model to be implemented. As one developer would put it:
“I feel we were a bit lost and did not fit in. We do not fit in is my honest answer. But we have made changes to the agile framework to fit in....through the changes that have been made...so the company´s modified framework...we did not know what we were? But now we fit in by being a support function.”
With the agile transformation, there were also shift in responsibilities. New inquiries were needed to be taken care of, however, was it to be by the same person as before or was someone else responsible for the new inquiries? If someone else, then who?...as the respondents pointed out. This could result in misunderstanding or project delivery delays. Issues like misunderstanding or delays were a cause of concern and could result in the respondents feeling more stressed or experiencing feelings of being lost. A respondent said:
“My job is to create a product when I and my colleagues work but you encounter, on a daily basis, obstacles in the organization. With regards to many being unsure on how and the way of working, and who is to make the decisions...which makes me feel lost.”
5.2 Frustration over Extra Work adds no Extra Value
Likewise, this main theme is a conjoint of several potential themes. The potential themes to form this main theme are “Carrying out administrative work”,
“Overload with work”, “Transparency in workload” and “Creating value”. The purpose of the main theme´s name was to reflect the efforts the respondents were making. But the efforts, the time and the hours they were putting in had to generate an outcome, an outcome they could benefit from.
“Frustration over Extra Work adds no Extra Value” illustrates project members´
daily routines when the agile transformation had started. The main theme here illustrates what was perceived as redundant or not needed, and what was beneficial with the agile working model.
The respondents felt the work they were doing had to create value, to be beneficial and bring quality to the end-product.
The new ways of working required new ways of thinking and planning, for example the PI-planning (Program Increment, a time-limited planning interval).
Concerns of its need or its length, a whole week, was raised. One respondent said:
“I have now personally reduced my PI-planning to a three to four hours’ timeslot. Personally, I question whether it is needed at all?”
As the world market continuously changed and decisions had to be made quickly, some of the respondents felt planning twelve weeks ahead was not effective planning. With changing demands and inquiries, their priorities needed altering. It often meant to disregard and ignore the planning and the arrangements they had made previously. Planning one or two months ahead was difficult. Sometimes it was just not possible to predict obstacles in the coming weeks or months.
Sometimes the respondents had to dismiss a great deal of the PI-planning, due to new arrangements, make new planning and update new objectives. It was time- consuming. The respondents preferred spending more time working on their assignments. Some felt agile was not adequate for issues such as for example eliminating bugs (errors in the software). Time spent on a specific bug did not always represent the complexity of the issue. Sometimes the solution was far easier than expected which no one could have foreseen. Eliminating bugs could take a day, up to several weeks. It was a matter of sometimes spending hours finding the error rather than having to work on the error. Once found it was quite straightforward how to deal with the problem. Therefore, some respondents felt agile ways of working were not adequate for all sorts of software-related issues.
Some believed that the PI-planning was too long or that in the beginning, before understating and learning the agile ways of working, they did not benefit from it.
PI-planning added only extra work and was not beneficial. As one respondent would say:
“It felt mostly frustrating, lots of things to do all the time and you were to add a whole week of administration too.”
Often the planning involved estimating the workload, estimating the time needed to complete a specific task. In the beginning, the respondents and their colleagues felt it was difficult to make correct assessments of the workload. The reason was that no one had previous experience with workload estimation on single tasks.
Employees did not exactly know how much time or how many hours a specific task would require completing. One respondent said:
“PI-planning is a bit too long...what also is less good in the agile is...too much administration for small and less significant stuff...hard to know how much time to estimate... I think in the beginning people were not used to that, the way of working like that. Our experience was that we over-commit a lot, we were not so good in estimating and it was stressful, the workload. But after more experience we have more realistic planning, and we are actually more able to finish our tasks within the PI. We did not finish all before.”
5.3 A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig
The following main theme, A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig, refers to how the work in the organization was carried out before, in comparison to how it was carried out after the agile transformation. This main theme is constructed with only one potential theme, i.e. “It is the same as before”.
The main theme here illustrates project members´ perception of where they were before the agile transformation, how the projects were executed before the agile
transformation and how the transition from classical project management to agile project management had shaped their organization´s project management style.
The researcher and colleagues had a few discussions about a fitting name for this theme. Many names were suggested, however. When discussing, during one of the sessions the researcher recalled an old football quote, and it was quite similar as:
“Put dirt hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy Anfield and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not, it's dirt hanging from a stick!”
And suddenly a colleague suggested naming it, “A Pig with a Lipstick is still a Pig”…and everybody laughed and concurred.
Almost all of the respondents pointed out that they had to try different setups and different ways of working until reaching a point where they were pleased with the end-product, end-products suiting their technical fields. Mostly, it was perceived as a smooth transition although one respondent expressed that there was some sort of “system overload”, too much information at once and therefore difficult to grasp and understand.
Initially, the teams started working according to simple agile setups. Depending on how successful a setup was more changes or complete makeovers were to follow.
Gradually, new ideas emerged on how to make agile work better. The participants were using different terminology and working with the continuously changing neighboring units. Some respondents expressed that the work they were doing was not significantly different from before. As one respondent would put it:
“At some point, we realized we worked agile and the agile terminologies were the biggest differences…the way we saw it.”
Some respondents mentioned the effects of the agile transformation and how it had affected the organization. When summing up the work they were doing, some felt it was the same as before the introduction of agile, with minor changes. A respondent described their new organization as:
“We have not changed much. We have kept block and teams as before...and since we are a system team, we have implemented different roles, such as PO and scrum master. It has not been that big difference, but we can compare our team manager to PO. It is not that big difference.”
According to some of the respondents, the organization they belong to had not changed much. However, with agile some teams were split up into smaller teams, for example for the backlog to better suit each team´s priorities. A general
understanding was that with the agile transformation there were fewer held meetings, more transparency, and more clear project objectives. It resulted in having more time to do the actual work; testing, writing codes, etcetera. As a respondent added:
“The organization itself has not changed much but we have decided to do it a bit differently by splitting the team that was too big. It works better with regards to the backlog.”
and a bit later in the discussion:
“I feel maybe we had more meetings before. The biggest difference is that there is a clearer explanation where to end up and that you have more transparency. What is interesting is that same things need to be carried out, the same type of programs are needed to be completed
and the same kind of problems are to be solved. Some issues were less prioritized before, as they might not have been that important. But now, with the new working model, it is possible to make your own assessments, as long as you are able to make the project deliveries, which is a positive thing.”
The latter comments were from software developers. Software developers were in general more satisfied with the agile transformation. Software developers
believed, apart from clearer objectives and more transparency, they managed to have faster project deliveries. Software developers also believed that agile had brought improvements in communication within and outside of their teams, for example towards the customers.
6 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore company project members´ experiences of the agile transformation, how the changes made were perceived and how the changes in the new organization had affected the project members. The outcome of this study was thought to be generic. Therefore, the discussions her are relevant for other businesses pursuing organizational transitions.
The data from the interviews describe project members´ experiences during the agile transformation. It answered this study´s first research question, i.e. “How did the project participants experience the new project management model?”.
Some of the respondents had made few and small adjustments to the agile model while some others had made more extensive changes to the agile model. Overall, independent of the changes that had been made, the respondents in this study perceived the way they were working being quite similar to the way they worked previously, before the agile transformation. This answered the second research question, i.e. “How were the changes made perceived by the project participants?”
Some of the respondents were in favor of the agile working model while some were less in favor of the agile working model.
The analysis was carried out in connection with Self-Determination Theory and theory of psychological safety (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Edmondson, 2002). Self- Determination Theory and theory of psychological safety as a mediator were used in the analysis, to describe how the agile transformation had affected the
participants. The analysis answered the third questions of the research project, i.e.
“How did the practice of the agile model affect the participants?”.
Naturally, the experience of each respondent is unique and reflects his or her personality, past experiences, gained agile maturity, ideology, schooling, etcetera (Andersen, 2006; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2007).
Previous research studies on agile transformation helped the analysis and the evaluation of the company´s established agile model (Heikkilä et al., 2017;
Jovanovic et al., 2017; Fuchs & Hess, 2018; Paasivaara et al., 2018; Sanchez et al., 2019). It indicated an overlap between how the implementation of the agile model was perceived and how the respondents were affected.
6.1 Lack of Road Map
As mentioned previously, Lack of Road Map portrays the content of 3 potential themes. “Try, Fail, Try again, Fail again, but Fail better”, “Senior officers showing fitting leadership skills” and “Road map” together describe project members´
