How have you experienced agile frameworks?
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:59 am
The choice of frameworks and methods is large, “so be careful when you commit yourself forever…”
Some frameworks, such as Kanban, Scrum.org (including Nexus) and LeSS® focus on the team and the first scaling levels and can create added value especially in small to medium-sized settings (start-ups, micro-enterprises). Here, short communication channels already exist due to the hierarchical proximity of management and execution level.
However, if we are moving in larger settings (larger medium-sized companies, corporations), we need coordination mechanisms that support us in synchronizing many agile teams on the one hand and the strategic level on the other. The Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®), for example, offers a broad framework that focuses on synchronizing all parts of the armenia consumer email list organization. Regardless of which agile framework an organization uses, it is crucial that it is not forced into an organization and thus dogmatically overburdens a system.
In this context, we at adessi speak of "tamed agility". Common sense and experience help in a value-oriented introduction of agile frameworks to support the ambidexterity proposed by the adesso New School of IT.
We can therefore conclude that ambidexterity and agility pursue the same goals and can be mutually dependent. Without ambidexterity there is no agility and without agility there is no ambidexterity. Successful implementations of agile frameworks should therefore be preceded by a commitment to ambidexterity at the highest level. If there is no commitment to ambidexterity at the C-level, a successful (because value-oriented) agile transformation is hardly feasible.
Do you agree with me in my thesis that agile transformations are hardly feasible without ambidexterity? I look forward to your feedback and questions. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me.
You can find more exciting topics from the adesso world in our previously published blog posts .
Some frameworks, such as Kanban, Scrum.org (including Nexus) and LeSS® focus on the team and the first scaling levels and can create added value especially in small to medium-sized settings (start-ups, micro-enterprises). Here, short communication channels already exist due to the hierarchical proximity of management and execution level.
However, if we are moving in larger settings (larger medium-sized companies, corporations), we need coordination mechanisms that support us in synchronizing many agile teams on the one hand and the strategic level on the other. The Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®), for example, offers a broad framework that focuses on synchronizing all parts of the armenia consumer email list organization. Regardless of which agile framework an organization uses, it is crucial that it is not forced into an organization and thus dogmatically overburdens a system.
In this context, we at adessi speak of "tamed agility". Common sense and experience help in a value-oriented introduction of agile frameworks to support the ambidexterity proposed by the adesso New School of IT.
We can therefore conclude that ambidexterity and agility pursue the same goals and can be mutually dependent. Without ambidexterity there is no agility and without agility there is no ambidexterity. Successful implementations of agile frameworks should therefore be preceded by a commitment to ambidexterity at the highest level. If there is no commitment to ambidexterity at the C-level, a successful (because value-oriented) agile transformation is hardly feasible.
Do you agree with me in my thesis that agile transformations are hardly feasible without ambidexterity? I look forward to your feedback and questions. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me.
You can find more exciting topics from the adesso world in our previously published blog posts .