Lean & mean innovation machine • 1
In the world of software/product development, waste refers to any team activity that does not add value from the customer’s perspective. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can dramatically boost productivity and improve quality of work. What are the implications for x-capability teams working in the fuzzy front-end of service innovation?
Agile teams are self-organizing, adaptive, coordinated, collaborative, transparent, disciplined, and focused (on frequent delivery of what customers need). Agile teams are expected to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts and disagreements. (See, e.g., Mersino, 2015) What can upstream innovation teams learn from lean thinking and agile practices in terms of eliminating waste, boosting team productivity, and improving quality of work? What types of waste can occur in upstream projects and what are the underlying causes?
Before diving into the nine types of waste for upstream innovation projects, I will set the stage by briefly introducing three overlapping topics: the major types of waste in software development; the dynamics of dysfunctional and high-performing teams respectively; and the characteristics of self-organizing teams.
Waste in software/product development
Thought leaders Mary and Tom Poppendieck covered the following seven types of waste in their Lean Software Development framework: Partially Done Work, Extra Features, Relearning, Handoffs, Task Switching, Delays, and Defects (Mersino, 2015).
Inspired by lean thinking and Poppendiecks’ work, Sedano et al. (2017) conducted an in-depth study of eight projects in a software development consultancy and identified nine types of waste: Building the wrong feature or product; Mismanaging the backlog; Rework; Unnecessarily complex solutions; Extraneous cognitive load; Psychological distress; Waiting/multitasking; Knowledge loss; and Ineffective communication. Reducing waste, by definition, improves efficiency and productivity.
Dysfunctional and high-performing teams
According to Patrick Lencioni (2002), management teams commonly struggle with five basic dysfunctions: Absence of trust, Fear of conflict, Lack of commitment, Avoidance of team accountability, and Inattention to team objectives. These dysfunctions cause confusion, misunderstanding, and negative morale. Needless to say, dysfunctional teams are not efficient and effective.
Related, a research team at Google studied how team composition and team dynamics affect team effectiveness and performance across the organization. Variables with a significant impact on effectiveness include psychological safety (team members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other), dependability (members get quality work done on time), structure and clarity (members have clear roles, plans, and goals), meaning (members find a sense of purpose in either the work itself or the output), and impact (members believe their work matters and creates change). (re:Work, n.d.) Positive team dynamics reduce project and organizational waste.
Self-organizing teams
According to Hackman (2002), there are four types of self-organizing teams based on the level or amount of authority given/delegated to them by leaders: manager-led teams, self-managing teams, self-designing teams, and self-governing teams. Manager-led teams have the least authority, while self-governing teams have the most. See figure 1.
Figure 1. Four types of teams based on the level of authority given/delegated to them by leaders (slightly adapted from Hackman, 2002).
Self-managing teams have the authority to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts/disagreements. Self-designing teams have the additional authority to design the composition of the team and determine reporting structures. Self-governing teams have the additional authority to determine the purpose, set objectives, define success metrics, etc. (Hackman, 2002)
In the context of agile software/product development, self-organizing teams tend to be self-managing (see, e.g., Cohn, 2017). Acting as servant leaders, Scrum Masters play a significant role on these teams to reduce waste and improve productivity; for example, they coach team members in self-management and cross-functionality, help remove blockers and impediments to team productivity and progress, and facilitate stakeholder collaboration as requested or needed (Scrum.org, n.d.; Mersino, 2015; Jarrell, 2016).
Teams do not operate in a vacuum. Organizational leaders can drive self-organization and self-direction by encouraging collaborative play and co-creation across organizational silos and boundaries; by removing organizational impediments such as inappropriate/unhelpful planning cycles, reporting structures, and performance management systems; and by encouraging continuous learning, development, and growth across the organization. (Inspired by Bittner, n.d.; Urch Druskat and Wheeler, 2004; and Rigby, 2020.)
In the next blog post, I will compare and contrast four ways to drive service innovation. This will help us map the nine types of waste that can occur in upstream projects.
References:
Bittner, K. (2019, February). Agile leadership is the key to self-organization. Agile Know-How Magazine.
Cohn, M. (2017, August 15). Two types of authority leaders must give to self-organizing teams.
Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. HBR Press.
Jarrell, J. (2016, May 9). The 3 levels of a Scrum Master removing impediments.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
Mersino, A. (2015). Agile project management. Vitality Chicago.
re:Work. (n.d.) Guide: Understand team effectiveness. Google.
Rigby, D. (2020, July 20). The agile organization: Balancing efficiency and innovation (even in tough times) [Webinar]. Harvard Business Review.
Scrum.org. (n.d.). What is a Scrum Master?
Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Urch Druskat, V. & Wheeler, J.V. (2004, July 15). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Review.
1/6
