Master Business Administration: Track Digital Business
Scaling Agile in Non-Agile Environments: Managing
Conflicting Control Mechanisms
Anique Christianne Kamphuis Student Number: 11399007 Supervisor: Professor Dr. H. Borgman In collaboration with Ernst and Young (EY)
Statement of originality
This document is written by Anique Christianne Kamphuis who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Index
Abstract ... 4
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 5
Chapter 2: Literature review ... 7
2.1. Control theory ... 7
2.2. Traditional control ... 9
2.3. Agile control ... 10
2.4. Control in leadership ... 11
2.5. Changing control mechanisms for top management in agile transformations ... 12
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology ... 15
3.1 Case study ... 16
3.1.1. Case-study descriptions ... 16
3.1.2. Cross-case analysis approach ... 18
3.2. Research Design ... 18
3.2.1. Semi-structured interviews... 18
3.2.2 Observations ... 21
3.2.3. Document analysis ... 21
3.3. Reliability and validity ... 21
Chapter 4: Cross-case analysis ... 22
4.1. P1: Process control ... 22
4.2. P2: Outcome control ... 24
4.3. P3: Soft control ... 25
4.4. P4: Enablement ... 26
Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion ... 28
Chapter 6: Limitations and future research ... 30
Chapter 7: References ... 33
Chapter 8: Appendices ... 38
8.1. Appendix A: 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto ... 38
8.2. Appendix B: Interview protocol (Dutch) ... 39
8.3. Appendix C: Overview codes (nodes and cases) ... 46
8.4. Appendix D: Case information ... 48
8.4.1. Appendix D1: ABN Amro ... 48
8.4.2. Appendix D2: Rabobank ... 53
8.4.3. Appendix D3: ING ... 57
Abstract
Financial organizations increasingly resort to agile working methods to stimulate innovation and promote effectiveness, thereby replacing the static stage-gate type of control with flexible output control. Agile methods are being applied by teams and at project levels, but companies now also implement scaling agile methodologies. However, little research has been done on the influence of scaling agile with respect to control mechanisms for top management despite the fact that top management can make or break this transformation. Therefore, this study analyses changing control dynamics at the level of top management during an agile organizational transformation. Thus, this study aims to answer the following question: How do management control mechanisms on the level of top management change when the respective company transforms to an agile organization? This study has an exploratory, multiple case-study design. It proceeds by examining four cases within the financial industry. Through the analysis, four working propositions derived from the academic literature regarding control theory and agile leadership are explored and hence confirmed or falsified. The study uses 17 semi-structured interviews accompanied by observations and document analyses. The findings show that management control mechanisms adjust to the agile working method by (1) performing less strict process controls, (2) focusing more on outcome rather than process control, (3) increasingly using soft control mechanisms, and (4) changing top management’s controlling outlook to an enabling mind-set towards employees. Besides, these changes lead to conflicting control mechanisms, on both the internal and the external level, that top management needs to manage. Finally, this study provides suggestions for future research, such as researching the influence of external stakeholders on control mechanisms.
Keywords: Agile, Scaling Agile, Top Management, Control Theory, Control Mechanisms, Soft
Chapter 1: Introduction
Because the concept of agile innovation attracts the interests of many companies nowadays, an increasing number of businesses have transformed their ways of working from the waterfall technique to the agile method (Rigby et al., 2016). This latter method requires less initial planning and has a focus on fostering efficiency (Dyba and Dingsoyr., 2008). In contrast to the waterfall technique, the agile method focuses on the continuation of process design and interaction with the customer. Moreover, the agile method strongly emphasizes iteration (Serrador and Pinto 2015, p. 1041).
While the agile method has been practiced for almost twenty years and its successes have certainly been demonstrated, the latest development in the agile-landscape is known as ‘scaling agile’. This concept means that an organization scales its agile work method from the team level to other layers of the organization (Denning, 2016). A striking example of a large multinational complying with this trend is the Dutch bank ING, which has almost completely transformed into the agile way of working. According to ING’s former information officer, Bart Schlatmann, this transformation was required as a way to respond to dynamic customer behaviour (McKinsey, 2017).
Shifting to the agile way of working causes changes in the power dynamics within an organization. Organizations struggle with the agile mind-set in situations where it is essential to the success of a transformation to trust self-organizing teams (Executive finance, 2018). Therefore, Hekkela et al. (2017) suggest that further research should be conducted to analyse the role of changing dynamics of control and power in organizational relationships. Changing control dynamics which result from scaling agile have been examined by Smeekes, Borgman and Heier at the level of portfolio management (Smeekes et al., 2018). Their research suggests that (portfolio) management dynamics adapt to agile projects by (1) performing fewer and
less-strict process controls, (2) modifying budget controls (3) shifting from firm control on ICT projects to business-outcome control with (4) an emphasis on creating business value (p. 1).
However, although Cunningham (2016) argues that top management’s adoption of an agile methodology is of great importance to the success of scaling agile, Smeekes et al. (2018) do not address top management. Consistent with Cunningham (2016), Senapathi and Drury-Grogan (2017) argue that top-management support is very important in successfully implementing agile methods and concludes that senior levels generally do struggle with the concept of agile methods during agile organizational transformations.
Despite the importance of top management in the success of scaling agile implementations, there is limited research available that focuses on the changing control role of top management during an agile transformation. Without understanding the changing control dynamics, organizations may not appreciate what they are getting into, which could limit potential benefits (Mahadevan et al., 2015, p. 78). Therefore, this gap in the literature can be bridged by answering the following question: How do management control mechanisms on the level of top management change when the respective company transforms to an agile organization?
To answer the research question, this study executes an exploratory case study design with four cases. First a review of literature on the concept of control theory is conducted while comparing traditional methods with the agile method. The literature review results in four working propositions regarding the control dynamics of top management during agile transformations (Chapter 2). These propositions are tested through the analysis of four cases within the financial sector by conducting 17 semi-structured interviews, observations and document analysis, as is further explained in chapter three. After consideration of the research design and methodology, a cross-case analysis follows (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 and 6 discuss the findings and make suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2: Literature review
The following review examines the concept of organizational control to determine what actually defines the notion of control. This chapter emphasizes the notion of control through the lens of both the traditional organizational environment and the agile organizational environment. Scholarly research suggests that an agile environment is in need of different types of control mechanisms and leadership than are available in the traditional environment, which therefore needs to change accordingly. In conclusion, this review forms the basis of four working propositions which are used in answering the research question.
2.1. Control theory
Many scholars have studied control in the context of organizations. Mahadevan, Kettinger and Meservy define control as “mechanisms” which proceed towards an organization’s goals and achieve its objectives (Mahadevan et al., 2015). Ouchi emphasizes that control is a relationship between a controller (who exhibits control) and a controlee (who is being influenced or controlled) (Ouchi 1979). Harris, Collis and Hevner suggest a similar definition of control in organizations that can be described as a “mechanism that can be used to achieve organizational objectives” (Harris et al. 2006, p. 403).
Ouchi was one of the first scholars to define different types of control mechanisms to cope with control within an organization, which is illustrated in Table 1. In Ouchi’s study, a distinction can be made between informal controls and formal controls. The two types of formal controls are behaviour-based controls and outcome-based controls. Behavioural controls are controlling mechanisms that focus on the behaviours of employees (Mahadevan et al., 2015). Outcome controls focus on the relationship between controllers and controlees. The controller determines whether the outcome conditions were met instead of examining the process that has been used by the controlee to achieve this outcome (Kirsch, 1996). Another type which is not
indicated directly by Ouchi’s research but is essential to understand outcome control is process control. This type of control influences and monitors the behaviour of employees or team members regarding how they accomplish their goals (Carbonell and Rodiriguez-Escudero, 2016).
The informal category of control consists of clan control and self-control (Mahadevan et al., 2015). Clan control ensures control via shared values and presupposes a group in which group members ensure appropriate behaviour (Mahadevan et al., 2015). Self-control is applied when individuals monitor their own behaviours, including providing rewards and punishments (Mahadevan et al., 2015).
Table 1: Type of organizational control mechanisms
Control category Type of control Characteristics
Formal Behaviour control Behaviour employees
Outcome control Output over process Process control Focus on the how
Informal Clan control Group based control
Self-control Self-based control
Different types of control mechanisms have the overreaching goal of meeting the organizations” objectives and mitigating risks. After all, control mechanisms can mitigate risk factors that pose a serious threat to the goals of an organization (Keil et al., 2002, p. 104).
2.2. Traditional control
The traditional form of product development and process control can be found in the state-gate-model. This model originated from the desire to reduce the cycle time and to launch new products faster (Cooper, 1990). This process model provides a framework for moving a new product from idea to launch and can be seen as a blueprint for managing the product-development process to improve the effectiveness and efficiency (Cooper 1990, p. 44). In this model, which is shown in Figure 1, every step needs to be evaluated before it enters the next stage of the process (Cooper et al., 2002).
The state-gate-model illustrates the control mechanism of the gatekeeper. Frequently, the gatekeeper is a senior manager who determines whether the development can enter the next stage (Cooper, 1990). The controlling role of the senior manager consists of the following: 1) reviewing the quality of the inputs, 2) assessing the quality of the project from an economic and business standpoint and 3) approving the action plan of the next phase (Cooper, 1990, p. 46). This role of gatekeeper is necessary, as it brings involvement and commitment to the development process from senior management, which is vital for this process (Cooper, 1990, p. 47). Moreover, hierarchy and structure are central in the traditional stage-gate model (Smeekes et al., 2018).
2.3. Agile control
The concept of agile is used frequently in scholarly research. What this method or broad concept concretely involves is a subject of debate. However various thinkers find consensus in the so-called agile manifesto (e.g., Hekkala et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2009; Smeekes et al., 2018; Serrador and Pinto, 2015; Rasnacis and Berzisa, 2017; Conforto and Amaral, 2016; Hoda and Murugesan, 2016; Drury-Grogan, 2014; Dybå and Dingsøyr, 2008). This manifesto has been referred to extensively up to now, as it covers twelve principles of working in accord with the agile method in software development as can be found in Appendix A. These principles represent – amongst other things – high priority to customer satisfaction, adaption to change even in an advanced stadium, interaction from business people and developers and motivation among employees (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001). Therefore, this study interprets agile as a management tool and/or development method in which maximizing the added value for the end user is central based on a decentralized and iterative process.
The agile method creates opportunities where the stage-gate process models fails to do so. The stage-gate or waterfall model has been critiqued for following a project plan too strictly, overdoing documentation and failing to respond to the dynamic environment (Xu and Shen 2015, p.2). In contrast to these traditional forms, the agile model emphasises output control because measurement of progress is based on working software (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001).
In relation to control mechanisms, the agile manifesto argues that there needs to be an environment to support individual needs in which people trust workers to get the job done
(Fowler and Highsmith, 2001). In other words, the control mechanism shifts from senior
management to an enabling environment in an agile organization that co-creates a new management role.
One of the principles of agile working is to focus on people rather than on documentation in order to stimulate innovation. This reduction of redundant documentation
may cause a shift in the manner of controlling compared to the stage-gate model; therefore, the mechanisms of control might shift with an agile transformation (Rigby et al., 2016; Smeekes et al., 2018). McHugh, Conboy and Lang argue that, in agile environments, there is more emphasis on self and clan control than in the stage-gate approach, with more autonomy at the team-level (McHugh, Conboy and Lang, 2011). Agile methods are not methods that employees follow slavishly. There is no right process for every situation. Thus, any agile team must refine and reflect as it goes along, constantly improving its practices in forthcoming circumstances (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001).
2.4. Control in leadership
Traditional leadership emphasizes rational processes in which the process is well defined for employees (Yukl, 1999). Types of traditional forms of leadership are explained in the Vroom and Yetton model, which defines different types of leadership. In this model, Type AI focuses on making decisions as a manager alone whereas in Type AII the manager asks all subordinates to answer questions to gather information but makes decisions as a manager alone (Vroom and Yago, 1978). This autocratic type of decision making can be related to a process-minded type of control in which subordinates need to follow a well-defined path.
However, agile organizations emphasize a different leadership style. Agile working methodologies require a certain behaviour of people; for example, motivated individuals around which an enabling environment exists are trusted to get the job done (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001). Also, agile methodologies promote shared responsibility among team members and allow them to make their own decisions. Thus, agile methodologies use mechanisms that enable team members to participate in a proactive way (Xu and Shen 2015, p.3). However, this leadership style can also pose some challenges. Team members who are inexperienced with
working in an agile way could pose difficulties, as they may be reluctant to function in an empowered role (Xu and Shen 2015, p.3).
2.5. Changing control mechanisms for top management in agile transformations The role of top management is mainly focused on strategy building. This focus on strategy has the result that this management team needs to check with business to determine whether the strategy is being executed in the proper way. Research by Lorange and Scott Morton suggests that strategy control is of great importance for top management. After all, strategy control mechanisms help to focus top management on those areas where discrepancies in relation to the organization’s strategy exist (Lorange and Scott Morton, 1986, p. 10). This strategic control focuses on whether (1) the strategy is being implemented as planned; and whether (2) the results produced by the strategy are those intended (Harrison 1991, p. 78). It thus focuses on the fit of the formulation with the execution of strategy and checks to see if it is on schedule. It is therefore a very important check for top management (Harrison 1991, p. 78).
Smeekes et al. (2018) focus on changing control dynamics on the level of portfolio management. This study argues that there are changing control dynamics at the level of portfolio in which, 1) fewer and less-strict process controls are applied, 2) budget controls are modified and 3) there is a deeper focus on business-outcome control instead of process controls (Smeekes et al., 2018). These thought-provoking findings could be further explored. It is therefore interesting to test these working propositions in depth within a particular industry. Smeekes, Borgman and Heier suggest to include multiple perspectives of employees – e.g., top-management (C-level) – to provide a comprehensive overview of changing control dynamics in the agile organization. Hence, this study will further explore these changing control dynamics in depth, as suggested by Smeekes, Borgman and Heier (2018).
Portfolio management and top management have certain characteristics in common, which provide the opportunity to analyse the findings of Smeekes et al. (2018) by means of a different research scope. After all, top management teams are occupied with a strategic decision-making process (Wiersema and Bantel 1992, p. 94) which is a similar element of portfolio management. Moreover, both types of managers are making decisions while taking long-term consequences into account (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992; de Backer 2018). Therefore, this study builds further on propositions 1 and 3 of Smeekes et al. (2018) by analysing the level of top management.
Working proposition 1: Fewer and less-strict process controls are performed when firms are transitioning into agile organizations.
Working proposition 2: Top management shifts from process control to business-outcome control when transforming into an agile organization.
Because proposition 1 suggests that process controls occur less, other traditional control mechanisms, might transform as well. In the world of (internal) audit, these behavioural control mechanisms can be categorized as soft control mechanisms. The main purpose of these soft control mechanisms, a jargon used frequently at financial organizations, is to control employees in light of behaviour and values. Concrete examples are controls on trust and integrity. However, the nature of this type of control is rather subjective. The other category, namely hard control, does not focus on behaviour but rather on objectively perceived activities. Examples are approvals or verifications (Nagy, 2017).
Furthermore, implementation of the agile methodology requires a different attitude and type of cooperation for employees. Because certain employee behaviour is important for a successful agile transformation, this study investigates whether control mechanisms change
accordingly (Maruping et al., 2009). Behaviour includes, for example, to what extent a team reflects on how to become more effective and how to change its behaviour accordingly (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001). Thus, if a certain type of behaviour is important to agile working, it might put an emphasis on behaviour control. In other words, during an agile transformation, more emphasis might be put on soft (behaviour-based) control mechanisms. This results in logical grounds for the following working proposition:
Working proposition 3: During an agile transformation, controlling mechanisms shift from hard control mechanisms to soft – behaviour-based – control mechanisms.
Smeekes, Borgman and Heier conclude that (portfolio) managers become chief enablers in an agile organization. When we consider the shift to an agile mind-set in software development we can analyse scientists who have evaluated this mind-set within Extreme Programming (XP), which is a practical method corresponding with the agile manifesto. This agile method can be traced back to the manifesto with the principle of “give the environment and support they need”. This empowerment is one of the main reasons this method is so successful. This agile method is based on empowerment and enabling people, which consequently motivates people, rather than on monitoring. Shifting from controlling (monitoring) to empowering leadership results in employees taking ownership (McAvoy and Butler, 2007).
Correspondingly, in a broader leadership context, agile leadership has a different focus than traditional management theories in relation to control. Traditional leadership analyses opportunities and risks through the prism of control, which resembles the financial sector’s leadership approach and mechanisms: change control, risk control and people control. This is all brought into life to manage an unpredictable world. However, this traditional view does not result in more certainties, and this type of micromanagement sometimes results in cooperation
difficulties (Parker et al. 2015). However, agile environments in which teams are working by self-managing in an end-to-end context, require a different type of leadership that is not dominated by control but by a servant-leadership style (Parker et al. 2015). A servant leader is defined as one who “is motivated by a desire to serve and empower followers” (Brownell, 1999, p.19).
Because this traditional type of leadership style conflicts with agile environments, this study proposes that top management which is involved in leading an agile working organization changes its mind-set to focus more on enabling employees rather than on controlling employees. This is in relation to the findings of Smeekes et al. (2018), where the role of portfolio manager is transformed into an enabling role.
Therefore, the following working proposition is analysed in this study:
Working proposition 4: Top management’s mind-set changes from controlling to enabling employees.
Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
The design of this study is based on the so called “research union” (Saunders et al., 2008). This type of study combines deductive and inductive approaches. First, the deductive approach forms a foundation of theories and concepts based on existing literature. Hence, it is determined what kind of research adds value to existing theoretical frameworks and makes room for inductive research. Chapter 2 did exactly this: It described existing perspectives in the academic literature on the one hand and emphasized the relevance of this study in light of the current gap in scholarly work on the other hand. Finally, inductive research consists of observations and semi-structured interviews which are used to test the working propositions.
3.1 Case study
To answer the research question, an exploratory multi-case study design will analyse a phenomenon that has been limitedly studied. This design is used to understand the dynamics presented in the cases (Eisenhardt 1989, p. 534). The unit of research within this study is an organization, and four financial services organizations are examined. These cases have in common the fact that they are all involved with an agile transformation or have been in the past. They are all headquartered in the Netherlands, and are all part of the financial industry, which is known for being hierarchical and having a strict structure.
3.1.1. Case-study descriptions
The multiple case study consisting of four cases was accessible due to the network of Ernst and Young (EY). The respondents were contacted though guidance of the EY consultants. This study conducts research on financial institutions because there is a trend in the Netherlands according to which such institutions are transforming into agile organizations in a field with strict regulations and dominant hierarchical infrastructures. Therefore, these institutions are studied because the strict regulations on the one hand, and agile organizing and self-prioritizing teams on the other hand, could conflict with one another.
The following companies are part of this study: ABN Amro (banking), Rabobank (banking), ING (banking) and MN (wealth management). To produce a comprehensible overview of the cases itself, these companies’ characteristics and agile adoptions are compared with the support of published company documentation (Over ABN Amro, 2018; Over ING, 2018; Over MN, 2018; Over Rabobank, 2018) and observations. This overview can be found in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Overview of cases
Case Hierarchy HQ atmosphere
1. ABN Amro Vertical organization model; however, becoming flatter due to reorganization in which they are removing a middle management layer.
Corporate, reserved and ambitious.
2. Rabobank Vertical organizational model. However, the Rabobank culture seems open where managers are approachable.
Open, down-to-earth and lively.
3. ING Vertical/hierarchical
organization model; however, becoming flatter by the removal of middle-management layers. The most horizontal case that has been studied here.
Dynamic, fun and modern.
4. MN Vertical/hierarchical
organization model in which hierarchy is very important.
Formal, calm, corporate.
Table 3: Overview of agile adoption within cases
Case Industry Firm
age Start date of agile implementation Agile initiation (Top-down or Bottom up) Reason for implementation Agile maturity level Agile method used 1. ABN Amro Banking 26 years 2015 Top-down Responding faster to market dynamics, more fun, and working more efficiently. Also saving FTEs. Advanced Scrum, Kanban, Spotify 2. Rabobank Banking 46 years 2015 Top-down Being more agile and responding to changing customer needs. Medium Scrum 3. ING Banking 27 years 2015 Top-down To prepare themselves for the future and the changing
Advanced Scrum, Spotify
market dynamics. 4. MN Wealth management 70 years 2017 Top-down Be more effective, be more agile and create a better working space for employees. Beginner Scrum, Kanban, SAFe, Spotify
3.1.2. Cross-case analysis approach
To test the propositions, a cross-case analysis was conducted to uncover patterns or outliers within the cases (Yin, 2009).
3.2. Research Design
This study uses a mixed-method study approach to explore the working propositions presented in Chapter 2 by means of a triangulation which consists of semi-structured interviews, observations and documents analysis.
3.2.1. Semi-structured interviews
To analyse the propositions posed in the theoretical framework, this study uses interviews (Yin, 2009). Semi-structured interviews were held because this type of interview provides a clear set of instructions for the interviewee and provides rich data. Moreover, semi-structured interviews provide the freedom the interviewer needs to explore a topic that has not initially been planned, which can lead to interesting and unexpected findings (Barriball and While, 1994). The interview protocol can be found in Appendix B.
For each case, four to five interviews were held with people of different levels in the organization; with a focus on IT related functions. By interviewing multiple levels – including C level – the control relationship can be examined from different perspectives and could exclude social favourable answers of top management. In total, 17 interviews were performed
that lasted 30 minutes up to one hour each. These interviews were recorded and transcribed to organize the data, which makes it easier to extract themes with the program NVivo, as illustrated in Appendix C. The interviews are structured in a table which demonstrates the proposition tested, the stance and position of the firm and the quotes that are related to the proposition, as can be found in Appendix D. An example is illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Analysis Case 1 proposition 3
Proposition Stance and position
firm
Quotes
With an agile transformation, a shift takes place from hard control mechanisms to soft control mechanisms.
ABN Amro steers their employees more frequently with respect to behaviour by organizing the
retrospectives in which teams evaluate and give feedback to each other regarding the
cooperation process rather than regarding content delivery. However, hard control is still necessary. Hard control and soft control coexist.
“The success of this agile transformation lays in the soft side and steering employees on their behaviour.”
“A bank is originally a very blue
organization (control and structure) where steering on behaviour is new and exciting for employees.”
“To stimulate another type of behaviour we designed Circles where senior management speaks about their successes and failures. Senior management needs to be vulnerable in these circles and step of their throne to speak to their teams. This is still rather difficult.”
Table 5: Overview of interviewees per case
Case Respondent Function Classification
1. ABN Amro Ton Hagens Executive Program Director
Management
Ivo Bouwman Consultant Agile Strategy
Agile expert
Jolanda Snoeijs Scrum Master Agile expert
Frans Luijben Developer Team level
2. Rabobank Wouter Manintveld Head of IT Systems Transition and Change
Management
Jeroen Bekkers IT Audit Manager Management
Ozan Orhan Scrum Master Agile expert
Jelle Botman Senior Operations Engineer
Team level
3. ING Lianne Wilkes Circle Lead Mortgages Management Michel Zuidgeest Expertise Lead Business
Consultancy
Agile expert
Loes Verstappen Agile Coach Agile expert Jelmer Koekkoek Agile Coach Agile expert
4. MN Liesbeth Sinke CFRO/ CFO/ CIO Management
Frank Nederlof Change Portfolio Manager
Management
Arjen Dik Manager IT
Development Teams
Management
Maurice Helwegen Business Controller Management Reinoud van
Oirschot
3.2.2 Observations
Another method whereby this study has collected its data is the observation technique. This is a small part of the study but is employed to determine whether the answers of the semi-structured interviews are socially favoured answers. This was done by walking on the work floor and observing interactions between colleagues and witnessing stand-up meetings. These observations help in interpreting the interview results. Pictures of the offices can be found in Appendix D. However, not all examined organizations allowed to take pictures due to privacy concerns.
3.2.3. Document analysis
For triangulation, document analysis has been executed of internal and external documents; presentations, sprint backlogs, annual reports and general firm information will be taken into consideration. These documents help in interpreting the interview results and can be found in Appendix D.
3.3. Reliability and validity
To build a solid case study design and ensure reliability, this study makes sure that other researchers can arrive at the same insights if they follow the same steps by providing a clear research design and providing the interview protocol (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). See Appendix B.
To foster the internal validity of this study, pattern matching was done in the cross-case analysis (Chapter 4). This means that the four cases are compared to discover patterns or outliers (Yin, 2009). Also, construct validity is ensured by the use of a mixed research methodology of data-source triangulation which consists of semi-structured interviews, observations and documentation analysis (Yin, 2009). Similarly, data-source triangulation is
also executed by interviewing three types of stakeholders within the organization: management, employees and agile experts (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Moreover, external validity is assured by comparing multiple cases to each other. This strengthens the study and makes it possible to generalize findings (Yin, 2009).
Chapter 4: Cross-case analysis
To uncover patterns, cases are compared and communalities and outliers are identified to generate conclusions. To increase the objectivity of this analysis, extant use of literature will be used (Eisenhardt, 1989). Table 4 illustrates an overview of the results per working proposition per case.
Table 6: Overview proposition support per case
Proposition 1. ABN Amro 2. Rabobank 3. ING 4. MN
WP1: Reduced process controls ++ ++ ++ -/- WP2: Process to outcome control ++ ++ ++ -/- WP3: From hard to soft control +/- +/- +/- -/- WP4: From controlling to enabling outlook ++ +/- ++ -/- Explanation:
++ = Strong support. +/- = Mild support. -/- = No support.
4.1. P1: Process control
All cases, except MN, indicate strong support for Working Proposition 1, which entails that less-strict process controls are performed within an agile transformation at the level of top management. Case 1, ABN Amro, underwent its agile transformation with a big bang. “In an
instance, 1300 projects managed with Prince2 methodologies with dashboards that helped making decisions, were eliminated. This caused a feeling of being out of control”. This is similar to Case 3, ING. In 2015, the agile transformation within ING started off with a big bang.
Case 1 and Case 2, Rabobank, indicate that documentation has been reduced over time. However, documentation still occurs through different types of software, like Jira which all cases are using. All cases emphasize that they stimulate employees and management to stress “having a dialogue” over documentation. Participating in demos, for example, is essential to understanding the developments within a team or department. Consistent with this, Case 1, ABN Amro highlights that “No red, amber or green classifications are used anymore where managers needed to triple check before approval”, which emphasizes the reduction of the frequency controls that must be approved throughout the organization. This is supported by the academic research of Smeekes, Borgman and Heier, who claim that projects and agile teams become more flexible and self-managed and managers perform fewer process controls (Smeekes et al., 2018).
However, Case 4, MN, is distinct from the other cases. “After the agile transformation we were out of control which resulted in chaos and friction with the authorities”. This moment of chaos caused MN to implement strict process controls again. Another respondent argues that “we are a blue organization”, thereby focusing on control and structure instead of imposing fewer process control mechanisms (Appendix D4). Imposing fewer process controls is affected by the notion of trust. Trusting the team, as Rabobank and ING mention, is a critical point of imposing fewer process controls.
4.2. P2: Outcome control
All cases except case 4 MN emphasise outcome control instead of process control after the agile transformation. “As a manager I’m focused on the output, not the way how teams get to this output”, an employee of ING suggests. But, when a team or department is not mature enough in their agile way of working, a manager mentioned, “I will prioritize”. Likewise, Case 2, Rabobank illustrates that IT systems developed for the business are immediately being fed back to generate value for the customer: “IT and business are much more connected to generate value for the customer”.
Case 1, ABN Amro is focusing more on the value the output generates than on how it gets to this result. This is also reflected in its corporate structure: “[T]he value delivery teams are looking for new propositions that generate business value”. This corresponds with the academic literature, which stresses that working software – or product – is the primary measure of progress. A focus is thus being put on the outcome instead of on the process (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001).
In contrast to the previous cases, MN is still focusing more on process controls than on output. Accordingly, MN employees suggest that, “A great deal of attention is paid to whether the right actions have been taken to reach a certain outcome”. This finding resembles the research of Parker et al. (2015) in which historical leadership and rigidity are marked by a tendency toward unquestioning process compliance as a means of control. This emphasis on process control might be caused by the chaos that is triggered at the beginning of the agile transformation: “The [external] auditor said that we are not in control, so now we composed a more rigid control framework to control the process”.
4.3. P3: Soft control
This section illustrates that, though organizations do believe soft control is important to an agile organization, there is still more emphasis on hard control. ABN Amro emphasizes the difficulties of controlling behaviour: “A bank is originally a very blue organization [control and structure] and steering on behaviour is new and exciting for employees”. Rabobank also supports this: “We need to control behaviour. Are our employees intrinsically motivated? However, we are not doing this yet”.
ABN Amro emphasizes how important the soft side is for them. Institutionalising agile is important—for instance, by having a stand-up or having scrum masters—but the behaviour employees demonstrate is very important as well. “The success of this agile transformation lays in the soft side and steering employees on their behaviour”. The ING supports this: “To acquire the most value from working agile, you need to have an agile mindset and the behaviour that fits these agile values”.
Case 1, ABN Amro, however, does encounter some issues with the behaviour that employees are demonstrating. Therefore, the agile transformation program of ABN Amro developed circles to talk with senior management about behaviour and the problems that occur. “To stimulate another type of behaviour, we designed circles in which senior management speaks about their successes and failures. Senior management needs to be vulnerable in these circles and step of their throne to speak to their teams. This is still rather difficult”. These circles are held once a month with different themes to stimulate certain types of behaviour and to discuss the challenges encountered in this. The last session was about ‘the system heads back’, in which managers discussed the issue of returning to patterns of old behaviour.
The ABN Amro and ING likewise suggest that hard control and soft control go hand in hand and cannot be seen as black or white. ING suggests that, “I believe a certain behaviour results in a certain output. It cannot be seen black or white”. The ABN Amro agrees: “You can’t
have the one without the other”. MN focuses mainly on hard control mechanisms: “There is not much control on the behaviour of employees”, and “main control is focused on hard control and the output that is being delivered”. Yet, MN does have team retrospectives in which they provide feedback to each other.
4.4. P4: Enablement
ING, ABN Amro and MN suggest that a manager in an agile organization must have certain competences. The agile transformation of both ABN Amro and ING went hand-in-hand with reorganization, where the employees who did not fit the mindset were requested to leave the company. ING proclaims that, “to 40% of the managers we said goodbye, voluntary or non-voluntary”. Likewise, MN claims that, “managers left because they could not fulfil the competences that the new position demanded”.
ABN Amro suggests that the first response to an agile organization from top management is anxiety because of chaos and the feeling of not being in control. One interviewee said that, “feeling out of control is especially a feeling that belongs to the top management of ABN”. Likewise, MN recognizes this because chaos and the feeling of not being in control has led to imposing more hard control mechanisms in places where “the leashes need to get tighter”. Also, Rabobank suggests that “the challenge lies primarily in being demonstrably in control”. The conclusions of Parker et al. (2015) parallel these findings. They find that self-managed teams lead to fear of loss of control for senior management.
The cases show that it is not only management’s responsibility to enable employees; it also is the responsibility of the teams to use this autonomy. Consistent with this, an interviewee of case 2, Rabobank says that, “the challenge is that the management itself has to give responsibility, the challenge that the teams have is to take responsibility where previously the direction role was much more with the manager and also the tasks were distributed from the
manager to the team.” This is consistent with academic research which suggests that handing responsibility away to teams is perceived as a high risk, though more hierarchical chains of command reduce the number of mistakes and increase inefficiency (Parker et al. 2015). Also, an ING representative says that “I want to stimulate my teams, when they are mature enough, to prioritize tasks themselves”. When teams are acting autonomously, this can result in great successes ABN Amro suggests: “[A]utonomy lays low in the organization now. This causes the largest successes of ABN Amro, as the app Tikkie illustrates”.
But transforming into an enabling leadership style creates difficulties within these financial institutions. The main reason for these difficulties is that one cannot unlearn something that is deeply embedded in the company culture. ABN Amro suggests that “you cannot change in one day”, and “it is a mindset change”. Frequently, the wrong questions are asked by management and teams are asked for redundant reports. “What do I get for my euros?” Consistent with this, Rabobank suggests that management still imposes hard deadlines within the sprint. “Management is still posing hard deadlines. When a customer needs a certain system running, it needs to have priority.” Also, MN shows that it is hard for people to change their leadership styles: “MN is used to the old style of command and control because they worked 40 years liked this”. The top management of MN states that, “my role as manager changed too little” and that to change this role the “whole organization needs to work agile”. According to Parker et al. (2015), this type of leadership style is similar to that of traditional leadership in which management takes tight control.
All four cases – ABN Amro, Rabobank, ING and MN – proclaim that working agile within a financial institution that is being controlled by an authority such as the Dutch Banking Authorities (AFM) creates a field of tension. MN suggests that “We need to be in control and accountable for our funds, but we also want to let go. It is very dual”. It is very important as a top manager who is responsible for a whole business unit to “reassure the stakeholders”.
Especially in the beginning at MN, this tension was created by “driving this fast train without a conductor” and “working agile in a non-agile world”. Similarly, ING suggests that the AFM thinks agile working is very difficult because “with working agile, there is not one person responsible for the work, but a whole team, and this causes confusion at the AFM”. Likewise, Rabobank emphasizes that “we have to explain it to the authorities, management has to explain it to the stakeholders and we still have a very large step to take in this”. ABN Amro feels this tension with the authorities as well but suggests that “the answer to responding to these control tendencies of the authorities is transparency” and to invite authorities “to take a look inside and show them all the scrum boards”.
Chapter 5: Discussion and conclusion
This study is aimed to answer the following research question: How do controlling mechanisms change for top management when a company transforms into an agile organization? By examining four financial institutions via interviews, this study demonstrates that top management changes its control mechanisms during an agile transformation. Consistent with the four formulated working propositions, it indeed appears that an agile-scaling transformation results in 1) fewer process controls and 2) more focus on output than on process. Also, there is (3) more emphasis on behavioural – soft – control, and 4) a change in leadership style changing into an enabling mind-set.
However, limited direct support was found for Working Proposition 3, which asserts that an agile transformation results in a shift from hard to soft control mechanisms. Yet, indirect support shows that soft control mechanisms are important for a future agile organization. As an interviewee of Rabobank suggests, “We need to control behaviour. Are the employees intrinsically motivated? However, we are not doing this yet”. The financial organizations that have been studied also show that steering employees with respect to behaviour is very important
in an agile organization. This happens frequently, as in the case of the sprint review in which the cooperation of the team is addressed. Therefore, it appears that soft control – control of behaviour - receives more attention from the examined institutions, though they do not have particular control mechanisms for now.
One case is an outlier in this study. The study of this financial institution, case 4 MN, shows no support of all four of the working propositions. This might be explained by the fact that MN is still in the beginning phase of the agile transformation and has faced many difficulties during this transformation. As a result of these difficulties, MN has reverted to the traditional leadership style to ensure that they can reassure their stakeholders. Furthermore, the employees do not see why agile working is beneficial. This sentiment of not acknowledging the potential benefits of working agile could also explain why MN still has not adapted to the agile working method.
The conclusion that can be derived from this study is two-fold. First, financial organizations which transform into agile organizations with changing control mechanisms will experience tension in different areas. Internally, these organizations experience difficulties in transforming control mechanisms for controlling employees and minimizing risk. For example, Rabobank shows that their internal control mechanism did not change in accord with the agile transformation. Similarly, top management experiences difficulties with being servant leaders. MN, for example, asserts that “we need to hold the leashes shorter”. Externally, relations with stakeholders can create a field of tension. These stakeholders include authorities who are not used to the new documentation style they need to control.
Second, the examined institutions and especially the top management of these respective organizations need to manage conflicting control mechanisms. Top management advocates that the solution to these conflicting control mechanisms is internal and external transparency. ABN Amro, for example, shows that, “Jira is open to everybody, so there is no need any more to have
the urge to control”. Also, ABN Amro has developed a transformation programme which consists of 50 employees who are agile consultants or coaches who help with issues in relation to conflicting control mechanisms. Moreover, ABN Amro manages the tension field with the authorities by inviting them to the work floor. The head of the agile-transformation programme states that, “the authorities are afraid because they do not know how it works. To solve this, we invite them to the work floor. We have nothing to hide and are transparent”.
This study also defines managerial implications. Financial organizations need to be aware that transforming into an agile organization might result in conflicting control mechanisms. An agile mindset can lead to conflict with control-dominated organizations— especially in the financial-services sector, which must adhere to strict regulations and deal with authorities like the AFM. The case of ABN Amro suggests that a solution lies in inviting stakeholders to the office who are not familiar with agile working. By showing them what agile working means for their controlling tasks, financial institutions can minimize the risk of getting into conflict with authorities.
Chapter 6: Limitations and future research
Critical observation of this study reveals several limitations. These limitations are related to scope, time, and research bias. However, the attempt has been made to overcome several of these limitations–for example, that with regards to time. Although the interviews were only 45 minutes to 60 minutes long, for the sake of time, a triangulation of semi-structured interviews, observations and document analyses nonetheless aimed to maximize the gathering of information during the limited time available.
A second constraint of this study is in the number of cases examined. On the one hand, this number can of course always be expanded to uncover more relevant patterns in the financial industry and to enhance the generalizability of this research within the industry; on the other
hand, to uncover the position of top management, additional top managers – e.g., C-level executives – could have been interviewed. However, by interviewing employees from different levels within the organization, a multidimensional perspective has been employed to reduce the drawback of limited information.
A third constraint this research encounters is in the different maturity levels at the examined organizations. For example, ING has already worked for a few years as an agile organization, while MN has just started to work agile. The differences in maturity level evidently influences the outcomes of this research.
A fourth constraint involves the bias of the researcher in the analysis. However, by extending the analysis of this study with additional literature, the attempt has been made to reduce this limitation. Likewise, this study uses quotes of interviewees to increase the confirmability and reliability of this study. Also, outcomes were discussed with the CIO of Nationale Nederlanden – Dennis Brussel - to determine whether the main findings were also observable at Nationale Nederlanden. He agreed that there are also conflicting control mechanisms at Nationale Nederlanden, and that they have difficulties with the authorities now they are working agile in relation to control.
In the interview protocol, some definitions were given to ensure that the interviewee and interviewer had the same perception of a concept. In the case of working agile, for example, the interviewer used the agile manifesto. This concept of what agile means led to discussion. One group of interviewees argued that an agile method is a method that describes a process. Another group said that agility is more than a method: It is also a mindset. Because the agile manifesto also links to “social” and “behavioural” dimensions of being agile, this concept was taken as the starting point of the interview. Likewise, the control definition of Harris was given to explain what this research sees as control (Harris et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the risk of misunderstanding of course remains present when conducting interviews.
By reviewing the conclusion and the limitations of this study, a basis for future research can be established. First, the unit of analysis in further research should not be limited to financial organizations but should also include external parties that influence the control mechanisms of these organizations, such as the authorities. Second, to have a good frame of reference, it would be reasonable to compare cases that have the same level of agile maturity. Third, to better understand the changing control dynamics encountered when scaling agile, future research might develop a quantitative study so as to analyse conflicting control mechanisms on a larger scale. Fourth, longitudinal research could be executed to expose changing behaviour in different stages within the organizations studied. This could lead to more thoroughly validated conclusions.
In sum, this study concludes that management control mechanisms change in an agile transformation. By exploring the existing literature, four working propositions were established. Two propositions were derived from research by Smeekes et al. (2018) which touched upon top management, while two other propositions stood in relation to the control shift to behavioural control and the enabling role of management. This study suggests that process controls become less strict in an agile organization. Second, an agile organization tends to have a focus on output instead of on process control and a somewhat increased focus on behavioural – soft – control. Finally, the role of top managers changes within an agile transformation towards being a servant and enabling leader.
Only the fourth examined case, MN, happened to be an outlier in this study. This can be explained by the maturity level of the agile organization – which was low – or by noting that this organization is, unlike the other cases, not a bank but another type of financial institution (i.e., one of wealth management). Yet, the validated propositions based on scholarly research and empirical findings provide grounds for future research into conflicting control mechanisms within a scaling agile transformation.
Chapter 7: References
Backer, de, R. (2018). Strategic portfolio management: Divesting with a purpose. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 20 March 2018, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business- functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/strategic-portfolio-management-divesting-with-a-purpose
Barriball, L., and While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured
interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19 (2), 328-335.
Brownell, J. (1999). Leadership in the service of hospitality” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 363-378.
Cao, L., Mohan, K., Xu, P. and Ramesh, B. (2009). A framework for adapting agile development methodologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), pp.332-343.
Carbonell, P., and Rodríguez-Escudero, A. (2016). The individual and joint effects of process control and process-based rewards on new product performance and job satisfaction. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(1), 26-39.
Chan, F. and Thong, J. (2009). Acceptance of agile methodologies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), pp.803-814.
Conforto, E. and Amaral, D. (2016). Agile project management and stage-gate model—A hybrid framework for technology-based companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, pp.1-14.
Cooper, R. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44-54.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S. and Kleinschmidt, E. (2002). Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best-Practice Companies Do—I. Research-Technology Management, 45(5), pp.21-27.
Cunningham, L. (2016). 8 Reasons Why Agile Projects Fail | Agile Alliance. Retrieved from: https://www.agilealliance.org/8-reasons-why-agile-projects-fail/.
Denning, S. (2016). What Does It Mean To Scale Agile?. Forbes. Retrieved from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/04/15/what-does-it-mean-to-scale-agile/#40a17cd178b9.
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Drury-Grogan, M. (2014). Performance on agile teams: Relating iteration objectives and critical decisions to project management success factors. Information and Software Technology, 56(5), pp.506-515.
Dyba, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9-10), pp.833-859. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Research Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Executive Finance. (2018). Nederlandse bedrijven worstelen met overgang naar agile – Retrieved 1 February 2018, from https://executivefinance.nl/2017/02/nederlandse-bedrijven-worstelen-overgang-naar-agile/
Fowler, M., and Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28 35.
Harris, M.L., Hevner, A.R., and Collins, R.W. (2006). Controls in Flexible Software Development. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), 9, 216a-216a.
Hekkala, R., Stein, M. K., Rossi, M., & Smolander, K. (2017, January). Challenges in Transitioning to an Agile Way of Working. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Hoda, R. and Murugesan, L. (2016). Multi-level agile project management challenges: A self organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, pp.245-257. Keil, M., Tiwana, A., & Bush, A. (2002). Reconciling user and project manager perceptions
of IT project risk: a Delphi study. Information Systems Journal, 12(2), 103-119. Kirsch, L.J. (1996) “The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the
Systems Development Process.” Organization Science 7(1) pp. 1–21.
Lorange, P., Scott Morton, M. F. and Ghoshai, S., Strategk. Control Systems (St Paul, MN: West, 1986).
Mahadevan, L., W. J. Ketinger, and T. O. Meservy. (2015). Running on hybrid: Control changes when introducing an agile methodology in a traditional “waterfall” system development environment. Communication Association Information Systems, 36, 77-103.
Maruping, L., Venkatesh, V., and Agarwal, R. (2009). A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 377-399.
McAvoy, J., and Butler, T. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop Learning in an agile team. Information And Software Technology, 49(6), 552-563. McHugh, O.; Conboy, K.; Lang, M. (2011). Using Agile Practices to Influence Motivation
within IT Project Teams. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 23 (2), 59-85. McKinsey and Company. (2017). ING’s agile transformation. Retrieved from
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/ings-agile-transformation.
Nagy, L. (2017). Soft controls en cultuurverandering cruciaal voor risicomanagement. Retrieved from https://www.consultancy.nl/nieuws/14099/soft-controls-en cultuurverandering-cruciaal-voor-risicomanagement
Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms. In Readings in accounting for management control (pp. 63-82). Springer, Boston, MA.
Over ABN Amro (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.abnamro.com/nl/overabnamro/index.html.
Over ING (2018). Retrieved from https://www.ing.nl/de-ing/over-de-ing/index.html. Over MN (2018). Retrieved from https://www.mn.nl/nl/over-mn/.
Over Rabobank (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.rabobank.com/nl/aboutrabobank/profile/organisation/rabobank/index.htm l.
Parker, D., Holesgrove, M., and Pathak, R. (2015). Improving productivity with self Organised teams and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(1), 112-128.
Rasnacis, A. and Berzisa, S. (2017). Method for Adaptation and Implementation of Agile Project Management Methodology. Procedia Computer Science, 104, pp.43-50. Rigby, D., Sutherland, J. and Takeuchi, H. (2016). The Secret History of Agile Innovation.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-secret-history-of-agile-innovation.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Senapathi, M. and Drury-Grogan, M. (2017). Refining a model for sustained use of agile methodologies. Journal of Systems and Software, 132, pp.298-316.
Serrador, P. and Pinto, J. (2015). Does Agile work? — A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), pp.1040-1051.
Smeekes, I. and H.P. Borgman and Heier, H. (2018). A wheelbarrow full of frogs:
understanding portfoliomanagement for agile projects, In 51th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
Vroom, V., and Jago, A. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 63(2), 151-162.
Wiersema, M., and Bantel, K. (1992). Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91-121.
Xu, P., and Shen, Y. (2015). Leading Agile Teams: An Exploratory Study of Leadership Styles in Agile Software Development. Twenty-First Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, 1-7.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Chapter 8: Appendices
8.1. Appendix A: 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto
1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
2. Accommodate changing requirements throughout the development process.
3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. 5. Build projects around motivated people Give them the environment and support they need to trust them to get the job done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
7. Working software is the primary measure of progress.
8. Sustainable development is promoted, facilitating indefinite development. 9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility. 10. Simplicity – the art of maximizing the amount of work not done - is essential. 11. Self-organizing teams encourage great architectures, requirements, and designs. 12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behaviour accordingly.
8.2. Appendix B: Interview protocol (Dutch)
Version 1: Team level employees
Introductie
- Dank voor de tijd
- Toestemming voor opname vragen
- Mag ik u met functie + naam van de bank benoemen in het interview? - Persoonlijke introductie
- Onderzoek kort toelichten - Doel van het interview
- Aangeven dat ik af en toe in zal vallen om het interview wat bij te sturen
Hoofdstuk 1: Persoonlijke informatie
1. Welke positie heb jij binnen bedrijf X? 2. Hoeveel jaar werk je voor bedrijf X?
3. Welke functies heb je vervult binnen bedrijf X? 4. Wat zijn je verantwoordelijkheden binnen je functie?
Hoofdstuk 2: Agile adoptie
1. Agile definitie:
een methodologie dat zich focust op de veranderende markt dynamiek door een iteratief proces te vormen dat zich focust op de klant.
2. Wanneer is bedrijf X begonnen met de agile implementatie? 3. Hoe is dit geïnitieerd?
a. Top down of bottom-up? b. Trainingen op de afdeling? c. Verwarring of geleidelijk proces?
4. Wanneer is jouw afdeling begonnen met de agile implementatie? 5. Welke vorm van agile gebruiken jullie? (Scrum, Kanban etc.) 6. Hoe ver is bedrijf X met het implementeren van agile?
Hoofdstuk 3: Proces controle
WP1: Fewer and less-strict process controls are performed when firms are transitioning into agile organizations.
1. Control definitie:
mechanisme om de doelen te bereiken van de organisatie. 2. Kan je mij iets meer vertellen over jullie processen en controle?
a. Meer of minder procescontrole na de agile implementatie?
b. Controleren jullie alleen de afgemaakte producten of ook tijdens het ontwikkelproces?
c. Is het makkelijker of moeilijker? d. Is het strikter of minder strikt?
3. Wat voor procescontroles worden er gedaan? a. Voorbeelden?
b. Wordt er meer tijdens het project gecontroleerd? 4. Hoe wordt er geselecteerd en geprioriteerd waar je aan werkt?
Hoofdstuk 4: Business waarde
WP2: Top management shifts from process control to business outcome control when transforming into an agile organization.
1. Kan je mij vertellen hoe er voortuitgang wordt gemeten voor en na de agile implementatie?
a. KPIs
b. Resultaten communicatie
2. Is je rapportage raamwerk verandert aan je manager/team?
3. Hoe weet je of het team waar jij deel van uitmaakt nog op schema ligt nu je agile werkt?
4. Hoe rapporteer je aan jouw manager? a. Wat zijn de veranderingen hierin?
Hoofdstuk 5: Soft control
WP3: During an agile transformation, controlling mechanisms shift from hard control mechanisms to soft – behaviour-based – control mechanisms.
1. Soft control definitie:
soft control mechanisme richten zich op het gedrag van de werknemer. Soft control mechanisme kan bijvoorbeeld gebruikt worden bij werknemer motivatie, loyaliteit, inspiratie en normen en waarden.
2. Word jij gestuurd op gedrag van de teams of op output?
3. Hoe gaat dit in zijn werking?
a. Zo ja heb je hier voorbeelden van? b. Zo nee, waarom niet?
c. Zo nee, in de toekomst?
4. Zie je een verschuiving van het gebruik van hard control mechanismen naar soft control mechanismen na de agile implementatie bij bedrijf X?
a. Op wat voor manier? 5. Beter? Slechter?
Hoofdstuk 6: Enablement
WP4: Top management’s mind-set changes from controlling to enabling employees. 1. Heb je het gevoel dat na de agile transformatie je meer ruimte krijgt om zelf te
prioriteren?
a. Meer vrijheid? b. Ondersteuning?
2. Heb je meer ownership over je werk na de agile implementatie?
3. Heb je het gevoel dat de rol van hoger management is veranderd na de agile implementatie?
a. Op wat voor manier? b. Positief of negatief?
Hoofdstuk 7: Conclusie
1. Heb je tips voor andere … die een agile transformatie zijn ondergaan? 2. Wat zijn je doelen voor in de toekomst op je afdeling in relatie tot controle?
