实现成长型敏捷……而非规模化 Growing Agile… Not Scaling!

摘要：

作者：Andrea Tomasini 和 Dhaval Panchal

关键要点：

• 为什么重要的是聚焦于你自身敏捷的成长，而非走捷径去采用他人的模型；
• 文化在敏捷转型中扮演什么样的角色？组织变革的有效性如何？如何确认敏捷是发自内心的？以及为使组织更加敏捷，如何将持续改进提升到组织层面；
• 如何借助企业架构更好地聚焦于客户价值并交付对客户重要的价值；
• 如何通过分散控制权并创建用于授权容器实现组织自治权的增加。

生长型敏捷……而非规模化 Growing Agile… not scaling!

我并不喜欢用“扩大规模”这一术语来形容敏捷，或是用于形容敏捷度。我的理由在于这种用法会使人隐含地产生与制造业的关联，类似于“扩展工厂规模”、“扩大生产规模”以及其它使人联想到与装配和建筑相关的事宜。

我认为敏捷应该是远超越构建和组装，也是远超技术的。本文中我不会用更多篇幅去阐明这样一个道理，拿就是软件开发与和“生产”相关的隐喻之间是没有任何相关性的。这里指出几个常见的功能误解：

1. 软件开发是一种创造性和去解决问题的活动，但是不幸的是由于除了硬件发展之外所呈现的事实，软件开发继承了各种关联，包括生产、供应链、瀑布模型以与可预测性和变化等相关的所有事务。
2. 将软件开发比作“生产”，将导致整个IT服务产业用小时来对开发计价，这使得软件开发像是一种机械可重复的活动，对产出的影响是线性的……这难道不是十分可笑的吗？
3. 写代码被人们认为是建立软件的“构建”阶段，而实际上它是“设计”阶段。事实上构建部分，即将高层次抽象语言编译为机器可工作代码，在很久以前就已经被机械化并自动化了，这样我们可以轻易说至少五十年前软件开发就已经完全自动化了！但是……这并非真正成立，难道不是吗？

现在回到本文的主题，由于上述误解的存在，我们的软件产业正在被多种试图“扩展”敏捷的做法所困扰，它们几乎独一地非常强地集中于软件交付上。我们大范围地咨询了熟悉敏捷的人，我相当肯定我们将得大范围的得到该问题的答案。尽管如此，我确信其中大部分回答将会认同，使得一个敏捷团队成功的并非是“过程”或者“工具”，而是人们如何构建相互间有效互动层次的方式。对完成的工作以及完成工作的方式的检查和采纳，联合对度量的使用，看上去是持续改进的核心问题。因此如果我们曾仅侧重于“扩展”实践、过程和工具，而非思维模式和文化，我确信我们将不能取得长期成功和可持续开发速度，并且最重要的是员工的满意度和参与度。

我喜欢使用术语“生长型敏捷”，而非“规模化”，因为这个术语更好地关联了这样的一个事实，即在组织内发展敏捷更多地是与有机系统相关，而不是相关到机械系统。如果“文化能把战略当早餐吃”，我们也应该认识到在成长为敏捷的途径中，需要把文化和观念当作敏捷开发领域的“一等公民”。在过去几年中，我曾经尤其欣赏文化对于人体系统工作有效性的影响。因而成长型敏捷，意味着不仅聚焦于文化，而且聚焦于实践和工具的协同进化。在非常高性能的环境中，我很荣幸去工作，员工将可控制价值、原则、实践和工具。

I like to use the term growing agility, rather than “scaling” because connects better with the fact that developing agility within an organization has more to do with an organic system, rather than with a mechanical one. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, then we have to recognize that the way towards agility, requires addressing culture and mindset as first class citizens. Over the past years, I have came to particularly appreciate the impact of culture on the effectiveness with which human systems operate. So growing agile, means both focusing on culture, and on co-evolution of practices and tools. In every high performing environment I had the pleasure to work, people were having control of values, principles, practices and tools.

文化能把战略当早餐吃 Culture eats strategy for breakfast

(译者注：Culture eats strategy for breakfast，中文译作“文化能把战略当早餐吃”，它直观地表述了文化相对于战略而言是太过强大的。引申意思可表述为，一个公司的成败并不取决于技术实力，反而取决于该公司员工的价值观和行为。它最早是由作家彼得·德鲁克所提出，并成为硅谷中广为流传的箴言。）

鉴于企业文化转变对于任何组织都是具有挑战性的，具有方法和工具可有助于理解一个人的立场，并且共同设计发展方向，以创建支持当前策略的正确上下文。只有采用这种方式，改变才能持久，并将被组织内员工而非掌控改变的机构所持有。已经对组织文化的立场达成共识，这可提供对解决问题并肯定强化排齐的难以置信的洞察力。

While changing culture is a challenge for every organization, there are approaches and tools which can help understanding where one stands, and also designing together in which direction to evolve to create the right context to support the current strategy. Only in this way, changes will stick, and will be owned by the people within the organization instead of by the institution governing it. Already achieving an agreement on where the organizational culture stands, can provide incredible insights on solving issues, and surely strengthens the alignment.

以一个我曾经工作过的企业为例，领导团队对于企业文化相关事宜十分认真，决定清晰化，因为他们已认识到这是使所有员工对企业前进方向具有统一认识的唯一可行途径。我们从“评估”企业当前文化着手，这个工作需要勇气和相当多的负责任的对话。那时我们使用了竞值架构（Competing Value Framework，CVF），但是可以是任何其它模型。领导者团体和一些意见提出者之间的对话，通过共享企业过去经历，并交换观点，我们直截了当地达成了对文化轮廓的共识。这是迈出的第一步，第二步是基于企业所采取的策略方向去理解，支持企业文化的最好文化环境是什么。此外，考虑到企业易于认为自身在某一种文化或另一种文化下足够强大，识别当前文化中需要保留的内容这也是十分重要的，这些内容也将未来提供价值。这位人们传递了一个非常重要的消息，这并非是“我们在这里做事不正确”，而是“我们在这里做事非常棒，并且有可进一步改进的可能”。选取了一些例子故事，这些故事体现了领导者确认是正确的支持下一步进化的价值和原则。除这些故事之外，通过使用Dave J. Snowden提出的Cynefin框架，我们已设法出现一系列的仪式（例如：日常Scrum，仪式性异议，计划扑克……），以强化组织更多需要的行为，以及其它抑制被认为是对新方向不适合的行为。通过组合故事讲述，分析新的仪式，员工具有开始转变文化的具体途径，这种文化转变也会影响到他们的日常生活，增加了更多的生产力及工作乐趣。

For example with one of the companies I am working with at the moment, the leadership team took the cultural matter very seriously, and decided to make it explicit, because they have realized that it was the only possible way to make sure everyone would feel the same about moving forward. We started by “assessing” the current culture, which requires courage, and quite some structured conversations. We have used the Competing Value Framework (CVF) this time, but could have been any other model. Conversation between leadership team and other opinion makers, through the sharing of stories from the company past, and exchanging of opinions we came to the point of having agreed on a cultural profile. This is the first step, the second one is to understand based on the strategic direction the company is taking, what would be the best cultural context to support it. Also given that companies tend to identify themselves pretty strongly with one culture or another, it has been very important to identify also what to keep from the existing culture, that would provide value also for the future. This sends a very important message to the people, that isn’t “we are doing things wrong around here”, but rather “we are doing things great around here, and there are options to improve even more”. Some example stories have been chosen, which embody the value and the principles that the leadership agreed to be the right ones to support the next stage of evolution. Beside the stories, using the Cynefin Framework by Dave J. Snowden, we have managed to let emerge a series of Rituals (e.g.: Daily Scrum, Ritual Dissent, Planning Poker…) to strengthen the behavior the organization wanted more, and others to dampen the ones which have been considered inappropriate for the new direction. Through the combination of storytelling, and sharing new rituals, people had a concrete way to start shifting the culture, which impacted on their daily life too, adding more productivity as well as fun.

在组织层面的持续改进 Continuous Improvement at the organization level

有效建立企业整体的持续改进需要去发展很多的纪律、基础设施和所有开放性及信任中的绝大多数。Effectively establishing continuous improvement to an organization at large requires to develop quite some discipline, infrastructure and most of all openness and trust. 在agile42企业的工作允许我及我的所有教练同事可以花费大量时间去分析数据和全球范围内各种案例研究中的个案。Working with agile42 allows me - and all of my fellows coaches - to spend a significant amount of time in analyzing data and cases from different case studies all around the world. 直接在13个不同的国家展示，允许收集多样的经历和信息，我们可用于开发支持组织改变的新框架和工具。Being directly present in 13 different countries, allows to collect diverse experience and information that we use to develop new frameworks and tools to support organizational change. 我们已经积极工作与一系列方法，以使得持续改进在组织层面可持续及有效。We have been actively working on a set of methods to make continuous improvement sustainable and effective at an organizational level. 例如，我们实现了组织持续改进和学习框架（称为企业转变框架-ETF，以知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎4.0许可协议提供）。该框架使用了双循环学习，以连贯地从实证探查中学习，并将这种学习扩展到整个组织中。For example, we have implemented an organizational continuous improvement and learning framework (It’s called the Enterprise Transition Framework – ETF, and it is available in cc 4.0 by-nc-sa license) that employs double loop learning, to coherently learn from empirical probes, and extends this learning throughout the organization. 它起始于对假设的系统阐述，关于组织的某种改变是如何提高组织性能，或者改进人们的生活，或者交付更多客户价值。It starts by formulating hypotheses about how a certain change to the organization could benefit its performance, or improve people’s lives, or deliver more customer value. 一旦假设被系统阐述（制定），我们需要查看它是如何与当前存在策略适配的，并且它是如何能以尽可能低代价尽快地被验证。Once the hypothesis has been formulated, we need to look how it would fit into the current existing strategy, and also how it can be validated as fast as possible, at the lowest possible cost. 为做到这样，我使用了另一种工具，敏捷策略地图™（同样以知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎4.0许可协议提供）。该工具失败不同变化、动机或战略杠杆间的关联性。To do so, we use another tool, the Agile Strategy Map™ (also available as cc 4.0 by-nc-sa) which identifies dependencies between different changes, initiatives, or strategic leverages. 一旦新假设和已存在策略间的关联已经建立，我们就促成与领导团队的对话，以识别“失败安全”的实验，这些实验允许组织已尽可能低的代价尽快地测试这些假设。Once the connections between the new hypothesis and the existing strategies have been made, we facilitate a conversation with the leadership team to identify safe-to-fail experiments that would allow the organization to test these hypotheses, as fast as possible, and at the lowest possible cost. 一旦定义了实验，我们开始寻求志愿者，因为在这个不确定性的阶段，你需要具有愿意去成功、愿意去面对前进道路上障碍的员工O。nce experiments are defined, we start looking for volunteers, as at this stage of uncertainty, you want to have people willing to succeed, and willing to face some impediments on the way. 这激发了雇员参与到定义改进的工作中，因为唯一已设定的就是目标及一些限制。This motivates employees to participate in the definition of the improvements, as the only thing which is set is the goal, and some constraints.

团队必须找到实现目标的可持续性方式。The team will have to find out how to achieve the goal in a sustainable way. 通过这种方式，组织了解了成功所必须的状况。This way the organization learns about conditions that are necessary to succeed. 我们从不建议某时刻只运行一个实验，因为这样可能会产生误报。We never suggest running only one experiment at a time, as that might yield false positives. 并行运行多个实验，使得组织可以对多个选项收集结果。Running multiple experiments in parallel, allows an organization to collect results on multiple options. 这是一个很好的标识，如果一些实验失败了，它实际上是一种对组织正在努力做改变的标识。It is a very good sign, if some of the experiments fail, it is actually a sign that the organization is really trying hard to change. 立即失败和经常失败是一种优势。Failing fast and failing often is an advantage. 这样它是如何帮助组织持续、稳定地改进的呢？So how does this help an organization to improve continuously, and steadily? 这里没有诀窍，只有记录。为了实现这个，有必要建立常规节奏，在这种节奏下，我们称为过渡团队花费时间评估正在进行实验的结果，并将这些结果反过来与敏捷战略地图关联。There is no trick, just discipline, and for this is necessary to establish a regular cadence at which what we call a transition team is spending time to evaluate ongoing experiments results, and linking those results back to the Agile Strategy Map. 这允许组织从它自身的实验中学习。This allows the organization to learn from its own experimentation, and as a by product, helps to shape a continuous improvement culture. 组织学会通过评估成功实验的成果及它们影响当前平衡状态的方式，推出这些成功的结果。The organization learns to roll-out the results of successful experimentation, by evaluating the consequences of it, and the way it could alter existing equilibrium. 例如，引入诸如Scrum的架构，需要组织建立新的原则，通常这些原则并不存在。For example, introducing a framework such as Scrum, requires organizations to establish new roles, which are normally not existing. 因此大多数组织掉入一个陷阱，就是将当前原则映射到Scrum原则，仅仅是对现有功能重新标记。So most organizations will fall into the trap of mapping existing roles to Scrum roles and achieve no more than relabeling of existing functions. 或者，组织可以通过与Scrum架构的看齐去定义新的原则描述，筹备新的职业路径，促进它的员工向采用敏捷行为和实践转化。Alternatively organization can define new roles description in alignment with Scrum framework, and prepare a new career path, to facilitate the transition of its people towards adoption of Agile behaviours and practices. 通过使员工参与到重定义组织需求、为面试者开放组织内外新的职位的工作中，可以内部对话从更快发生的改变的牺牲品中转变，并建立自底向上的动力。By including its people in redefining its requirements and opening up new positions for interviews within the organization and also externally the organization can shift internal conversation from being victim of the changes happening faster and create bottom up momentum. 这使得组织可以有机地发展强大的敏捷心态。This would allow the organization to grow strong agile mindset organically. 在可管理的规模下的如此实验，即部门甚至单一团队，可以在组织层面承担更多学习。Such experimentation at manageable scale, say a department or even a single-team can afford much learning at organizational level. 应用从这些实验中获得的经验教训需要纪律，更重要的是领导者勇气，去具备面对过去实践中的功能障碍。Applying lessons learned from this experiment takes discipline and most importantly leadership courage to be able to face dysfunctions of past practices. 没有人去故意地固有行为异常的员工，那么为什么很多“好的”员工的组织行为加起来形成了紊乱的组织行为？No one knowingly hires dysfunctional people, so why in some organizations actions of many “good” people add up to a dysfunctional organizational behaviour? 在某种程度上组织及其领导者需要在系统层面负起领导者的责任。At some point the organization and its leaders have to take ownership at the systemic level. 通过运行小范围的、可管控的、快速的实验，领导力可变得敏捷，对齐于敏捷战略地图中的组织的更大的战略目标。By enabling small, manageable, and rapid, experimentation the leadership can grow agility in alignment towards their larger strategic goals captured in Agile Strategy Map.

注重客户价值 Focusing on customer value

着重于、重点

让我从阐述该观点开始，我相信“组织”是一系列结构和过程，这些结构和过程决定了人们是否合作及合作的方式。既然这样我相信组织可以并且应该让改变成支持员工为满足特定目标而工作。因此，如果我考虑典型的组织结构，使用一个垂直结构作为例子，或者是矩阵结构，我们可在多数情况下观察到，组织的主要目标是去为效率优化。这意味着这些类型的组织在努力达到的就是对资源利用的最大化，如果不是强制执行。这种方法，可能在1911年当弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒出版了《科学管理原理》一书时，对当时大多数的市场分支有效，但在在2016年可能超出范围之外。尤其要归功于全球化和互联网基础设施，许多新的商业模型出现于过去的十年中，许多新的企业进入市场，这些企业在以前不可访问的。这些是动态变化的，强制许多企业重新考虑他们的设置，有些时候为生存条件而奋斗。

Let me start by stating that I believe that “organization” is the set of structures and processes which govern the way people can collaborate - or not - with one another. As such I believe that organization can and should be changed to support people to work towards fulfilling specific objectives. So, if we consider the typical organizational structure, using for example a hierarchical structure, or even a matrix, we can in most of the cases observe that the main purpose of the organization is to optimize for efficiency. This means that what these types of organization are striving to achieve, if not enforcing, is the maximum utilization of resources. This approach, while probably valid in many market branches in 1911 when Frederick Winslow Taylor published the “Scientific Management Treaty” it is probably out of scope in 2016. In particular thanks to globalization and the internet infrastructure, many new business model emerged in the past 10 years, and many new companies entered markets which were before inaccessible to them. This change in dynamics, forced many firms to reconsider their setup, sometimes in a fight for survival situation.

我详细当今的市场需要这样的组织，它们具备及时地、以高质量层次和满意度交付客户所需产品的能力。I believe the market today demands organizations that are able to deliver what customers want, with high level of quality and satisfaction in a timely manner. 在这种市场条件下，诸如延迟代价（Donald Reinertsen）等事情相对与开发和生产的代价而言，具有更大的重要性，因而组织需要去改变。In these market conditions, things such as the Cost of Delay (Donald Reinertsen) are playing a much more significant role, than the cost of development or production, thus organization need to change. 一个支持价值交付和上市时机的组织，需要处于最小化移交数量和 协调与看齐中的消耗。An organization which supports value delivery, and time to market, needs to reduce to the minimum the amount of handovers as well as the waste in coordination and alignment. 出于此原因，许多敏捷团队组成跨功能和端对端的团队，同样的也应在组织层面发生。For this reason, most agile teams organize themselves as cross-functional and end-to-end teams, the same should happen at an organizational level. 这对于现有结构和强权行为具有深远影响，因为所有协调、合作、同步和通信的东西彻底地发生了改变，为了支持更加有重点和价值驱动的方法。This has huge implications on existing structures and power plays, as everything which is coordination, synchronization and communication changes radically in favor of a more focused and value driven approach. 以我曾经工作过的一个组织为例，在对上百名高度专业化的工程师的统计后，组织重新考虑了根据侧重于客户的工作流的构建方式。For example, what happened at one of the organizations I am working with, counting several hundreds very specialized engineers, was to rethink the way the workflow developed by refocusing on the customer. 这需要对他们客户价值流的识别，以及识别特定工程师已经交付到这些价值流中。This required identification of Value Streams to their customers, and also identification of that specialized engineers are delivering into these streams. 这看上去是无关紧要的需回答的问题，但是请相信我，在很多情况下而非，当我们问到“你为什么要做你当前正在做的事情？”时，在我们面前的面孔表现出比我们所想象的更加迷惑的表情。It seems to be trivial question to answer, but believe me, more time than not, when we ask the question “Why are you doing what you are doing?” the faces in front of us look more puzzled than we would like them to be. 一旦价值被挑选出，或者对这些价值具有强烈的情感，我们根据被称为能力素质模型（能力素质模型）继续前进，该模型需要一些时间，但是瞄准了将所需能力素质与价值增值的完成向对应。Once the values are sorted out, or at least there is a strong opinion about those, we move on with what we call a Competence Mapping which can take quite some time, but aims at mapping the necessary competences to complete an increment of value.. 价值的增加在使用被我们称为“机会框架”（Opportunity Canvas）所表示时终结，该框架应该蕴含投资和决策落实。The increment of value ends up being represented by what we call an Opportunity Canvas which should entail all the information that a given organization requires to make both investment and implementation decisions. 它并非不常见一旦能力素质模型被完成，通常包括许多不同时刻的员工，I结果高亮专业化的非常高层阻碍了组织转向更小的并自我组织的团队。It isn’t uncommon that once the Competence Mapping has been completed, involving normally a significant amount of people at different times, the results highlight that the very high level of specialization is hindering the organization to move towards smaller and self-organizing teams. 我们帮助建立各种策略，例如建立实践的社区、搭档采纳、创建专家团队等，瞄准拓宽个人能力并鼓励学习和成长。We help with different strategies – for example establishing communities of practice, adopting pairing, creating expert teams… - aiming at broadening the individual competences and encouraging learning and growth. 几个月后，我们通常帮助做“能力对齐”（Cometence Alignment），即低于工作增量完成所需的能力，需要在更小的团队上对齐，通常构建一个自我组织的团队。After some months we are normally assisting at what we call a Competence Alignment, meaning that the competence required to complete an increment of work, can be aligned with a smaller group of people, normally forming one self-organizing team. 这并非常常如此，通过随后地采纳（参加上文所述的ETF，以及实验），组织进行自我构建，以覆盖所需能力的最小层次数目。This is not always the case, and through subsequent adaptation (see the ETF explained above, with experimentation) the organization restructures itself, in the minimal amount of layers necessary to cover the required competences. 另一个十分重要的步骤是重新接入客户，并将他们放回，接近产品开发。Another very important step is to re-engage with the customers, and putting them back, close to the development of the product.

因此，如果今天的组织想要成为敏捷，也意味着“为了一个小的目标在很小的范围内实现转向”，组织需要寄希望于发展网络化模型、培育合作和价值的独立交付。So if organizations want to be agile today - which means “to be able to turn on a dime, for a dime” - they need to invest in developing networked models fostering collaboration and independent delivery of value. 这意味着做出决策的能力需要分发到多个网络中，以确保反应时间不会成为一种价值交付的障碍。This means that the power to make decision needs to be distributed into multiple networks to guarantee that reaction times will be such, that will not be constituting an impediment to value delivery. 事实上并不少见，由于在传统的垂直组织架构中循环的非常长的反馈，人们停止需求许可，相反他们或者等待并做他们被告知去做的事情，或者更少见的，他们只是通过围绕规则和政策打转而完成他们的事情。It isn’t uncommon in fact, that due to very long feedback loops on a traditional hierarchical organizational structure, people stop asking for permission, and instead they either wait and do what they are told to, or more rarely, they just go around the rules and policies to get their stuff done. 当我于组织的领导团队一起工作时，经常发生，对于“什么是有价值的，什么不是”的问题的回答是非常模糊的。When I work with organizations’ leadership teams, it is often the case - that the answer to the question “what is valuable and what is not?” is quite fuzzy. 这是更深问题的症状，导向这样的事实，组织文化已经严重推向执行和可预测性，过程和工具已优先于员工和交互。This is a symptom of a much deeper problem that is anchored to the fact that the culture of the organization has been pushed extremely towards executions and predictability, and processes and tools have taken the precedence over people and interactions. 价值相对于市场的地位没有必要因时间而改变的假设是导致企业失败或危机的重要原因。The assumption that the value proposition towards a market doesn’t have to change over time, is a major cause of company's failure or crisis.

我们的方法通常是挑战组织以重新考虑它们的假设，并从侧重于它们每个目标组的本质价值。Our approach is normally to challenge organizations to reconsider their assumptions and refocus on the essential value for each of their target groups. 在我们的一个客户中，我们帮助组织重新考虑他们的价值提案，以建立商机框架（Business Opportunity Canvas）的方式。该框架是单页文档，主要侧重于可能揭示一个商机的特定问题的客户视角。At one of our client, we helped the organization to rethink at their value proposition, by means of creating Business Opportunity Canvas which is one page document focusing mainly on the customer perspective on a specific problem which might reveal a business opportunity. 用单页包含客户原始请求并随时间进化，而非被不同的人工制品所替代，这个理念是一个非常强大的概念。The idea of having a single page that contains the original customer’s request, and evolves over time, instead of being replaced by different artefact is a powerful concept. 尤其是在非常大的组织中，通常几乎不可能回溯到原始需求，因为它已经被归纳概括解决方法层所替代，在此曾之外是非常难于对原始内容重新获得控制。Especially in very large organization is often almost impossible to go back to the original need, as it has been replaced by layers of generalizable solutions, out of which is very hard to regain control over the original context. 侧重于建立单层架构是一个非常强大的过程，因为这需要贯穿整个决策制定过程，理解所有涉及的步骤，并评估单页手工中的所有风险。Focusing on creating a single canvas is a very powerful process as it requires going through the whole decision making process, understanding all the steps involved and evaluating all of the risk on a single-page artifact. 这个方法将需要考虑机会的所有维度作为与其它竞争同样的组织容量的机会的评估。This approach brings all dimensions of opportunity to be considered for evaluation against other opportunities that are also vying of same organizational capacity. 对于每个组织，这是个独立的旅程，不可被标准化……因此并非去开发另一种“画布”，我们已经开发过程和结构，组织可以用于创建他们自己的“画布”。For every organization, it is an individual journey, that cannot be standardized.. So instead of developing yet another “canvas” we have developed processes and structures that organizations can use to create their own. 这对于组织的接受和与组织现有方法和标准一致具有强烈的影响。This has a very strong impact on organizational acceptance and coherence with organization’s existing methods and standards. 在这个特定的客户，画布的创建有助于实现两个非常重要的结果：At this particular client, the creation of canvases, helped achieve two very important results:

1. 透明度基于客户需要而构建，如何决策追求什么，制造什么；

2. 作为第一点的后果，做预算开始接近的方式，由每年争夺最大的地盘改变成可持续动态流程，每个想法与当时具有其它公开的想法做比较，并得以规划或推迟，甚至是丢弃。

3. Transparency has been made on what the client needs are, and how decisions on what to pursue and what not are made;

4. As a consequence of the first point, the way budgeting started being approached, changed from a yearly fight for the largest turf, to a continuous dynamic flow, where every idea is compared to whatever else is on the table at that moment in time, and gets planned, or postponed, or even tossed away.

这两个结果都极大地贡献于帮助组织变得更加敏捷，事实上决策制定从未如此透明和有效，组织也从未在改变方向上如此灵活。

Both of the results contributed immensely to help this organization become more agile, in fact decision making has never be more transparent and effective, and the organization is never been so flexible in changing direction.

作为第二步，通过集中于每个单独的“商业机会框架”并为每个发展出“最小适销范围”，这使得在决策完全将全部投资投入发展前，可和试点客户启动对理念的测试。在一个时刻聚焦于一个计划具有很大的好处，允许一个组织从规划好的或是同步的产品版本转到一个更加敏捷和持续流类型的发布过程。

As a second step, by focusing on each single Business Opportunity Canvas and developing the Minimal Marketable Scope for each of them, allows to start testing the idea with some pilot clients, before deciding to go full in with the full investment for development. Focusing on one opportunity at a time has the great advantage of allowing an organization to switch from planned or synchronized product releases to a more agile and continuous flow type of release process.

这大体上类似于朝着客户方向扩展拉动系统，或是代理它的内部组织。如果团队或团队中的小组可以彼此独立地发布特性，将任何事情集成到公用稳定流，进而商业人士可以从六中挑出内容，并在他们愿意的任意时刻制作一个版本。例如在我过去曾供职的另一个组织中，我们曾设立了一个“客户委员会”，时常向产品开发正采用的方向发起挑战。该委员会对于将开发聚焦于最重要的事情上具有重大贡献，这对于移除过程中的消耗非常有帮助。

It is basically like extending the pull system towards the client, or the internal organization proxying it. If teams or small groups of teams were able to release features independently from one another, and integrate everything on a common stable stream, then business people could pick the content out of that stream and make a release at any time they want to. For example at another organization I worked with in the past, we have been able to have a “Customer Council” in place, who was challenged frequently with the direction the development of the product was taking. The Council contributed significantly in keeping the development focused on the most important things, and this was instrumental in removing waste from the process. 多个团队可在不同的商业机会框架中并行工作，通过采用“拨动开关”系统，他们已经能以将它们工作集成到同一稳定版本上，但是并未在发布中真正地激活该版本，他们的代码直到完成才对用户可见。So multiple teams worked in parallel on different Business Opportunity Canvases and by adopting a “toggle switch” system, they have been able to integrate their work on a common stable branch, but without actually activating it for the release, their code has been invisible to the clients till completed. 这允许在从发布中解耦开发过程方面有显著的灵活性，运行每个团队以他们可持续的节奏开发。This allowed for a significant flexibility in terms of decoupling the development process from the releases, and allowing every team to develop at their own sustainable pace. 所有团队，具体说多于100个，已经持续集成他们的工作，满足同一“完成的定义”，确认他们的特征直到完成才被部署（至少在“最小适销”层次）All teams – more than 100 to be more specific – have been integrating their work continuously, fulfilling a common Definition of Done and making sure that their features wouldn’t be deployed till completed (at least at a Minimal Marketable level). 使用这种方法，组织已可以使客户与早期版本衔接，不必必须等待素有其它团队完成他们的工作。Using this approach, the organization has been able to engage clients with early releases, without having to wait for all other teams to complete their work. 这反过来允许对客户变化非常快速调整，无需对下一个推出的版本等待太长。This in turn allowed to adjust very quickly to client’s changes, without having to wait too long for the next upcoming release.

这在所有集成的事物都是工作软件的假设下起作用。This works under the assumption that everything which is integrated is working software. 该方法允许优化上市时间，而非效率。This approach allows to optimize for time to market, instead of efficiency. 另一个副作用是，通过集中于更快交付增量价值，在组织内并发运行的项目数量显著降低了，降低关联进而协调工作。Another side effect of this is that by focusing on delivering increments of value faster, the amount of concurrent running projects within an organization decreases significantly, reducing dependencies and thus coordination effort. 通过一个时刻发布一个特征，我们也允许组织从开发节奏中解耦发布决策。By releasing one feature at a time, we are also allowing the organization to decouple the decision to release, from the development cadence.

这也具有有意思的副作用，例如，事实上开发团队的压力将会显著降低，或者至少经过一段时间保持不变，而非表现出典型的瀑布行为特性，其中压力随时间呈指数级增长。This also has interesting side effects such as the fact that the pressure on development teams will be significantly lower, or at least constant over time, instead of reflecting typical waterfall behaviors, where the stress increases exponentially towards the release date. 组织旨在为效率或者产能利用率优化的另一个缺点是它们易于常处于产能利用率和过载之间的边缘Another drawback of organizations designed to optimize for efficiency, or capacity utilization, is that they tend to be always at the edge between capacity utilization and overburden. 这种状况没有考虑到足够的松懈去审查和适应，从而对持续改进留下了很小的空间。This situation doesn’t allow enough slack to inspect and adapt, and consequently leaves very little room for continuous improvement.

分散控制 Decentralizing control

分散控制考虑到更好的敏捷，因为组织中分布部分可以对变化更快地、独立地做出反应。Decentralizing control allows for better agility because distributed part of an organization can react quickly and independently to changes.应该被转变成敏捷组织的决策所支持的一个目标应是实现更高层级的弹性或甚至是反脆弱。 One of the goals that should be supported by the decision of becoming an agile organization should be achieving higher level of resilience or even anti-fragility. 在组织中我们教练，我们帮助创建代理“权利”的模型，通过教练领导者去设计许可限制，这反过来鼓励团队自组织。In organizations we coach, we help create models to delegate “power” by coaching leaders to design enabling constraints, which in turn encourages teams to self-organize.例如， 你可以通过分享团队需要达成的目标而为团队建立启动约束。For example, you can create enabling constraints for a team, by sharing the goal they are to achieve. 随后定义什么“完成”将对他们的客户有意义，定义不可被冒犯的策略，允许团队在这个容器内自组织。Followed by defining what “done” would mean to their customer, by defining policies that cannot be violated, and allowing teams to self-organize within this container. 你将会惊讶于在激发团队更加有效性中，这些启用约束所造成的使命感。You will be surprised by the sense of purpose these enabling constraints can engender in motivating a team towards effectiveness. 授权是个困难的过程，需要构建信任，需要传递能力和知识。elegating is a difficult process, requires building trust and requires transferring competences and knowledge. 我们通过构建于信任前提下的Containers for Empowerment的创建，工作于这两个层面，帮助经理和高管获得信任和授权。We work on both levels helping managers and executives to gain trust and delegate, by creating Containers for Empowerment that are built on trust premises. 我们为促进该过程构建了一个架构，我们称为DECK。We have developed a framework to facilitate this process, which we call DECK. DECK是对帆船甲板的一个符号，必须有船员保持清洁，否则就会有发生错误事情的危险，即时这样一些人会失足滑落甲板并死亡。It is a metaphor for a sailing boat deck, which has to be kept tidy by the crew or the risk is something will go wrong, and even that someone will stumble and end up off board. DESC是如下的首字母缩写：It is an acronym for:

• 方向（Direction）：通过授权这种能力，我们在努力达成什么？我们为什么要做这个？Direction: what are we trying to achieve by delegating this power? Why are we doing it?
• 环境（Environment）：在什么场景中这是依法有效的？是团队，还是整个产品，或是整个企业？ in which context will this be valid? Will it be the team? The whole Product? The whole company?
• 约束（Constraints）：什么是适当的约束？什么是不能去做的？为什么不能去做？什么需要去升级？: what are the constraints in place? What can’t be done? What needs to be escalated?
• 知识（Knowledge）：以成功的代理，什么类型的专门技能需要在所参与的两方中传递？ which type of know-how needs to be transferred between the two parties involved in order to successfully delegate?

这个过程被Situational Leadership支持，允许从更引导性的方法移动到授权更广的方法。This process is supported by Situational Leadership which allows move from a more directive approach, towards a more enabling approach. DECK卡片worked on，领导者或经理一起与需要授权某种能力或操作的员工或团队间的协作。A DECK card is worked on collaboratively by the leader/manager together with the person or the team to whom a certain power/operation needs to be delegated to. 通过使用这个方法，领导者团队获得不仅更多人们正在做什么的洞察力，而且他们如何认知权力，以及积极地与员工一起共建信任。By using this approach, leadership teams are gaining both more insights in what people are doing, and how they perceive the power, as well as actively building trust together with their people.

如何发展自身的敏捷 How to grow your own agility

首先，将敏捷作为面向目标的一种方式，而非目标本身。我已经看到当讲敏捷变成为目标时，某种自我实现预言或改革运动发生了。First of all, think at agility as a means towards a goal and not the goal itself, I have seen of sort of self-fulfilling prophecies or crusades happening when becoming agile becomes the goal.其次，记住改变一个组织肯定是一个归于复杂领域的挑战，这需要以完全根据经验的方式实现。 Second keep in mind that changing an organization is definitely a challenge which belongs to the complex domain, and this requires it to be approached in an empirical way. 在我们的Enterprise Transition Framework (ETF)中，我们使用了Cynefin Framework (D.J. Snowden)，该方法建议以“对失败是安全的”的方式去处理复杂领域，这样可以探究所有可能的选项以改进或解决一种状态，允许解决方案出现。In our Enterprise Transition Framework (ETF) we make use of theCynefin Framework (D.J. Snowden) which suggests to approach the complex domain by means of safe-to-fail experiments in order to probe all possible options to improve/solve a situation, and allow for solutions to emerge. 这意味着企业应该抑制规定和实现的诱惑，因为这些很少起作用。This means that companies should refrain the temptation of defining, and implementing, as it very rarely works. 对成功项目的一个典型的反应是，试图去对过程和人们在达成那种成功过程中所使用的工具进行“拷贝粘贴”。A typical reaction to a successful project is to try to Copy & Paste the processes and tools that people used while achieving that success. 这里没有保障，虽然他们将与其他人工作得一样。There is no guarantee though that they will work the same way with other people. 这个的原因是，为了连接到项目一开始就做出关于产品开发的观察，这不是一个可机械重复的活动。The reasons for this are to be connected to the observation made at the beginning about Product Development not being a mechanically repeatable activity, but more of a creative and problem solving effort. 此外，员工需要时间去发展新技能，学会使用新的工具。Also, people require time to develop new skills and to learn use of new tools. 产生贯穿其中的差异的事情是，这些工具被由员工为满足某个目标而选择，而非由可能很难以指导如何去做工作的员工自顶向下强加的。What makes the difference though is that those tools are chosen by people who to fulfill a certain purpose, and aren’t imposed top down, by people who might hardly know how to do the job. 同样对新组织结构和过程也是适用的。The same applies to new organizational structures and processes. 多长时间一次这些事情被改变为真正改进了员工工作方式？How often these things are changed to really improve the way people work? 除了如果我们想要让忙碌的员工在工作，我们需要去让这些员工具有工作的系统，自顶向下强加改变将导致抵抗和不满。Besides if we want to have engaged people at work, we need to have them own the system of work, and imposing changes top down is going to cause resistance, and dissatisfaction.

可能是最后一部分建议，不要喜欢上试点项目！Maybe one last piece of advice, don’t fall in love with pilot projects! 几乎所有的试点项目都是成功的！Almost all pilot projects succeed! 我们需要清晰认识到试点项目是什么，它能用于做什么。We need to be clear about what a Pilot project is, and what can be useful for. 如果一个组织想要尝试去实习Scrum，将它带到团队层面以测试Scrum十分起作用，好吧，它确实起作用。If an organization wants to try to implement Scrum and takes it to a team level, with the purpose of testing if Scrum works, well, yes it does. 真实的学习应该更多地聚焦在理解哪个层次的影响，这个影响是引入Scrum这样的系统工作时一个组织中所可能具有的。The real learning should be focusing more on understanding which level of impact the introduction of a system of work such as Scrum might have within an organization.在一些情况下，员工在不告知他们经理的情况下就开始敏捷工作，因为他们知道不会得到批准。 In many cases people start working agile without telling it to their managers, because they wouldn’t get the approval. 这里对成功有非常强烈的自底向上的驱动，员工愿意除了份内活儿，还干额外的事，以确认这将会成功并使得他们生活更好。There is a very strong bottom-up drive to succeed, and people are willing to go the extra mile in order to make sure that it will succeed and make their lives better. 这不意味着类似的设置将立刻对其他员工有作用。This doesn’t mean that a similar setup will work on other people right away. 该方法可能最坏的结果就是仍不改进企业文化的企业时常犯错误，去将使得某一特定团队成功的过程和工作拷贝粘贴到整个组织中。The worst implication of this approach, are that companies which didn’t evolve their culture yet, are often making the mistake of copying and pasting processes and tools which made a specific team successful to the rest of the organization. 显然这不会很好地工作，因为焦点再一次地在错误的一边。This obviously doesn’t work very well, as the focus is again on the wrong side. 领导者团队应该明确，在他们开始启动“领航”的那一刻，这里就必须要一个策略设计，以跟踪实验的成功或失败，否则我们将不尊重作为先行志愿者的员工。Leadership team’s should be aware that from the moment they start “piloting” there has to be a strategic design to follow up on success or failure of the experiments, otherwise we would be disrespectful of the people volunteering to the pilots. 并且，这样对于开始考虑成功先行者阶段的可能结果而言太迟了，一旦先行者被证明是成功的。Also it is way too late to start thinking about the implication of a successful pilot phase, once the pilots have proven to be successful. 如果先行者成功了，对于过程、原则、责任、结构、培训方案、职业路径等将会发生什么？What is going to happen to process, roles, responsibilities, structures, training programs, career paths if the pilots are successful? 因此以干净的策略和选项启动是实现更加敏捷的组织的更好方法。So starting with a clear strategy and options is a better way to approach the evolution toward a more agile organization (see example with Agile Strategy Map above).

如何度量及怎样度量敏捷 What to measure and how to measure agility

有多种方法可以度量敏捷性，但是它们中的大部分达不到对真正意图的捕获。还有在线评估，给出与敏捷实践和纪律的符合度。这种在线评估依据这样一个假设，即在如果人们使用适当的实践，他们将最终达成敏捷。还有各种各样的团队性能模型，针对帮助团队鉴别他们的信任、协作和聚焦于结果的程度。

There has been may attempt to measure agility, but most of them fall short of capturing the real intent of it. There are even online assessment which rate the level of compliance to agile practices and disciplines, under the assumptions that if people use the right practices they will eventually become agile. There are also a variety of team performance models aiming at helping teams identify their level of trust, collaboration, and focus on results.

根本上，我不认为敏捷是可以被度量的，我认为这完全不合乎道理。从另一方面讲，我们可以对改变进行度量，事实上这些改变中的一些确实比过去产生了更好的结果。我们甚至可以使用高级工具逐字地扫描组织文化，并根据策略设计观察是否想我们所希望的行为发展，而非我们想要抑制的。

Ultimately I don’t think you can measure agility, and I would argue that it doesn’t make sense at all. On the other side, we can measure change and the fact that some of those changes actually produced better results than in the past. We can even use advanced tools to literally scan an organization’s culture and based on strategic design, observe if it is moving towards the behavior we want to amplify, rather than those we want to dampen.

作为我们企业转移架构（Enterprise Transition Framework，ETF）的一部分，我们正在教授组织，每隔一段时间，使用从组织策略中获得的一组指示符对他们进行评估。As part of our Enterprise Transition Framework (ETF) we are coaching organization to assess themselves at regular interval against a set of indicators that are derived from the organization’s strategy. 这使得追踪进化的趋势，确定他们是否在正确的方向上前进。This allows to track the trends of evolution and determine if they are going in the right direction or not. 选项是或者更新他们的策略以支持新发现的方法，或者抑制新评估趋势的消极效果。The options are to either update their strategy to support the newly discovered direction, or to dampen the negative effects of the newly assessed trend. 在使得这真实结实、可度量的方法，即时不可真正的可计量的，但是到目前为止几乎与我们去做的一样。In a way makes it really concrete, and measurable, even if not really quantifiable, but is as good as we went, so far. 例如，在我们曾工作的一个组织中，曾有一个占统治地位的、潜规则的“假定”，就是具有专业的团队是工作的更有效的方法。For example with one organization we have been working with, there was a dominant hidden “assumption” that having specialized teams is a more effective approach to work.这样事情的发生因为一组非常有才能的人，组成了一个专业团队，并能产生好的结果，能更好的市场化。 This happened because a group of very talented people, formed a specialized team and was able to produce good results, and was able to market them even better. 因此在这种假设下，组织开始重构。So under this assumption the organization started a reorganization. 当组织在完成他们下一个产品发布中遇到了重大困难，并已推迟了四个月时，我们被拉了进来We have been pulled in when the organization was experiencing major difficulties in completing their next product release, which had already been postponed by 4 months. 情况非常紧急，压力很大，很多团队都在互相指责对方没有按期完成它们的工作。The situation was very critical, the pressure very high, and mostly teams blaming each other for not having completed the work they were supposed to. 缺陷反复地反弹，每个团队都声称自己的设计是正确的，是其它团队应该去解决这个失误。Defects were bounced back and forth, with each team claiming that their design was right, and that the other team should fix the failure. 以上所有问题在过程的非常晚期才会显现，当“完美的”交付团队需要启动版本的集成时。All of this emerged only very late in the process when the “perfect” delivering teams needed to start integrating for the release. 这是个非常难以从中走出的困境，但是我们努力说服组织去允许员工进行自组织。It was a difficult situation to come out from, but we managed to convince the organization to allow people to self-organize. 我们建立了一些启用约束，要求志愿者在新定义的约束下改变工作的方式。We established some enabling constraints, and we asked volunteers to change the way of working and operating under the newly defined constraints. 最有名的约束是在以第一个冲刺的结束为开始的为期两周的时间中，每天使有能力将工作中的软件交付到主版本中。The most notable constraint was to be able to deliver working software into the mainstream every day, starting from the end of the first sprint, in 2 weeks time. 新组建的团队是聚焦于价值的，将团队用作抵挡外部压力的盾牌，聚焦于将事情完成的发源地。The newly formed teams, focused on value, and used the team as a shield from external pressure, and a cradle in which to focus on getting things done. 非常快速的，结果开始显现，这些团队努力去稳定产品的速度超越了剩余的团队或许在某种程度上将事情搞糟的速度。Very rapidly the results started emerging and the rate at which those teams managed to stabilize the product was just outpacing the speed at which the remaining teams were to some extent, probably, messing it up. 这种状况导致了一种新策略出现，组织也已可以非常快速的适应。A new strategy emerged as a consequence of the situation and the organization has been able to adapt very quickly. 这随后导致对整个产品架构的重新设计，是使用团队协作的，以自底向上的方式。This subsequently lead to the whole product architecture being redesigned collaboratively, by the teams, bottom-up. 这对于架构设计者而言也是个很大的改变，架构师也能通过在团队中工作以支持更快的价值交付，而在工作的重做中最终找到乐趣This was a massive change also for the architects, who finally found fun in doing their job again, by working in the teams to support them deliver value faster. 所有所做的关于什么是正确的什么是错误假设都已被检查过，领导者具有足够的勇气去听取做工作人的意见，而非只是按计划随波逐流。All the assumptions made about what was right and what was wrong, have been checked, and the leadership had enough courage to listen to the people doing the work, instead of following the plan. 这个组织现在依然每时每刻都在很开心地发展着。That organization is still happily evolving, every second of every minute of every hour, of every day.

如果让我用发自内心的最终建议来结束本文，那就是，完全不要聚焦于将一个敏捷组织与其它组织进行对比，也不要将一个敏捷组织与其过去进行对比。If I may finish with a final suggestion from my heart -Do not focus at all on comparing the performance of an agile organization against another, nor comparing the performance of an agile organization against its own past. 这主要以某种政治迫害和愚蠢的虚荣指标编号而告终，不可避免地浪费时间，对改变的聚焦中分心。This mostly ends in a kind of witch hunting and silly vanity metrics identifications, which inevitably waste time and distract from the focus of the change. 包括客户和利益相关者以及员工的委托和反馈是判断改进的有价值的指示器。People’s, including clients and stakeholders, engagement and feedback are valuable indicators to determine the improvement. 如果员工在工作中开心、积极主动，他们是更有生产力的、创造力和专注的，并更有可能达成好的结果。If people are happy at work, and are motivated, they are more productive, creative and focused, and very likely will achieve greater results. 最后，是的！确实有方法去对敏捷可视化，这种方法的调用，每天在办公室中转转并统计一下笑脸和所进行的谈话，如果这个趋势是向上的，你正在取得成功。And finally, yes! there is a way to visualize agility, is called walk around the offices and count smiling faces and engaged conversations every day, if the trend is upwards you are getting there!

关于作者：

Andrea Tomasini是agile42敏捷教练公司的创始人之一，他已在软件开发、产品管理及过程优化领域工作超过20年。他是全球为数不多的同时通过认证的企业导师（Certified Enterprise Coach，CEC）和认证的Scrum培训师（Certified Scrum Trainer，CST）这两个认证的人。

Andrea Tomasini one of the founders of agile42 and he has been working in the software development and product management as well as the process optimization arena for more than 20 years. He is one of the few people in the world owning both a Certified Enterprise Coach (CEC) and a Certified Scrum Trainer (CST) certifications.

Dhaval Panchal是agile24公司的副总及企业敏捷导师，同时也是认证的企业导师（Certified Enterprise Coach，CEC）、和认证的Scrum培训师（Certified Scrum Trainer，CST）以及创新游戏协调员（Innovation Games Facilitator）。他在软件行业的产品于服务的开发和管理上具有16年以上的工作经验。

Dhaval Panchal is a VP and Enterprise Agile Coach for agile42. Certified Enterprise Coach (CEC), Certified Scrum Trainer (CST), and Innovation Games Facilitator with 16+ years of experience working in the development and management of products and services in the software industry.

查看英文原文：[Growing Agile… Not Scaling!](Growing Agile… Not Scaling!)