1. business and industrial
2. manufacturing

A critical study of the implementation of
Lean and Agile models in Innovation
Lean, agile and innovative
– is it possible?
Content
Conclusion
Introduction
Lean product development has emerged as an
answer to the need of fulfilling the goals of lower
costs and shorter time-to-market in product
development. At the same time, Agile product
development has emerged as a reaction to the
inflexibility and high structuration of traditional
development models that do not allow the
creative and adaptive learning process that
produces highly innovative products.
Advocates of Lean assert that the management innovation in its entirety might be performed under the principles of Lean, resulting in a
more effective process with lower development
costs, shorter time-to-market and greater
involvement of all personnel in innovation.
Advocates of Agile argue that innovation could be
better managed under the principles of Agile,
resulting in higher customer value, improved
communication and knowledge transfer, as well
as the ability to rapidly adapt to change.
The literature study presented in this article
allows us to conclude that:
Lean and innovation
WHAT IS LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT?
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
To be or not to be… value-added?
Lack of system and strategic perspective
HOW TO IMPLEMENT LEAN
Agile and innovation
WHAT IS AGILE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT?
AGILE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES
Extreme programming (XP)
Scrum
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AGILE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Lean and Agile: like oil and water?
References
Amplify in facts
Author: Ernesto Gutiérrez
Innovation Management Consultant, specialized in
decision making, selection of ideas and projects, and
innovation portfolio management. Member of the
Amplify team. Received his PhD in Innovation
Management from KTH, Royal Institute of
Technology in 2012.
Amplify Scandinavia AB
PO Box 630 • SE-101 32 Stockholm • Sweden
+46 8 24 60 50 • www.amplify.se
• T here is still insufficient empirical evidence
about the benefits and limitations of the
application of both Lean and Agile in the
context of innovation.
• It seems that Lean approaches are better suited
to conditions of stability and predictability; while
Agile approaches are more suitable for conditions of high dynamism and uncertainty.
• It is suggested that managers should develop
individual and collective competences for
understanding and recognising different
contexts and scenarios, and matching them with
the more appropriate approaches and tools.
Both Lean and Agile are models that contribute
to meeting some of the challenges, and fulfil
some of the goals that might arise in innovation.
Thus, as a synthesis, we can say that the relevant
challenge in innovation management is not to
find the right overall management model, but to
recognise which particular situation we are
facing; and which would be the most appropriate
approaches for that specific situation.
The crucial organisational capability is to
combine the two approaches in a flexible way
that allows emphasis on the one that is more
appropriate for the particular situation and
challenge that is faced. This requires personnel
that have the competence for recognising
different contexts and situations, the competence
for matching those situations with the appropriate
approaches, and finally, the competence for
implementing those approaches correctly.
Knowing and understanding the different tools
and methods that could be put in to practice,
their benefits and limitations, and how and when
to use and combine them, are crucial organisa­
tional capabilities. This is what would allow us to,
as Magnusson (2000) suggested:
“Consider the tensions between innovation
and efficiency as a duality that needs to be
kept alive and continuously managed, rather
than being eliminated or resolved.”
Introduction
The management of Innovation in global companies implies the need to cope with opposite
and contradictory demands such as short-term profit and long-term competitiveness,
differentiation and standardisation, low costs and high performance, the exploitation of
existing knowledge and the exploration of new knowledge, achieving efficiency and
innovativeness. In other words, innovative companies have to face a paradoxical challenge:
to be able to continually and rapidly access, absorb and integrate knowledge for innovation,
at the same time as keeping costs at the lowest possible level (Wilson and Doz, 2011).
But is it possible to achieve the organisational capability that allows fulfilling such a
contradictory group of goals? According to Lund (2012), despite the relevance of this
question, we still know too little about how organisations should work, in terms of principles and work methods, to successfully combine these opposing aspects.
However, in recent years we have seen the emergence of management approaches
whose advocates claim that they resolve the paradox of managing for efficiency and
innovation: Lean and Agile.
Lean, or the art of ‘doing more with less’, is an adaptation to the context of innovation
of the principles and tools that revolutionised the efficiency of Japanese industry. Agile is a
set of methodologies that emerged from the need to make software development more
adaptive, flexible and fast. While Lean is a response to competitive pressures on costs,
Agile is a response to complexity and constant change.
Are Lean and Agile the answer that industry has been looking for: A way of making
organisations capable of managing both efficiency and innovation? The answer remains
unclear. Research literature does not yet provide sufficient evidence about the potential
benefits of Lean and Agile in the context of innovation, and several authors have identified
important limitations and problems that the adoption of these approaches may imply.
Moreover, there is still a lack of deep understanding about how Lean and Agile approaches
could be combined, and if they should be viewed as complementary or as mutually exclusive.
There is therefore a need to take a closer and critical look at Lean and Agile. This is needed
to build an understanding about the benefits and limitations of these approaches for the
management of innovation, and what should be taken into account when implementing them.
3
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Lean and innovation
After the Second World War, Japanese industry astonished
the world with a miracle. Japanese companies not only
developed extremely quickly, but they had also outperformed many of their Western competitors. The secret seemed
to be much simpler than could have been imagined: the
Japanese had simply adapted and optimised existing
manufacturing techniques, many of them from the US and
Europe, to continuously improve their processes and
eliminate all conceivable waste and unnecessary costs. The
implementation of this management system led to a solution
for what was considered an impossible equation: reducing
total production costs, while at the same time improving
product quality (Anand and Kodali, 2008; Welo, 2011).
The most successful exponent of this management
paradigm is the Toyota Motor Company. The term Toyota
Production System (TPS) is used in research to encompass
all models that are combined in this management system
such as Just-In-Time and Total Quality Control. The term
Lean, (introduced by MIT researchers in the late 1980s), has
emerged in recent years; and Lean Manufacturing, Lean
Production and Lean Thinking now commonly refer to
those principles and tools. Lean theory has been popularised
mainly through the publication of the Womack and Jones
book “Lean Thinking” in 1996, (Anand and Kodali, 2008;
Welo, 2011).
In the light of such a successful story, it is not surprising
that, in recent years, practitioners and researchers have
started thinking about how to adapt and implement the
principles and tools that have worked so successfully in
manufacturing to other functions and processes. If Lean
had revolutionised manufacturing, could it not do the same
for sales, accounting and product development?
The truth is, we still don’t know.
4
According to Welo (2011), manufacturing and product
development imply entirely different challenges. What is
considered waste in one context could be considered
value-added in another. Browning and Sanders (2012) have
synthesised both the problem and its possible answer in
this way:
“In complex and novel environments, characterised by a
need for innovation, is it even possible to be ‘Lean’? The
answer is yes, but the path towards this goal is more
challenging in a context of novelty and complexity.”
In this section, we discuss how Lean could be adapted for
the management of product development and innovation,
and identify the challenges, benefits and limitations of this
approach.
WHAT IS LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT?
Lean approach adapted to Product Development is grounded
in the philosophy of awareness, commitment and involvement of all members of an organisation, to focus on eliminating waste and reducing costs, and consists on a set of
principles that are put in practice through a group of tools.
According to Welo (2011), Lean is a philosophy for
organising in which trust and responsibilities are delegated
to all possible levels in order to achieve awareness, commitment and involvement of everyone in the organisation to
identify and solve problems, and eliminate waste.
Photo:
pressroom.toyota.com
TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM (TPS)
The Toyota Production System (TPS) is an integrated
socio-technical system, developed by Toyota, that
comprises its management philosophy and practices.
TPS organizes manufacturing and logistics for the
automobile manufacturer, including interaction with
suppliers and customers. The system is a major
precursor of the more generic ‘Lean Manufacturing’.
Originally called ‘Just-In-Time Production’, it builds
on the approach created by the founder of Toyota,
Sakichi Toyoda, his son Kii''chiro Toyoda, and the
engineer Taiichi Ohno.
The main objectives of the TPS are to design out
overburden (muri) and inconsistency (mura), and to
eliminate waste (muda). The principles underlying
TPS are embodied in The Toyota Way.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Anand and Kodali (2008) state that Lean can be defined as:
• D
efects: the process results in poor final products due to
poor understanding of customer needs, and poor design for
x (manufacture, assembly, cost, reliability or supply).
“The search for perfection through the elimination of
waste, coupled with the insertion of practices that
contribute to reduction in cost and schedule while
improving performance of products, processes and
organisation as a whole.”
The main focus of the practice of Lean principles and tools
is to continuously and systematically identify which
activities contribute to adding value (value-added), which
ones do not add value, but are still necessary (required
non-value-added), and which ones are entirely unnecessary
(non-value-added). Anand and Kodali (2008) suggest a list
of wastes or non-value-added activities that often arise in
product development.
The seven wastes of product development are:
• Over production: there are too many on-going development projects, unnecessary features are added to new
products, and there is over tolerance in specifications.
• Transportation: there is a long hierarchical structure for
making decisions and approvals, and there is a lack of a
common information system and format.
• Unnecessary inventory: there is too much information,
development of unnecessary designs and prototypes, and a
lack of standard parts.
• Waiting or delays: information and tests results are not
available when they are needed.
• Poor process design: there are too many iterations due to
changing priorities or requirements, excessive verification
and testing, and an under utilisation of knowledge.
• Inefficient performance: information is incomplete or
forwarded to the wrong people.
5
An organisation that works according to a Lean approach
manages processes and activities through a set of principles.
A Lean organisation is one that understands these principles
and uses them as a guide for conducting all activities
throughout the development process.
“It is a foolish strategy for an
organization to implement
traditional Lean practices in
innovative processes and
operations characterized by
novelty and complexity.
In such environments it is easy
to confuse ‘fat’ with ‘muscle’
and to become emaciated rather
than Lean.”
(Browning and Sanders, 2012)
The five principles of Lean product development are
(Anand and Kodali, 2008; Welo, 2011):
• Define value for the customer: understanding what customers perceive as valuable and are willing to pay for. It
guides and enables the design and provision of the right
product, according to the right specifications, at the right
price and delivering it at the right time.
• Identify the value stream: identification and implementation of the necessary activities for developing new
products that create value for customers. It encompasses
the models, processes and activities for managing and
performing product development.
• Flow the product: the process of performing tasks along
the value stream through generating value and eliminating waste. It includes the entire production process from
product idea to requirements, concepts and launch, to
minimising stoppages and backflows.
• Pull: a system in which the development process is
viewed as a cascade of customers and suppliers. No
activity is conceived or performed, or information
delivered, until an internal customer downstream in the
process signals such a need.
• Strive for perfection: a paradigm according to which we
can always improve the performance of any process or
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
activity. It implies the continuous improvement of the
whole product development process.
To achieve the goals that are implicit in the five principles
of Lean, there is a set of tools that need to be combined
and put in to practice in the various stages of the product
development process. Anand and Kodali (2008) present a
list of the Lean tools classified in three categories.
The tools for Lean product development are:
• Information technology tools: the hardware, software and
networking tools for supporting development activities.
For example: Computer Aided Design, Rapid Prototyping,
Collaboration software, Product Life Cycle systems, etc.
• Design tools: tools for designing experiments and
analysing data. For example: Quality Function Deployment, Failure Mode Effect Analysis, Design for X, Modularity, diverse tools for problem-solving, creativity and
ideation, etc.
• Organising tools: models for managing people, functions,
departments and activities. For example: Cross-functional
teams, Concurrent Engineering, Empowerment, design of
project-based organisations, etc.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LEAN PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
Lean thinking has been successful at improving efficiency
and quality, and at reducing costs in manufacturing
processes. Today’s fast paced, highly competitive markets
imply that in product development, there is also a need to
increase quality and speed up the process. However, it is
still not clear how the principles of Lean can be applied for
managing product development and what the consequences
of its implementation could be.
6
Development cost
Traditional focus of Lean
Time-to-market
Innovation
Figure 1. The traditional focus and application of Lean. Adapted from Welo (2011) and Gudem et al. (2013).
Schulze and Störmer (2012) assert that the application of
the Lean principles in product development is a novel
undertaking. Furthermore, Lindlöf and Söderberg (2011)
refer to a literature review of Lean product development
that indicates that the research field in this area is still quite
undeveloped.
Moreover, some research has reported traps and failures
in the implementation of Lean in product development
processes. For example, Browning and Sanders (2012) state
that extreme Lean processes do not have the critical
capability to sense, respond, and adapt to problems,
innovations and changes. For example, failures in some of
NASA’s Mars missions have been attributed to the pressures associated with focusing on “faster and cheaper.”
Browning and Sanders’ own study of the application of
Lean at the innovative production system for Lockheed
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Martin’s F-22 combat aircraft show that an incorrect
application of Lean practices lead to numerous problems
and increased costs.
Johnstone et al. (2011) state that the application of Lean
in the R&D processes in the pharmaceutical industry has
split opinion. Some argue that approaches such as Lean are
inherently anti-innovative, but there are also reports to the
contrary.
In an environment of increasing demands to speed up
processes and reduce costs in product development, and,
at the same time, confusing and limited evidence about the
benefits of the Lean approach, it is understandable that
there is growing concern about whether Lean will be the
right way to improve product development and innovation.
In the following section, we present a summary of the
main concerns that researchers highlight about managing
product development according to Lean: lack of focus on
innovation, the problem of defining value, and lack of
system and strategic perspective.
Lack of focus on innovation
According to Welo (2011) efforts made to improve a product
pevelopment process can be considered in three areas
(Figure 1):
• Cost
• Time-to-market
• Innovation
Welo (2011) also asserts that the development of radical
products, highly differentiated from existing ones, that offer
new features and meanings to users, are usually created
through a development process that focus less on standardisation, speed and predictability, and much more on
7
learning and knowledge creation. Iterations in a design
process are essential for the creation of value since they
provide a basis for variability. However, there is a lack of
guidelines for the application of Lean principles when the
process and desired output are unknown in advance.
However, there are also some researchers who have
found evidence that Lean practice might enhance innovation.
Johnstone et al. (2011) have analysed the possible benefits
and disadvantages of the application of Lean in the R&D
processes in the pharmaceutical industry. They refer to one
study that states that low-cost, rapid cycles of learning, and
continuous improvements might enhance innovation
because the cost and consequences of a negative outcome
are reduced. Johnstone et al. (2011) also argue that Lean
thinking can support innovation by encouraging deep,
root-cause exploration of problems. This might stimulate a
generation of new ideas, create autonomy and flexibility for
those closest to problems, leading to creating a more
involved, engaged and committed work force.
Johnstone et al. (2011) argue that it is, in fact, the way in
which Lean is interpreted and implemented that might be
harmful for innovation. They assert that the risk lies in how
standardisation, variation and liberated capacity are
interpreted and managed.
Standardisation is good for innovation if it is interpreted as
a stable platform that makes it easier to propagate best
practice and improvements as they are discovered. Conversely, standardisation may be harmful if it is interpreted as
the right way to proceed, impeding suggestions for new
ideas to prosper.
In relation to variation, Johnstone et al. (2011) state that
the goal of driving down variation seems not to have
relevance in innovation, because of the high defect rate
that characterises innovation processes. Innovation
involves inherently high variation because it is new and
uncertain in outcome. However, some type of low variation
could be desirable, for example, in the execution of regular
and routine tests.
Finally, Johnstone et al. (2011) assert that when unnecessary and wasteful work is removed from a process, this
results in an increase in capacity. However, that this
liberated capacity contributes to innovation depends on
what is done with it. If that capacity is used for doing more
of the same work, productivity will increase, but opportunities for innovation will be missed. If the extra capacity is
used for exploring, innovative ideas it would potentially
contribute with more innovative outcome.
To be or not to be… value-added?
According to Welo (2011), the most important principle in
Lean is the understanding of value. But at the same time, is
this principle the one that, when considered in terms of its
application to innovation becomes more controversial and
poses more questions.
Welo (2011) argues that, while in Lean manufacturing the
focus is on eliminating waste and variability is a declared
enemy, in innovation the focus is on maximising value and
variability necessary to generate new and exceptional
opportunities. Welo asserts that Lean focuses on the identification and elimination of any activity that does not add
value for customers. However, separating value from waste
in an innovation process could be very complicated. An
innovation process is about creating knowledge, it is highly
iterative, and the whole cycle may take months or even
years. In such a process, it could be extremely challenging
to assess which activity contributes to transforming an offering in a way that the customer is both aware of, and willing
to pay for.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Spoken
Traditional Lean
territory where
everything besides
satisfying today's
customers' spoken
needs is waste (Muda).
Semi-radically new
Radically new
Incrementally new
Semi-radically new
Today
Customers
In an extreme practice of ‘traditional’ Lean, efficiency and competitive advantage is
achieved exclusively by satisfying known and spoken customer needs and everything besides
that is considered to be waste (muda) which should be eliminated.
8
Radical and
disruptive innovation
territory where the
focus is on creating
offerings that
satisfies future
customers' unspoken
and hidden needs.
Needs
Unspoken
Figure 2. Re-conceptualize value
Waste (Muda)
Future
A radical view of innovation has its ‘territory’ in the upper-right quadrant. The focus is on
hidden and unspoken needs of new and future customers and it competes with all other
‘territories’ for management attention and resources such as funds and manpower.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
WHEN INNOVATION WITHOUT
LEAN CREATES PROBLEMS AND
INCREASED COSTS
In their article, Lean Six Sigma, Creativity and Innovation (2010), Hoerl and Gardner change the perspective
of the discussion about Lean and Innovation. Instead
of considering the effects of Lean on Innovation, they
discuss what would happen if Innovation was managed
without the principles of Lean.
“The US, and the rest of the world, has benefited
from the amazing new technology that this focus
on innovation has produced: everything from
Viagra, to rapid, multi-slice CT scans, to artificial
limbs. So what’s the problem?
The problem is that there is a dirty little secret
hidden beneath the tremendous innovation
success. The same life that is saved with radical
new technology in the US is all too often lost by
preventable blunders made in the healthcare
system. There is data to back this claim. According
to Science Daily (2008), simple errors cause about
80,000 unnecessary deaths in the US each year,
and add billions of dollars to healthcare costs.
Just as a more balanced approach including basic
problem solving, continuous improvement projects,
and innovation, would likely work much better in
the US healthcare system, so it is needed in
business.”
9
WHEN INNOVATION WITH LEAN CREATES
PROBLEMS AND INCREASED COSTS
Browning and Sanders published Can Innovation Be
Lean?, a study of Lean implementation in the innovative
production system for Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor,
in 2012. They concluded that an incorrect implementation of Lean principles and tools leads to undesirable
results.
“In response to cost-cutting pressures, the F-22
programme embarked on significant, Lean-­
motivated improvements and brought in worldclass experts to point the way.
While the programme and its stakeholders
expected a significant return in variable cost
savings from these efforts, unforeseen problems
emerged and the savings did not come until much
later than anticipated. In fact, the new approaches
initially increased costs.
Traditional Lean environments have the luxury of
being repetitive, stable and more thoroughly understood. Novel and complex environments do not.
In these environments, managers must consider
caveats to traditional Lean practices to realise true
cost savings.”
For example, when a design fails because engineers try
something new that does not work: is this attempt
considered waste? Schukze and Störmer (2012) state that
there are two types of failure: those that generate knowledge and those that do not. They argue that within Lean there
should be a constructive treatment of failures that takes
this differentiation into account.
Gudem et al. (2013) argue that in product development,
waste is typically associated with conducting activities with
the wrong input rather than doing unnecessary activities,
as is understood in Lean. They write that another problem
is that while some values are explicit (requirements,
functions, performance) other values are not explicit; that
is, the customer may not be aware of them or may not be
able to express them. User-related values such as style,
fashion and the meaning that the product might have for
users, are not so easily understood, assessed and integrated
in the early phases of product development.
Furthermore, Gudem et al. (2013) state that the concept
of value must be extended to deal with customer experience. However, they argue that in Lean, the value concept
appears to be linked primarily to product attributes, and
that implies that Lean tools are not necessarily effective at
maximising customer value in product development.
Browing and Sanders (2012) argue that in contexts with
novelty and complexity, the value of a complex process
differs from the sum of the value provided by its constituent activities. Therefore the elimination of activities will not
guarantee cost reduction, and even adding activities may
create greater value.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Lack of system and strategic perspective
Browing and Sanders (2012) argue that value and waste
cannot always be attributed to individual activities. Rather,
value stems from how activities work together, and waste
from how they fail to do so. Accordingly, Welo (2011) asserts
that in product development, it is more important to look at
how different processes, projects and activities are interrelated rather than simply identifying does not need to be done.
Furthermore, according to Browing and Sanders (2012),
there is a risk that Lean leads to changes only in low-level
activities. Welo (2011), also points out that Lean focuses too
much on individual processes and activities at an operational level. Consequently, it overlooks the impact of organisation at the system level, and decisions on product performance and product development at the strategic level . As
an example of the impact of not focusing on strategic
processes, Welo (2011) argues:
“Nothing is more wasteful that selecting the wrong
product development project.”
HOW TO IMPLEMENT LEAN
So we can say that the reduction of development costs, and
speeding up the entire production process, are both highly
beneficial for companies. However, it is still not clear how
to implement a Lean approach in a way that also makes it
suitable for the creation of groundbreaking innovations or
novel offerings.
Based on the lessons learned in an empirical study,
Browning and Sanders (2012) argue that Lean principles
could provide benefits in terms of cost savings while
maintaining an organisation’s innovation capabilities, if
some warnings are taken into account for its implementation.
They suggest that the correct application of the principles
10
and tools of Lean to innovation should follow these
recommendations:
• Implement Lean at a time of least disruption: do not try
to implement Lean in an environment with an already
novel and complex product or process. Let a process of
learning occur, through which people can become more
confident about what to do, how to do it, and about the
interactions between the different components of the
system. Only when the overall design and process has
stabilised, is it a good time to start focusing on reducing
costs within the process.
• U
nderstanding the system before improving it: in systems
with a large a number of product components, manufacturing activities, people in various organisational
groups, and relationships between them; changes and
supposed improvements might have unforeseen effects on
other activities. Ensure that process activities and interactions are understood before trying to change them.
• D
o not improve activities in isolation: making an individual
activity Lean may not even matter to the overall process.
Analyse the overall process to identify high-leverage
points.
• Reconceptualise value and waste: labelling some activities
as ‘value-added’ and others as ‘waste’, can cause serious
problems. Instead, measure the value of the process as a
whole rather than merely as the sum of value provided by
its constituent activities.
• D
o not take Lean too far: when teams are incentivised to
implement Lean as much as they can, it may become a
wasteful activity in and of itself. Ensure that changes
genuinely imply improvements to the value of the overall
process.
MANIFESTO FOR AGILE DEVELOPMENT
In February 2001, 17 software developers met at the
Snowbird resort in Utah to discuss an alternative to
documentation driven and heavyweight software
development processes, such as waterfall models.
They published the 'Manifesto for Agile Software
Development', also called the 'Agile manifesto'.
“We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive
documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the
right, we value the items on the left more.”
agilemanifesto.org
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Agile and innovation
Agile is a set of development methodologies that emerged in
the mid-1990s as a reaction to the inflexibility and prevailing
focus on documentation and control that characterised
traditional development models. This chapter is based on
Hannola et al. (2013) and Svensson (2005).
Agile assumes that the product idea would change as the
development process evolves. As a result, Agile methodologies are based on small and co-located teams that work close
together with potential customers, and that develop a
product idea by continuous short iterations. Focus is on
change, communication, co-operation, user involvement, and
rapid cycles; rather than on planning, documentation or early
definition of specifications and requirements.
Agile development methodologies have become increasingly popular in recent years, primarily in software development. Several development models and tools have been
expanded based on the principles of Agile. Two of the most
widely spread are XP (Extreme Programming) and Scrum.
• It is linear, a new phase is not begun before the former
phase is officially ended, and it takes too long before
significant results can be presented to potential customers.
• It does not take into account the front-end of innovation
in which new ideas are generated and understood.
In spite of providing project managers with a high degree of
control over development projects, the Waterfall model
does not address the core challenges in the development of
innovative offerings. Specifically, the fact that, in many
cases, customers do not always know at a detailed level
what they want to be developed, and that requirements
often change during the development process.
The need for a model that allows continuous review of
software while it is being developed resulted in the
introduction of Agile methodologies (see Figure 3). The
‘Agile community’ defined the ‘Agile manifesto’, that is,
what organisational aspects Agile development emphasises
compared to traditional approaches:
WHAT IS AGILE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT?
Agile development methodologies emerged from a
modification of the traditional software development
model known as the Waterfall model. The Waterfall model
is based on a cascade of knowledge and information from
one phase to another. The main problems associated with
the Waterfall model are:
•
•
•
•
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
W
orking software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
R
esponding to change over following a plan
“It should be noted that agile develop­
ment is not an universally cure to improve
software development as a whole.
While agile methods address simplicity
and speed, they are not suitable in all
contexts.”
(Svensson, 2005)
• It is highly structured and inflexible, requirements are
defined and approved before development starts, which
makes it difficult to make changes in product specifications later in the process.
• It is based on heavy documentation as results and
decisions are stored in documents for later analysis.
11
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
AGILE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGIES
Scrum
Scrum framework is composed of three phases:
A number of Agile methodologies exist that provide
guide­lines about how to organise and carry out development. However, there is a set of basic characteristics that is
common for all Agile methodologies:
Scrum is a set of practices and roles that provides a generic
management framework for development. It emphasises
teamwork by using the analogy of a rugby team, in which
players move the ball forward, helping each other in a tight
formation. Furthermore, it stresses the idea that development involves several variables such as requirements, time
frame, resources, etc., and all of them are likely to change
during the process.
• P
re-game: definition of what is being developed and
requirements that are known at that time.
• G
ame: the development phase is performed in ‘sprints’.
These are iterative cycles which include all phases of the
development process.
• P
ost-game: the product is prepared for release by task
integration, system testing and documentation.
• Incremental: development is carried out in an iterative
manner, through small releases with short cycles.
• Cooperative: developers work in small groups that are
co-located, with a high involvement and close communication with potential customer along the whole process.
• Straightforward: the model itself is easy to learn and to
modify.
• Adaptive: Requirements are not determined in advance,
and may be changed during the process as deeper insight
of what is developed is gained.
Two of the most known Agile methods are Extreme
Programming (XP), and Scrum. We provide brief descriptions of both methods below.
Innovation process problem
Agile solution
Focus on heavy documentation that does not
contribute to product development.
• Use customer stories for illustrating requirements
• Use low-tech documentation
Fixed specifications which are difficult to change
during the process.
• Iterative and flexible process
• Short increments
• Large front-end specifications are not required
Changes become more difficult towards the end of
the process.
• Iterations
• Continuous customer involvement in the prioriti­
sation of features
Transfer of knowledge between people.
• Shared workplace
• Scrum model, pair programming
Difficulties to manage the front-end of innovation.
• Unpredictability is expected.
• Several front-end loops during the project.
Extreme programming (XP)
Extreme programming, or XP, is a software development
method that is based on the principles of Agile. However, in
some senses, these principles are applied at an extreme
level. For example, a system developed by XP may be
tested several times a day, instead of once a week or once a
month as would be more usual. Besides the general
characteristics of Agile, XP proposes a continuous integration and testing of software and systems, the collective
ownership of codes, programming performed by two
programmers at one computer, using the simplest possible
design, and the continuous presence of the customer that
works together with the design team.
12
Table 1. Problems in Innovation processes and how Agile principles and tools might help solve them
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Figure 3. An illustration of the differences between Agile and traditional development models
Traditional development models
Linear and sequential development
process in affect a waterfall approach.
Early definitions of
requirements and specifications.
Specifications are difficult to change.
Low user involvement in the process.
Our customer
wants X!
Here is X as you
wanted it!
Thanks?!
X
Agile development models
Requirements and specifications
are expected to change.
Iterative development processes.
Focus on team work and
co-creation.
Here is Z as you
wanted it!
Our customer
wants X!
X
13
High user involvement.
Y
Thanks!
Z
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF AGILE PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
Advocates of Agile argue that it is not only an approach for
managing individual software development projects. They
assert that the principles of Agile and some of its tools can
be applied to the general management of innovation.
Hannola et al. (2013) present a table (see Table 1) with some
recurrent problems in Innovation processes, and how Agile
principles and tools might help solve them.
However, Conboy et al. (2011) assert that there is still a
need to investigate the problems that the use of Agile
approaches may cause. Furthermore, they argue that the
implementation of Agile methods might provoke a large
number of problems related to recruitment of Agile staff,
training, motivation and performance evaluation, among
others.
Moreover, Vijayasarathy and Turk (2012) state that
evidence supporting the success of Agile approaches is
anecdotal. They refer to a critical review of existing
empirical studies on Agile development that concluded:
“… more rigorous studies are needed to be conducted
before any credible advice can be given to software
development practitioners regarding the use of Agile
approaches.”
14
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Lean and Agile: like oil and water?
Wang et al. (2012) argue that there is still a lack of deep
understanding of what is called “LeAgile”, that is, the
application of Lean approaches in Agile development.
According to Putnik and Putnik (2012), the relationships
between the two concepts is still unclear, and there are
some communities that treat them as exclusive concepts,
and others that treat them as complementary.
A study of 30 reports on the application of Lean
approaches in Agile software development, Wang et al.
(2012), shows that in 29 out of 30 cases it was beneficial to
combine Lean concepts, principles and practices within
Agile development. Some of these benefits are:
• Lean can be used as a general guide and tool to improve
existing Agile processes.
• Lean might contribute to different needs at different
stages of Agile maturity. For example, Lean might be used
as a facilitating tool for a smooth Agile adoption. Then,
Lean mindset and analysis techniques might work as
sources for continuous Agile process improvement.
However, in many aspects, Lean and Agile are considered
to be extremely different, and sometimes, opposing
approaches. For example, Wang et al. (2012) present a
literature study about the combination of Lean and Agile
principles and practices in software development. It shows
that in general, while Agile concerns to an operative level,
Lean can be applied to any organisational scope. That is,
Agile is mostly concerned with the specific practices that
developers carry out in a development project, but it does
not take into account the business context in which a
development process is taking place. Instead, Lean management is applied from an upper management perspective,
with the objective of optimising the whole organisation.
15
Furthermore, Putnik and Putnik (2012) assert that in
research literature, while Lean is viewed as a response to
competitive pressures with limited resources, Agile, on the
other hand, is viewed as a response to complexity and
constant change. Moreover, their analysis of research
literature suggests that Lean might become a strong
attractor that enforces one organisation to repeat pre­
defined patterns of behaviour inhibiting true novelty. They
argue that Agile could contribute to more innovation primarily because it enhances pro-activity.
Putnik and Putnik (2012) state that managers should be
capable of recognising their organisational context, the
characteristics of both approaches, and in which scenarios
they are supportive or mutually exclusive. They argue that it
might be concluded that:
• U
nder the conditions of stable and predictable environments, managers should choose Lean. Agile should also
be used but in a controlled manner, working as an
instrument of Lean.
• U
nder the conditions of high dynamics, unpredictable
and uncertain environment, managers should choose
Agile.
Consequently, Wang et al. (2012) assert that there is no
universal solution about how to apply and combine Lean
and Agile concept principles and practices in development.
Each company should reflect on its own context and
projects before embarking on the journey of LeAgile
development activities. How to effectively tailor this
approach to suit a specific company, is a challenge yet to be
addressed.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
References
Anand, G. and Kodali. R., 2008. Development of a conceptual
framework for Lean New Product Development Process.
International Journal of Product Development, 6 (2), 190–223.
Lund, K. 2012. Process management in R&D – Doom or
salvation for creativity? (Licentiate thesis), KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Browning, T. and Sanders, N., 2012. Can Innovation be
Lean? California Management Review, 54 (4), 5–19.
Magnusson, M. 2000. Innovation and Efficiency- A
knowledge-based approach to organizing industrial firms.
(Ph.D. dissertation), Chalmers University of Technology,
Sweden.
Conboy, K., Coyle, S., Wang, X. and Pikkarainen, M. 2011.
People Over Process: key people challenges in Agile
Development. IEEE Software, 28 (4), 48–57.
Gudem, M., Steinert, M., Welo, T. and Leifer, L., 2013.
Redefining customer value in lean product development
design projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, 11 (1), 71–89.
Hannola, L., Friman, J. and Niemimuukko, J. 2013. Application of agile methods in the innovation process. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 7 (1), 84–98.
Hoerl, R. and Garnder, M., 2010. Lean six sigma, creativity,
and innovation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1 (1),
30–38.
Johnstone, C., Pairadeu, G: and Pettersson, J., 2011. Creativity,
innovation and lean sigma: a controversial combination?
Drug Discovery Today, 16 (1,2), 50–57.
Lindlöf, L. and Söderberg, B., 2011. Pros and cons of lean
visual planning: experiences from four product develop­
ment organisations. International Journal of Technology
Intelligence and Planning, 7 (3), 269–279.
16
Welo, T. 2011. On the application of lean principles in
Product Development: a commentary on models and
practices. International Journal of Product Development, 13
(4), 316–343.
Wilson, K. and Doz, Y. 2011. Agile Innovation: a footprint
balancing distance and immersion. California Management
Review, 53 (2), 6–26.
Putnik, D. and Putnik, Z. 2012. Lean vs agile in the context
of complexity management in organisations. The Learning
Organization, 19 (3), 248–266.
Schulze, A. and Störmer, T., 2012.Lean product development-enabling management factors for waste elimination.
International Journal of Technology Management, 57 (1, 2, 3),
71–91.
Svensson, H. 2005. Developing support for Agile and
Plan-driven methods. (Ph.D. dissertation), KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Vijayasarathy, L. and Turk, D. 2012. Drivers of agile software
use: Dialectic interplay between benefits and hindrances.
Information and Software Technology, 54, 137-148.
Wang, X., Conboy, K. and Cawley, O. 2012. “Leagile”
software development: An experience report analysis of the
application of lean approaches in agile software development. The Journal of Systems and Software, 85, 1287–1299.
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.
Amplify in facts
AMPLIFY IS A CONSULTANCY FIRM active internationally to professionalize
innovation. With a clear direction, the right capabilities and strong commitment,
we know that everyone can create ideas with distinct values and put them into
action. Together with clients such as Absolut, Ericsson, Kraft and Siemens we
have conducted hundreds of successful innovation projects. These projects
have yielded concrete results on the market, but above all laid the foundation
for our clients’ own innovation performance. Annually, we also train hundreds
of managers through major executive schools and our own programs. No
matter what business you are in: today a proactive and systematic approach
to innovation is a must. There is no magic or hype. To generate value
– Professionalize innovation.
Where we
are working
Birth
2000
Year of establishment
People
Core team
Business areas
Management
Projects
Opportunities
Partners
Academia
Networks
Extended team
Competencies
Tools
Tools 19
Management 24
Opportunities 231
Competencies 423
Amplify Scandinavia AB • PO Box 630 • SE-101 32 Stockholm
Sweden • +46 8 24 60 50 • www.amplify.se
17
All works © Amplify Scandinavia AB 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from Amplify is strictly prohibited.