Search results

In today’s intense global competition, agility is advocated as a fundamental characteristic for business survival and competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to propose a practical methodology to achieve and enhance organizational agility based on strategic objectives.

In the first step, a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) of the organization being studied are recognized and classified under the perspectives of balanced scorecard (BSC). Critical success factors are then identified by ranking the KPIs according to their importance in achieving organizational strategic objectives using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). In the second step, three houses of quality (HOQs) are constructed sequentially to identify and rank the main agile attributes, agile enablers, and improvement paths. In addition, in order to translate linguistics judgments of practitioners into numerical values in building HOQs, fuzzy logic is employed.

The capability of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by applying it to a case of a multi-national food company in Iran. Through the application, the company could find the most suitable improvement paths to improve its organizational agility.

A limited number of KPIs were chosen due to computational and visual constraints related to HOQs. Another limitation, similar to other agility studies, which facilitate decision making among agility metrics, was that the metrics were more industry-specific and less inclusive.

A strong practical advantage for the application of the methodology over directly choosing agility metrics without linking them is that through the methodology, the right metrics were selected that match organization’s core values and marketing objectives. While metrics may ostensibly seem unrelated or inappropriate, they actually contributed to the right areas where there were gaps between the current and desired level of agility. It would otherwise be impossible to choose the right metrics without a structured methodology.

This paper proposes a novel methodology for achieving organizational agility. By utilizing and linking several tools such as BSC, fuzzy TOPSIS, and quality function deployment (QFD), the proposed approach enables organizations to identify the most appropriate agile attributes, agile enablers, and subsequently agile improvement paths.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which newly agile organizations followed 2001’s Agile Manifesto, especially in terms of the 12 principles of the agile approach, as included in the Manifesto.

The authors conducted in-depth case studies of groups in three large business organizations that had recently adopted agile. Two researchers spent one day at each site, attending daily standups and conducting interviews with managers, developers and customers.

Across the three organizations, developers were faithful to two agile principles: the primacy of delivering valuable software continually and regular reflections on the process with an eye toward improvement. The developers were uniformly unfaithful to the principle that requires face-to-face communication. Each organization varied in their adherence to the remaining nine principles. Obstacles to faithful adoption included the experience of the organization with agile, the extent to which the industry was regulated and the extent to which developers and customers were physically dispersed.

While past research on agile development is extensive, this paper examines perspectives on the method and its adoption through the lens of the original Agile Manifesto and its 12 principles. The principles were grouped into three broader categories – software delivery, people and process – to provide additional insights and to sharpen the analysis.

Achieving continuous innovation performance still poses a major challenge to established companies as it requires high flexibility and adaptability in usually efficiently structured organisations. One way to tackle this challenge lies in establishing effective behaviours to successfully establish and apply innovation leadership mechanisms in an organisation. The emerging agile leadership style could provide such effective behaviours, as it addresses the demand for flexibility and adaptability on the organisational level. Despite these clear parallels research on the link between agile leadership and innovation leadership, and their possible combined contribution to drive continuous innovation performance is still in its infancy. Accordingly, the present study examines the behaviours of agile leaders to promote continuous innovation in established companies. It applies a discovery-driven research process of agile leaders to derive and categorise their behaviours. The subsequent comparison of the identified agile leadership behaviours with innovation leadership mechanisms from existing literature leads to eight specific, combined agile leadership principles within the three categories empowerment, performance enhancement, and support for continuous innovation. Eventually, this basis allows the conceptualisation of a first exploratory framework with the identified behaviours as possible enablers, and innovation leadership mechanisms as possible mediators for the continuous innovation performance, subject to test. These findings enhance existing theory by clarifying a possible link between agile leadership and continuous innovation. That way, practitioners can profit from concrete principles for agile leaders to inspire and enable continuous innovation in individuals and teams.

As Agile management thinking spreads to every part and every kind of organization, including their competitors, corporate leaders need to take steps to ensure they get and keep a good seat at the Agile table.

The author’s first hand research finds that firms are learning the hard way that software process and value innovation requires a different way of running the organization to be successful. The whole firm has to become nimble, adaptable and able to adjust on the fly to meet the shifting whims of a marketplace driven by dynamic changes in customer value.

The Agile way of working is provoking a revolution in business that affects almost everyone. Agile organizations are connecting everyone and everything, everywhere, all the time. They are capable of delivering instant, intimate, frictionless value on a large scale.

Examples of the new way of running organizations are everywhere apparent. It’s not just the five biggest firms by market capitalization: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. It’s also firms like Airbnb, Etsy, Lyft, Menlo Innovations, Netflix, Saab, Samsung, Spotify, Tesla, Uber and Warby Parker.

A new kind of management was needed to enable this new kind of worker -- a fundamentally different way of running organizations. Agile is economically more productive and a better fit with the new marketplace. And it had immense potential benefit for the human spirit. It could create workplaces that enabled human beings to contribute their full talents on something worthwhile and meaningful – creating value for other human beings.

Continuing the management practices and structures of the lumbering industrial giants of the 20th Century is no longer a viable option for today’s firms. To survive, let alone thrive, leaders today must recognize that Agile is not something happening in software alone.

While the principles of Agile management are simple, the implementation of the actual “Laws of Agile” is daunting to managers trained in the traditions and culture of hierarchical management. This article offers a context for the three laws.

Implementing Agile requires fostering a mindset that is fundamentally different from traditional preoccupations with profit maximization and hierarchical authority.

Agile is about generating instant, intimate, frictionless, low-risk, incremental value at scale. That’s the new performance requirement.

A growing number of companies, including those that have embraced the Agile mindset, believe the true purpose of a firm is to create customers and establish a sustainable relationship with them.

For leaders and managers this article offers radical insights. In an Agile organization, talent discovers strategic opportunities. Talent drives strategy. When the whole organization truly embraces Agile, instead of a steady state machine, the organization becomes an organic living network of high-performance teams. 10;

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how manufacturing strategies could affect the supplier selection criteria used by business firms.

Survey strategy was used to empirically understand the research argument. First, principal component factor analysis was employed to validate the underlying structure of the supplier selection criteria. Then, simple regression analysis was employed to test the research hypotheses.

Organizations pursuing lean strategies will emphasize factors that improve their efficiency when selecting their suppliers, while organizations pursuing agile strategies will assert factors that improve their ability to respond to customer unique requirements when selecting their suppliers.

This study provides new insight for researchers to understand the effect of manufacturing strategies on the classification of supplier selection criteria. However, the small sample size might limit the ability to generalize research findings. Further research is required to confirm the findings using a wider sample.

This research provides practitioners with useful insights into how to select their suppliers based on their manufacturing strategies.

This paper classifies supplier selection criteria into three distinct groups: lean, agile, and common capabilities. Lean capability refers to the list of criteria that are highly relevant in selecting suppliers for lean implementers. Agile capability refers to the list of criteria that are highly relevant in selecting suppliers for agile implementers. Finally, common capability refers to the list of criteria that have comparable relevance in selecting suppliers for both lean and agile implementers.

This paper analyses results from a survey of 962 Australian manufacturing companies in order to identify some of the factors critical for successful agile organizations in managing their supply chains. Analysis of the survey results provided some interesting insights into factors differentiating “more agile” organizations from “less agile” organizations. “More agile” companies from this study can be characterized as more customer focused, and applying a combination of “soft” and “hard” methodologies in order to meet changing customer requirements. They also see the involvement of suppliers in this process as being crucial to their ability to attain high levels of customer satisfaction. The “less agile” group, on the other hand, can be characterized as more internally focused with a bias toward internal operational outcomes. They saw no link between any of the independent variables and innovation, and appear to see technology as more closely linked to the promotion of these operational outcomes than to customer satisfaction. The role of suppliers for this group is to support productivity and process improvement rather than to promote customer satisfaction.

The concept of agile manufacturing is becoming critically important to manufacturing industry due to rapid industrialization, fluctuating customer demand, and turbulent business environment. The aim of this study is to prioritize the attributes for successful implementation of agile manufacturing using a combined analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach in Indian manufacturing industry.

The current study identifies eight agile manufacturing attributes through literature review and discussion with subject experts. The experts from different manufacturing industry have been asked to provide data for pairwise comparison of attributes. Afterward, an integrated AHP and TOPSIS approach is employed. The AHP is used to drive the priority weights of the attributes, and TOPSIS is used for prioritizing the attributes for successful implementation of agile manufacturing.

“Information technology,” “human resource management-related issues,” “customer-related issues,” “leadership support,” and “organizationalc related-issues” have been ranked as the top five significant and contributing attributes, which can pave the path for top management to concentrate on the critical areas and allocate significant resources to ensure successful implementation of agile manufacturing.

This research integrates AHP and TOPSIS to prioritize the attributes for successful implementation of agile manufacturing, which are further validated by comparing the ranks obtained through respective approach and sensitivity analysis.

Rapid changes in the business environment and the accelerating dynamics and increasing complexity shaping the functioning of organizations have given rise to modern concepts of people management. The Management 3.0 (M3.0) concept was developed based on agile project management concept; however, it can be implemented not only in projects, but also in the entire organization. It consists of six pillars such as: energizing people, empowering teams, aligning constraints, developing competencies, growing structure, and improving everything. The paper aims to present the relationships between the level of implementation of the above-presented pillars and such variables as the scope of use of agile project management methodologies, and project managers' (PMs) as well as HR practitioners' knowledge in this area.

Members of PMI and IPMA representing 34 companies located in Poland took part in the research which was based on a CAWI method.

Research shows that the level of M3.0 implementation – in terms of its six pillars – is internally consistent but mostly on a “defined” level. No correlation was observed between the implementation of M3.0 and the frequency with which agile project management methodology is applied. On the other hand, there is a strong correlation between the level of PMs' knowledge and the implementation of some of the M3.0 pillars. HR specialists' knowledge in the field of M3.0 is not associated with organizational advances in the implementation of M3.0.

As the first research project in the area of M3.0, this study proposes practical implications as well as topics which require further empirical exploration.