This short note is a summary of long discussion on whether an Agile leader should focus on continuous improvement all the time or whether it is sometimes important to stop and maintain stability and predictability.
Balancing focus between stability and improvement is a typical dilemma that many leaders have to face. Often, they find themselves in a situation where they have a team (or multiple teams) that has achieved decent results and resolved numerous engineering issues, resulting in stable and predictable delivery. Everyone is satisfied, and everything seems to be working well. However, the leader believes that there is a need to further develop their delivery capabilities, while the developers may not be as interested and prefer to prioritize the stability of current outcomes. As a leader I face the challenge establishing the balance between these two aspects.
There are two crucial factors to be considered when making decisions in this situation. Firstly, it is important to have a clear understanding of the current demand and expectations. If you initiated value stream optimization when your customers and stakeholders were seeking stable and predictable value delivery with satisfactory quality, any attempts to prioritize improvement may result in negative feedback and increased pressure. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of making meaningful progress.
The second important factor to consider when balancing stability and improvement is the tolerance for risk at the moment. It is evident that any changes entail risks, and it is important to assess the system’s current tolerance for risk.
However, if the improvement of your value delivery aligns with the expectations of your customers and consumers, and your current tolerance for risk allows for changes in the workflow, there remains one crucial step. In order to shift the focus of individuals who are primarily concerned with stability towards improvement and development, it is necessary to create (or reveal) a stressor that motivates change. Few people are willing to improve for the sake of improvement alone. Without a valid stressor, it is really difficult to cause genuine efforts towards enhancing value delivery rather than merely simulating progress.