Abstract
New management approaches emerging in the discussion about work 4.0 are closely linked to the debates about VUCA and agility. Agile frameworks are quite successful and the call for an “agile organization” is meanwhile heard virtually everywhere. An important step on the way to agile organizations is on the one hand seen in “Agile Scaling”—the transfer of agile approaches from isolated teams to the organization as a whole. On the other hand, companies increasingly try to actively create their “business ecosystem”. Both agile ideas provide changes and risks for all stakeholders and are challenged by historically grown bureaucratic and hierarchical structures. This chapter argues that active management of contradictions is necessary and provides insights into core principles for agile management of contradictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We owe thanks to Sophia Rossmann for her most helpful research and working papers on the topic of agile organization and scaling and Kurt Rachlitz for his valuable research, empirical and conceptual work and also his discussion of the topics of platforms and business ecosystems. Many thanks also to Frank Seiß for valuable editing and the translation. This article draws on previous joint discussions on the topic of agile work and organizations and is based on the joint expert dialog about the “new” challenges of making platform-based business ecosystems more agile and participatory towards the stakeholders. It builds on the joint work with Judith Neumer on “agile scaling” (Neumer et al., 2018).
- 2.
Within the context of agile methods, the concept of backlog means a composition of tasks and technical requirements relevant for the creation of the final product. The backlog is changeable according to the project progression; its maintenance is the task of the Product Owner. In the context of SAFe, the backlog is also applied on the level of the organization as a whole.
- 3.
The Agile Release Train can be defined according to the Blogger Anshuman Singh: “The Agile Release Train (ART) is the primary value delivery construct in SAFe®. The Agile Release Train is a long lived, self-organizing team of Agile Teams, a virtual organization (5–12 teams) that plans, commits, and executes together. ARTs are organized around the enterprise’s significant Value Streams and live solely to realize the promise of that value by building solutions that deliver benefit to the end user. Hence, an ART is basically a team of Teams responsible for the regular release of Features and business benefits” (https://www.digite.com/blog/agile-release-train-art/).
- 4.
The question whether this implies a distancing from indicator-based stipulations and controlling methods is an empirical one and has to be answered on the basis of empirical data.
- 5.
For similarities and distinctions between networks and ecosystems, see Shipilov and Gawer (2020).
- 6.
These findings could be established in the course of a broad-based study within the framework of the experimental space SmartGenoLab, funded by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs as a part of the INQA initiative (duration 11/2018 to 11/2021).
- 7.
Oesterreich and Schröder point out in their collegial leadership model, frequently cited in German-language literature, that the design of the framework and the reconfiguration itself have to be initiated by the top management of the firm. Afterwards, a body of experts can take on this responsibility, as can other members, where appropriate (Oestereich & Schröder, 2016: 59ff.). The transformation from an ecosystem conceived by a central body into an ecosystem under more or less decentralicized control is a demanding task, necessitating effective contradiction management.
- 8.
The following systematization of tensions is an extended version of a systematization previously developed by the PräFo project in cooperation with Margit Weihrich and Marc Jungtäubl (University of Augsburg) on the basis of comprehensive empirical surveys in the fields of technological engineering work and service work. The PräFo project aimed to establish preventive measures for occupational health and safety in formalized self-responsible work. Reflexive scaling is an important concept in this project. PräFo stands for Prevention of Stress in Formalized Work in Services and Technological Engineering. Our subproject was Prevention of Stress in Formalized Work in Technological Engineering. The project was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and supervised by the PTKA Project Management Agency in Karlsruhe. It ran from November 2015 to May 2019.
- 9.
The FISnet project (Flexible, Individualized Service Networks. Models of Preventive Health Services in the Region of Augsburg/Schwaben), funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and supervised by the PTKA Project Management Agency (duration 11/2014 to 10/2018) investigated aspects of interactive coordination and networking work design and analyzed the preconditions and difficulties of the establishment of an ecosystem on equal terms. Over 12 main partners from research and practice took part in this project. The implementation of these models involved many additional partners.
- 10.
JIRA is the most applied software package for issue tracking, as Stettina and Heijstek (2011) explored in 79 software engineers from eight teams located in 13 different countries (pp. 3 and 5). The authors also pointed out that documentation is seen rather as a burden than as a co-created (core) artefact and found support for the perceptions in the literature that without ensuring a proper documentation process agile, methods can cause major knowledge loss during or after system development (p. 7). This shows that documentation (and documentation requirements) are not always seen as a counter-productive formalization.
References
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.
Alstyne, M. W. Van, Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94(4).
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (2008). Die Lernende Organisation: Grundlagen, Methode, Praxis. Klett-Cotta.
Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organizations, 5(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050849852004.
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.
De Rond, M., & Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0037.
Eckstein, J., & Buck, J. (2018). Company-wide agility with beyond budgeting, open space & sociocracy: Survive & thrive on disruption. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006.
Grund, M. (2015). Agile Softwareentwicklung als paradigmatisches Beispiel für eine neue Organisation von technischer Wissensarbeit. In T. Sattelberger, I. Welpe, & A. Boes (Eds.), Das demokratische Unternehmen: Neue Arbeits- und Führungskulturen im Zeitalter digitaler Wirtschaft. Haufe.
Huchler, N., & Sauer, S. (2015). Reflexive and experience-based trust and participatory research: Concept and methods to meet complexity and uncertainty in organisations. International Journal of Action Research, 11(1–2), 146–173.
Huchler, N., Weihrich, M., Porschen-Hueck, S., Monz, A., Schamann, S., & Böhle, F., et al. (2018). Dienstleistungen für Prävention im Altersübergang – die Idee kooperativer Dienstleistungsnetzwerke. In W. Schneider & S. Stadelbacher (Eds.), Der Altersübergang als Neuarrangement von Arbeit und Leben (pp. 115–150). Springer VS.
Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255–2276.
Komus, A. (2020). Status Quo (scaled) agile. https://www.hs-koblenz.de/bpm-labor/status-quo-scaled-agile-2020. Accessed 8 Nov 2020.
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker.
Lansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business School Press.
Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises (Agile Software Development) (Agile Software Development Series), Addison-Wesley Professional (Ed.), Boston.
Meyer, B. (2014). Agile! the good, the hype and the ugly. Springer International Publishing.
Moldaschl, M. (2005). Institutionelle Reflexivität: Zur Analyse von „Change“ im Bermuda-Dreieck von Modernisierungs-, Organisations- und Interventionstheorie. In M. Faust, M. Funder, & M. Moldaschl (Eds.), Die “Organisation” der Arbeit (Arbeit, Innovation undNachhaltigkeit, 1) (pp. 355–382). Hampp. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-324454.
Nazarenko, A. A., & Camarinha, L. M. (2019). Basis for an approach to design collaborative cyber-physical systems. In L. M. Camarinha, R. Almeida, & J. Oliveira (Eds.), Technological innovation for industry and service systems (pp. 193–205). Springer International Publishing.
Neef, A., & Burmeister, K. (2005). Die Schwarm-Organisation – Ein neues Paradigma für das e-Unternehmen der Zukunft. In B. Kuhlin & H. Thielmann (Eds.), Real-time enterprise in der Praxis. Springer.
Neumer, J., Porschen-Hueck, S., & Sauer, S. (2018). Reflexive scaling as a way towards agile organization. Journal of International Management Studies, 18(2), 27–38.
Oestereich, B., & Schröder, C. (2016). Das kollegial geführte Unternehmen: Ideen und Praktiken für die agile Organisation von morgen. Vahlen.
Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2005). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Tempere University of Technology.
Porschen-Hueck, S., & Neumer, J. (2015). Participation in enterprises and research: The case of innovation work. International Journal of Action Research, 1(1–2), 174–194.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
Radigan, D. (2016). Agile Methoden. Ein Schritt weiter: Ausweiten agiler Methoden in großen Unternehmen. https://de.atlassian.com/agile/ways-to-scale-agile. Accessed 11 Nov 2020.
Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The new management system for a rapidly changing world. Henry Hold and Company.
Sauer, S. (2017). Partizipative Forschung und Gestaltung als Antwort auf empirische und forschungspolitische Herausforderungen? Industrielle Beziehungen, 3, 253–270.
Semolic, B. (2012). Global knowledge market and new business models. PM World Journal, 1(2). https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PMWJ-Sep2012-SEMOLIC-GlobalKnowledgeMarket-FeaturedPaper.pdf . Accessed 03 June 2020.
Senge, P. M. (2011). Die fünfte Disziplin: Kunst und Praxis der lernenden Organisation. Klett-Cotta.
Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. (2020). Integrating research on inter-organizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0121.
Spearman, S., & Dolman, R. (2016). Agile scaling knowledgebase decision matrix. Online access: http://www.agilescaling.org/ask-matrix.html.
Stettina, C. J., & Heijstek, W. (2011). Necessary and neglected? An empirical study of internal documentation in agile software development teams. SIGDOC ‘11: Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on Design of communication, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1145/2038476.2038509.
Sydow, J., Schüßler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2016). Managing inter-organizational relations: Debates and cases. Palgrave.
Uludag, Ö., Hefele, S., & Matthes, F. (2016). Platform and ecosystem governance. TUM.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Giner, J. L. C. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25, 1195–1215.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., & Marchington, M. (2013). Employee involvement and voice. In S. Bach & M. Edwards (Eds.), Managing human resources (pp. 268–288). Wiley.
Williamson, P. J., & De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California Management Review, 55(1), 24–46.
Yin, R. E. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
Ziegler, A. (2020). Der Aufstieg des Internet der Dinge: Wie sich Industrieunternehmen zu Tech-Unternehmen entwickeln. Campus.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Porschen-Hueck, S., Sauer, S. (2021). From Agile Teams and Organizations to Agile Business Ecosystems? Contradiction Management as a Requirement of Agile Scaling and Transformation Processes. In: Pfeiffer, S., Nicklich, M., Sauer, S. (eds) The Agile Imperative . Dynamics of Virtual Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73994-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73994-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73993-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73994-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)