Ambidexterity is also reflected in the goals of agile frameworks
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:58 am
In addition, additional added value can be created if a close strategic and communicative link between these two sides and the specialist departments is established. In short: corporate IT belongs at the decision-making table. We learn from ambidexterity that a close link between key functions can make a significant contribution to the value orientation of companies.
In agile project management, i.e. the operationalization of agile values and principles as well as agile empiricism, we often come across the famous frameworks and methods of agility: Scrum, Kanban, Design Thinking, Scrumban, SAFe®, LeSS® etc. All approaches focus equally on two goals:
1. Minimizing communication transaction costs
2. Rapid incorporation of new findings into the ongoing development process
The frameworks do justice to the latter by taking into account the basic mechanics of the so-called Deming cycle, also known as the PDCA cycle. The iterative process of developing a solution takes place in short phases, each of armenia consumer email list which covers planning (Plan), execution (Do), checking (Check) and adaptation (Act) of a solution approach (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1
Communication costs, on the other hand, are minimized by short communication channels. Short communication channels are made possible in agile process organizations by interdisciplinarity. This means that during each development cycle a joint look can be taken at what has been learned (empirical evidence) and decisions about how to proceed in the next development cycle can be made in an interdisciplinary manner. And this is exactly where the proximity to ambidexterity becomes clear. Agility and ambidexterity require the same closely interwoven and interdisciplinary organizational structures and the overcoming of the corporate silos that we are all familiar with.
Agile Frameworks as Vehicles for Ambidexterity
So far we have learned that the goals of agility and ambidexterity can be identical. Both aim to shorten communication channels and promote an iterative approach. But now the question arises as to how ambidexterity can be lived and thus operationalized in an organization.
And this is where the interaction between agile frameworks and ambidexterity comes into play. With a clever (i.e. not dogmatic) implementation of agile frameworks, we can quickly compare strategic requirements (technical, design, architecture) with findings from the execution level and adapt our further approach. Frameworks provide us with events, roles and processes that can help us operationalize ambidexterity. The frameworks therefore enable us to link the strategic level with the execution level in an interdisciplinary and thus communicative way.
In agile project management, i.e. the operationalization of agile values and principles as well as agile empiricism, we often come across the famous frameworks and methods of agility: Scrum, Kanban, Design Thinking, Scrumban, SAFe®, LeSS® etc. All approaches focus equally on two goals:
1. Minimizing communication transaction costs
2. Rapid incorporation of new findings into the ongoing development process
The frameworks do justice to the latter by taking into account the basic mechanics of the so-called Deming cycle, also known as the PDCA cycle. The iterative process of developing a solution takes place in short phases, each of armenia consumer email list which covers planning (Plan), execution (Do), checking (Check) and adaptation (Act) of a solution approach (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1
Communication costs, on the other hand, are minimized by short communication channels. Short communication channels are made possible in agile process organizations by interdisciplinarity. This means that during each development cycle a joint look can be taken at what has been learned (empirical evidence) and decisions about how to proceed in the next development cycle can be made in an interdisciplinary manner. And this is exactly where the proximity to ambidexterity becomes clear. Agility and ambidexterity require the same closely interwoven and interdisciplinary organizational structures and the overcoming of the corporate silos that we are all familiar with.
Agile Frameworks as Vehicles for Ambidexterity
So far we have learned that the goals of agility and ambidexterity can be identical. Both aim to shorten communication channels and promote an iterative approach. But now the question arises as to how ambidexterity can be lived and thus operationalized in an organization.
And this is where the interaction between agile frameworks and ambidexterity comes into play. With a clever (i.e. not dogmatic) implementation of agile frameworks, we can quickly compare strategic requirements (technical, design, architecture) with findings from the execution level and adapt our further approach. Frameworks provide us with events, roles and processes that can help us operationalize ambidexterity. The frameworks therefore enable us to link the strategic level with the execution level in an interdisciplinary and thus communicative way.