Agile Coaches: Products or Features?
In software development, we often encounter the terms "product" and "feature." The difference is self-evident: a product is a self-contained entity that provides value on its own, while a feature is a component that contributes to the overall value of the product.
Many organizations desire to have Agile Coaches as a "feature." They want individuals who can effectively coach Agile methodologies while fulfilling their primary roles in other core competencies (engineering manager, program manager, etc.). In essence, they seek someone who can wear multiple hats and contribute to improving the organization while performing their regular duties. This approach appears cost-effective as it avoids the need to hire dedicated Agile coaches.
On the flip side, we have Agile coaches who act as "products." These individuals focus solely on coaching and are dedicated to guiding teams and organizations on their Agile journeys. They possess deep expertise, experience, and a comprehensive understanding of Agile, Lean, and other related topics (depending on their areas of expertise). Engaging a qualified agile coach means having a dedicated professional who “gets” the ins and outs of organizational complexities and can help others navigate through them.
Now, let's layer on the concept of the "Product Adoption Curve" by Geoffrey Moore. According to this model, organizations can be classified into different segments based on their adoption of new technologies or practices. We have "Innovators" who are early adopters and enthusiastic about embracing new approaches and ideas. They are perhaps already confident in their capabilities in Agile and might not seek dedicated Agile coaches - after all, agile is “just the way they operate.” And if they are innovators, they’re more likely to be “younger” companies - They may never have worked in a more traditional, plan-driven way. Perhaps from the start, they are data-driven and seeking early feedback to define their approaches to delivering products, services, and solutions to the market.
On the other hand, there are the "Laggards," who are slower to adopt new ways of working. These laggards might also be older, larger enterprises, and those who service other businesses, rather than consumers directly. These organizations might still be hiring Agile coaches to facilitate their Agile journey. Additionally, some "Late Majority" and "Early Majority" organizations might be in the process of improving ways of working within their structures and actively looking for experienced Agile coaches to support their growth.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Considering this, the debate on whether Agile coaches should be treated as "features" or "products" becomes even more nuanced. While the "Innovators" may lean towards the “feature” coaches, the "Late Majority," "Early Majority," and "Laggards" may see the immense value in having Agile coaching as a dedicated "product" to ensure a smoother and more effective transition.
The distinction between Agile coaching as a "product" or a "feature" highlights the tension between the organization’s willingness to invest, and the potential impact they think it will bring to organizational outcomes (a direct line cannot be drawn!). While the allure of “feature coaches” is understandable, it's essential to recognize that Agile coaching is not a mere add-on but still a very specialized skillset and few posses the ability to effectively do their "day" jobs while coaching agility, with all its nuances. Agile Coaches (the best ones, of course) continually update their knowledge and skillset in many different areas. Agile aside, coaching itself is a specialized skill.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Do you believe organizations are expecting people to have Agile coaching expertise in addition to their regular responsibilities (i.e., coaches should be "features") or full time jobs ("products") in organizations? Do you think agilists will last as a career option in the future, or will companies be unwilling to invest in coaches as time goes by?
My own feeling is that companies (for many reasons) will invest less and less in full time Scrum Masters and Agile Coaches, for many and nuanced reasons that I will cover in the comments if people are curious. That doesn't mean that I don't think they are worthwhile or helpful - a good agilist/Scrum Master/coach can improve team and organizational performance significantly.
my forecast is that there will be slight shift of interest and focus on Project Management - so more project management and less coaching. Coaching requires openness where project management appears as if it doesn't. In today's world there is a visible shift towards less openness and more antagonism, which will drive away coaching from many companies and will provide them with the opportunity to re-learn what are the effects of disenchanting people through over-managing. Smart companies will keep focus on the long game and will not succumb to getting away with coaching (as a product). It's interesting to observe what the longer term effects will be with CapitalOne and whether there is some later decision to start using coaching (as a product) again.
Lean-Agile Coach & Manager > 20 years helping people work better together
1yWhere this works well, the most competent and effective Scrum Masters are coaching — as leaders serving their Team Members, their Product Owner, their Organization, and their Communities. So, coaching becomes a ‘feature’ of the SM role. (The Scrum Guide mentions the Team, PO and org but not the community. I added it.) The orgs that know they’ve gained productivity by agility are those that have before-and-after data, for example lead time to market and cost. They can show how cross-functional teams with agile ways of working are improving productivity. And, yes, having SMs as with coaching’features’ reduces their need for dedicated coaching ‘product’ and so that dependency dwindles as the org advances in agility, and we “coaches” work our way out of that job. I have often enjoyed serving as a Scrum Master who coaches (as above). Perhaps that will soon be ‘featured’ in my next role as I press ON! ;-) Thanks for the inspiration Heidi Araya! <3
Agile Coach, provider of accredited facilitation and coaching training
1yWhile there may be many things to point to as a cause... if all of those things could have been avoided, then they would have been. What we know and realize now was obviously not known and realized in the early days. IMHO, one of the issues that has always been there and remains is that very very few orgs truly understand the immense revenue opportunity that operating in an Agile way can bring. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think that is where the opportunity remains, once we find a way to articulate/demonstrate it in a way that is both understood and attributed directly to Agile vs other factors in the environment.
Executive - Commercial, Digital, Technology
1yI don’t think it will die or grow, but stay stagnant. However, the overall industry of Agile and its ability to be marketed and sold will pivot to other emerging ways of working influenced by technology, research, and culture. Once these emerging variables come out, a good portion with backgrounds that are specialized will adopt/pivot both feature and product wise. Similar to lean and the six sigma approaches, it will never go away, it will just exist and be adopted differently and most likely won’t be “the driving force” behind transformation/change to companies.
Leadership & Team Performance Coach | Agility Lead-Scrum Master I coach teams to create a culture of continuous improvement and adaptability delivering high quality results consistently through effective Agile practices
1yMy personal opinion is that agile coaches and SM’s are dying. Investment in agile training is also dying. I see where many organizarions do not get the ROI from hiring agile coaches and SM’s, and I feel that many of us have sadly contributed to this, and sadly in many cases it’s been unintentional; although, not in all. I could be wrong, but I can feel and sense the decline