Agile working at agricultural machinery manufacturer

Some projects are simply a mess. Time and costs get out of hand. The results remain disappointing and the growing pressure from management unfortunately doesn't really help either. A large agricultural machinery manufacturer had to make such an experience when developing a new planting machine - until the management pulled the ripcord and put the entire project on a completely new agile footing together with CO Improve. And although the switch to Scrum, a new methodology for the company, was an extremely ambitious task, the results show that the decision was the right one and a forward-looking one for the entire company.

The unpleasant mixture of a high degree of organisational and technical complexity, unrealisable scheduling and cost planning, changing requirements and a now frustrated development team had led to an important development project threatening to fail at a long-established agricultural machinery company. Due to the complexity of the project in particular, it no longer seemed possible to identify specific causes for the poor progress. There was therefore no question that something had to change. This situation gave rise to the idea of tackling the project anew using agile methods.

In addition to other providers, experts from CO Improve, a consultancy specialising in the agile development of complex mechatronic products, were invited to initial preliminary talks. As part of an "Agile Awareness Day", a working day was initially dedicated to the topic of "agile corporate culture" in order to discuss it with all members of management. The aim was to make everyone involved aware of what an agile pilot project means for the entire company and top management as a consequence. CO Improve project manager Gerrit Gerland explains: "Our experience has shown that although many companies are interested in agile working, they are not really prepared to create the necessary framework conditions. This would inevitably lead to failure. Instead, all managers should understand in advance exactly which approaches they are introducing into their company and how leadership and work culture will change." The management of the agricultural machinery manufacturer was ultimately convinced by this careful approach and the concept of the agile Scrum methodology. This allowed the project to be implemented step by step.

In order to determine exactly where there was a need for change and how the obstacles could be removed, a superordinate "Change" project team was first formed. This team was first familiarised with the iterative Scrum approach. "The central elements of Scrum are clearly defined roles for all team members and the organisation of work in so-called 'sprints', which always lead to a usable result," adds Gerland. The "product backlog", which defines all the requirements for the product and the goals of the project, serves as a guide. In consultation with the so-called "product owner", the developers extract the tasks for each sprint from these comprehensive requirements that experience has shown they can complete in the specified time. The team is supported by the "Scrum Master", who has the task of helping the team to apply Scrum practices correctly, removing obstacles and providing the team with the resources and means it needs.

The change team very quickly identified the already excessive complexity of the planned project as a major obstacle. "That's why the overall project was split up; from then on, the project comprised a series of modules and functional assemblies," Gerland continues. Modules and assemblies were then handled by module teams and a functional team, so that the development task per team was much more manageable and clearly defined. A team with responsibility for the entire machine took over the overall control.

In order to give all developers involved the opportunity to focus on the tasks at hand, the project had to be clearly prioritised throughout the company. This meant that all team members had to devote at least 80 per cent of their resources, i.e. at least four days a week, exclusively to the project. In order to implement this focussing in practice, a spatial separation was implemented: The development teams were housed in a separate building.

But that alone was not enough. In fact, prioritisation also had a significant impact on other parts of the company. The 80 per cent rule alone meant that other employees had to take over "old" tasks from team members. This rule caused a great deal of resentment among department managers and colleagues. Together with the consulting partner, the change team developed a communication concept in order to convince all levels of the company and get all stakeholders on board.

A certain amount of persuasion was also required from the management. Even though its members had consciously decided in favour of the agile project, it was not always easy to put aside the usual control impulses and routines, to show trust and appreciation for the team and to give clear and constructive feedback in the context of agile culture. Gerland: "In this context, it was helpful to agree that the management team would only be informed about the current project status in the regular 'sprint reviews' and would only have the opportunity to give feedback to the team here. The feedback from the team to the managers proved to be just as crucial as the feedback to the team." After all, in an agile culture, the management level primarily takes on the role of empowering employees so that they can fulfil their tasks. "This clearly outlined the tasks of the company's management team," explains Gerland. "This is to strengthen the personal responsibility of employees, remove obstacles from their path and create the best possible framework conditions for them."

As a result, the project is now running smoothly within a realistic timeframe and budget. Surprisingly, the unrealistic original deadline for the presentation of the newly developed product only had to be postponed by just under six months. This success was guaranteed by the complete restructuring of the project and the cultural change in the management team. What is even more pleasing is that, thanks to the successful agile collaboration, everyone involved, i.e. team members and stakeholders, can now identify one hundred per cent with the project and the new product development method. The company plans to continue working on further tasks in an agile way in the future. Overall, the aim is to achieve a hybrid structure in which "simple" tasks are handled conventionally and complex challenges in an agile manner.