How a high-tech company
optimises the development
of its agile processes
with a quick check

The high-tech laser technology segment is characterised above all by its rapid pace of development. Driven by constantly expanding technical possibilities and increasing customer requirements, it is important for companies that want to take a leading position not only to react to market developments, but also to be drivers of innovation. For example, the long-standing trend towards miniaturisation of products, assemblies and components requires a continuous increase in precision. In order to meet these challenges, innovation must be implemented as a continuous process. The aim is to systematically develop not only the technology, but also the company's own working methods. In order to identify existing optimisation potential, a leading global German manufacturer had a quick check carried out by external experts. This enabled valuable insights to be gained for further development within a very short space of time.

For a high-tech laser technology company, its own ability to innovate is a decisive success factor. After all, at this level of quality, it is not a question of reacting to developments, but of constantly setting new standards. The German company Precitec GmbH & Co. KG was therefore quick to adopt new working methods in order to organise its own development processes effectively. The product development process (PDP) and portfolio management were optimised. To this end, agile working methods were implemented in development. Precitec brought the management consultants from Eschborn-based CO Improve, who specialise in automotive, mechatronics and electronics, on board to provide support and identify the status quo using a quick check. Dr Stephan Biermann, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Precitec AG: "We have already gained some experience and are aware that the implementation of agile working methods is a process that should be reviewed and readjusted time and again. In this respect, CO Improve's offer to carry out such a review in a very short time frame and at a very manageable cost was very welcome."

Of course, two days to assess the current situation is a very ambitious timeframe. The two CO Improve consultants entrusted with the task therefore opted for a structured recording of the practices used in the company. In order to assess the extent to which the topics of ‘agile working methods’ and ‘implementation of PEP’ that were the focus of the analysis had been internalised and implemented, they first took part in various agile events. This did not involve any additional effort for the employees or the company. During a 15-minute daily scrum, a sprint review, a sprint retrospective and a sprint planning session, the consultants observed how the team members and stakeholders interacted with each other. ‘When working together, you can often quickly see how consistently agile working methods are actually being implemented,’ explains Gunther Reibe, Senior Consultant at CO Improve. ‘And sometimes it's the seemingly small things that hinder the team's success in the long run.’ In this case, for example, the consultants quickly discovered that the distribution of Scrum roles was unclear. In one team, for example, one member also acted as Scrum Master. What may seem reasonable at first glance can actually lead to confusion and conflict and ultimately have a negative impact on results. "The Scrum Master's job is to provide strong organisational support and create conditions that enable the development team to focus fully on their tasks. In this role, they should be available at all times. The following example, in which one person is both Scrum Master and Product Owner, illustrates the conflict of interest:

In this example, the user of the product to be developed is also the "boss" of the Scrum Master and the Product Owner. The latter would like to see what he considers to be an important feature in the next version. However, it is the last sprint before the version is delivered and sprint planning has already taken place. If a person now has both roles, they know that they cannot regularly include the feature in the sprint and that it can only be included in the next version with considerable additional effort. How does the person decide in the conflict of interest? Is the person's reputation in the company and with the boss high enough to decide in favour of the process? How does the person moderate between the team and their own roles? Would they decide against their own boss, even at the risk of jeopardising their own job or career?

"As a form of agile working, SCRUM offers an excellent basis for solving very complex tasks quickly and measurably efficiently and leading them to success, especially thanks to its clear structures," adds Reibe. "If a team member were to take on the role of Scrum Master for another team, for example, the conflict described above could be avoided - as long as capacities allow, of course. Within the team, however, it should be clear at all times who has which role and which competences. Then the relationship shown in the Stacey Matrix 'The more complex the task, the more agile the method used should be' works."

As part of the quick check, compliance with the specified roles and working methods was therefore also closely scrutinised. The aim was to arrive at well-founded capability assessments and feasible optimisation recommendations as quickly as possible. Of course, this also included identifying the things that were already being implemented excellently. A good example of this at Precitec was the presentation of a new housing design as a digital mock-up of the minimum viable product (MVP). This clearly showed the advantages of being able to discuss development steps using a concrete sample. This also effectively avoids an unwanted preoccupation with work processes, which does not belong in a sprint review but should rather take place in the sprint retrospective. It is the right format for addressing problems in collaboration, for example.

Well-structured interviews are another important tool in a quick check. Thanks to a neutral external perspective and the opportunity for employees to express themselves freely and anonymously, any weak points can be identified very quickly and specifically and valuable insights can be gained. At Precitec, the consultants conducted half-hour interviews with a total of ten employees who had different roles in the teams. This allowed them to compare their own observations with different perspectives from the teams and arrive at a well-founded assessment.

The results showed that many of the newly introduced methods and processes have already been implemented very well at Precitec. For example, the PEP product development process, which was optimised in 2013, is largely running smoothly and very efficiently. The agile working methods for the development of new "hardware products" were also very well internalised overall. However, small corrections such as clear separation of roles, disciplined participation in events, active participation and constructive feedback from stakeholders in the reviews were able to significantly increase efficiency in this area The consultants were also able to identify development potential in the area of portfolio management. The main focus here was on clear prioritisation. This is because too many suggestions, ideas or functionalities in a product can often significantly increase the complexity of development tasks, even unintentionally. A structured description of the start and target portfolio and clear prioritisation of the product features desired by these customers not only lead to increased customer satisfaction, but also reduce costs and enable internal process optimisation.

The quality of each evaluation is ultimately measured by the feasibility of the recommendations. "To be honest, we were very pleasantly surprised at how many optimisation approaches the CO Improve consultants were able to generate in such a short space of time. And our development teams also benefited from the structured reflection and concrete recommendations for action in the long term," confirms Dr Biermann. "I can imagine that such a quick check could also be a lasting experience for other companies and a helpful and promising tool for further development."