Rick Dove

AGILITY, RESPONSE ABILITY, AND CULTURE. Putting Agility in Its Place. Change-Enabling Structure and Culture. CHANGE PROFICIENCY: THE LANGUAGE OF AGILE ENTERPRISE. Frameworks for Change Proficiency. Response Situation Analysis. ADAPTABLE STRUCTURE: THE ENABLER OF AGILE ENTERPRISE. Enabling Response Ability. Response-Able Enterprise Systems. Systematic Design of Response-Able Systems. Intuitive Design of Response-Able Systems. KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURE: THE WAY OF THE AGILE ENTERPRISE. Waking Up the Enterprise. Becoming and Managing the Response-Able Enterprise. References. Index.

This paper defines the agile enterprise as one which is able to both manage and apply knowledge effectively, and suggests that value from either capability is impeded if they are not in balance. It looks at the application of knowledge as requiring a change, and overviews a body of analytical work on change proficiency in business systems and processes. It looks at knowledge management as a strategic portfolio management responsibility based on learning functionality, and shares knowledge and experience in organizational collaborative learning mechanisms. It introduces the concept of plug‐compatible knowledge packaging as a means for increasing the velocity of knowledge diffusion and the likelihood of knowledge understood at the depth of insight. Finally, it reviews a knowledge portfolio management and collaborative knowledge development architecture used successfully in a sizable cross‐industry informal‐consortia activity, and suggests that it is a good model for a corporate university architecture.

The concept of the agile enterprise emerged in the early 2990s from a Department of Defense/National Science Foundation-sponsored industry-collaborative study at Lehigh University. The intent was to forecast the competitive environment of 2005 and beyond. The accuracy of that work is evident in today’s emerging business strategies, practices, and technology-infrastructure support. In general, however, agility is creeping into the business environment with compelling spot applications, such as outsourcing and business process management initiatives. This paper examines new risk-management value-understandings, the nature of reality confronted by agile enterprise, and updates previously published agile-enterprise system-engineering concepts. The purpose of this paper is to illuminate requirements for those who would design and build the necessarily agile IT infrastructure support.

This document provides the findings of the Joint MIT‐PMI‐INCOSE Lean in Program Management Community of Practice that are based on a 1‐year project executed during 2011 and 2012. The community was made up of selected subject matter experts from industry, government, and academia. The findings reported in this guide are based on known best practices from the literature, program experience of the subject matter experts, and input from an extensive community of professionals. The findings of the Joint Community of Practice were extensively validated through community and practitioner feedback, multiple workshops at INCOSE and PMI conferences, LAI‐hosted web‐based meetings, and surveys of the extended professional community. The survey results clearly show that programs that use the Lean Enablers show a significantly stronger performance in all dimensions—from cost, to schedule and quality, as well as stakeholder satisfaction. The core of this document contains (1) the 10 themes for major engineering program management challenges, and (2) the 43 Lean Enablers with 286 subenablers to overcome these challenges, better integrate program management and systems engineering, and lead engineering programs to excellence. The main engineering program management challenges that were identified and addressed By Lean Enablers in this guide are: 1. Firefighting—Reactive program execution; 2. Unstable, unclear, and incomplete requirements; 3. Insufficient alignment and coordination of the extended enterprise; 4. Processes are locally optimized and not integrated for the entire enterprise; 5. Unclear roles, responsibilities, and accountability; 6. Mismanagement of program culture, team competency, and knowledge; 7. Insufficient program planning; 8. Improper metrics, metric systems, and KPIs; 9. Lack of proactive program risk management; and 10. Poor program acquisition and contracting practices The 43 Lean Enablers (LE) and 286 subenablers for Managing Engineering Programs—actionable best practices— are summarized in six categories that represent the six Lean Principles (LP): LE 1.x: Respect the people in your program (LP6); LE 2.x: Capture the value defined by the key customer stakeholders (LP1); LE 3.x: Map the value stream and eliminate waste (LP2); LE 4.x: Flow the work through planned and streamlined processes (LP3); LE 5.x: Let customer stakeholders pull value (LP4); and LE 6.x: Pursue perfection in all processes.