Agile — flexibility enabling efficient work

Little more than a year ago I believed that the process-based management methods introduced through, for instance, ISO 9001 standard is acme of perfection in management, while all the drawbacks of these methods like strong bureaucracy is just a price you have to pay for good organization and order. Even now I think that a company could be considered as accomplished only when it steps onto the level with the procedure or process-based management system implemented through the similar standards and methodologies.

I encountered the processes for the first time when in my previous business a Lab was opened and accredited according to ISO 9001. It was obvious that work in the Lab was well organized especially when compared with other departments within our company though the same standard was later implemented throughout the whole company. The key factor was that the Lab team was ready to adapt to the way of working in accordance with this standard.

I came across the same standard oriented way of working at the international clients, in particular Operator of Karachaganak field, KPO b.v. (Karachaganak Petroleum Operating). Level and scale of rules, procedures and processes in this Operator-company are tremendous. Permit-to-Work (PTW) system is worth mentioning. This system plays a vital role in the work organization process and safety at the field. Each work shall go through the PTW procedure. Just imagine, even a cleaner must initiate a PTW to wash the floors. What is the purpose of such a bureaucracy? PTW system helps addressing the following issues:

• draws attention of all the involved parties onto the main value of KPO — Safety First;
• allows to consider the risks associated with the work and take measures aimed at mitigating those risks and any potential emergency consequences;
• when it comes to analyze the risks from the above item many factors are taken into consideration, such as number of personnel, their qualification, equipment, duration, work type and etc and then set of measures are identified and implemented;
• enables simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) of several teams from different companies at one site excluding collision, new risks emerging from the SIMOPS (considering that each single work is performed in a safe manner);
• KPO employee responsible for a particular site is aware of all the works conducted within his assigned area;
• registration of all the works gives up-to-date information in case of emergency: what company, number of people, what works are being conducted in the vicinity to the emergency location;
• during the investigation it helps to make an analysis and lessons learnt to prevent such occurrences in the future.

As you can see, PTW system addresses a wide variety of tasks and it is running like clockwork despite the overall complexity of the process and number of people involved throughout the field. And that is what ensures minimal risk of emergency.
At the same time I faced immense bureaucratic foot-dragging of such a system.

Example from the Lab. Lab staff is working in a certain way. I suggest for a particular case to follow another way thus be more effective. But I see resistance from the Lab staff saying that it is a procedure dictating that way. And my proposal is to set another way in the procedures as well. Again resistance: “When a client or regulation agent comes to audit, they will for sure reveal this blaming and requesting to rectify. My argument is that it is easier to do so and the standard doesn’t read and prohibit another way. And what I see again is a strong opposition. It is not difficult now to guess what this ends up with — employees are willing to tolerate and work in quite uncomfortable conditions just to avoid any observations from the auditors, otherwise they will have to redo much since the auditors are very hard to convince.

Example from KPO. Today I need to conduct a topographic survey. Work site is located in steppe within the field at 500 metre distance to the nearest well. All the risks are identified prior to commencement of any work at field: what risks to personnel health, life and material valuables. In my case we see a risk of getting heat stroke because of forecasted 42 degrees celsius, snakebite, potential injury in case of fall. Ok, then I need to ensure a bucket hat, close cotton coverall, sufficient amount of drinking water, a car parked at 5 minutes distance, constant connection with the driver via radio, 5 minutes breaks each 30 minutes, high safety boots and first-aid kit in the car.

Then a discussion with KPO focal point takes place. He encourages me and requires to wear a safety helmet and take a breathing apparatus Drager PP-15 (6 kg). I have an objection: what the safety helmet should save me from as I’ll work there alone? (the only thing which could potentially fall is a broken aircraft or burned out missile stage). Response is obvious — “it’s in accordance with the procedures”. You need somehow to wear both a bucket hat and safety helmet. Oh, ok. What about Drager? Why do I need it there? Drager is not required even when the work is performed in the vicinity to the plant where a technogenic disaster may happen — the main rule is to be behind the barrier. It’s simply illogical for me working deep in the steppe to take it? What if the underground pipeline breaks out or something goes wrong with the well. But the probability of such a case is so miserable and as per the risk matrix it’s next to impossible that at 500 distance from the well there is any danger for me. Furthermore, if I take Drager I’ll cover only 5 ha and be too bally tired, whereas without it I’ll do 20 ha (to foot 15–20 km for a day with hard work). Ok, take a helper…You may guess what it ends up with — I have to take Drager, while we both understand that most likely I’ll not wear it. KPO employee just wants to be on a safe side, notwithstanding that all my arguments are based on KPO procedures.

I’d like to reiterate that all these rules and standards are not evil. They bring more benefits than drawbacks. Apparently, these standards are worth implementing. When we talk about KPO, work in accordance with such standards constitutes a necessity. Field development and operation is so complicated with any accident consequences being so catastrophic that makes rigid rules quite reasonable.

Agile most likely doesn’t fit to the companies such KPO, in particular at field. The example with KPO is demonstrated to show how rigid rules could work. Everything that relates here to Agile is applicable to commercial companies working in an intensive, changing and competitive environment and are open to experiments.

For the time being, I’ve got understanding that:

• rigid, rules and process-based system are prototypes of totalitarian regime. Order and discipline are present, while creativity is absolutely missing. As a result, you get sluggishness and rigidity. One of the drawbacks of the strict rules and processes is tunnel vision: you can’t look the other way, everything is set forth in the rules. You could harden the rules, but not soften and by no means lift them;
• systems with no any rules and processes are analogues of anarchy, where every day you could follow a new rule. Creativity is spilling over. You could every day disregard what was important yesterday. Conclusion: all the actions look like chaotic efforts towards a possible success.

Where is a golden mean — that Agile? Jurgen Apello in his book “Agile Management” states that the right balance is in chaos borderline. It’s great that all these statements are science-based, for instance systems theory (there are a few of them, but the systems theory is the main and it impressed me much). Jurgen asserts that the system without any rules is the most creative and flexible yet the rules in the form of targets and restrictions are required to direct this creativity. Each rule could impact considerably onto the system behaviour. More rules, more rigidity and less flexibility you get.

To sum up, with Agile we:

• motivate and encourage employees for discussion, meeting, brainstorming and etc. so as to bring creativity and flexibility — this is the most important rule.
• set a target for a team and allow them to make up the rules and structure the work process.
• when you see that the team is doing something wrong or the result is not that one you expect, introduce a new rule-restriction (you need to explain the purpose of this restriction). See what and how changes. Repeat if required.
• in very exceptional cases you could allow to work deviating from the rules when common sense dictates so.
• and what is the most important, we could change the rules any time. Rules are only means to achieve a goal, but not a goal itself.

Of course, the above statements don’t claim to be an absolute truth. It’s more likely our interpretation of Agile in terms of rules and processes.
Within our team I don’t allow deviating from the rules or very hesitate to do it. More often I ask guys to supplement or redo the rules. My requirement: if the rule or process is already set, please follow them. Why?

Because we are a young team not reached a Blue level yet. It means that we desperately need to work out strong respect to the rules. If we set the rules, but then easily deviate, at the end we won’t adopt Blue culture values. It will be merely a pretension to work according to the rules, but actually be a fraud.

On the other hand, you shouldn’t go too far into rules and processes. Just set them when they are really required ensuring reasonable content. The stuff but not the fluff. Use the rules language clear for everybody. The simpler the better.