Sources of Motivation in Management by Agile and SCRUM
UPD from 08/18/2018: updated and simplified the text of the article
Agile is a project management concept based on flexibility and maximum responsiveness to change. We can say that the essence of ajail is the principle of “check and adapt”. It is possible and necessary to introduce small ready-made product milestones as often as possible in order to understand whether exactly what the market and consumer need is created - that is what aggile calls for. Analysis of the market and consumer needs is often carried out to adjust plans for the development of the project. Programmers write the project in short iterations, which allows business owners to test their business ideas “in battle”. Considering that some features were needed yesterday, and the requirements taken last week are already outdated, each project participant should always be ready for changes. Developers, like product owners, ideally understand the whole process of delivery of the product to the consumer and the benefits that he decides. Many say that the agile works, some believe that it simply gathered the best practices of software development without creating anything new, but it cannot be denied that the agile works. This is proved by the history of companies [1]
Historically, Agile is most often used in projects that are somehow related to information technology. For example, according to the results of a survey conducted by Scrumtek.ru, more than half of the companies surveyed are somehow related to software development, even if this is not their main business [2].
The boom in startups has made flexible methodologies more popular. The founder of the startup has some kind of business idea, most often associated with innovation, and he would like to realize it. However, the founder does not know any details, not everything is clear to him in terms of implementation, he only has a vision for a new product. However, he wants to quickly occupy a niche market. In order to check whether a new idea will bring profit, it is important to “start up” as soon as possible and give the client a minimally suitable product without spending a lot of resources. If the idea does not find a response, then the project closes with minimal loss of both time and finance. If the project is popular with users, then the business is developing due to new investments in development. The same principle of “check and adapt” is applied in the further development of the project.
Big business can also apply the experience of startups: there is an idea, but there is no certainty that it will bring profit. What to do? Create MVPs, analyze feedback, and decide whether to continue this project. It is important to start the product as early as possible in order to draw the right conclusions, otherwise you can become catching up with the leaving train. This is where agile and product development help with short iterations.
For beginners, I’ll write that iterative development is when programmers roll out updates after short periods of time, because analysts have come to the conclusion that a client needs this or that feature. This applies only to those companies that make the product for a wide consumer, and not the one that is delivered to a limited circle of customers on request.
Business analysts also apply the principle of “test and adapt”, try to release a prototype as early as possible and collect feedback. Instead of presenting a fully completed product in N months or years to customers, the company releases small product updates to the market. The update should contain a valuable set of functions for the client each iteration. If we compare it with waterfall development, then the created product by ajail, after a time comparable to its complete sequential development without delivery iterations, has a set of functions that its users really need. Short deliveries of product versions allow the company to quickly adapt to changes.
In 2001, a development team created the so-called Agile manifest. Despite the fact that it contains “software development” in the text, these rules can be attributed to any process of creating a new product [3]:
Agile management enhances the competencies of development participants. The project manager does not dictate the terms of the tasks, as with waterfall. Product Oner reveals user stories to developers at meetings, telling the problems that led to their appearance. Developers, in turn, hear the background of the tasks, understand firsthand what will give the result of the task to customers and better understand what needs to be done on it. This approach allows participants in the product creation process to understand that they all work for the same ultimate goal - a quality product for the company's customers.
The lack of a detailed description of the tasks gives more freedom and independence in decision-making directly to the team performing these tasks. In fact, each individual developer has the right to decide how to write this or that feature so that it satisfies business requirements. Information about the business problem of the task complements the information about the task, and the programmer in the implementation process better sees the entire process chain. This can lead to the fact that the developer can offer his vision of solving the product problem to the oouner. Product OUNER, in turn, provides feedback on the proposals and results of the implementation of tasks. This is the essence of the “check and adapt” approach from the point of view of task performers, and not their directors.
Often in large organizations, the people responsible for certain stages of product creation are in very different, often conflicting, units. And if the product "does not work" and does not bring business profit, then each strives to blame the other. The tester blames the programmer for the bad code, the leading specialist blames the middle code for the bad code during the code review, the analyst believes that he is out of work and “analyzed” everything normally. Although in fact, in such cases, everyone is to blame [4]. Each project participant must rethink their role in the project from this point of view.
The business receives additional opportunities for growth, as the speed of operational tasks is accelerated due to greater independence of employees. With proper selection of personnel, task performers do not wait for management decisions on some operational issues, but try to solve them independently. It is important that they have an understanding that these errors will not affect their work in the company, as will not bring big losses. People learn from their mistakes, their competencies are expanding. Business processes are accelerated due to the lack of the need to wait for an appointment with the authorities to resolve minor issues.
The effectiveness of a person’s work depends on many factors, and motivation is considered one of the most important. Employee motivation depends on a lot, and it is believed that only material reward is not a sufficient incentive to work [5]. Agile, in my opinion, relies on two popular theories of motivation: Maslow's theory of needs and F. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation.
A. Maslow believed that motivation is based on a person’s desire to satisfy his needs. He identified five basic needs and arranged them in the following hierarchy, from basic to higher:
According to Maslow, people satisfy their needs consistently from basic to higher:
In the context of Agile, it is considered that the project participants are highly qualified specialists whose physiological and safety needs are adequately satisfied. It is believed that a person has already eaten and feels safe. The need for belonging to a certain social group is satisfied through close contact between developers and business customers. According to the Agile rules, the executor is only delegated the task, and not clearly stated instructions. This approach gives the performer some freedom in decision making. The employee feels that he belongs to the group working on the project. The decisions made by him, which find a response in the form of increasing profits or customer satisfaction with the results of the work, only reinforce these feelings.
The need for self-actualization is satisfied by the fact that project participants can prove themselves fully, because they are given more freedom in decision-making. Enhances the effect and the fact that feedback from the market due to iterations comes quickly. This makes it possible to adjust their principles of work, approaches and methods. Even if the task is overkill, this is an occasion to analyze the causes of failure and try not to allow them in the future.
According to the two-factor theory of motivation of F. Herceberg, “hygienic” and “motivating” factors influence motivation. ” Hygienic
These factors encourage an employee to return to work every morning.
“Motivating”:
In other words, these are factors that encourage an employee to work better today than yesterday.
In my opinion, Agile relies on motivating factors. Employees are independent in the performance of tasks, receive a high degree of responsibility for their affairs, and management encourages their good decisions through feedback. If something went wrong, then Agile recommends that managers explain what the performer’s mistake was, and not blame and / or punish. This contributes to the development of a supportive leadership style, which is recognized as one of the most effective when working with highly qualified personnel [6]. If an employee makes a decision within his competence, and it has shown good results or management has assessed its benefits, this motivates the employee to develop further in order to make more responsible decisions in the future.
Dan Ariely is an Israeli-American professor of psychology and behavioral economics. He teaches at Duke University and is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight. [7] Arieli conducted some experiments reflecting the importance of feedback when doing work. One of the most famous experiments is the assembly of a constructor by people for money. The essence of the experiment is that the subjects are divided into two groups. Both groups of people assemble a constructor from the provided parts for $ 3. After the person completed the assembly, he proceeded to assemble another designer, but for the price of thirty cents less. The question of the experiment was whether a person would stop assembling a designer until he received nothing for the assembly. The difference between the groups lies in the fact that the assembled designer was put into the drawer by the subjects from the first group, and the result of the work of subjects from the second group was disassembled before their eyes and given to them for reassembly at the next stage. On average, subjects from the first group, where the assembled constructor was cleaned in a drawer, repeated the work 11 times, and participants from the second group - only 7. [8]
The results of the experiment show that people are not ready to perform work up to a certain payment threshold, if the result of this work is useless, and they know about it. Subjects from the second group were not ready to repeat the constructor’s assembly for the eighth time on average, knowing that it would be disassembled and discarded.
Similar experiments were carried out by Arieli and subsequently. For example, instead of assembling a constructor, people were asked to mark on a sheet of a chaotic set of letters those that stand nearby and form meaningful words. The subjects were divided into three groups, while the participants of the first group wrote down their name on the answer sheet, but the participant of the other two did not. The results of the first group were evaluated by the person conducting the experiment in front of the subjects and stacked, allowing another such sheet to be filled. The responses of the subjects of the second group simply stacked up without viewing. The responses of the subjects of the third group without evaluation were destroyed through a shredder in front of them. Payment for filling out the sheet began with 30 cents, for each subsequent filling paid 1 cent less. The results of the experiment were as follows: participants in the first group, whose responses were evaluated, the repeated fillings stopped at 15 cents on average, the participants of the third group, whose answers were destroyed without an assessment, finished at 28 cents, which is not surprising. But the surprising fact for those conducting the experiment was that the participants of the second group, whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard. whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, they stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard. whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, they stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard.
Interesting experimental results with the participation of the same researcher show questions of the influence of positive motivation. Michael Norton, together with Dan Arieli and several other scientists, described an experiment showing, as he calls it, the "IKEA effect." The name of the effect comes from the business model of a Swedish company that produces furniture and supplies it as a designer for self-assembly by the client himself with the attached instructions.
According to the scientist, consumers of such products, requiring the participation of the client himself in bringing the product to a complete state, respond positively to the complexity of the involvement process. This is evidenced by a small study by Betty Crocker, which at the end of the 50s of the last century decided to produce ready-made baking mixes, where the client only had to pour the mixture into a mold and put it in a baking oven. According to the researchers, the target audience - housewives - did not massively buy the product, although from an economic point of view such a product was beneficial in terms of both financial investments and time costs. The company faced low sales. The executives decided to exclude milk and eggs from the mixture, which involved consumers in the process of making the cake more - the housewife needed to add the missing components in the right proportions. There are no official data, but company representatives are talking about a several-fold increase in sales. According to Norton and Arieli, in the case of baking a fully prepared mixture, they could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could tell : "This is my pie." They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9]. consumers, in the case of baking a completely finished mixture, could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could say: “This is my cake” . They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9]. consumers, in the case of baking a completely finished mixture, could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could say: “This is my cake” . They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9].
To confirm this conclusion, the researchers conducted their own experiment with the participation of their students. They asked the subjects to put origami figures out of paper using the instructions and paper drawn in advance and say at what price they would buy these crafts - their own and others. Each time the result was unchanged: everyone was ready to pay more for their own figures. Moreover, people were so enthusiastic about their figures that they charged them the same price as the work of professionals. Another participant was introduced into the experiment as an outside observer, and at the end of the assembly he was also asked the question, at what price he would buy the assembled origami. Naturally, the announced values were lower than those called by the collectors themselves. Researchers got even more interesting results when they removed the instructions from the experiment, leaving only the drawn paper and a photo of the expected finished result. The origami collected, as scientists note, was even worse and less like the expected result, but the prices voiced by the subjects were higher than during the first experiment. Outsiders at the same time called the price lower. Conclusion: consumers are ready to pay for a product from the do-it-yourself series, but with one important caveat: the task must be complex enough for a person to be proud of the fruits of his labor, and at the same time not so difficult that he can afford it.
When working on an Agile project, the described “IKEA effect” is experienced by developers when working with tasks set by a business customer or manager without clear instructions for the sequence of actions, but with a clearly stated expected result. The performers believe that the modules they wrote are “their modules”, which increases the motivation for further work on the project.
The use of Agile requires managers and all project participants to rethink their role in the project and the purpose of the work they perform. A business is generally built around the idea of making a profit by satisfying the needs of its customers. In order to extract more profit, it is necessary to provide the client with more quality and relevant values. In order for the product to be developed to be relevant for the consumer, it is necessary to analyze the results of the project and adjust plans as often as possible, checking the market feedback in response to the supply of values.
Agile promotes employee development and motivation by encouraging autonomy in decision making. Agile also encourages project participants to openly discuss their tasks and emerging issues so that others can help. Open discussions can help the company not only in increasing the speed of delivery of values to customers, but also in optimizing and accelerating business processes. During teamwork discussions, participants may find that their project work may begin earlier than anticipated. Such a rethinking requires a lot of effort from each project participant, however, if the principles of Agile are understood and accepted, the business will be as ready as possible for any changes in the external and internal environment.
Agile is a project management concept based on flexibility and maximum responsiveness to change. We can say that the essence of ajail is the principle of “check and adapt”. It is possible and necessary to introduce small ready-made product milestones as often as possible in order to understand whether exactly what the market and consumer need is created - that is what aggile calls for. Analysis of the market and consumer needs is often carried out to adjust plans for the development of the project. Programmers write the project in short iterations, which allows business owners to test their business ideas “in battle”. Considering that some features were needed yesterday, and the requirements taken last week are already outdated, each project participant should always be ready for changes. Developers, like product owners, ideally understand the whole process of delivery of the product to the consumer and the benefits that he decides. Many say that the agile works, some believe that it simply gathered the best practices of software development without creating anything new, but it cannot be denied that the agile works. This is proved by the history of companies [1]
Agile History
Historically, Agile is most often used in projects that are somehow related to information technology. For example, according to the results of a survey conducted by Scrumtek.ru, more than half of the companies surveyed are somehow related to software development, even if this is not their main business [2].
The boom in startups has made flexible methodologies more popular. The founder of the startup has some kind of business idea, most often associated with innovation, and he would like to realize it. However, the founder does not know any details, not everything is clear to him in terms of implementation, he only has a vision for a new product. However, he wants to quickly occupy a niche market. In order to check whether a new idea will bring profit, it is important to “start up” as soon as possible and give the client a minimally suitable product without spending a lot of resources. If the idea does not find a response, then the project closes with minimal loss of both time and finance. If the project is popular with users, then the business is developing due to new investments in development. The same principle of “check and adapt” is applied in the further development of the project.
Big business can also apply the experience of startups: there is an idea, but there is no certainty that it will bring profit. What to do? Create MVPs, analyze feedback, and decide whether to continue this project. It is important to start the product as early as possible in order to draw the right conclusions, otherwise you can become catching up with the leaving train. This is where agile and product development help with short iterations.
For beginners, I’ll write that iterative development is when programmers roll out updates after short periods of time, because analysts have come to the conclusion that a client needs this or that feature. This applies only to those companies that make the product for a wide consumer, and not the one that is delivered to a limited circle of customers on request.
Business analysts also apply the principle of “test and adapt”, try to release a prototype as early as possible and collect feedback. Instead of presenting a fully completed product in N months or years to customers, the company releases small product updates to the market. The update should contain a valuable set of functions for the client each iteration. If we compare it with waterfall development, then the created product by ajail, after a time comparable to its complete sequential development without delivery iterations, has a set of functions that its users really need. Short deliveries of product versions allow the company to quickly adapt to changes.
Agile General Rules
In 2001, a development team created the so-called Agile manifest. Despite the fact that it contains “software development” in the text, these rules can be attributed to any process of creating a new product [3]:
- People and interaction are more important than processes and tools
- A working product is more important than comprehensive documentation
- Collaboration with the customer is more important than negotiating the terms of the contract
- Preparedness for change is more important than following the original plan.
That is, without denying the importance of what's on the right, we still value more on what's on the left.
Agile impact on business processes
Agile management enhances the competencies of development participants. The project manager does not dictate the terms of the tasks, as with waterfall. Product Oner reveals user stories to developers at meetings, telling the problems that led to their appearance. Developers, in turn, hear the background of the tasks, understand firsthand what will give the result of the task to customers and better understand what needs to be done on it. This approach allows participants in the product creation process to understand that they all work for the same ultimate goal - a quality product for the company's customers.
The lack of a detailed description of the tasks gives more freedom and independence in decision-making directly to the team performing these tasks. In fact, each individual developer has the right to decide how to write this or that feature so that it satisfies business requirements. Information about the business problem of the task complements the information about the task, and the programmer in the implementation process better sees the entire process chain. This can lead to the fact that the developer can offer his vision of solving the product problem to the oouner. Product OUNER, in turn, provides feedback on the proposals and results of the implementation of tasks. This is the essence of the “check and adapt” approach from the point of view of task performers, and not their directors.
Often in large organizations, the people responsible for certain stages of product creation are in very different, often conflicting, units. And if the product "does not work" and does not bring business profit, then each strives to blame the other. The tester blames the programmer for the bad code, the leading specialist blames the middle code for the bad code during the code review, the analyst believes that he is out of work and “analyzed” everything normally. Although in fact, in such cases, everyone is to blame [4]. Each project participant must rethink their role in the project from this point of view.
The business receives additional opportunities for growth, as the speed of operational tasks is accelerated due to greater independence of employees. With proper selection of personnel, task performers do not wait for management decisions on some operational issues, but try to solve them independently. It is important that they have an understanding that these errors will not affect their work in the company, as will not bring big losses. People learn from their mistakes, their competencies are expanding. Business processes are accelerated due to the lack of the need to wait for an appointment with the authorities to resolve minor issues.
Agile and theories of staff motivation
The effectiveness of a person’s work depends on many factors, and motivation is considered one of the most important. Employee motivation depends on a lot, and it is believed that only material reward is not a sufficient incentive to work [5]. Agile, in my opinion, relies on two popular theories of motivation: Maslow's theory of needs and F. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation.
A. Maslow believed that motivation is based on a person’s desire to satisfy his needs. He identified five basic needs and arranged them in the following hierarchy, from basic to higher:
- Physiological needs, such as satisfying hunger and thirst;
- The need for security, for example, the need for housing, heat, in order;
- The need for affiliation and love, for example, the need to have a family, to be a member of a social group;
- The need for recognition, for example, the need for status, self-esteem;
- The need for self-actualization, for example, the need for personal growth and development.
According to Maslow, people satisfy their needs consistently from basic to higher:
“A person wants to satisfy the more basic of two needs when he is not satisfied with respect to both of them.”
In the context of Agile, it is considered that the project participants are highly qualified specialists whose physiological and safety needs are adequately satisfied. It is believed that a person has already eaten and feels safe. The need for belonging to a certain social group is satisfied through close contact between developers and business customers. According to the Agile rules, the executor is only delegated the task, and not clearly stated instructions. This approach gives the performer some freedom in decision making. The employee feels that he belongs to the group working on the project. The decisions made by him, which find a response in the form of increasing profits or customer satisfaction with the results of the work, only reinforce these feelings.
The need for self-actualization is satisfied by the fact that project participants can prove themselves fully, because they are given more freedom in decision-making. Enhances the effect and the fact that feedback from the market due to iterations comes quickly. This makes it possible to adjust their principles of work, approaches and methods. Even if the task is overkill, this is an occasion to analyze the causes of failure and try not to allow them in the future.
According to the two-factor theory of motivation of F. Herceberg, “hygienic” and “motivating” factors influence motivation. ” Hygienic
- working conditions;
- the room;
- culture
- company policy regarding internal processes;
- salaries, bonuses, bonuses, etc.
These factors encourage an employee to return to work every morning.
“Motivating”:
- success;
- career advancement;
- recognition of work results;
- high degree of responsibility;
- the opportunity to realize their creative potential and professional growth.
In other words, these are factors that encourage an employee to work better today than yesterday.
In my opinion, Agile relies on motivating factors. Employees are independent in the performance of tasks, receive a high degree of responsibility for their affairs, and management encourages their good decisions through feedback. If something went wrong, then Agile recommends that managers explain what the performer’s mistake was, and not blame and / or punish. This contributes to the development of a supportive leadership style, which is recognized as one of the most effective when working with highly qualified personnel [6]. If an employee makes a decision within his competence, and it has shown good results or management has assessed its benefits, this motivates the employee to develop further in order to make more responsible decisions in the future.
The role of feedback in matters of motivation
Dan Ariely is an Israeli-American professor of psychology and behavioral economics. He teaches at Duke University and is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight. [7] Arieli conducted some experiments reflecting the importance of feedback when doing work. One of the most famous experiments is the assembly of a constructor by people for money. The essence of the experiment is that the subjects are divided into two groups. Both groups of people assemble a constructor from the provided parts for $ 3. After the person completed the assembly, he proceeded to assemble another designer, but for the price of thirty cents less. The question of the experiment was whether a person would stop assembling a designer until he received nothing for the assembly. The difference between the groups lies in the fact that the assembled designer was put into the drawer by the subjects from the first group, and the result of the work of subjects from the second group was disassembled before their eyes and given to them for reassembly at the next stage. On average, subjects from the first group, where the assembled constructor was cleaned in a drawer, repeated the work 11 times, and participants from the second group - only 7. [8]
The results of the experiment show that people are not ready to perform work up to a certain payment threshold, if the result of this work is useless, and they know about it. Subjects from the second group were not ready to repeat the constructor’s assembly for the eighth time on average, knowing that it would be disassembled and discarded.
Similar experiments were carried out by Arieli and subsequently. For example, instead of assembling a constructor, people were asked to mark on a sheet of a chaotic set of letters those that stand nearby and form meaningful words. The subjects were divided into three groups, while the participants of the first group wrote down their name on the answer sheet, but the participant of the other two did not. The results of the first group were evaluated by the person conducting the experiment in front of the subjects and stacked, allowing another such sheet to be filled. The responses of the subjects of the second group simply stacked up without viewing. The responses of the subjects of the third group without evaluation were destroyed through a shredder in front of them. Payment for filling out the sheet began with 30 cents, for each subsequent filling paid 1 cent less. The results of the experiment were as follows: participants in the first group, whose responses were evaluated, the repeated fillings stopped at 15 cents on average, the participants of the third group, whose answers were destroyed without an assessment, finished at 28 cents, which is not surprising. But the surprising fact for those conducting the experiment was that the participants of the second group, whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard. whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, they stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard. whose answers were not signed and not evaluated immediately, they stopped re-filling already at 26 cents. Arieli came to the conclusion that ignoring and depersonalizing the results of a person’s work is almost equivalent to the complete destruction of the fruits of the employee’s labor before his eyes. Reducing employee motivation is easy enough, and raising it is hard.
Interesting experimental results with the participation of the same researcher show questions of the influence of positive motivation. Michael Norton, together with Dan Arieli and several other scientists, described an experiment showing, as he calls it, the "IKEA effect." The name of the effect comes from the business model of a Swedish company that produces furniture and supplies it as a designer for self-assembly by the client himself with the attached instructions.
According to the scientist, consumers of such products, requiring the participation of the client himself in bringing the product to a complete state, respond positively to the complexity of the involvement process. This is evidenced by a small study by Betty Crocker, which at the end of the 50s of the last century decided to produce ready-made baking mixes, where the client only had to pour the mixture into a mold and put it in a baking oven. According to the researchers, the target audience - housewives - did not massively buy the product, although from an economic point of view such a product was beneficial in terms of both financial investments and time costs. The company faced low sales. The executives decided to exclude milk and eggs from the mixture, which involved consumers in the process of making the cake more - the housewife needed to add the missing components in the right proportions. There are no official data, but company representatives are talking about a several-fold increase in sales. According to Norton and Arieli, in the case of baking a fully prepared mixture, they could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could tell : "This is my pie." They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9]. consumers, in the case of baking a completely finished mixture, could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could say: “This is my cake” . They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9]. consumers, in the case of baking a completely finished mixture, could not feel that the finished cake was the result of their efforts, however, when it was necessary to knead the mixture with eggs and milk, this gave the housewives a sense of involvement in the manufacture, and they could say: “This is my cake” . They formulated such a conclusion: the more a person puts his strength and soul into the work, the more he enjoys the result [9].
To confirm this conclusion, the researchers conducted their own experiment with the participation of their students. They asked the subjects to put origami figures out of paper using the instructions and paper drawn in advance and say at what price they would buy these crafts - their own and others. Each time the result was unchanged: everyone was ready to pay more for their own figures. Moreover, people were so enthusiastic about their figures that they charged them the same price as the work of professionals. Another participant was introduced into the experiment as an outside observer, and at the end of the assembly he was also asked the question, at what price he would buy the assembled origami. Naturally, the announced values were lower than those called by the collectors themselves. Researchers got even more interesting results when they removed the instructions from the experiment, leaving only the drawn paper and a photo of the expected finished result. The origami collected, as scientists note, was even worse and less like the expected result, but the prices voiced by the subjects were higher than during the first experiment. Outsiders at the same time called the price lower. Conclusion: consumers are ready to pay for a product from the do-it-yourself series, but with one important caveat: the task must be complex enough for a person to be proud of the fruits of his labor, and at the same time not so difficult that he can afford it.
When working on an Agile project, the described “IKEA effect” is experienced by developers when working with tasks set by a business customer or manager without clear instructions for the sequence of actions, but with a clearly stated expected result. The performers believe that the modules they wrote are “their modules”, which increases the motivation for further work on the project.
Finally
The use of Agile requires managers and all project participants to rethink their role in the project and the purpose of the work they perform. A business is generally built around the idea of making a profit by satisfying the needs of its customers. In order to extract more profit, it is necessary to provide the client with more quality and relevant values. In order for the product to be developed to be relevant for the consumer, it is necessary to analyze the results of the project and adjust plans as often as possible, checking the market feedback in response to the supply of values.
Agile promotes employee development and motivation by encouraging autonomy in decision making. Agile also encourages project participants to openly discuss their tasks and emerging issues so that others can help. Open discussions can help the company not only in increasing the speed of delivery of values to customers, but also in optimizing and accelerating business processes. During teamwork discussions, participants may find that their project work may begin earlier than anticipated. Such a rethinking requires a lot of effort from each project participant, however, if the principles of Agile are understood and accepted, the business will be as ready as possible for any changes in the external and internal environment.
Sources
- Can Big Organizations Be Agile
- Report on the results of a survey of Russian companies for 2017
- Agile Software Development Manifesto Official Website
- “Agile: how and when to apply this method”, Sergey Karpov
- "Leadership styles", resource "Grandars.ru"
- "Theories of motivation", the resource "grandas.ru"
- Biography of Dan Arieli
- “Dan Ariely: Experiments with Employee Motivation,” an article about the experiment
- “The IKEA Effect - What I Made, I Loved”, Harvard Business Review resource about the “IKEA Effect”