Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations
(USC Thesis Other)
Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Consultants Leverage Organizational Change for Successful Adoption of Agile Methods in
Government Organizations
by
Kimberly A. Tarabetz
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2021
Copyright 2021 Kimberly A. Tarabetz
ii
Acknowledgements
This accomplishment would not be possible without the support, encouragement and
guidance of many. To those listed below, and many more, I thank you from the bottom of my
heart.
To my family, you are my greatest joy. Rob, this would never have been possible without
you. Thank you for believing in me, for inspiring me and for being beside me every step of the
way. Jacob, Ashley, Brian and Nick please never forget how the story ends. And to my friends
who are like family, Kim Malm and Lori Walters, thank you for never doubting nor judging this
pursuit.
To my colleagues, thank you for the support to make this dream a reality. Robert Rodriguez
and Suzanne Vitale, thank you for providing a platform and supporting the dream. Diana Lee and
Lauren Leathers, thank you for creating space and providing encouragement to cross the finish
line.
To my committee and team, thank you for your guidance. Dr. Cathy Krop, and Dr. Jennifer
Phillips, I cannot thank you enough for your leadership, guidance and patience. Dr. Bryant Adibe,
thank you for not only serving as my chair, but also for your consistent encouragement. Dr. Marc
Pritchard, you helped make the seemingly impossible a reality.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem .................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ........................................................................ 3
Importance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .......................................................... 5
Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 6
Agile Transformation .......................................................................................................... 7
Organizational Change and Culture .................................................................................... 9
Importance of Agile to Government Organizations.......................................................... 13
Learning Organizations ..................................................................................................... 14
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 15
Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 16
Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 18
Organization ...................................................................................................................... 21
Conceptual Framework Diagram ............................................................................................ 24
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 26
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 26
iv
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 27
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 30
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 31
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 39
Hypotheses Testing Results .............................................................................................. 42
Assumption Tests .............................................................................................................. 44
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 48
Discussion of Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 48
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 50
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 59
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 59
References ............................................................................................................................... 61
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix A: Definitions ................................................................................................... 74
Appendix B: The Researcher ............................................................................................ 75
Appendix C: Protocols ...................................................................................................... 76
Appendix D: Ethics ........................................................................................................... 81
Appendix E: Assumptions ................................................................................................ 83
Appendix F: Agile Culture Readiness Assessment and Maturity Model ......................... 85
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................................... 93
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Data .......................................................................................................... 34
Table 2: Reliability and Validity Tests Results ............................................................................ 38
Table 3: Knowledge Descriptive Statistics (n = 53) ..................................................................... 40
Table 4: Motivation – Self-Efficacy Descriptive Statistics (n = 53) ............................................ 40
Table 5: Motivation – Utility Value Descriptive Statistics (n = 53) ............................................. 41
Table 6: Organization Descriptive Statistics (n = 53) ................................................................... 42
Table 7: Correlation Matrix of Composite Scores ........................................................................ 42
Table 8: Regression Analysis with Interaction Term ................................................................... 46
Table 9: Helpful Tools, Training or Resources Response (n=39) ................................................ 47
G1: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ................................. 93
G2: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ........................................ 95
G3: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .................................................................... 96
G4: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ................................................. 99
G5: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ............................................................. 100
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 2: Distribution of Knowledge Composite Score (n = 50) ................................................. 36
Figure 3: Distribution of Motivation Composite Score (n = 50) .................................................. 37
Figure 4: Distribution of Organization Composite Score (n = 50) ............................................... 38
Figure 5: Scatterplot of Motivation and Knowledge Composite Scores ...................................... 43
Figure 6: Scatterplot of Motivation and Organization Composite Scores with Exceptions ......... 44
Figure 7: Distribution of Residuals ............................................................................................... 45
Figure 8: Scatterplot of Residuals ................................................................................................. 46
Figure 9: Agile Readiness Culture Assessment and Maturity Model ........................................... 58
G1: Agile Culture Readiness Assessment and Maturity Model with Radar Graph ...................... 85
G2: Agile Culture Readiness Radar Graph ................................................................................... 92
vii
Abstract
The agile method of developing software is different from traditional methods.
Organizations planning a transition from traditional methods to agile methods often look to
consultants to lead the transformation. This study leverages the knowledge, motivation and
organizational performance framework developed by Clark and Estes to explore which
influences on consultants have significance in terms of their ability to lead government clients
through a transformation to agile methods. The study answers the research questions of what
knowledge, motivation and organization influences consultants need to lead an agile
transformation, what is the interaction between the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences and the recommendations for an agile practice. A quantitative design answers the
research questions by collecting survey data from consultants at a mid-size national consulting
firm who have had experience delivering agile on projects with government clients. Findings
indicated agile and change management knowledge is needed. Consultant perceived self-efficacy
and utility value, as well as an organizational learning mindset provide a foundation for
consultants to deliver agile transformation projects.
Introduction
Traditional software development methods are insufficient to address the growing call for
expediency and efficiency in government projects. This study examines the opportunity for
consultants and advisors to influence organizational culture by facilitating the successful
implementation of iterative software development methods, known as agile, in government
organizations. Traditional software development processes often leave project teams delivering a
finished product that is outdated, if not obsolete, even before the product was launched (Tripp
and Armstrong, 2018). In response, information technology (IT) experts and visionaries
collaborated to develop a set of beliefs and values that mitigated that risk (Conforto et al., 2014).
As its name suggests, agile describes a nimble approach to software development that delivers
small pieces of functional software into the customer's hands in iterative cycles, faster than
traditional methods (Tripp & Armstrong, 2018).
The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 14 factors that
challenge adoption of agile methods in government, including committing dedicated staff
resources and procurement practices that do not support agile methods and compliance reviews
that do not align with an iterative timeline (United States, 2012). The evidence highlights
findings in additional studies from agile expert VersionOne and change management research
firm, Prosci
®
, which found the top obstacles for adopting agile development methods are change
and culture-related issues (Prosci, 2017; VersionOne, 2017). This problem is important to
address because agile development methods can provide the greater efficiency and effectiveness
sought by both government organizations and citizens alike. By helping staff manage product
requirements, increasing staff knowledge and experience, and integrating stakeholder feedback
directly into the product agile methods outpace conventional software development practices
2
(United States, 2016). If agile processes are to be successful in government, the team leading the
work needs to take on a new level of responsibility and partnership (Booz, 2015). Even with the
higher engagement level from project leads, Fernandez and Rainey (2006) observe agile is not a
silver bullet. There must be synergy between the project, culture, project team, customers, and
the project strategy for agile to be successful.
Context and Background of the Problem
Modern software development practices subscribe to an iterative process known as agile.
Agile is not a discrete set of processes, rather an overarching term summarizing more than 40
different methods used to keep pace with a rapidly changing business environment (Al-Said and
Amro, 2014; Lee and Xia, 2010). Agile methods contrast with conventional project management
approaches by consistently delivering small pieces of working software components of the larger
solution every few weeks, rather than unveiling a comprehensive product at the end of a project.
Frustrated innovators recognized the challenges posed by legacy processes and architected a new
system of beliefs and values to allow development to keep pace with rapidly changing business
requirements and avoid delivering software solutions that were outdated event before acceptance
(Cao & Ramesh, 2008). However, the ongoing cycle of software releases position project team
members and end-users directly at the mouth of a continuous stream of communication and
learning. A study of 165 experienced agile practitioners confirmed the transition from process-
based, documentation-heavy activities to short, iterative, people-centric development represents a
profound change for most employees (Misra et al., 2010). This study evaluates a company’s
ability to prepare and deploy qualified consultants to lead successful agile transformations. The
intention behind this study is to extract learning opportunities to improve future transformation
3
efforts and achieve the company’s goal of becoming a national leader of agile transformation
services.
Company A (a pseudonym), a mid-size, nationwide consulting firm headquartered in
Northern California, provides management consulting and digital services to public sector
clients. Management consulting services include project management, business analyst support,
business process redesign, and change management services. The company's suite of services
also includes systems integration, systems development and migrations, technology enablement,
program and project management, agile delivery, human-centered design, and quality
management. Technology offerings include systems integration, Software Development and
Operations integration (DevOps), application management, and project development services.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Company A invested in agile in 2016 with the foresight to recognize that government
clients will need subject matter expert support transitioning to agile methods. Since that time,
their teams have supported clients use of agile in two ways: delivering projects using agile
methods and conducting transformations to shift client operations from a conventional to an agile
approach. The more typical engagement is agile project delivery projects. While agile
transformation is a less frequent engagement, Company A has successfully provided agile
transformation services. This study evaluates a company’s ability to prepare and deploy qualified
consultants to lead successful agile transformations. The intention behind this study is to extract
learning opportunities to improve future transformation efforts and achieve the company’s goal
of becoming a national leader of agile services. To that end, the following questions guide the
study:
4
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences do consultants need
to lead an agile transformation?
2. What is the interaction between the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational recommendations for
enhancing an agile practice area?
Importance of the Study
Although government agencies often have strong organizational cultures, the culture is
typically non-parallel to agile culture (Misra et al., 2010). Traditional bureaucratic silos and
hierarchies stand in stark opposition to the collaborative and transparent matrixed organizations
of the technology genre (Goransson et al., 2011). One risk of organizational transformation to
agile methods is that the efficiencies and benefits realized through agile can be blocked by
conventional culture barriers that do not align with agile culture (Goransson et al., 2011).
Leaders and agile transformation consultants have a responsibility to cultivate an organizational
culture that supports agile methods and enhances the likelihood of success and sustainability
(Goransson et al., 2011). It is essential to solve this problem of practice to improve the overall
industry body of knowledge for agile in government, and provide clients with evidence-based
practices for implementing sustainable transformations within their organizations. Beyond the
industry's gains, solving this problem will improve efficiency and effectiveness for government
agencies that adopt agile methods and offer a foundation for keeping pace with today's
technological advancements.
5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes (2008) provide the theoretical framework for articulating organizational
and stakeholder performance goals and identifying the gap between the actual performance and
the performance goal. This framework then examines the stakeholder knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that may impact performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills identified by Krathwohl (2002) include four types: (a) factual; (b)
conceptual; (c) procedural; and (d) metacognitive, which determine if stakeholders know how to
achieve a performance goal. Motivational principles of self-efficacy, values, and goals should be
considered when analyzing the performance gap (Rueda, 2011). Finally, organizational
influences on stakeholder performance may include work processes, resources, and workplace
culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This project will utilize a quantitative approach for research based on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (collectively referred to as KMO) gap analytical framework
developed by Clark and Estes (2008). The KMO model provides the structure for performance
evaluation gap analysis by breaking down performance into key components and then
considering how they work together to achieve the desired result. A quantitative method is
preferred for this study as it facilitates identification and evaluation of the relationships between
stakeholder knowledge and motivation and successful implementations (Creswell, 2014; Clark &
Estes, 2008). A quantitative survey method allows for gathering many samples to generalize
findings to a larger population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2016). A quantitative approach also allows for
an objective analysis of examining potential relationships between variables (Cozby, 2001). The
analysis for this study leverages a quantitative survey of all Company A's employees including
the stakeholder group of focus. The population was selected to capture as many participants with
6
agile knowledge as possible. The initial qualifying questions are included to screen participants
for experience in agile projects with government clients. The researcher will gather data through
an online survey questionnaire to prevent face-to-face interaction with potential participants, due
to limitations from the 2020 global pandemic SARS-COV-2
1
, commonly referred to as COVID-
19 or the novel coronavirus. Recommendations will be based on the KMO model specifying
which components could help Company A achieve their stated goal as determined by the results
of the quantitative survey.
Literature Review
The literature review outlines agile software development methods, how government
organizations integrate agile methods, their influences on organizational culture, and how
consultants or contractors may impact these methods' successful adoption. The review begins by
defining agile transformation and discusses the different agile methods and their benefits in the
public sector. The following section addresses organizational changes that occur when
introducing agile. The section also discusses organizational culture, agile culture, public sector
organizational culture, and the inherent conflicts between agile culture and public sector
organizations in meeting citizen expectations and benefit realization. As the section concludes an
examination of leadership in organizational culture change is followed by discussion of learning
or growth mindset organizations as the foundation to the consulting firm.
1
Beginning in early 2020 COVID-19 was identified as a fast spreading and potentially life-threatening virus making
its way across the globe. At the time of publication, there were more than 158 million recorded cases of COVID-19
resulting in more than 3.29 million fatalities (Johns Hopkins, 2021). As countries were impacted by the pandemic
widespread implications including halting nearly all in-person interactions including education at both the K-8 and
higher education levels, places of worship, most government offices and non-emergency medical visits.
7
Agile Transformation
The frustrations in unproductive software development have led to the development of
agile methods in software development. Agile methods are very different from traditional
software development methods (Murray, 2016). The purpose of agile development was to reduce
the preparation stage and to get into development quickly. By focusing on development, a
working prototype could be tested in a few days or weeks instead of months or longer (Barton et
al., 2017). Transitioning away from the old software development methods and engaging the
enterprise in agile methods is considered an agile transformation. This section includes a
discussion on agile software development methods, agile methods, a comparison of agile with
traditional methods, and the importance of agility in government organizations.
Agile Software Development Methods
Agile software development involves discovering requirements and developing solutions
through collaboration between cross-functional teams and customers or users (Barton et al.,
2017). The focus of agile methods is to work collaboratively with the customer to incrementally
deliver working software to the customer much faster than traditional methods. Despite having
more than 40 variations in agile development approaches, the consistent factor amongst all of
them is the iterative nature of the process. Agile is an overarching umbrella that considers
multiple iterative development methods (Barton et al., 2017). Repeated cycles at regular
intervals, especially when involving interdisciplinary teams, is very challenging. Business or
other partners must be involved in the process (Meier & Ivarsson, 2013) to accommodate
constant project change and organize complex development processes.
8
Difference Between Agile and Traditional Methods
Agile development methods are different than traditional methods. Significant variances
include reducing the time to production, adapting quickly to changing requirements, and
minimizing the extemporaneous documentation needed with a traditional IT project (Barton et
al., 2017). The waterfall method is the traditional approach, often considered the most general. It
considers the process in phases, including system conceptualization, systems analysis, systems
design, coding, testing. Although widely used, the waterfall method has come under attack for its
inflexible approach and delayed realization of a working product (Sasankar & Chavan, 2011).
Traditional waterfall projects are not conducive to development environments where constraints
exist due to costs, technical, and even strategic factors (Sasankar & Chavan, 2011). The waterfall
project development methods also demand extensive paperwork and documentation, which takes
a significant amount of time and personnel resources to develop and maintain (Stober &
Hansmann, 2009). Responsiveness and rapid delivery of working software to the business are the
most critical factors in iterative success. Additionally, outdated requirements prevented because
of the iterative process. Agile development involves responding to changing requirements that
are valuable adaptations for modern developers (Elbanna & Sarker, 2016).
Digital business models demand organizations are faster at getting products to market.
Delivery methods that put the product at the center of the process are faster (Holte et al., 2018).
The advancement of technology outpaces extended project timeframes. Therefore, requirements
created at the outset of the project are no longer valid upon delivering the product in a waterfall
environment (Murray, 2016). Early and continuous feedback from the customer drive quality
improvement and client satisfaction. Agile development provides an alternative to traditional
sequential software development through employing customer collaboration and a whole-team
9
approach, in which everyone has responsibility for overall quality, not just testers or others
traditionally designed as quality-focused resources (Crispin & Gregory, 2009).
Agile development can improve customer satisfaction and produce solutions that meet
customer needs more closely by delivering products in iterative cycles. By working closely with
the customer and delivering the software regularly, the agile team gets constant feedback, and
any change requests can easily be incorporated before too much additional work is done
(Coleman, 2016). Agile methods allow for fixed resources and time (or schedule) but with an
estimated scope of work, whereas waterfall projects work for projects with a fixed scope and
estimated resources and time or schedule (State, n.d.)
Organizational Change and Culture
Organizational change is essential to a successful agile transformation. The shift in
typical practices, procedures, and belief systems that accompany agile environments are at odds
with a traditional governmental organization (Henschen, 2005). Organizational transformations
that lack a strategy or structured change activities may fail (Sommer, 2019). Organizational
change leaders need understanding and agreement about how an agile transformation will
challenge organizational norms and take appropriate steps to facilitate these changes' adoption
and sustainability (Dikert et al., 2016). This section includes a discussion of organizational
change studies, conditions that influence successful change to agile, and organizational culture.
Organizational Change
Organizational change is a critical component for successful agile transformation of a
government agency. Cultural changes driven by technology are considered disruptive change
(O'Reilly & Tushman, 2016). A rapidly changing business environment and the impact these
changes have on software applications' business requirements accelerate the impact of change.
10
Bowerman (2003) observes that the factors that indicate a need for change are also the barrier
points preventing that change from occurring; however, the iterative nature of the development
process imposes a cycle of constant change on users creating a risk of change fatigue. When
there is significant change in an organization, employees begin to feel apathetic to the
organizational goals and can lack alignment to the vision, and the sustainability of the change
becomes a concern (Bell, 2006; Berneth et al., 2011). Too much organizational change may
adversely impact other organizational success factors such as employee commitment to the
mission or job satisfaction, leading to turnover (Berneth et al., 2011).
Agile and Organizational Change
Agile methods inherently create change in most organizations. In many organizations,
public sector processes, particularly leadership and procurement, are hierarchical and siloed and
do not support the iterative, collaborative nature of agile (Henschen, 2005). State agencies may
struggle in adopting agile as many organizations adhere to traditional processes and cultural
norms that are difficult to move away from (State, n.d.). Agile is not a big bang style
implementation, rather, it is an ongoing process much like continuous improvement - it is more a
matter of becoming than implementing (Harraf et al., 2015). Agility is a core competency, a
competitive advantage, and a differentiator requiring strategic thinking, an innovative mindset,
and an unrelenting need to be adaptable and proactive (Harraf et al., 2015). Shifting to an agile
approach is an organizational change and a change in mindset, beliefs, and organizational
culture. New behaviors must lead to results, or they will not embed within the organization.
Unlearning basic assumptions of the former culture is a painful psychological process for
employees (Schein & Schein, 2017). Institutionalizing cultures that support adaptive strategies
require organizations to develop change management strategies and plans (State, n.d.).
11
Organizational Culture
More important than changing process steps, changes that impact culture significantly
impact the organization and sustainability of the change. To understand the impact a change may
have on culture, an organization needs to understand its current culture and the culture associated
with the changes (Schein & Schein, 2017). The competing values framework allows for
comparative analysis of different cultures by defining cultural archetypes – adhocracy, clan,
market, and hierarchy (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Under the Competing Values Framework,
behaviors; rituals and celebrations; espoused values; philosophy; group norms; rules; identity
and images of self; embedded skills; mental models; shared meaning; integrated symbols;
perceptions; and the things taught to others define culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). An
organization can understand the impact an agile transformation may have by analyzing these
elements in their current culture against these elements in a thriving agile culture.
Agile Culture
Organizations realize the benefits of an agile transformation when they embrace an agile
mindset, beliefs, and values rather than focus on adherence to a prescribed methodology
(Sommer, 2019). The enterprise must embrace the agile mindset and function as an interactive
network, rather than just a few teams experimenting with agile (Denning, 2016). Transparency
can cause employees to feel vulnerable (Maximini, 2015). Successful teams exist at the
intersection of high degrees of trust and ownership in equal measure (Pixton et al., 2014). Seven
principles of continuous innovation mirror the tenets of agile culture. These include the goal to
delight clients as an organization; self-organizing teams; teams operate in client-driven
iterations; managers foster radical transparency for accountability; managers nurture continuous
12
self-improvements for increasing value; managers communicate interactively by using stories,
questions, and conversations for authenticity and engagement (Denning, 2011).
The agile approach itself can be an obstacle to embedding agile culture within an
organization. The iterative nature of the agile process and the collaborative team style, which no
longer takes as much direct guidance from top leadership, make it challenging to gain
momentum with the culture (Kupper, 2016). They must also be successful in dealing with
ambiguity, which is pervasive in agile environments (Pixton et al., 2014). Organizations find
success by looking to experienced coaches or leads to facilitate the enterprise-wide
transformation (Sommer, 2019).
Leadership Influence in Cultural Change Efforts
Knowledgeable coaches or transformation leads facilitate successful agile transformation
by orchestrating the journey (Sommer, 2019). Leaders are directly responsible for shepherding
culture change into the organization by clearly establishing expectations, modeling them,
adapting the structure and organizational design to align with the desired future culture, and
facilitating the necessary resources (Schein & Schein, 2017). Leaders are critical champions of
organizational change, but their skills are not always sufficiently mature to enable transformation
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Organizational leaders’ lack of familiarity with the new expectations,
structure, or design, drives the need for guidance from subject matter experts who can coach
leaders to create an environment where the new culture can mature. Consultants are often
engaged to fulfill this role and provide leadership for complex projects (Schein & Schein, 2017).
Consultants' efficacy in collaborating with the organization is based upon their relationship with
the client, the knowledge, or themselves (Merron, 2005).
13
Importance of Agile to Government Organizations
Government agencies have been struggling to demonstrate efficiency amidst outdated
organizational models and politically charged landscapes (Holte et al., 2018). Public sector
organizations would benefit from a modern approach that brings flexibility and the opportunity
to adapt easily to a quickly changing environment (Harraf et al., 2015). Organizational agility
and responsiveness have become distinguishing characteristics between successful organizations
and those who flounder (Harraf et al., 2015). Government entities are rarely models of efficiency
or innovation (Holte et al., 2018). Part of this perception may be due to the frequency of costly
and lengthy information technology projects, commonly managed using a traditional software
development approach known as waterfall projects (Stober and Hansmann, 2009). Hallmarks of
a waterfall project are tasks and deliverables cascade end-to-end, culminating in a final product
delivered upon completion of the project work. Although systematic and understandable, this
approach creates obstacles in aligning project goals to citizen needs, especially the increasingly
demanding public view (Harraf et al., 2015).
Public Sector Organizational Culture
The organizational culture of public sector agencies is generally in contradiction with the
agile mindset, which poses a greater challenge in agile implementation. Overall, the culture
exemplifies the opposite of the values held by the agile movement. Bureaucracies and lack of
change can result in frustration and despair for some government employees (Bilney & Pillay,
2015). Public sector managers lack the leadership and management behaviors needed to lead
change effectively (Nica, 2013). Understanding organizational culture in public sector
organizations is critical at both a superficial and deeper level to successfully guide strategies to
implement interventions and effect change (Slack & Singh, 2018)
14
Public Sector Conflicts with Agile Culture
The public sector processes, particularly leadership and procurement, are outdated and do
not reflect the iterative, collaborative nature of agile (Henschen, 2005). Gaps in agile skillsets are
typically found at the management level, not at the developer level (Holte et al., 2018). Agile
culture and government culture differ in organization and general beliefs. Examples of agile
values include relevance is key, communication is more important than documentation, deadlines
are flexible but important, procurement processes are not agile-friendly (Harraf et al., 2015).
Even after government organizations have tackled the process of conducting agile successfully,
some agencies still struggle with how to measure agile success effectively (Holte et al., 2018).
Government entities, accustomed to a laborious documentation process to suffice potential
auditors or public records act requests, may be confounded by the lack of these bottlenecks in
agile models (Ravindranath, 2016).
Learning Organizations
The collective mindset of an organization drives the belief systems and impacts overall
organizational culture. Organizations with a learning or growth mindset provide continuous
learning, use learning to reach goals, link individual performance to organizational performance,
and foster inquiry and dialogue (Kerka, 1995). According to Senge (2006), learning
organizations foster three core learning capabilities: fostering aspiration – personal mastery and
shared vision, developing reflective conversation – mental models and dialogue, and
understanding complexity – systems thinking. Studies show supervisors in learning/growth-
mindset organizations have more positive views about their employees than supervisors in fixed-
mindset companies, rating them as more innovative, collaborative, and committed to learning
(Harvard, 2014). Employees in a learning or growth mindset organization are more likely to
15
consider their colleagues trustworthy, feel a strong sense of ownership, and believe the company
fosters innovation and supports risk-taking (Harvard, 2014). The values of a learning or growth
mindset organization create synergy with the values of an agile culture.
In summary, agile transformation is a crucial link to enabling government organizations
develop and implement new and efficient technology solutions quickly and cost-effectively.
Unfortunately, agile methods conflict with traditional government culture. Agile culture is
collaborative, nimbler and more responsive to changes in the project and environment, whereas
government culture is traditionally hierarchical, rigid and controlling (Ravindranath, 2016). The
traditional government culture puts it squarely at odds with agile culture (Harraf et al., 2015).
Leadership is key to successful change efforts, but government leaders do not necessarily have
the skillsets to lead an agile transformation. Consultants are often engaged to help government
clients with projects, and their presence can have a significantly positive influence on the overall
project success (Holte et al., 2018). Consulting organizations that champion a learning mindset
enable their consultants to embrace agile methods and integrate a learning mindset into their
clients’ transformation journey.
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual frameworks offer an illustrative view of the researcher's ideas and beliefs
about the phenomena studied (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework for this study is built
on the Clark and Estes (2008) analytic framework, which articulates organizational and
stakeholder performance goals and identifies the gap between the actual performance and the
performance goal. The framework isolates the stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that may impact performance gaps, known as KMOs (Clark & Estes,
2008). The KMO framework considers the “K,” or knowledge and skills, to determine if
16
stakeholders know how to achieve the performance goal. The “M,” or motivational, principles of
self-efficacy and values are also considered (Rueda, 2011). Finally, the “O,” or organizational,
influences on stakeholder performance may include work processes, resources, and workplace
culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following sections address each element of Clark & Estes'
(2008) gap analysis in consideration of an implementation team's effectiveness at delivering
agile transformation.
Knowledge
Understanding the influence of knowledge and skill is critical to an accurate evaluation of
performance and recommendations. Prior researchers have identified four types of knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge relates to basic facts and
information. Conceptual knowledge is relational knowledge of the critical elements within a
larger framework. Procedural knowledge is relevant when understanding how to complete an
activity or task. Lastly, metacognitive is a contemplative and reflective knowledge type of one's
own internal processes for acquiring and processing knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011). This study will focus on the procedural knowledge relevant to agile
transformations: agile development and organizational change.
Agile Methods
Consultants who lead agile transformations must have knowledge of agile methods to
guide client organizations effectively. Agile is an overarching term to describe more than 40
different methods of iterative development practices (Al-Said Ahmad, 2014; Boehm & Turner,
2005; Denning, 2016; Lee & Xia, 2010). Agile development methods are beneficial and can
support improved efficiency in government organizations by helping staff manage product
requirements, increasing staff knowledge and experience, obtaining stakeholder feedback
17
quickly, and getting it back to the project development team. (United States, 2012). Despite the
benefits, implementation of collaborative, iterative cycles, especially amongst interdisciplinary
teams, challenges the traditional constructs and underscores the need for knowledgeable leaders
and coaches to guide the organization through transition (Meier & Ivarsson, 2013). This is
especially true in government where the strong organizational culture of hierarchy and
bureaucracy is at odds with the efficiencies and benefits realization achieved through agile
(Goransson et al., 2011). A study of 165 experienced agile practitioners confirmed the transition
from process-based, documentation-heavy activities, to short, iterative, people-centric
development methods is a significant and disruptive change for most employees (Misra et al.,
2010), and the iterative cycle increases the likelihood organizations will experience change
fatigue.
Organizational Change
In addition to the procedural changes attributed to agile methods, enterprise
transformations require a comprehensive change management approach (Sommer, 2019).
Consultants who facilitate agile transformations need to understand the constructs and
procedures that facilitate organizational change to effectively lead agile transformations.
Organizational change is not a binary construct in that change can be executed like flipping a
switch. Organizational change is a systematic process that requires each person across an
organization to do something different than they did yesterday (Creasey, 2018). In a study
change leadership best practices, researchers found that in response to the lack of sufficient
communication during times of change, coaches and leaders who lack understanding of
organizational change constructs often implement additional changes with intention of steadying
18
the course, but unwittingly add further complexity and introduce potential for change fatigue
(Buell Hirsch, 2014).
Traditional change management approaches may not realistically support agile
transformations. Organizational change often takes a top-down or bottom-up approach. Top-
down strategies are driven by leadership but commonly yield resistance from the front lines
(Ford & Ford, 2010). Neither is employee-driven, or bottom-up, change a realistic alternative as
the time-honored beliefs, values, and artifacts of the organization’s cultural are the very subjects
of the proposed change (Sommer, 2019). One approach to managing agile transformation change
leverages an open-source approach consistent with agile values and empowers employees to co-
create the change (Sommer, 2019). Understanding the principles of organizational change helps
leaders and coaches cultivate an organizational capacity to support adaptation, flexibility, and
innovation (Meyer, 2006; Stensaker & Meyer, 2012) in which the agile values can be adopted
and sustained.
Motivation
Complimentary to knowledge, motivation is a psychological concept, that encourages
humans to get going, keep moving and regulates the amount of degree of effort a person applies
to a given activity (Clark & Estes, 2008) Motivation is measured by examining active choice,
persistence, or mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Choi et al., 2010). Collectively, these three
indices result in increased performance and goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individuals'
choice, persistence, and performance can be explained by their beliefs about how well they will
do, and the extent to which they value an activity (Wigfield & Eccles, 2005). Bandura (1977;
1997) observed that positivity and a belief in their capability and efficacy enables people to
achieve more than those who are equally capable but doubt their own abilities.
19
Building upon the KMO constructs of knowledge and motivation, Pintrich (2003) found
motivation, learning, and performance to be enhanced if the subject values the activity (Pintrich,
2003). Motivators are factors intrinsic to the job, such as achievement, recognition, the degree to
which the subject finds the work interesting, increased responsibilities, advancement, and growth
opportunities (Herzberg et al., 1959). According to Herzberg's research, motivators are the
conditions that truly encourage employees to try harder. As much as 50% of performance
problems can be attributed to lack of motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Deressa & Zeru, 2019).
Even experienced and intelligent people who are unmotivated may fail to accomplish much at
work (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study examines two theories of motivation: self-efficacy and
utility value.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is essential for effective agile transformation. Beyond knowledge of agile
and organizational change, implementation consultants must believe they are capable and
competent to lead clients through an agile transformation. Perceived self-efficacy addresses a
person's expectations about their own ability to produce what is needed (Bandura, 2006).
Different from self-esteem, which is how one thinks of themselves as a person, self-efficacy is a
measure of how effective a person is at being able to bring about a specific outcome (Pajares,
1997). People who believe they can do something successfully, try harder, persist longer and
generally perform better (Pintrich, 2003). This is critical due to the iterative and ongoing nature
of an agile project.
Agile methods were new to many Company A employees when the organizational goals
were established in 2016, thus training was inevitably part of the agile business canvas. Baldwin
and Ford's (1988) model of transfer identifies primary factors relating to trainee characteristics –
20
cognitive ability, self-efficacy, motivation, and perceived utility of training, training design –
behavioral modeling, error management, and realistic training environments, and the work
environment – transfer climate, support, opportunity to perform, and follow-up (Tuckman,
2006). Higher self-efficacy results in selection of difficult tasks, greater effort, longer persistence
and integration of more complex learning strategies (Eccles et al., 1983; Schunk, 1989; Wigfield
& Eccles, 2001), all of which are foundational to implementation of a complex enterprise-wide
system.
Organizational change has applications throughout Company A. Regardless of the
capacity, Company A employees likely have some level of perceived self-efficacy with
organizational change. Employee and Company A’s past record of successes and failures
influences self-efficacy, as does vicarious experience (observations of environment how do
others succeed or fail at the same task), feedback or verbal persuasion. Past record of success and
failure impacts self-efficacy, as does vicarious experience (observations of environment how do
others succeed or fail at the same task), feedback or verbal persuasion impacts success. Actual
experience and performance are valid sources of self-efficacy (Mayer, 2011).
Utility Value
Utility value indicates how well a task fulfills a basic need or achieves a goal (Eccles,
1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 2001). When individuals report task utility, they often also report
higher levels of effort, deep learning strategies and a drive to perform well (Eccles, 1983;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2001; Schunk, 1989). People also need to feel they are valuable contributors
to their environment, whether it is academic or professional (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Eccles,
2001). Value was shown as a key indicator of individual interest in several studies however,
other studies have shown utility value can be manipulated (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Hulleman
21
et al., 2008; Kale & Akcaoglu, 2018; Simpkins et al. 2006). Additional evidence suggests utility
value associated with communal goals is stronger than those associated with material goals
therefore, stakeholders must feel there is sufficient value in the preparation for and execution of
agile transformations to achieve the desired knowledge to be motivated to participate (Durik, et
al, 2015).
For years, private sector organizations have been transforming from the hierarchical
approach to a collaboration of knowledge and flexibility that adapts to changing environments
(Fernandez & Fernandez, 2009). Adaptive organizations can benefit from agile methods
regardless of their size (Parcell & Holden, 2013). Stakeholders need a specific knowledge to
support the stakeholder performance goal of creating an agile transformation methodology to
guide future transformations (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 2001).
Organization
Organizational influences can be examined in the context of cultural models and cultural
settings. Cultural models are the values, beliefs, and attitudes of an organization, though they are
conceptual in nature and not visible in a physical sense. Cultural settings are a tangible
manifestation of cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Unlike cultural models,
cultural settings are visible and can be observed (Clark & Estes, 2008). Barriers to cultural
models can appear as pessimism, resistance to change, authoritarian leadership and aggressive
competition, whereas barriers to cultural settings can appear as a lack of goals or strategic plan,
lack autonomy or choice, a lack of feedback or even critical, biased feedback (Clark & Estes,
2008).
22
Several of the barriers described above are closely related to the motivational factors
discussed previously as well as several tenets of organizational change, including training and
knowledge transfer. Some researchers estimate that as much as 90% of the training provided by
organizations to their employees does not effectively transfer to improved performance in the
workplace thus diminishing the return on investment of training dollars (Holton & Baldwin,
2000). These findings underscore the importance of this study’s focus on the cultural models
associated with training of agile methods and organizational change.
Agile Training
Agile knowledge levels and skills are vital to successful adoption of agile methods
(Misra, 2007). Therefore, to ensure a smooth and successful transition to agile methods the
transformation lead must bring a deep knowledge base of agile methods, their application, and
mitigations for anticipated risks and issues. Failure to provide sufficient training can cause teams
to be ill-prepared for the transformation and can ultimately result in the collapse of the agile
program (Dikert et al., 2016). Similarly, failure to provide proper coaching in the real-world
environment can result in failed transformations as agile real-world scenarios are difficult to
replicate in classroom settings (Dikert et al., 2016). Key concepts that have proved difficult for
teams include the misunderstanding of agile concepts, lack of documentation to guide efforts, as
Dikert et al. (2016) illustrated by citing a participant as saying, "There simply was not a manual
or document where we could find easy answers on how to do things" (p. 96). The transition from
theory to practice is not easy as the practical application of agile can be "messy" as noted by
Dikert et al. (2016)(p. 96)
The primary objective and preferences of agile methods outlined in the seminal document
The Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001) identifies: individuals and interaction over processes and
23
tools, working software over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over
contract negotiations, responding to change over following a plan. Beyond this foundation, there
are many agile approaches, each with its own unique framework, processes and steps including
SCRUM, extreme programming, feature driven development, adaptive software development;
however, all involve a consistent iterative approach (Sharma & Shvamanth, 2015). Agile
methods also include hybrid approaches which blend waterfall and agile, as well as scaled and
distributed team solutions for larger projects (Chuang et al., 2014). To date, there are few agile
transition and adoption frameworks available in the industry and using them is no easy task as
they are largely rigid and inflexible and require significant overhead (Gandomani et al., 2013).
Agile training is critical to develop support and establish a common organizational language
around agile (Dikert et al., 2016).
Organizational Change Training
To ensure successful agile transformations for government clients, implementation leads
must be skilled facilitators of organizational change. The primary tenets of organizational change
include understanding change impact, communication, leadership alignment, managing
resistance, and reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Agile methods challenge
norms of government agencies, and the practical application further complicates the transition
(Mergel, 2018). As a result, organizations undergoing agile transformations experience core
organizational change obstacles such as varying interpretations of agile philosophies, lack of role
clarity – particularly for middle managers, interpersonal conflicts as agile is scaled throughout
the organization, return of internal silos during the most challenging points in the transformation,
and ultimately the inability to sustain agile approach (Dikert et al., 2016).
24
Learning organizational change to support an agile transformation is not only a matter of
attending a well-designed training course and applying the principles. Agile coaches and
advisors are needed to mentor and guide an organization through the massive transformation.
Despite best intentions, not all leaders possess coaching skills, these must be acquired and
cultivated (Milner et al., 2018). An agile coach leverages organizational change principles to fill
multiple roles for their client, including coach, facilitator, teacher, and mentor (Backlander,
2019; Spiegler, et al. 2021). The organization must encourage organizational change training for
agile teams to demonstrate its commitment to the development of organizational change skills
and support of a learning mindset.
Conceptual Framework Diagram
Drawing from the theories discussed in the prior sections, the conceptual framework for
this study is an interconnected cycle of learning represented by a circular image (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
25
A conceptual framework is based on the researcher's ideas and beliefs held about the
phenomena studied (Maxwell, 2013). In prior sections, potential influencers were presented in an
independent format, however it is important to recognize the concepts are not truly independent.
The concepts are interrelated and together form the structure which serves as the basis of the
research study. The conceptual framework for this study represents the intersection of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on the agile transformation consultant, and
the learning mindset of the consultant organization to collectively contributed to an environment
which enables consultants to successfully facilitate an agile transformation. When an
organization provides proper training and support for an activity, employees knowledge and
motivation are increased leading to better performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). If an organization
is committed to this cycle, it can become a learning organization. As such, mastering this cycle is
imperative to IT-type companies as the marketplace is constantly producing new products,
systems, software, and hardware that demand constant learning.
In this study, the influences are the knowledge of agile development practices and
organizational change; elements of procedural knowledge critical for performing a given task
(Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). The motivation is based on self-efficacy and
expectancy value theories (Bandura, 2006; Eccles, 2006), and the organizational need is around a
growth and learning mindset (Harvard, 2014). The stakeholder knowledge and motivational
influences will help support the individual in achieving the stakeholder performance goals.
Subsequently, the organizational performance goals satisfy the organizational mission (Clark and
Estes, 2008). The assumed influences feed the stakeholder goals of demonstrating competence
with organizational change and agile methods. The stakeholder goals will inform the
26
organizational performance goal of implementing at least three agile transformation projects by
2021, which will lead to the opportunity for the organization to be a national leader in providing
agile services.
Methodology
A quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational design was used to examine the
relationship of knowledge and motivation on an agile transformation. The correlational research
design was used to examine the interaction between organizational culture and context and an
agile transformation team's knowledge and motivation (Creswell, 2014). A quantitative, as
opposed to a qualitative approach was selected in the study because the variables involved are
measured numerically using a survey questionnaire (Creswell, 2014). A nonexperimental design
was selected for the study as there was no manipulation of study participants. The effectiveness
of agile transformation was examined based on perceived effectiveness and efficacy noted by
study participants. The intervention was not investigated in the study. The focus of the study was
to evaluate Company A’s success in preparing and deploying qualified consultants to lead agile
transformations, and extract learning opportunities to improve future efforts. A correlational
design was determined to be appropriate for the study because the focus of the analysis is to
examine potential relationships between variables (Creswell, 2014).
Research Setting
The setting of the study was a private company called Company A. Company A is a mid-
size national consulting firm headquartered in Northern California. The company invested
heavily in agile with the foresight to recognize that government clients will need support
transitioning to agile methods. Since that time, the company's teams have been supporting clients
in using agile through two different ways: delivering projects using the agile approach and
27
conducting enterprise-wide transformations to shift their entire organization to an agile approach.
Participants were selected from company employees who have participated in agile
transformation of government agencies. Company A has proven to successfully implement agile
transformation therefore, participants were knowledgeable in the field and able to provide
valuable responses to the survey. Company A has a total of 138 full-time employees, 111 of
whom are consultants, including the researcher as noted in Appendix B. Among these, an
estimated 50% have participated in agile projects with government agencies. Company A has
conducted agile projects and transformation within government agencies. Therefore, Company A
was determined to be an appropriate recruitment site for this study.
Data Sources
Data was collected using a survey method. An online survey was conducted to protect the
identity of study participants. The survey included items to capture demographic characteristics,
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on agile transformation as identified in
Appendix C.
Participants
The target population for this study include employees of Company A who have
implemented agile transformations in government agencies. A purposeful sampling technique
gathers participants who qualify with the inclusion criteria of the study: at least 18 years old,
employee of Company A, and experienced agile transformation in a government agency. To
determine the minimum number of samples, an a priori sample size calculation using power
analysis was conducted in G*Power v3.1.0. Considering a medium effect size, a significance
level of .05, a two-tailed correlation analysis, and a power of 80%, the minimum number of
respondents was determined to be 48 participants. Therefore, the study targets inclusion of at
28
least 48 participants. To ensure that sufficient samples were gathered in the study, and that all
candidates with experience in agile transformation at government organizations are included, all
employees were invited as participants in the study considering a 30% response rate.
Instrumentation
A self-developed survey questionnaire was created with items adapted from the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) by Pintrich et al. (1991). Procedural
knowledge can be challenging to assess through a quantitative survey, however prior studies
have indicated test scores representing procedural knowledge about work effort were
significantly correlated with ratings of work effort performance (Motowidlo, 2009). The survey
also draws heavily upon the Clark and Estes (2008) research of the importance of training as a
tool for improving organizational performance. The self-developed instrument has 36 items that
measures the three constructs considered in the study. A total of six items are used to measure
knowledge. A total of six items are used to measure motivation through self-efficacy and utility
value. Eighteen items are used to measure organizational influences. Seven demographic items
are included.
The responses to the Knowledge items are structured on a 4-point Likert-type scale
wherein 1 means not at all true for me and 4 means very true for me. An even number of
response anchors was selected to reduce the likelihood of respondents selecting neutral
responses. Responses to the Motivation items 20 - 25 are structured on a scale of 0 – 100
wherein 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence, in 10-point unit increments,
based on prior studies which acknowledge self-efficacy has more variability due to external
influences (Bandura, 1977, 1997) The 100-point scale was selected to offer a wider-ranging scale
to allow for this variance. Responses to Organization items 26 - 36 are structured on a scale of 0
29
– 100 wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete agreement, in 10-point unit
increments. The remaining organization items gather data on the number, frequency and source
of training received in agile and organizational change. The survey instrument is presented in
Appendix C.
Data Collection Procedures
Prior to gathering data for the study, approval from the University of Southern California
(USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained. Permission from the administrators of
Company A was also obtained to gather study participants within their organization. Upon
receipt of approval and permissions, an email invitation was sent to prospective participants. The
email invitation included a brief background of the study, inclusion criteria as well as the role of
participants in the study. The email invitation also contained a link to the survey questionnaire in
Qualtrics.
Upon accessing the link, participants were directed to an informed consent form. The
informed consent form ensures that participants are aware of the conditions of the study.
Moreover, participants were informed that they may opt to skip any item or withdraw from the
study at any point in time without negative implications. Participants were informed that their
participation is completely voluntary and would not affect their position and work at the
company. Participants were asked to read and agree to the informed consent form. Only
participants who agreed to the informed consent form were directed to the survey questionnaire
as noted in the Ethics section presented in Appendix D.
In the survey questionnaire, participants were asked to choose from available options on
the Likert-scale items. The survey took a maximum of 30 minutes to complete. After completing
the questionnaire, participants were asked to submit their responses and were thanked for their
30
participation. All data gathered was downloaded in IBM® SPSS® Statistics v27.0 to prepare for
data analysis.
Data Analysis Plan
Descriptive statistics were used to present the demographic characteristics of study
participants. Frequencies and percentages described the study participants in terms of age group,
gender, highest educational attainment, and experience. Descriptive statistics were also used to
describe the variables collected in the study. The study variables included factors to assess
consultant knowledge of agile and organizational change, and motivation by examining
consultant self-efficacy and utility value related to agile methods.
The focus of the first research questions was to determine what knowledge, motivational
and organizational influences consultants need to lead an agile transformation. The focus of the
second research question was to understand the interaction between organizational influences
and participant’s knowledge and motivation. A correlation analysis between knowledge and
motivation variables and their perceived self-efficacy in leading an agile transformation variable
was conducted.
Validity and Reliability
Research validity refers to the extent to which the data measures the constructs
considered in the study (Salkind, 2017). To ensure validity, a confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to determine internal consistency reliability correlations between the items and the
total (Salkind, 2017). The minimum number of samples required in this study was achieved to
ensure that the findings are generalizable to the population considered in the study.
Reliability refers to the internal consistency in measuring the constructs of the study
(Salkind, 2017). This study involved the use of a self-developed questionnaire. A Cronbach’s
31
alpha test was run to validate the reliability of the survey questionnaire responses. A Cronbach's
alpha value of above .70 indicates that the items are reliable in measuring the constructs of the
study (Salkind, 2017).
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any study, there are limitation and delimitations to acknowledge. Limitations are
factors beyond the control of the researcher which can have an impact on the data and results
(Sutton and Austin, 2015). Despite the mitigation strategies discussed in the earlier credibility
and reliability section, candor of the respondents is a potential limitation given the researcher's
role as a colleague of the study participants (Connelly et al., 2012). It is possible respondents
may not be as forthcoming as the researcher would desire either due to discomfort with
discussing perceived deficiencies, a lack of focus and attention due to competing priorities, or
due to the researcher's status as an employee of the organization as discussed in Appendix B.
Participants may be unwilling to invest the personal time to explore their experience to provide
robust and thoughtful responses (Bauhoff, 2011). Additionally, the survey questions may be
structured in such a way as to impart bias or, the study participants may assign unintended
meaning to the questions given the researcher's role at the organization which focuses heavily on
organizational change management (Bibler Zaidi and Ross, 2019).
The researcher mitigated potential lack of focus by sending four communications
outlining the purpose of the research, the topics being addressed and provide the participants
with suggested topics to consider before participating in the survey. A member of the senior
leadership committee sent an enterprise-wide email to address potential hesitation at providing
thorough or candid responses by explaining the study, the relevance to the organization, the
criticality of the participants' candor and the benefits Company A will yield from participating.
32
The researcher also leveraged the senior leadership communication to emphasize the distinction
between the researcher's typical role in the organization and their role in this study.
Delimitations are the choices made by the researcher that define the boundaries of the
study and limit or restrict the scope (Simon, 2011). These are important to distinguish because it
allows the audience and readers to understand the context of the researcher and the frame with
which the research is conducted, and it allows the researcher to focus on a manageable area. In
this case, the delimitations created by the researcher focused most heavily on the participant
selection. Due to the potential for rapid changes in state government agencies, where leaders can
be dismissed at any time, it was determined study participants needed to be sourced from a more
stable environment. The single data source from the consultant population was selected rather
than client participation. Additionally, because this is an evaluation study, the consultants were
limited to Company A only, rather than interviewing consultants from other firms. While
Company A's staff from many departments within the organization are trained in agile methods,
consultants were selected as interview participants as they have the greatest insight into
understanding the impact of organizational change efforts during client delivery. Other
determinations made by the researcher include not conducting a mixed method study or
including triangulation methods in the research.
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the strength and direction of association
among answers to survey questions, and whether the level of Knowledge affected the level of
Organization in explaining the variation in Motivation. The exploratory data analysis was
performed to present the demographic characteristics. The validity and reliability analyses
addressed the integrity of the survey. The correlation analysis and the linear regression model
with the interaction effect were implemented to assess the research questions.
33
The survey was distributed to 138 persons in Company A. The participation rate of the
survey was 48% (67 respondents); however, 14 respondents were screened out either because the
respondent had not worked on an agile project or had not worked on an agile project in a
government agency, leaving a total of 53 respondents. Additionally, since respondents were not
required to answer every question, some questions received fewer than 53 responses resulting in
a complete data set of 50 participants.
Null Hypotheses
H01: There is no statistically significant association among Organization, Knowledge, and
Motivation composite scores.
H02: There is no association between Motivation and Knowledge composite scores, modified by
Organization and the interaction between Organization and Knowledge.
Descriptive Statistics
The data set consisted of 50 participants measured by six Motivation, five Knowledge,
and 11 Organization variables, after removing missing values. The gender of participants was
uniformly distributed: 25 males, 23 females, and two participants preferred not to reveal their
gender. The age of participants was measured by several categories and ranged from 25 to 64
years old. The most dominated group of participants was of the age range from 45 to 54 years
old, accounting for 36% of the participants. The participants predominantly held a Bachelor’s
degree 66%, followed by a Master’s degree 28%, and some college-level degree six percent. The
Professional roles of participants were Specialist, Consultant, Executive Steering Committee,
Manager, and Managing Directors. Most of the participants were from Sr. Consultants 40% and
Sr. Managers 32% ranks (Table 1).
34
Table 1
Demographic Data
Gender
N %
Male 25 50.0%
Female 23 46.0%
Prefer not to say 2 4.0%
Age
N %
25 - 34 11 22.0%
35 - 44 9 18.0%
45 - 54 18 36.0%
55 - 64 10 20.0%
Prefer not to say 2 4.0%
Education
N %
Some College 3 6.0%
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree14
33
14
66.0%
28.0%
Professional Role
35
N %
Specialist - Sr. Specialist 4 8.0%
Associate - Sr. Consultant 20 40.0%
Executive Steering Committee 2 4.0%
Manager - Sr. Manager 16 32.0%
Managing Director - Sr. Executive Director 8 16.0%
Reliability and Validity
To perform correlation and regression analyses, we created the composite scores of the
responses and conducted a reliability analysis. The Knowledge composite variable displayed an
average score of 2.62 (SD = 0.69; Figure 2) and was approximately normally distributed with the
not significant Shapiro-Wilk test results W (50) = .97, p = .27.
36
Figure 2
Distribution of Knowledge Composite Score (n = 50)
The Motivation composite variable had an average score of 76.46 (SD = 15.15: Figure 3).
The distribution was negatively skewed, and the Shapiro-Wilk test returned W (50) = .93, p <
.01, indicating that the variable was not normally distributed; however, given the sample size, it
was assumed to follow a normal distribution.
Knowledge Composite Scores
37
Figure 3
Distribution of Motivation Composite Score (n = 50)
The Organization composite variable had an average score of 64.15 (SD = 16.6; Figure 4)
and was approximately normally distributed: the Shapiro-Wilk test results W (50) = .96, p = .12.
Motivation Composite Scores
38
Figure 4
Distribution of Organization Composite Score (n = 50)
To address the reliability of data, a Cronbach’s analysis was conducted on the variables.
The results are presented in Table 2. The alpha level for all the composite scores was above 0.7,
indicating that the subset of variables had an adequate level of reliability and internal consistency
in measuring the constructs of the study. To test the validity, a correlation analysis of the
responses and corresponding composite score was performed. A strong significant correlation
was identified among the variables.
Table 2
Reliability and Validity Tests Results
Cronbach’s alpha Validity correlation
Knowledge .915 p < .01
Organization Composite Scores
39
Motivation .830 p < .01
Organization .895 p < .01
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Despite the majority of participants indicating knowledge of agile, they were interested in
additional resources to expand their existing knowledge base. Conversely, while the majority of
participants did not indicate knowledge of organizational change management, few participants
identified additional resources they needed to mitigate the gap in their knowledge of
organizational change. Similarly, more participants indicated self-efficacy at working on and
leading agile transformation teams than working on or leading organizational change teams.
Finally, more participants indicated agreement with organizational model constructs than
organizational setting.
Knowledge
When asked the level of knowledge diagnosing root causes related to agile and their
knowledge mitigating issues if the root cause was agile, 35 (66%) of respondents indicated they
were knowledgeable diagnosing root cause and 34 (64%) of respondents indicated they were
knowledgeable diagnosing root cause. When asked whether participants could diagnose and
mitigate issues related to organizational change, 24 (45%) indicated they were able to diagnose
organizational change issues while 22 (41%) indicated they were able to mitigate organizational
change issues. Additionally, when participants were asked whether they were able to apply org
change methods on agile transformation, 22 (41%) indicated they possessed the knowledge to do
so successfully.
40
Table 3
Knowledge Descriptive Statistics (n = 53)
Study question Responses
Knowledgeable diagnosing agile root cause 35
Knowledgeable mitigating issues with agile root cause 34
Knowledgeable diagnosing organizational change root cause 24
Knowledgeable mitigating issues with organizational change root cause 22
Knowledgeable applying organizational change methods on agile transformation 22
Motivation
When asked their level of confidence leading and contributing to agile and organizational
workstreams respectively, 47 (88%) of respondents identified confidence in working on an agile
workstream while 37 (69%) indicated confidence leading an agile workstream. A similar
disparity between leading and contributing to the organizational change workstream was
identified with 34 (64%) indicating confidence working on organizational change workstream
and 22 (41%) confident in their ability to lead the organizational change workstream.
Table 4
Motivation – Self-Efficacy Descriptive Statistics (n = 53)
Study question
Responses indicating
confidence
Working on an agile workstream 47
Leading an agile workstream 37
41
Working on an organizational change workstream 34
Leading an organizational change workstream 22
Utility value was addressed by questions 33 and 34. Question 33 (“Using agile methods
is beneficial for my clients’ organizations”) yielded a mean agreement of 89.31. Question 34 (“I
have seen other organizations experience success using agile methods”) yielded a mean
agreement of 91.72, making it the highest scoring influence among consultants with successful
agile transformation experience.
Table 5
Motivation – Utility Value Descriptive Statistics (n = 53)
Study question Mean agreement
Using agile methods is beneficial for my clients 89.31
I have seen other organizations experience success using agile 91.72
Organization
When asked their agreement with Company A’s expectations for employee personal
mastery, 38 (71%) indicated agreement, while 44 (83%) indicated agreement that Company A
expects employees to seek understanding of complexity. When considering opportunities to
apply newly learned content, 29 (54%) agreed opportunities are available, while 39 (73%) agreed
Company A encourages them to pursue challenging projects. An aggregated score among
Organizational Model questions (35-39) had an average of 80.07. The strongest agreement
among the questions was “Company A expects employees to seek to understand complexity” at
88.62.
42
Table 6
Organization Descriptive Statistics (n = 53)
Study question Mean agreement
Company A expects employees to achieve personal mastery 38
Company A expects employees to understand complexity 44
Company A provides opportunities to apply newly learned content 29
Company A encourages employees to pursue challenging projects 39
Hypotheses Testing Results
H01. To determine the strength of association among Motivation, Knowledge, and
Organization, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted (Table 7).
Table 7
Matrix of Correlations of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Composite Scores
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Knowledge
Pearson Correlation 1
Motivation
Pearson Correlation .639
**
1
Organization
Pearson Correlation .094 .201 1
Motivation was strongly correlated with Knowledge r (49) = .64, p < .01 (Figure Y).
However, there was not a significant correlation between Motivation and Organization r (49) =
.20, p = .16. There was not a statistically significant correlation between Organization and
Knowledge r (49) = .09, p = .52.
43
Figure 5
Scatterplot of Motivation and Knowledge Composite Scores
H02. To conduct the regression analysis with the interaction term, the centered variables
and the interaction term were created. The hierarchical regression models excluding the
interaction term and including the interaction term were performed (Table 4).
In Model 1, after accounting for Organization, Knowledge was still significant in
explaining the variation in Motivation R (47) = .62, p < .01. The effect of Organization remained
statistically nonsignificant in explaining the variation in Motivation. Of note, the researcher
observed that if four responses were removed, shown inFigure 6, then Organization would
correlate with Motivation and become a significant predictor in the regression model R
2
= .04, p
< .05. However, as the four responses in question were not extreme outliers, they were not
removed from the data set for analysis.
44
Figure 6
Scatterplot of Motivation and Organization Composite Scores with Exceptions
To determine whether the level of Knowledge affected the level of Organization, the
interaction term was included in Model 2. However, the interaction term did not have a
statistically significant impact R (46) = .11, p = .32. The researcher concluded there was not
enough evidence that including the interaction term improved the predictability of the model.
Assumption Tests
The variables were transformed to scale format. The Durbin-Watson coefficient was
2.243 indicating that there was not any strong autocorrelation, and the researcher assumed
statistical independence of observations. The linearity was assessed by measuring the correlation
coefficients presented in the scatterplot (Figure 7).
Note. Arrows indicate exception responses that, if removed, would result in a correlation between Organization and
Motivation.
45
Figure 7
Distribution of Residuals
The residual plot showed independence of observation and homogeneity of variance (Figure 8).
The variance inflation factor (VIF) was around 1.00 for all coefficients, indicating the absence of
multicollinearity. There were no significant outliers in the data. The residuals were
approximately normally distributed (Table 8).
46
Figure 8
Scatterplot of Residuals
Table 8
Regression Analysis with Interaction Term
Model
Unstd coef. Std coeff.
t Sig.
Partial VIF
B Std. E Beta
1 (Constant) 76.460 1.654 46.225 .000
Knowledge 13.615 2.412 .626 5.646 .000 .636 1.009
Organization .130 .101 .142 1.281 .206 .184 1.009
2 (Constant) 76.331 1.659 46.011 .000
Knowledge 13.687 2.413 .629 5.673 .000 .642 1.010
Organization .133 .101 .146 1.316 .195 .190 1.010
47
Finally, participants were asked to identify additional tools, training or resources that
would be help them successfully use or implement agile with a client. Table 9 includes a
summarized list of responses. The majority of responses were focused on agile despite the
majority of respondents indicating they possessed knowledge of agile. Furthermore, while the
majority of respondents indicated they did not possess knowledge of organizational change, few
of the responses to tools, training or other resources focused on organizational change.
Table 9
Helpful Tools, Training or Resources Response (n=39)
Response Knowledge type N
Agile Training, Certification or Coaching Agile 14
OCM Training/Certification Organizational Change 5
Kanban Boards Agile 2
Scenarios/Case Studies Tools 5
Lean or other Business Process Methods Other 3
Standard Tools and/or Templates Tools 2
Other Other 8
Summary
The statistical analysis indicated Knowledge was significantly correlated with
Motivation. The correlation between Knowledge and Organization and between Motivation and
Organization was not statistically significant. In the regression model, Knowledge was a strong
Interaction Term .121 .121 .111 1.003 .321 .146 1.002
48
predictor for Motivation, accounting for almost 42% of the variation in Motivation. There was
not enough evidence for including the interaction term into the model. The reliability and
validity analyses of the data showed that the survey had an internal consistency in measuring the
constructs of the study and that the individual responses within each construct could sufficiently
be summarized in a composite score.
Recommendations
The findings from research questions one and two were used to inform research question
three. Additionally, data was collected from the survey to further inform recommendations as
part of research question. Below are the summarized findings of recommendations.
Discussion of Findings and Recommendations
The study was built upon a conceptual framework that posits there is interaction between
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, and these influences rest on a foundational
learning mindset. The findings suggest that consultants who support government clients in
transforming their organization to agile methods need knowledge of agile and organizational
change methods and that this knowledge was linked to consultant motivation. Consultant
motivation is driven by perceived self-efficacy and the utility value associated with transforming
their client to agile methods. Consultant organizations need to provide support for consultants,
however the consultant’s knowledge is not driven by the organization. Instead, the organization
may influence consultant motivation through the organization’s expectations and culture.
Knowledge
Agile knowledge is well documented, but the practical application of implementation and
organizational transformation is less clear for organizations trying to change to agile (Dikert et
al., 2016). A case study of agile transformations identified 29 facets critical to successful agile
49
transformations, of which 25 facets were directly related to organizational change management
(Dikert et al., 2016). Respondents identified a lower degree of organizational change knowledge
than agile knowledge. When asked what resources would help them implement agile,
participants responded with greater frequency about agile resources, indicating they do not have
enough knowledge of organizational change to know what resources to request. This is
consistent with findings from other research that demonstrated gaps in organizational change
knowledge (Cameron & Quin, 2011; Denning, 2016; Dikert et al, 2016; Pixton, Gibson &
Nickolaisen, 2014). These findings suggest implementation teams need to increase knowledge
and improve their understanding of how to integrate the concepts of organizational change
within the procedural construct of agile transformation.
Motivation
Knowledge was shown statistically to be a strong predictor of Motivation as evidenced
by the descriptive statistics that showed consultants had a higher degree of perceived self-
efficacy in agile knowledge than in organizational change knowledge. When considered in
context with the knowledge area findings that showed consultants identified greater knowledge
in agile than in organizational change, this study’s results align with other research that shows
people will achieve more when they have a higher degree of self-efficacy and believe there are
capable (Bandura 1977, 1997; Clark and Estes, 2008). The high level of agreement among
consultants who had observed agile work successfully in another organization is aligned with
prior research on motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) identified people are motivated by
understanding the benefits and outcomes from the work they do. This study’s results, combined
with past research, suggest consultants can be motivated to succeed at agile transformations by
providing them with sufficient knowledge in agile and organizational change methods and by
50
demonstrating the benefit of agile transformations by providing examples of successful agile
transformations in other organizations.
Organization
Motivation and Organization were not found to be statistically correlated, however the
researcher observed that removing four responses resulted in a statistically significant
correlation. Though the four responses were not considered outliers and therefore not removed, a
potential for relationship between motivation and organization should not be overlooked.
Respondents had a high level of agreement with concepts related to the organizational model,
including mastery of topics, understanding complexity, reflection, opportunity to apply new
learnings, and pursuing challenging projects, which suggests the learning organization is a
relevant foundation for the conceptual framework examined in this study. Other studies have also
demonstrated the significance of organizational model in achievement of desired outcomes
(Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001; Hargreaves, 1995; Schein, 2004). These findings suggest the
organizational model, evidenced by the values, beliefs and attitudes displayed by the
organization, are impactful in the implementation teams’ success.
Recommendations for Practice
Findings indicate potential areas of opportunity across the knowledge, motivation and
organizational sections of the framework. The findings drive recommendations for enhancing the
practice of agile transformation. Recommendations are offered in direct response to the study
findings and are organized by knowledge, motivation and organizational influence.
51
Knowledge recommendation: Increasing agile implementation team knowledge about
organizational change
The assumed knowledge influences referenced in Table 10 are validated as a gap. The
referenced principle and recommendations are aimed at evaluating the implementation teams’
knowledge influences and providing recommendations that will successfully meet the knowledge
need.
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge influence
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Implementation teams need
knowledge of organizational change
management practices (P)
To develop mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when
to apply what they
have learned (Schraw
and
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide teams with a job
aid in the form of an
assessment and maturity
model to evaluate an
organization’s current
state and develop an
implementation roadmap
based on the results.
The study findings indicated participants were least confident with organizational change
knowledge and of agile implementation teams did not feel confident with their understanding of
52
organizational change for leading agile transformations. The socio-cultural theory has been
selected to address this declarative knowledge need. Scott and Palinscar (2006) found that
scaffolding and tools facilitate construction of new knowledge. This suggests providing learners
with a maturity model template would support their learning. The recommendation is then to
provide agile implementation teams with a job aid in the form of a maturity model template. The
template could include a rubric to help understand the difference between levels and a radar map
to plot maturity over time.
According to Schein and Schein (2007) new behaviors must lead to results or they will
not embed within an organization. Frahm (2007) also notes that organizational change is not
merely a process but a series of discrete and ordered steps. Therefore, changing the culture of an
organization requires adherence to a choreographed approach. Clark and Estes (2008) note that
when there is not enough relevant past experience but related expertise, job aids are a solution
for knowledge and skill gaps.
Motivation recommendation: Fostering implementation teams’ motivation through self-
efficacy.
The assumed motivation influence of self-efficacy was validated as a gap (Table 11).
Similar to the knowledge recommendations, the referenced principle and recommendations are
aimed at evaluating the implementation team’s motivational influences and providing
recommendations that will successfully mitigate the gap.
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation influence
Principle and
citation
Context-specific recommendation
53
Individual Self-efficacy:
Individually, implementation team
members need to feel they are
capable of leading clients through
an agile transformation.
Learning and
motivation
are enhanced
when learners
have positive
expectancies for
success
(Pajares, 2006).
Pair team members with more
experienced mentors who provide
greater support initially and then
taper off as the learner increases
their skills.
The results and findings of this study indicate that while some participants assessed their
agile skills as strong, some demographic groups, such as females, rated themselves lower than
their peers. Recommendations based on self-efficacy theories were selected to address this gap.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that vague and frequently changing performance goals and
constant competition can be barriers to self-efficacy (Clark and Estes, 2008). Therefore, the
recommendation is to provide teams with a mentoring opportunity where junior team members
can learn alongside more experienced senior staff members to develop goals and provide
scaffolding and guidance.
Organizational recommendation: Provide sufficient resources to develop and sustain
competency
The assumed organizational influence referenced in Table 12 is validated as a gap due to
the low composite mean of organizational setting (54.3). The referenced principle evaluates the
organizational influences on implementation teams. Further, the context-specific
54
recommendations is aimed at mitigating the gap associated with resourcing organizational
change management competency.
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed organization influence Principle and citation
Context-specific recommendation
The organization needs to
prioritize time and resources to
develop and sustain organizational
change management competency
on implementation teams.
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders insure
that
employees have the resources
needed to achieve the
organization’s
goals. Insuring staff’s resource
needs
are being met is correlated with
increased student learning
outcomes (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Increase implementation teams’
allocation of time for transformation
knowledge development. Increase
check-ins with senior management to
validate progress.
The study findings indicate participants do not feel organizational influences have a
strong significance, however the substantial variance between organizational model and setting
paired with the numerous open-ended comments about resource needs provided by participants
55
substantiate a gap and a recommended solution. Implementation teams need to be appropriately
resourced and allocated time to allow learning about organizational change management.
Implementation teams’ beliefs in the value of change management is linked to their feelings of
the utility value of organizational change in an agile transformation. In other studies, research
has shown adults are more motivated to participate (and learn) when they see the relevance of
information to their own circumstances (Knowles, 1980). Increasing allocation and resourcing to
develop and sustain organizational change management competency would demonstrate value
and relevance to the implementation teams.
Adapting an organization’s culture to align with agile requires development of core
competencies such as strategic thinking, innovative mindset, and adaptability (Harraf et al.,
2015). New behaviors must lead to results or they will not embed within the organization.
Consultants may be viewed as “turnaround leaders,” but the organization must view them as
helpful (social contract), before they will be trusted (Schein & Schein, 2017). Storytelling allows
learners to engage in questions and conversations to increase authenticity and engagement
(Denning, 2011). A case study of a successful peer organization who applied the disciplines and
methods proposed by the implementation team will help solidify the value for the
implementation team and improve their overall learning of the approach, and a model for
implementing agile within a government agency will provide the scaffolding necessary to guide
a consulting team through the implementation.
Integrated Recommendations
A readiness assessment and maturity model would help implementation teams prepare
government organizations transitioning to agile methods and provide a tangible and consistent
method to monitor the organization’s progress throughout the transition. Clark and Estes (2008)
56
observe it is necessary to create a cultural profile of the organization as many performance gap
causes and solutions must be adapted to integrate with the organizational culture. Since the
culture of a typical government organization does not align to agile culture (Misra et al., 2010),
an agile transformation requires modification of not only an organization’s behaviors, but also
culture in order to bring the organization into alignment with the culture of agile (Goransson et
al., 2011). The transformation of an organization’s culture is a substantive undertaking.
Transformation projects lacking a strategy may fail (Sommer, 2019), but even with a strategy,
leaders still require a uniform understanding about how the transformation will challenge
existing organizational norms (Dikert et al., 2016). This allows management decisions to align
with organizational culture, yielding significant results (Clark & Estes, 2008). organizational
culture job aids can be helpful when individuals have completed a task previously and need a
reminder of when to apply the previously learned knowledge.
The researcher developed an agile readiness assessment and maturity model in response
to the gaps identified. While agile health metrics and implementation templates exist in the
marketplace, a tool to help implementation teams assess and develop a plan to achieve readiness
for agile adoption is not readily available. The agile readiness assessment and maturity model
measures an organization’s behaviors and culture across 16 dimensions to determine alignment
with agile culture. The assessment asks the transformation leader to consider factors such as
leadership, productivity, quality, communication, growth, risk, efficiency, teamwork and success
measures using a Likert scale to indicate alignment with agile philosophies in a particular area.
Additionally, the tool aids with prioritization of remediation activities by creating a composite
score for each dimension and assigning a related color code (red, yellow, green) based on the
areas of greatest deficiency. The composite results are also mapped to a radar graph which can
57
be updated with future data collections to demonstrate progress in each dimension. A sample of
the tool is shown in Figure 9, and the full assessment tool is found in Appendix G.
Respondents indicated greater comfort with agile knowledge (66%) than with
organizational change knowledge (45%) when asked if they were able to diagnose root causes of
challenges on an agile project. Since training and checklists on agile procedures are available in
training and resources, but the organizational change of creating a culture to align with agile is
less readily available, this tool provides a guide to assess and build the culture and organizational
change knowledge areas needed to successfully adopt agile methods. Additionally, the tool
addresses responses provided in survey question 20, which asks participants to identify
additional tools, training or resources that would help to implement agile with a client.
58
Figure 9
Agile Readiness Culture Assessment and Maturity Model
The remainder of the implementation plan is also found in Appendix G. The New World
Kirkpatrick model is the framework for evaluation of the implementation plan. The Kirkpatrick
model considers findings across four tiers - Level 1 is reaction, Level 2 is learning, Level 3 is
behavior, and Level 4 is results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The study leverages the four-
59
tier model to consider the implementation’s effectiveness at gaining support of the stakeholder
group in Level 1, reaction. In Level 2, the Kirkpatrick model evaluates learning and
comprehension of new information. At Level 3, the model explores whether the approach results
in a behavior change. And finally, Level 4 examines if, and how, the behavior changes drive
results and outcomes.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although not intended as a gender study, the exploratory statistics highlighted a
difference between perceived knowledge and motivation. Females reported a composite
knowledge score of 2.45 while males reported composite knowledge score of 2.82. Similarly,
males reported a composite motivation score of 75.52 while females reported higher motivation
at 79.47. The technology industry is a classically male dominated industry. Further exploration
would be beneficial to understand what drives male and female perceived knowledge, how
knowledge influences their perceived self-efficacy and utility value, and what impact the gender
gap has on those factors.
Conclusion
This study was developed to expand upon the agile body of knowledge for implementing
agile in government organizations, and to provide government clients with evidence-based
practices for implementing sustainable transformations within their organizations. Increasing
successful agile transformations will help improve efficiency and effectiveness for government
agencies that successfully adopt agile methods. As depicted in the conceptual framework, there
is interaction between knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. However, this study
found that for the consultants who support government clients in transforming their organization
to agile methods, consultants need access to role models of other successful transformation
60
efforts to drive their perceived utility value in transforming their client to agile methods. In
addition, consultant organizations need to foster a learning mindset. This goes beyond the
organizational setting which provides training and aligns projects to personal goals. The
organizational model reflects the organization’s culture of challenging and growing strong
consultants and encouraging them to continue their own personal growth.
61
References
Al-Said A., and Amro M. (2014). Agile large-scale software development: success factors,
challenges and solutions. I-Manager's Journal on Software Engineering, 8(3), 1-12.
Bäcklander, G. (2019). "Doing complexity leadership theory: How agile coaches at Spotify
practice enabling leadership", Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 28, pp. 42.
Baldwin, T. T., and Ford, K. J. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future
research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164–180.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review. 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Barton, N., van der Heiden, G, Wilson, N (2017, April 7). How to Contract for Agile
Development Services (ID: G00325642).
https://www.gartner.com/document/3672017?ref=solrAll&refval=288169192
Bauhoff, S. (2011). Systematic self-report bias in health data: impact on estimating cross-
sectional and treatment effects. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology,
11(1-2), 44–53.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... and
Kern, J. (2001). The Agile Manifesto. Agile Alliance. http://agilemanifesto.org/
62
Bell, L. (2006). Respect and workplace options help retain aging nurses. Nursing Management,
37(11), 56. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/231394757?accountid=14749
Bernerth, J., Walker, H., and Harris, S. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial
validation of a new measure. Work and Stress, 25(4), 321-337.
Bibler Zaidi, N., and Ross, P., Limited by our limitations. Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Aug; 8(4):
261–264. Published online 2019 Jul 25.
Bilney, C., and Pillay, S. (2015). Public sector organizations and cultural change. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boehm, B., and Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in
traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39.
Booz Allen experts predict the trends that will impact government technology in 2016. (2015,
Dec 14). M2 Presswire Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1748594228?accountid=14749
Bowerman, J. K. (2003). Leadership development through action learning: An executive
monograph. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 16(6), VI-XIII.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/229618554?accountid=14749
Brenner, E., Freundlich, M., Kerman, B., and Lee, J. (2012) Learning While Doing in the Human
Services: Becoming a Learning Organization Through Organizational Change,
Administration in Social Work, 36:3, 234-257
Brightman, B. and Moran, J., Leading organizational change, Career Development International,
Volume 6, Number 2, 2001, pp. 111-119(9)
63
Buell Hirsch, P. (2014). Whither the bully pulpit: Leadership communications and corporate
transformation. The Journal of Business Strategy, 35(6), 66-70.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1678629164?accountid=14749
Company A, Inc. (2016). Company A Employee Handbook (version 13.10). Sacramento, CA.
Company A, Inc. (9 February 2019). We blend human interaction with technical expertise.
Retrieved from https://Company Asolutions.com/expertise/.
Cameron, Kim S., and Robert E. Quinn. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework. Jossey-Bass, 2011.
Cao, L. and Ramesh, B. (2008). Agile requirements engineering practices: An empirical study,
IEEE Software, January/February, 60-67.
Choi, J., Fiszdon, J. M., and Medalia, A. (2010). Expectancy-value theory in persistence of
learning effects in schizophrenia: role of task value and perceived
competency. Schizophrenia bulletin, 36(5), 957–965.
Chuang, S., Luor, T., and Lu, H. (2014). Assessment of institutions, scholars, and contributions
on agile software development (2001–2012). The Journal of Systems and
Software, 93(C), 84–101.
Clark, R. E., and Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Coleman, G. (2016). Agile software development. Software Quality Professional, 19(1), 23-29.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1866513328?accountid=14749
64
Conforto, EC, Salum, F., Amaral, D.C., da Silva, S.L. and de Almeida, L.F.M. (2014), "Can
agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development?",
Project Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 21-34.
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., and Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods in Behavioural Research (7th Ed.). London: Mayfield Publishing
Co.
Creasey, T., (12 November 2018) Prosci change management methodology. Prosci.com.
Retrieved from https://www.prosci.com/adkar/change-management-methodology-
overview
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crispin, L, and J. Gregory. 2009. Agile testing: A practical guide for testers and agile teams.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Denning, S. (2011). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denning, S. (2016). Agile's ten implementation challenges. (2016). Strategy and
Leadership, 44(5), 15-20.
Deressa, A. T., and Zeru, G. (2019). Work motivation and its effects on organizational
performance: the case of nurses in Hawassa public and private hospitals: Mixed method
study approach. BMC research notes, 12(1), 213.
65
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C. (2016) Challenges and success factors for large-scale
agile transformations: A systematic literature review, Journal of Systems and Software,
Volume 119, 2016, Pages 87-108, ISSN 0164-1212,
Durik, A., Shechter, O., Noh, M., Rozek, C., and Harackiewicz, J. (2015). What if I can't?
Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on situational
interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104–118.
Eccles, J.S., and Wigfield, A. (1995) In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents'
academic achievement related beliefs and self-perception. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 21(3): 215–225.
Eccles (Parsons), J. et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J.
Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation (pp.75-146). San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman and Co.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Elbanna, A., and Sarker, S. (2016). The Risks of Agile Software Development: Learning from
Adopters. Software, IEEE, 33(5), 72–79.
Fernandez, D. J., and Fernandez, J. D. (2009). Agile project management – Agilism versus
traditional approaches. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(2), 10-17.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/232574512?accountid=14749
Fernandez, S., and Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the
public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
66
Ford, J. and Ford, L. 2010. Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational
Dynamics 39(1): 24–36.
Gallimore, R., and Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gandomani, T. J., Zulzalil, H., Ghani, A. A. A., Sultan, A. B. M., and Nafchi, M. Z. (2013).
Obstacles in moving to agile software development methods; at a glance. Journal of
Computer Science, 9(5), 620.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is "right." In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Göransson, S., Hagström, T., and Backström, T. (2011). Leaders' development and corporate
culture. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 3(2).
https://doaj.org/article/a3fe0818b0a3444cbd6b5c53889cee9d
David H. Hargreaves (1995) School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 6:1. 23-46
Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., and Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational agility. Journal of
Applied Business Research, 31(2), 675-686. 8(1), 43-45.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/200664618?accountid=14749
Harvard Business Review. (n.d. November 2014). How companies can profit from a "growth
mindset". https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-companies-can-profit-from-a-growth-mindset
67
Henschen, D. (2005). New rules, agile government. Intelligent Enterprise, 8(1), 43-45.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/200664618?accountid=14749
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd edn). John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community.
Holte, M., and Wilson, N. (2018, September 26). Move away from waterfall to agile and
product-centric delivery methods (ID: G00360414).
https://www.gartner.com/document/3890771?ref=solrAll&refval=288169869
Holton, E., and Baldwin, T. (2000). Making transfer happen: An action perspective on learning
transfer systems. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 8. 1-6.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010a). Enhancing
interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 880–895.
Kale, U. (2018). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future
teachers' utility value toward technology integration. Computers and Education, 117,
160-174.
Kerka, S. (1995). The Learning Organization. Myths and Realities.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED388802
Knowles, M.S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Kotter, J., and Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Harvard Business School Press.
68
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. theory into practice, 41,
212–218.
Küpper, S. (2016). The impact of agile methods on the development of an agile culture: research
proposal: [the agile evolution]. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
evaluation and assessment in software engineering (Vol. 01–03-, pp. 1–4). ACM.
Lee, G., and Xia, W. (2010). Toward Agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and
qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J. E. (2010) Practical research: Planning and design, Ninth Edition.
NYC: Merril.
Maximini, D. (2015). The scrum culture: introducing agile methods in organizations. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ch. 6, pp. 121-138.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. – p. 42-
43 and p. 51-90.
Meier, A., and Ivarsson, J. (2013). Agile Software Development and Service Science. GSTF
Journal on Computing (JoC), 3(3), 1–5.
Mergel, G. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future
research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291–298.
Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merron, K. (2005). Masterful Consulting. Consulting to Management, 16(2), 5–11,54–58.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/215899088/
69
Meyer, S. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 217–
231.
Milner, J., McCarthy, G. and Milner, T. (2018), Training for the coaching leader: how
organizations can support managers, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No.
2, pp. 188-200.
Misra, S., Kumar, V., and Kumar, U. (2010). Identifying some critical changes required in
adopting agile practices in traditional software development projects. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(4), 451-474.
Misra, S. (2007). Adopting agile software development practices: success factors, changes
required, and challenges.
Motowidlo SJ, Crook AE, Kell HJ, Naemi B. (2009) Measuring procedural knowledge more
simply with a single-response situational judgment test Journal of Business and
Psychology. 24: 281-288.
Murray, A., (2016). Agile, Waterfall, and the Key to Modern Project Management, in: The
Complete Software Project Manager. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp.
7–16.
Nica, E. (2013). Organizational Culture in the Public Sector. Economics, Management and
Financial Markets, 8(2), 179–184. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1433042068/
O'Reilly, C. and Tushman, M (2016). Lead and disrupt: How to solve the innovators dilemma.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
70
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Parcell, J., and Holden, S. (2013). Agile policy development for digital government: An
exploratory case study. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on
Digital Government Research, 11-17.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire MSLQ. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pixton, P., Gibson, P., and Nickolaisen, N. (2014). The Agile Culture: Leading through Trust
and Ownership. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Prosci. (2017). Prosci's benchmarking study.
https://www.prosci.com/changemanagement/thought-leadership-library/change-
management-methodology-overview (accessed 20 March 2018).
Ravindranath, M. (24 Aug 2016). Why agile is still so hard for the government. Nextgov.Com
(Online), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1814014648?accountid=14749.
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., and Takeuchi, H. 2016. Embracing Agile. Harvard Business Review
94(5): 40–50.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Ch. 6, pp. 154-159.
71
Sasankar, A. B., and Chavan, V. (2011). SWOT analysis of software development process
models. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 8(5), 390-399.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/902125912?accountid=14749
Schein, E., and Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Fifth edition).
Hoboken: Wiley.
Schunk, D. (1989). Self-Efficacy and Achievement Behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1(3), 173-208. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23359217
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.
Shama, P., and Shivamanth, A. (2015). A review of agile software development
Methodologies. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Computers, Science and
Engineering, 4(11), 1–6. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1750366687/
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.).
Seattle, WA, Dissertation Success, LLC.
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., and Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A
longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 70–83.
Slack, N., and Singh, G. (2018). Diagnosis of Organizational Culture in Public Sector
Undertakings Undergoing Reforms. Public Organization Review, 18(3), 361–380.
Sommer, A. F., (2019) Agile Transformation at LEGO Group, Research-Technology
Management, 62:5, 20-29,
Spiegler, S., Heinecke, C., Wagner, S. (2021) "An empirical study on changing leadership in
agile teams", Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 26.
72
State of California. (n.d.). Understanding Agile.
https://projectresources.cdt.ca.gov/understanding-agile/
Stensaker, I. G., and Meyer, C. B. (2012). Change experience and employee reactions:
Developing capabilities for change. Personnel Review, 41(1), 106-124.
Stober, T., and Hansmann, U. (2009). Agile software development best practices for large
software development projects. Berlin: Springer.
Stoica, M., Mircea, M., Ghilic-Micu, B., 2013. Software Development: Agile vs. Traditional.
Inform. Econ. 17.
Sutton, J., and Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and
Management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226–231.
Tripp, J. F., and Armstrong, D. J. (2018) Agile Methodologies: Organizational Adoption
Motives, Tailoring, and Performance, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58:2,
170-179
Tuckman, B. (2006). Operant conditioning. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/operant-conditioning/.
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=GVRLandu=usocal_mainandid=G
ALE|CX3027800190andv=2.1andit=randsid=exlibris
United States Government Accountability Office. (2012). Software development [electronic
resource]: Effective practices and federal challenges in applying agile methods: Report to
the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. Washington, DC: US Govt. Accountability
Office.
73
United States Government Accountability Office. (2016). GAO-16-469. Information Technology
Reform: Agencies Need to Increase Their Use of Incremental Development Practices,
Report to Congressional Requesters, United States Senate. Washington, DC: US Govt.
Accountability Office.
VersionOne. (2017). 12th Annual State of Agile Report. Retrieved from VersionOne.com
Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J. S. (Eds.) (2001). Development of Achievement Motivation. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Appendices
Appendix A: Definitions
Certain terms used throughout the study have specific meaning as it relates to the field of
study. Below these words are listed and defined for reference.
Agile development: A collaborative, customer-centered approach to software
development which delivers working software to the customer over increments called sprints.
The approach is outlined in the Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001).
Organizational agility: The ability for an organization to shift and change upon demand.
Also, an organization's ability to be nimble (Harraf et al., 2015).
Waterfall project management: A traditional approach to project management in which
the end state is clearly defined and the team moves forward in a rigorously planned and
cascading approach (Stoica et al., 2013).
75
Appendix B: The Researcher
Within the organization being studied, the researcher is a manager-level employee. While
there could be perceived power issues with a leadership role, most of the proposed participants
will be at the equivalent classification or higher, which mitigates perceived power or control
issues with the researcher. As the researcher's colleagues, many are already well informed that
the researcher is a participant in a doctoral program and thus they have some familiarity with the
program and the desire to collect data in service to the academic program.
There is also potential for bias when considering the researcher is an employee of the
organization being studied. As such, there is risk that evaluation and questions related to artifacts
or processes the researcher created in a professional context could be perceived incorrectly by
the researcher. Similarly, there could be risk that participants could also feel pressured to respond
in a positive way to materials created by the researcher, who is also their colleague. Mitigation
for these risks includes addressing the risk in the informant consent and verbally with the
participants, as well as periodically being mindful of the bias risk and continually evaluating
potential tactics to avoid activation (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
76
Appendix C: Protocols
Below are the survey questions presented to participants via Qualtrics. The first and
second question were considered to be screening questions to validate participants’
requisite experience to qualify as a survey participant.
Demographic Items
1. I have worked on an agile transformation project (Y/N)
a. If yes, how many transformation projects: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / more than 5
b. If yes, in which states/countries (Open response)
2. I have worked on an agile transformation project for a government agency (Y/N)
a. If yes, how many transformation projects: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / more than 5
b. If yes, in which states/countries (Open response)
3. Gender: Male / Female / Other / Decline to state
4. Age: 18 – 24 / 25 – 34 / 35 – 44 / 45 – 54 / 55 or above
5. Professional Level: Associate – Sr. Consultant / Manager – Sr. Manager / Managing
Director – Sr. Executive Director / Executive Steering Committee
6. Professional Area of Focus: Developer / Project Manager / Specialist – technical /
Specialist – non-technical / Corporate Services
7. Identify your highest level of completed education: High School / Some College /
Bachelor's Degree / Master's Degree / Doctorate
8. Identify the response that best reflects your last employer immediately prior to joining
Company A: Other consulting firm / Private sector – technology (but not consulting) /
Private sector – not technology (but not consulting) / Public sector – technology / Public
sector – not technology / I was a student / I was unemployed
77
9. I first learned agile methods: While working at Company A / Prior to joining Company A
/ Not at all
10. I learned agile from instructors at: Company A / Outside Company A / Self-taught from
other sources (online, books, etc.) / Not at all
11. I have completed an agile training course(s): Y/N
a. If yes, how many training courses: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / more than 5
b. Specify course types (Open response)
12. I first learned organizational change methods: While working at Company A / Prior to
joining Company A / Not at all
13. I learned organizational change from instructors at: Company A / Outside Company A /
Self-taught from other sources (online, books, etc.) / Not at all
14. I have completed an organizational change training course(s): Y/N
a. If yes, how many training courses: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / more than 5
b. Specify course types (Open response)
Knowledge Items
15. When a problem arises on an agile transformation project, I know how to diagnose if the
root cause relates to agile. (4-point Likert scale wherein 1 means not at all true for me
and 4 means very true for me)
16. If the root cause is agile, I know how to successfully mitigate the issue. (4-point Likert
scale wherein 1 means not at all true for me and 4 means very true for me)
17. When a problem arises on an agile transformation project, I know how to diagnose if the
root cause relates to organizational change management. ((4-point Likert scale wherein 1
means not at all true for me and 4 means very true for me)
78
18. If the root cause is an organizational change issue, I know how to successfully mitigate
the issue. (4-point Likert scale wherein 1 means not at all true for me and 4 means very
true for me)
19. I know how to apply organizational change methods on an agile transformation. (4-point
Likert scale wherein 1 means not at all true for me and 4 means very true for me)
20. Please describe additional tools, training or resources (if any) that would help you be
successful using or implementing agile with a client. If none, type N/A.
Motivation Items
21. I'm confident I can successfully lead an agile transformation team. (100-point scale in 10-
unit intervals, wherein 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence)
22. I'm confident I can successfully work on (as a contributor, not a lead) an agile
transformation team. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no
confidence and 100 means complete confidence)
23. I'm confident I can successfully lead the organizational change work stream of an agile
transformation. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no confidence and
100 means complete confidence)
24. I'm confident I can successfully participate (as a contributor, not a lead) on the
organizational change work stream on an agile transformation. (100-point scale in 10-unit
intervals, wherein 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence)
25. Using agile methods is beneficial for my clients' organizations. (100-point scale in 10-
unit intervals, wherein 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence)
26. I have seen other organizations experience success using agile methods. (100-point scale
in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no confidence and 100 means complete confidence)
Organizational Items
79
27. Company A expects employees to aspire to achieve personal mastery of topics. (100-
point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete
agreement)
28. Company A values expects employees to seek to understand complexity. (100-point scale
in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete agreement)
29. Company A expects employees to take time to reflect on what they have learned. (100-
point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete
agreement)
30. Company A provides opportunities to apply newly learned content, even if the
application is unsuccessful. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no
agreement and 100 means complete agreement)
31. Company A encourages me to pursue challenging projects to expand my skillsets. (100-
point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete
agreement)
32. Company A has provided the right amount of agile training for consultants to be
successful at agile transformations. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means
no agreement and 100 means complete agreement)
33. Company A provides sufficient opportunities for additional agile training, if needed.
(100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means
complete agreement)
34. Company A's agile materials help strengthen my knowledge of agile. (100-point scale in
10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete agreement)
80
35. Company A has provided the right amount of change management training for
consultants to be successful at agile transformations. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals,
wherein 0 means no agreement and 100 means complete agreement)
36. Company A provides sufficient opportunities for additional change management training,
if needed. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and 100
means complete agreement)
37. Company A change management materials help strengthen my knowledge of change
management. (100-point scale in 10-unit intervals, wherein 0 means no agreement and
100 means complete agreement)
81
Appendix D: Ethics
All research involving human subjects must be submitted through an Institutional Review
Board (IRB). The IRB is responsible for validating the ethical treatment of the human subjects
involved in the study. IRB reviews the following:
1. Research subjects must have sufficient information to make informed decisions about
participating in the study.
2. Research subjects must be able to withdraw, without penalty, from a study at any point.
3. All unnecessary risk to a subject must be eliminated.
4. Benefits to the subject or society, preferably both, must outweigh all potential risks.
5. Experiments should be conducted only by qualified investigators (Gleanse, 2011).
The study will be submitted to the University of Southern California's IRB for approval to
ensure the safety of human subjects was reviewed and validated, ensuring study participants are
protected. Study participants will be informed of the purpose, process and approach to the study,
and an informed consent document will be developed for participants to sign to further verify
they understand the risks and benefits of their participation. In distribution of the survey, they
will be reminded their participation is voluntary and they can withdraw at any time.
Within the organization being studied, the researcher is a manager-level employee. While
there could be perceived power issues with a leadership role, most of the participants proposed
will also be at the manager level or higher, which mitigates perceived power or control issues
with the researcher. As a colleague of the participants, many are already informed that the
researcher is a participant in a doctoral program and thus they have a general familiarity with the
program and the desire to collect data related to agile transformation in service to the academic
program.
As the study participants are members of the organization being studies, it is possible
82
employees may perceive pressure to participate or may be apprehensive to respond with candor
if they feel the response is not in alignment with company expectations. The mitigation for this
concern is to ensure anonymity of the respondents. Setting this expectation from the outset and
reminding both participants, and the organization of this commitment is intended to minimize
employee fears, which may constrain their forthright responses to the survey, and ultimately
increase study credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2014).
There is potential for bias when considering the researcher is an employee of the
organization being studied. As such, there is risk that evaluation and questions related to artifacts
or processes the researcher created in a professional context could be perceived incorrectly by
the researcher. Similarly, there could be risk that participants could also feel pressured to respond
in a positive way to materials created by the researcher, who is also their colleague. Mitigation
for these risks includes addressing the risk in the informant consent and verbally with the
participants, as well as periodically being mindful of the bias risk and considering how to avoid
activation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
83
Appendix E: Assumptions
Following are the assumptions and associated tests driving the analysis.
1. The first assumption is that the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale
(Leard.com, 2018). For this study, the dependent variable, self-efficacy (M1 – M4), is measured
on a continuous scale.
2. The second assumption is that the independent variable is measured using a continuous
scale (Leard.com, 2018). This study involved the independent variable, motivation (M5 – M6)
on agile transformation, is measured on a continuous scale.
3. The third assumption is linearity, which will test if a relationship exists among the
variables and then test the variables collectively. Scatter plots and partial-plot regression will be
created in SPSS Statistics to test for a linear relationship between the dependent variable and the
independent variable. If the relationship in the scatter plots or partial plots is not linear, a
nonlinear regression analysis or a polynomial regression test will be used to transform the data
using the Chart Builder procedure in SPSS Statistics.
4. The fourth assumption is homoscedasticity (equal error variance) of error terms, meaning
that the residuals equal all values of the predicted dependent not the independent variables. A
scatter plot will be created using the studentized residual against the values in SPSS Statistic. No
clear pattern should emerge; rather, a cone-shaped pattern indicates the data in the study are
heteroscedastic. If any violations occur, then a transformation or a weighted least square
statistical test will be used on the dependent and each independent variable to sway the residual
to normality.
5. The fifth assumption is multicollinearity, which will only be used to test the data if two or
more of the independent variables (i.e., self-interested behavior and employee motivation)
84
correlate highly with each other. For this analysis, because only one independent variable will be
investigated, the assumption of multicollinearity is met.
6. The sixth assumption is to test for outliers, leverage, and influential points. Case-wise
diagnostics and studentized residuals will be used to test for outliers and leverage points. Case-
wise diagnostics also check for influential points in SPSS Statistic and use the Cook's Distance
measure of influence.
7. Finally, the seventh assumption will test for residuals (errors), which ensure normally
distributed residuals. The assumption of normality will be checked using a histogram, normal P-
P plot or a normal Q-Q plot. The statistical tests will examine normality of the variables using
kurtosis and normal probability plots. With the numerous violations or problems that may occur
in testing the assumptions, the SPSS Statistics diagnostics check will offer alternate methods to
check assumptions and the multiple regressions used (Laerd Statistics, 2018).
85
Appendix F: Agile Culture Readiness Assessment and Maturity Model
The agile culture readiness assessment shown in F1 is completed by the transformation
lead in conjunction with leadership in the organization. The subsequent radar graph follows.
F10
Agile Culture Readiness Assessment and Maturity Model with Radar Graph
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
01- Climate People trust one another 1-Never 1
2.3
01- Climate
People feel good about the work they
do and the value they bring to the
customers
2-Sometimes 2
01- Climate People count on each other 2-Sometimes 2
01- Climate This is an innovative organization 4-Always 4
02- Board /
Oversight
Is well aligned on issues facing the
organization
1-Never 1
2.3
02- Board /
Oversight
Addresses only highest-level
priorities; allows the organization to
manage the day-to-day
3-Often 3
02- Board /
Oversight
Install good leaders and trust them to
carry out the mission
3-Often 3
03- Senior
Leadership
Well-aligned on issues facing the
organization
2-Sometimes 2 1.4
86
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
03- Senior
Leadership
Establish a clear vision for where the
organization is going
1-Never 1
03- Senior
Leadership
Communicate the vision regularly 1-Never 1
03- Senior
Leadership
Are present and visible 3-Often 3
03- Senior
Leadership
Know when to engage and when to
get out of the way
1-Never 1
03- Senior
Leadership
Display trust in their teams and
expect the same of their managers
1-Never 1
03- Senior
Leadership
Provide the resources needed to get
the work done
1-Never 1
04-
Management
Understand the organizational vision
and apply it to the work done by
their teams
2-Sometimes 2
2.2
04-
Management
Set clear and achievable expectations 2-Sometimes 2
04-
Management
Provide clear and regular feedback 3-Often 3
04-
Management
Value their team's contribution and
encourage suggestions/ideas
1-Never 1
87
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
04-
Management
Encourage open and transparent
dialogue
2-Sometimes 2
04-
Management
Allow teams to self-organize and
self-direct their work
3-Often 3
05- Staff
Enjoy collaborating with others
outside their team
2-Sometimes 2
2.0
05- Staff Bring ideas forward 1-Never 1
05- Staff
Are motivated by learning and trying
new things
3-Often 3
05- Staff
Organize themselves to get work
done
1-Never 1
05- Staff Elevate issues when needed 3-Often 3
06- Productivity Comfortable with ambiguity 1-Never 1
1.5
06- Productivity
Projects include people from various
teams/divisions
1-Never 1
06- Productivity
Roles & responsibilities are
understood and followed
1-Never 1
06- Productivity
Seek input from stakeholders inside
and outside of the organization
1-Never 1
06- Productivity "Let's try it" mentality 3-Often 3
06- Productivity
Work gets done together (rather than
at my desk)
2-Sometimes 2
88
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
07-
Risk/Challenges
Risk appetite is well defined 4-Always 4
2.8
07-
Risk/Challenges
Organization applies the risk appetite
across the work
2-Sometimes 2
07-
Risk/Challenges
Employees know how to interpret
the risk appetite within their role
3-Often 3
07-
Risk/Challenges
Issues have clear ownership, actions
& due dates
2-Sometimes 2
07-
Risk/Challenges
Risks/Issues are known and openly
shared within the organization
3-Often 3
08-
Communication
Transparent, candid and open 2-Sometimes 2
1.4
08-
Communication
People are empowered to
communicate openly across all levels
1-Never 1
08-
Communication
Brief & timely is more important
than lengthy and vetted
2-Sometimes 2
08-
Communication
People say what they mean 1-Never 1
08-
Communication
People know how to be succinct and
still deliver their message
1-Never 1
09- Quality
Incremental improvements are
valued
2-Sometimes 2 2.6
89
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
09- Quality Continuous improvement is valued 3-Often 3
09- Quality Start small and scale 2-Sometimes 2
09- Quality Test and pilot new ideas 3-Often 3
09- Quality
Lessons learned are captured and
applied to future work
3-Often 3
10- Growth Growth is valued 2-Sometimes 2
3.0
10- Growth
People are developed by providing
support, feedback and opportunity
3-Often 3
10- Growth
Growth is evaluated and monitored
to ensure it still aligns with vision
4-Always 4
11- Efficiency
Processes are reviewed and
inefficient or outdated processes are
removed
2-Sometimes 2
2.5
11- Efficiency Continuous improvement is valued 3-Often 3
11- Efficiency Start small and scale, test and pilot 2-Sometimes 2
11- Efficiency Seek to eliminate waste 3-Often 3
11- Efficiency Managers have a Lean-Agile mindset 2-Sometimes 2
11- Efficiency SMART objectives are followed 3-Often 3
12- Teamwork
Teams across the organization work
together to get things done
2-Sometimes 2
2.8
12- Teamwork
Within teams, collaboration is valued
over competition
4-Always 4
90
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
12- Teamwork
Amongst teams, collaboration is
valued over competition
3-Often 3
12- Teamwork
Team's workload and progress is
visible and accessible
2-Sometimes 2
13-
Documentation
conversations are sufficient for
agreement (written documentation is
not needed)
3-Often 3
2.3
13-
Documentation
Team artifacts are visible and
accessible to anyone
2-Sometimes 2
13-
Documentation
When documentation is needed, it is
clear and specific
2-Sometimes 2
13-
Documentation
Pictures or graphics are used when
possible
2-Sometimes 2
13-
Documentation
Source documentation is not
duplicated (things aren't maintained
in multiple locations)
2-Sometimes 2
13-
Documentation
Work in progress is accessible 3-Often 3
13-
Documentation
Shared document repositories allow
for collaboration and improvement
2-Sometimes 2
14- Strategy A clear vision exists 2-Sometimes 2
2.7
14- Strategy Employees understand the vision 4-Always 4
91
DIMENSION OBSERVATION
OCCURRENCE
(enter data in this
column)
Current
Score
Average
per
Dimension
14- Strategy
Vision is discussed and used as a
guidepost for decision-making
2-Sometimes 2
15- Measuring
Success
Success is achieved by working
together
3-Often 3
2.4
15- Measuring
Success
Success is when the organization has
learned
3-Often 3
15- Measuring
Success
Success involves failure 2-Sometimes 2
15- Measuring
Success
Success is better achieved in baby
steps
2-Sometimes 2
15- Measuring
Success
Success is measured 2-Sometimes 2
16- Agile Understand the 4 Agile Principles 3-Often 3
2.6
16- Agile Understand the 12 Agile values 1-Never 1
16- Agile
Consider how Agile applies to the
whole organization
2-Sometimes 2
16- Agile Think about work in value streams 3-Often 3
16- Agile Lean-Agile mindset 4-Always 4
176
92
The radar graph in F2 is a sample which provides a graphic representation of the baseline
as compared against the current state of readiness and maturity.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
01- Climate
02- Board/Oversight
03- Senior
Leadership
04- Management
05- Staff
06- Productivity
07- Risk/Challenges
08- Communication
09- Quality
10- Growth
11- Efficiency
12- Teamwork
13- Documentation
14- Strategy
15- Measuring
Success
16- Agile
Sample Agile Culture Readiness Radar Graph
Current
Baseline
F2
Agile Culture Readiness Radar Graph
93
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which Company A Solutions is
meeting its objective to successfully implement three agile transformation projects with state
government clients by May 2021 in service of its goal to become a national leader of agile
services. This evaluation will help the organization understand how consultants, coaches or other
advisors can positively influence organizational culture to facilitate adoption of agile
development methods in state government agencies.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators suggest progress is being made toward achieving the stakeholder
goals. External indicators include an increase in clients requesting agile transformation services
and an increase in recognition of Company A’s thought leadership around agile transformation.
Internally, an increase in volunteers for agile transformation teams and an increase in
organizational understanding of culture and its implication on agile transformations tells leaders
there is progress. G1 outlines the desired outcomes, metrics and methods used to evaluate the
metrics.
G1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase in clients
requesting agile
transformation
Number of clients with a
scope of work that includes
agile transformation services
Project Management Office
administrator review of executed
94
contracts for agile transformation
services
Increased thought
leadership around agile
transformation
Number of acknowledgements
(awards, recognition, client
references) for agile
engagements
Marketing department tally of
acknowledgements in trade
publications, government awards
and client references
Internal Outcomes
Increase in employee
volunteers for agile
implementation teams
Number of consultants who
volunteer to participate in
agile implementation teams
Human Resources collect data
from counselors and project
managers
Increase in team-built
agile transformation
collateral
Number of agile
transformation artifacts
created to support marketing
efforts
Marketing analyst count agile
transformation collateral
Increased understanding
of organizational change
for agile transformation
Use of maturity models in
assessing client maturity
Project management office
analyst audit project files on
company SharePoint for
completion of assessment
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholder group of focus, implementation teams, must demonstrate
critical behaviors in order to achieve the desired outcomes. These critical behaviors include
demonstration of a commitment to the change management discipline, participation in continuing
95
education related to agile and change management, and an increase in individual focus goals
related to agile and change management as shown in G2.
G2
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Implementation teams
allocate at least 25% of their
time to firm initiatives to
develop agile transformation
methodology
25% of chargeable
time
Employee time-
tracking platform
(ADT)
quarterly
2. Agile implementation
teams participate in continuing
education related to change
management
33% increase in
consultant completion
of training courses
related to change
management
Training
registration and/or
reimbursements (as
approved)
quarterly
3. Portfolio management
adds change management
factors to focus goals
75% increase in focus
goals related to
organizational change
management
Audit of focus goals Semi-
annual
4. Agile implementation
teams increase frequency of
counselor meetings
Mandatory monthly
counselor check-in
Employee time-
tracking platform
(ADT)
Semi-
annual
96
meetings for agile
implementation teams
Required drivers. Individually, implementation team members need to feel they are
capable of leading clients through an agile transformation, and they need to believe they have the
skills needed to be successful. Collectively, implementation teams need to believe an agile
implementation is useful to meeting future goals, and it is worth the effort they perceive it will
require to implement. To achieve this, the organization needs to value a learning mindset to
embrace new and innovative solutions, and must believe change management is the key to
successful agile transformations. Company A must demonstrate competence in organizational
change management and must demonstrate this knowledge by explicitly connecting individual
focus goals to agile and organizational change management efforts. G3 outlines required drivers
to support critical behaviors.
G3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Portfolio management will ensure employee
performance metrics align with organizational change
knowledge
At kickoff and
semi-annually
3
97
Human resources will assign mentors to agile
implementation teams
Semi-annual 4
Encouraging
Portfolio leaders increase outreach to agile
implementation team members
Monthly 2
Rewarding
HIRASG awards for those completing change
management training and agile contract awards
Monthly 1, 2
Monitoring
Counselors increase frequency of check-ins with agile
implementation team members
Monthly 1, 3
Organizational support. The organization will further support the critical behaviors and
required drivers by encouraging continuous learning and demonstrating organizational
prioritization of agile efforts. This includes providing updates at monthly all staff meetings, bi-
weekly executive briefings and Executive Steering Committee huddles.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The learning and development program described in the next section
results in the following learning goals:
1. Understand agile development methods (procedural).
2. Know the theory and application of organizational change management practices, and
how they influence success in agile transformations (procedural).
98
3. Know the theory and application of organizational change, and how it impacts success of
an agile transformation (metacognitive).
Program. Agile implementation teams are recommended to be trained in agile and
organizational change management, and will learn how to apply these disciplines to an agile
transformation effort to increase likelihood of success. Agile teams can leverage the skills gained
through training and use of job aids in the form of a maturity model and framework to assess a
client’s current state and develop a roadmap for implementation of the agile transformation.
Team members may also be paired with a mentor to support their learning and development.
The training should take place over six months and leverage internal training programs
already established within the firm. Following training, the team leverages a maturity model as a
job aid for the next 12 months to support their understanding of culture and change as it relates to
agile in a real-world setting. They may use this model for assessment and development of
implementation plans. In addition, a mentoring program should continue beyond training for the
first 18 months as an agile implementation team member. Focus goals tailored to agile
transformations, including organizational change and culture disciplines, is recommended to
remain in place for the duration of time the individual is an agile implementation team member.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Learning goals are to understand agile development
methods, know the theory and application of organizational change management practices, and
how they influence success in agile transformations, and know the theory and application of
organizational culture, and how it impacts success of an agile transformation. G4 identifies the
components of the learning that will be evaluated.
99
G4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Just in time skill checks within training courses Contextual as part of training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Just in time skill checks within training courses Contextual as part of training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre/Post training survey questions to understand the
implementation team member’s attitude toward the value
of the learning
Before and after each training
course
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post training survey questions to evaluate employee’s
confidence at applying the new knowledge on a project
Immediately following and three
months after each training course
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Employee feedback on the agile transformation maturity
model tool
During monthly counseling
sessions
Level 1: Reaction
Understanding participants’ reactions is the core concept of level 1 of the Kirkpatrick
model, the lowest level of training metric (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). Capturing and
tracking the reactions allows researchers the opportunity to assess whether a pivot is needed in
100
training strategy before assessing outcomes. The methods to determine participants’ reactions to
learning activities within the program are outlined in G5.
G5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Survey questions for implementation teams -
Do you feel engaged with the training and
knowledge program?
Monthly
Relevance
Survey questions for implementation teams -
How relevant is the training and knowledge
program to the work you do with clients?
Post training and three months after joining
an agile transformation project (administered
by Human Resources)
Customer Satisfaction
Survey questions for implementation teams -
How satisfied are you with the learning
program?
Monthly counselor meetings, and three
months after joining an agile transformation
project (administered by Human Resources)
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
Embedding and sustaining change in digital transformations within financial services
PDF
Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success
PDF
Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations
PDF
Big-four consulting firm female senior manager engagement, retention and productivity in pursuit of the partner level
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education
PDF
"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations
PDF
Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency
PDF
An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness
PDF
The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders
PDF
Game changers: developing high-technology industry innovative cultures during times of disruptive change
PDF
Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity
PDF
“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments
PDF
Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions
PDF
Avoidance of inpatient medical necessity denials for short-stay admissions: an evaluative study
PDF
Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tarabetz, Kimberly A.
(author)
Core Title
Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-12
Publication Date
11/10/2021
Defense Date
07/28/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
agile,culture,Government,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,public sector,transformation
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Adibe, Bryant (
committee chair
), Krop, Kathy (
committee member
), Phillips, Jennifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kim.tarabetz@gmail.com,tarabetz@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16659548
Unique identifier
UC16659548
Legacy Identifier
etd-TarabetzKi-10210
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Tarabetz, Kimberly A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
agile
organizational change
public sector
transformation