University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 1

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT METHODS:

AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Michael Deer

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

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Michael Deer
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 2
DEDICATION
To my mother, who knew this was possible long before I. If only you could see me now.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my mother who inspired me long ago, my brother who supported me along
the way, and my friends and extended family who let me talk about this, a lot. Each of you
provided your unique influence on me and without whom I could not have been successful.
Thank you, fellow members of cohort four, who traveled this journey with me and pushed me to
think more critically and reflexively about my research interests. Thank you to my professors
who shared their knowledge and wisdom and have influenced the lens through which I view
challenges. Finally, thank you to my dissertation committee, especially Dr. Hirabayashi, for
your mentorship. I know I challenged the process many times, but you reassured me to trust the
process and, in the end, it all worked out.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................................................... 6
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ........................................................................... 8
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................. 11
Organizational Goal ...................................................................................................... 12
Organizational Performance Goal .................................................................................. 13
Related Literature .......................................................................................................... 13
Importance of Addressing the Problem .......................................................................... 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................ 15
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................... 17
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................. 17
Methodological Framework ........................................................................................... 18
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ..................................................................................... 20
IT Development Approaches ......................................................................................... 20
Waterfall Development Methods ................................................................................... 21
Agile Development Methods ......................................................................................... 23
Organizational Agility ................................................................................................... 25
Information Technology and Organizational Agility ...................................................... 26
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework................................................... 27
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................ 44
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 44
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................. 46
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ..................................................................................... 47
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 48
Chapter Four: Results and Findings........................................................................................... 50
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 50
Findings ........................................................................................................................ 51
Knowledge Influences ................................................................................................... 52
Motivation Influences .................................................................................................... 60
Organizational Influences .............................................................................................. 67
Synthesis ....................................................................................................................... 78
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 5
Chapter Five: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 80
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences .......................................... 81
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 89
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................. 100
Limitations and Delimitations...................................................................................... 100
Future Research ........................................................................................................... 102
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 103
References .............................................................................................................................. 105
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 117
Appendix B............................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix C............................................................................................................................. 120
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................ 121

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 6
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Agile Development Implementation Challenges (Nerur et al. 2005)............................. 10
Table 2. Knowledge Influences ................................................................................................. 32
Table 3. Software Development Methods Advantages and Disadvantages ................................. 34
Table 4. Motivation Influences .................................................................................................. 35
Table 5. Organizational Influences ............................................................................................ 39
Table 6. Stakeholder Participants .............................................................................................. 51
Table 7. Determination of Knowledge Influences ...................................................................... 53
Table 8. Organizational Agility Definitions ............................................................................... 54
Table 9. Affects Organizational Agility ..................................................................................... 56
Table 10. Determination of Motivation Influences .................................................................... 62
Table 11. Degree of Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................. 64
Table 12. Determination of Organizational Influences............................................................... 68
Table 13. Knowledge Recommendations .................................................................................. 83
Table 14. Motivation Recommendations ................................................................................... 86
Table 15. Organizational Recommendations ............................................................................. 88
Table 16. Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators .................................................................... 92
Table 17. Level 3: Behavior ...................................................................................................... 93
Table 18. Required Drivers ....................................................................................................... 94
Table 19. Level 2: Learning ...................................................................................................... 97
Table 20. Level 1: Reaction ...................................................................................................... 98
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 29

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 7
ABSTRACT
Organizational agility and agile development methods are unique concepts that must be
understood by organizational leaders, especially because a relationship exists between the two
concepts of agility. The purpose of this study was to use a modified gap analysis framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008) to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
related to organizational agility and agile development methods within an organization in a
Federal government agency. Following a review of the literature, assumed KMO influences
were examined through a qualitative, emergent design. Assumed influences were validated or
invalidated through analysis of interview data. A comprehensive implementation and evaluation
plan following the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is presented
to measure the effectiveness of the recommendations. The recommendations offered in Chapter
Five are intended to increase stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation and reduce gaps in
organizational influences to achieve the organization’s goals.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Federal agencies in the United States government are under increasing pressure to adapt
quickly to changing demands from stakeholders. Growing budget deficits require government
agencies to deliver smarter, more cost-effective services to citizens (Balter, 2011). According to
Overby et al. (2006), enterprise agility – the ability of an organization to sense changes in the
environment and respond – is critical to an organization’s success. Adaptability and flexibility
are related methods to cope with a dynamically changing climate (Sherehiy, Karwowski, &
Layer, 2007). The foundation for enterprise agility is integrating information technology (IT),
personnel, and business processes (Tseng & Lin, 2011).
Investments in IT and the capabilities of an organization’s information systems (IS) are
considered enablers to an organization’s agility (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011). According to Robert
and Grover (2012), integrated IS allows organizations to provide information to key decision
makers quickly and enhance organizational agility when combined with well-coordinated
organizational functions. The flexibility and alignment of IT and IS further improve an
organization’s abilities (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011). According to Thomke and Reinertsen
(1998), information system flexibility is a function of the incremental cost of modifying a system
in response to internal or external forces.
Methods for developing information systems are grouped into two distinct categories,
traditional, also known as waterfall, and agile. Waterfall development is a downward-flowing,
linear stage model for developing systems requiring substantial upfront design (Mahadevan,
Kettinger, Meservy, 2015). According to Khalifa and Verner (2000), waterfall development
methods have several limitations: systems requirements are codified before system design;
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 9
hardware is selected early in development that may be out-of-date when the system is complete;
laborious documentation process; and the lack of iterative enhancements. Kalifia and Verner
(2000) also suggest waterfall methods are not well-suited for prototyping, a process by which
early system concepts are developed with limited design, coding, and testing to demonstrate
feasibility. Furthermore, Petersen et al. (2009) describe the inability to cope well with change
and a substantial amount of rework as additional problems with waterfall.
In comparison, agile development methods are iterative forms of developing systems
allowing developers to implement lessons learned from previous iterations before completion of
the final project (Larman & Basili, 2003). Agile development principles were codified in 2001
as an alternative to the traditional method of systems development (Fowler & Highsmith, 2001).
Benefits of agile development methods include improved return on investment (ROI), early
detection and cancellation of failing projects, high systems quality, improved control over the
projects, and increased flexibility (Mahanti, 2006). Because of these benefits, many
organizations have embraced agile development methods instead of waterfall methods (West,
Grant, Gerush, & D’silva, 2010). Additionally, agile development methods support
organizational agility (Iivari & Iivari, 2011).
Despite the benefits of agile development methods vis-à-vis organizational agility, many
Federal agencies have not embraced agile development. A survey by the United States
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found only 30% of IT projects in Federal agencies
used agile development methods as part of the project (GAO, 2014). Several organizational
barriers exist in Federal agencies preventing widespread adoption of agile development methods.
The GAO identified 14 challenges Federal agencies face when implementing agile development
principles. These challenges are grouped into four categories: organizational commitment and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 10
collaboration; preparation; execution; and evaluation (GAO, 2012). Specific challenges outlined
by the GAO include lack of commitment by employees, lack of guidance due to inexperience,
and lack of trust by end-users. Balter (2011) also noted extensive documentation and reporting
requirements are barriers limiting the adoption of agile development principles in Federal
agencies.
Federal agencies also encounter similar challenges as other large, non-government
organizations when implementing agile development methods. According to Nerur, Mahapatra,
and Mangalaraj (2005), these challenges are grouped into four categories: management and
organizational; people; process; and technology (tools and techniques). Table 1 outlines specific
challenges associated with these four groups.
Table 1. Agile Development Implementation Challenges (Nerur et al. 2005)
Challenges Migrating to Agile Development Methods.
Category Challenge
Management and
Organizational
Organizational culture
Management style
Organizational form
Management of software development knowledge
Reward system
People Working effectivity in a team
High level of competence
Customer relationships – commitment knowledge, proximity, trust,
and respect
Process Change from process-centric to feature-driven, people-centric
approach
Short, iterative, test-driven development that emphasizes adaptability
Managing large, scalable projects
Selecting an appropriate agile method
Technology (Tools
and Techniques)
Appropriateness of existing technology and tools
New skill sets – refactoring and configuration management
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 11
The focus of this study is a modified gap analysis of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to implementing agile development methods during the
development of an organization’s IS and the relationship to organizational agility.
Organizational management who lack comprehension of the relationship between agile
development methods and organizational agility may be incapable or unwilling to promote or
support agile development methods for future IS development projects. Additionally,
management may confuse the distinction between agile development methods and organizational
agility despite their relationship. Managers may use the term “agile” interchangeably between IS
development methods and organizational flexibility. Using the term “agile” out of context may
lead managers to surmise IS projects are developed using agile development methods if they
perceive their organization to be agile.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is a Federal agency under the United States
Department of Transportation. Founded August 23, 1958, the FAA regulates all aspects of civil
aviation in the United States. The mission of the FAA is to provide the safest, most efficient
aerospace system in the world (FAA, 2015). The principal roles and responsibilities of the FAA
include regulating civil aviation, encouraging and developing civil aeronautics and new
technology, developing and operating the air traffic control and navigation system in the United
States, and regulating U.S. commercial space transportation (FAA, 2015).
The focus of this research will be one department (“Department”) in an organization
(“Division”) within the FAA. The mission of the Division is to provide the safest, most efficient
aviation system in the world (FAA, n.d.). The Division is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
with offices located across the country and employees approximately 1,400 persons in various
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 12
career fields including engineers, program managers, analysts, IT specialists, administrative
personnel, and managers. About 550 persons employed by the Division are assigned to the
Department.
The Division relies on numerous information systems to complete its mission and
evaluate its performance. Systems include software, programs, websites, and other applications
developed either internally by personnel assigned to the Division or externally by third-party
vendors or contractors. These information systems, whether developed internally or externally to
the organization, utilize a combination of waterfall and agile development methods.
Organizational Goal
To measure the performance of its mission and to establish a vision for the future, the
Division published organizational principles, values, and goals to guide the Division and its four
departments. That vision is to create a world-class organization advancing aircraft safety
throughout the global aviation system (FAA, n.d.). The values of the Division include a passion
for safety, the promise of excellence, integrity, strength by people, and innovation.
The Division has several goals: applying safety management principles to achieve the
next level of product safety consistent with the safety continuum; foster a culture where people
are dedicated to the success of the organization; become agile and responsive by optimizing
effectiveness in achieving its mission; and provide leadership to achieve a consistent level of
product safety across geopolitical boundaries.
This research study will focus on the organizational goal to become agile and responsive
by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. Developing organizational information
systems utilizing agile development methods will support the Division’s mission and goal to
enhance organizational agility and responsiveness. Information system agility, including the
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 13
development methods chosen by the Division, will support the Division’s mission and goal to
enhance organizational agility and responsiveness.
Organizational Performance Goal
To accomplish the organization’s goal to become agile and responsive by optimizing
effectiveness in achieving its mission, the Division should establish a goal to incorporate agile
development methods in 50% of new organization-specific information system development
projects by 2020. Utilizing agile development methods when developing organization-specific
information system projects will afford the Division the ability to create or modify projects
rapidly. This rapid development will help facilitate the Division becoming agile and responsive.
Additionally, the ability to create and modify organization-specific information system projects
using agile development methods will allow the Division to quickly incorporate best practices
thereby optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission.
Related Literature
Public awareness of Federal IT project development failures is increasing due to recent
high-profile shortcomings encountered by several Federal agencies costing potentially hundreds
of millions of dollars (Yang, Huff, & Strode, 2009). While the reasons for these failures may be
many, one reason may be that many organizations fail to comprehend how IT contributes to the
success of the organization. Melarkode et al. (2004) suggest 72% of companies in the United
States fail to correlate investments in IT to accomplishing organizational goals. Organizations
must view IT as valuable due, in part, to the potential benefits including flexibility, quality
improvement, cost reduction, and productivity enhancement (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani,
2004).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 14
Even when organizations decide to invest in IT, an essential factor in the success of the
development and implementation of an IT project is the project leadership (Thite, 2000). When
an organization decides to utilize agile development methods for IT development projects,
leadership must understand the project management style differs when using agile compared to
waterfall development methods. The controlled, top-down, plan-driven project management
approach familiar when using waterfall development methods is not conducive to facilitate the
collaboration and flexibility associated with agile development (Nerur, Mahapatra, &
Mangalaraj, 2005). Leadership must adopt a mindset of “flexible stability” when designing new
IT systems relying on a “design for use” approach as opposed to a “design to build” mentality,
especially when data, systems, and necessary technology cannot be predicted years into the
future (Marchand & Peppard, 2015).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Information systems should serve an organization to facilitate accomplishing the
organization’s mission and goals. As an organization’s mission or goals change, so too should
the IT the organization utilizes. However, a survey of Federal IT managers revealed only 13
percent of respondents believe their organization can deploy IT systems quickly to support their
organizational mission (Meritalk, 2015).
Developing IT projects typically require significant financial investment and other
resources. According to the GAO (2012), the Federal government spent at least $76 billion on
IT to support agency missions in the fiscal year 2011. Unfortunately, one-third of Federal IT
projects are inadequate to meet organizational needs. The Office of Management and Budget
reported Federal agencies spent at least $25 billion on more than 400 IT projects that were either
poor performing, poorly planned or both (GAO, 2008).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 15
The problem of failed IT projects is not limited to Federal agencies. The 2012 CHAOS
report from the Standish Group (2013) estimated 18 percent of IT projects researched failed –
that is, they were either canceled before completion or never used. While no organization revels
in wasted time and resources, the problem of failed software development should concern
Federal agencies who are under continued scrutiny for fraud, waste, and abuse. If Federal
agencies seek organizational agility and flexibility, organizational leaders must comprehend
agile development methods for IT projects. Furthermore, leaders must appreciate the
relationship of agile development methods and organizational agility.
The challenges associated with developing IT projects should concern all managers in the
Division. Senior managers and executives in the Division have decision-making authority and
provide oversight of IT development projects. While front-line supervisors and middle-level
managers in the Division may lack decision-making authority for new IT projects or lack
oversight of IT development projects, the Division historically promotes managers internal to the
organization. Therefore, managers may find themselves responsible for IT development
projects in future leadership positions. Failure by management to learn about IT development
projects and engage in the development process, especially those currently serving in a front-line
supervisor or middle-level management role, may yield negative consequences for current and
future IT development projects.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The Division has several stakeholder groups including the public who consumes the
Division’s services, the aerospace industry, and employees. Each group interacts with the
Division in different ways and has different priorities compared to other groups. Additionally,
each group uniquely contributes to the success of the organizational mission. Regardless of their
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 16
interests or concerns, all stakeholder groups have a vested interest in the performance of the
Division.
The public, sometimes referred to as the “flying public” includes persons who traverse
the national airspace system through commercial, business, or recreational air travel. The public
also includes persons who may not fly or may not fly with regular frequency. All persons have a
vested interest in the safe operation of aircraft since air travel in the United States routinely
occurs over populated areas. As part of the public’s interest in the success of the Division’s
mission to ensure a safe aerospace system, the public may participate in the Division’s
rulemaking process. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the public may
participate in the Division’s rulemaking process through: filing written comments on any
rulemaking documents that asks for comments; requesting the Division hold a public meeting on
any rulemaking and participating in any public meeting held; or filing a petition for rulemaking
asking the Division to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation (General Rulemaking Procedures,
2016).
The aviation industry contains many businesses with different specialties who design,
manufacture, maintain, or service aircraft, airports, or other logistical and support equipment to
facilitate air travel. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (as
cited in FAA 2014), the civil aviation industry supported 11.8 million jobs, accounted for $1.5
trillion in total economic activity, and contributed 5.4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.
The aviation industry also contributes to the success of the Division in accomplishing its mission
in several ways. Whether providing technical expertise on new and emerging technologies or
working with the Division to develop policy, the aviation industry actively contributes to many
of the Division’s organizational goals in support of the mission.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 17
Though not the largest of the three stakeholder groups, employees include all persons
employed by the Division. The workforce consists of both federal employees and government
contractors. An estimated 1,400 persons are directly employed by the Division in various career
fields including engineers, program managers, analysts, IT specialists, administrative personnel,
and managers. Each employee contributes to the success of the organizational mission by
providing technical expertise and support, administrative or analytical skills, or providing
leadership for the organization. Managers often serve a dual purpose. Not only are managers
responsible for providing day-to-day management of employees under their charge, but many are
also responsible for making decisions affecting the accomplishment of organizational goals.
Some decisions affecting the success of organizational goals in support of the organization’s
mission include decisions related to IT projects.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
It is essential to evaluate knowledge and motivation influences of organizational
leadership in addition to evaluating other organizational influences in an effort to accomplish the
organizational goal of becoming an agile and responsive organization by optimizing
effectiveness in achieving the organization's mission. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for
this study will be managers assigned to the Department within the Division. The approximate
number of managers in the Department total 40 representing seven percent of the total number of
persons assigned to the Department. The estimated number of managers in the Department is
almost one-quarter of all managers assigned to the Division.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which the Division is meeting its
goal to become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. While
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 18
a complete evaluation would focus on organizational stakeholders, for practical purposes this
study will focus on managers in the Department.
This research study seeks to learn if managers in non-IT related fields comprehend the
process of developing an information system. Furthermore, this study seeks to learn if these
same managers comprehend the relationship between organizational agility and the development
of information systems. The research will ask the following questions to help answer these
questions:
1. What knowledge influences affect stakeholders’ comprehension of agile
development methods and organizational agility?
2. What motivation influences affect stakeholders’ interest, or lack thereof, in
information systems development methods?
3. What organizational influences, real or perceived by stakeholders, affect the
adoption of agile development methods within the organization?
Methodological Framework
The methodological approach used for this research study will be a qualitative study
following an emergent design. According to Creswell (2013), qualitative research involves
emerging questions, collecting data in the researcher’s setting, and interpreting the meaning of
the data to identify themes. Specifically, the research study will be designed utilizing interviews
with subjects to collect qualitative data. The interview protocol follows a semi-rigid format in
that a pre-determined set of interview questions will be asked of participants, but additional
information may be collected during the interview process that was not initially conceived by the
researcher. Furthermore, data gathered in an interview may lead to additional questions to ask in
subsequent interviews as a method for validating the data. The nature of the qualitative research
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 19
design will benefit the study and the Division by collecting rich, in-depth data, some of which
may not have been conceived as part of the initial research design.
Definitions
This section provides definitions of frequently used terms used throughout the research
study and the dissertation.
Agile Development Methods: a development framework by which a system is developed in
incremental or iterative stages (Larman & Basili, 2003).
Organizational agility: the capability of an organization to rapidly change or adapt in response to
environmental changes (Wong and Whitman, 1999).
Waterfall Development Methods: a development framework by which a system is developed in a
structured, downward-flowing stage model (Balaji & Murugaiyan, 2012).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader
fundamental concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about IS development
methods. The organization’s mission, goals, stakeholders, and the framework for the project
were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope
of the study including agile development methods, organizational agility, the relationship
between agile development methods and organizational agility, and a gap analysis framework.
Chapter Three details knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to be examined, as
well as the methodology for selecting participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four
features a discussion of the data collected including an assessment and analysis of the data.
Finally, Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this literature review is to provide the reader with a general overview of
agile development methods and organizational agility. Agile development methods have become
increasingly popular compared to traditional development methods as an alternative to develop
small, medium, and large-scale IT projects. Agile development methods have also proven
beneficial to organizational performance as a method by which an organization can improve
overall agility and flexibility.
This first part of this chapter gives a brief overview of agile development methods and
the benefits associated with utilizing this type of development method as compared to traditional,
waterfall, development methods. Next, organizational agility is discussed with a focus on how
organizational agility and flexibility improve overall performance. Afterward, the relationship
between agile development methods and organizational agility are explored as a way to
understand how they may be confused as synonymous despite their relationship. Finally, this
chapter introduces the Clark and Estes knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences gap analysis framework which will comprise the focus of the research.
IT Development Approaches
Information systems are becoming larger and larger as systems are joined to create a
system of systems (Charette, 2005). According to Bloch, Blumgberg, & Laartz (2012), large IT
projects run 45 percent over budget while delivering 56 percent less value than predicted.
Furthermore, 17 percent of failed IT projects threaten the success and survivability of the
organization (Bloch, Blumberg, & Laartz, 2012). IT project failures occur in every country, in
small and large organizations, in for-profit, not-for-profit, and government organizations even
though project failures are predictable and preventable (Charette, 2005). Charette (2005) further
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 21
explains that organizations do not consider preventing failure significant despite the potential
harm to the organization.
Despite spending more than $600 billion on IT projects over the past decade, Federal
agencies have achieved few improvements private industry has realized from IT (Kundra, 2010).
Many documented IT project failures in Federal agencies are attributed to waterfall development
methods and the reluctance of agencies to embrace new philosophies (Bishop, 2013). The shift
to rapidly deployed technologies will result in substantial cost savings, allowing Federal agencies
to optimize spending and reinvest in their most critical mission needs (Kundra, 2010).
Though private organizations have embraced agile development methodologies, many
Federal agencies have not embraced agile development at the same rate as the private sector.
The government’s requirement for technical specifications before developing IT projects
discourages agencies from using agile development (Bastian, 2012). Further impacting the
adoption of agile development methods is the lack of personnel within Federal agencies to
develop IT projects using agile. Federal agencies have not been able to hire skilled developers
for several reasons: lower pay than the private sector; cyclical need within an agency for major
development efforts; and the late adoption of innovation by Federal agencies (ACT, 2013).
According to Bastian (2012), Federal agencies must embrace agile development and shift the
Federal IT culture through education and experimentation for IT to become sustainable.
Waterfall Development Methods
The linear development method commonly referred to as waterfall development was
originally documented by Herbert Benington in 1956 (Ruparelia, 2010). Waterfall development
derives its name as an analogy of water flowing progressively from one step to another in an
orderly fashion. Considered the first well-defined development method, especially for formal
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 22
project planning activities, waterfall development methods are the basis upon which other
development methods are conceived (Cusumano & Smith, 1995).
Benington (1983) outlined a linear, successive approach to systems development
encompassing the following phases: operational planning; specifications (machine, operational,
program, and coding); coding; testing (parameter and assembly); shakedown; and system
evaluation. In 1970, Winston Royce enhanced the original waterfall concept by adding a
feedback loop at the end of each phase to accommodate incremental evaluation to account for
change during development (Ruparelia, 2010). The waterfall method conceived by Royce
included seven sequential phases: conception, initiation, analysis, design, construction, testing,
and maintenance (Ji & Sedano, 2011).
Criticism of Waterfall Development Methods
Waterfall development methods are globally popular, having been widely used by
developers for more than 40 years (Gandomani et al., 2013). Despite their popularity, waterfall
development methods are not without criticism even though some methods have incorporated
feedback loops and extensions to address incremental development, parallel development, and
evolutionary changes (Boehm, 1988). According to Petersen, Wohlin, and Baca (2009),
problems associated with waterfall development methods include failure to handle change, a
significant amount of rework, and variable quality in part due to testing late in development. For
these reasons, waterfall methods are intended for short projects when requirements are stable and
understood without ambiguity, and when resources are freely available (Stoica, Mircea, &
Ghilic-Micu, 2013).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 23
Agile Development Methods
The difference between waterfall and agile methodologies can be attributed to two
assumptions: 1) waterfall methods assume developers know the full systems requirements at the
beginning of the project though customers do not; and 2) agile methodologies assume both
developers and customers do not know the full system requirements at the beginning of the
project (Highsmith, 2002). According to Szalvay (2004), the waterfall development method is
unnatural because customers find it difficult to specify system requirements without the benefit
of watching the system evolve. Szalvay (2004) further explains customers need a tangible
product to know what they want and need, a concept possible using agile development methods.
The phenomenon of watching the system evolve is described as “I’ll Know It When I See It
(IKIWISI)” (Boehm, 2000). Benefits of agile development methods are found in the principles
of agile as outlined in the agile manifesto: individual interaction over process and tools; working
software over comprehensive documentation; customer collaboration over contract negotiations;
and responding to changes over following a plan (Beck et al., 2001).
Production Over Process
Agile methods value production instead of adherence to documentation or the
development process (Cohn & Ford, 2003). The ability to focus on product is the result of
feedback cycles continually providing information from the end-user back to developers to
enhance and improve the system. Agile development methods can remain responsive, adjusting
focus, structure, and composition to develop novel solutions suited to address emerging
requirements utilizing transforming feedback loops (Meso & Jain, 2006). An added benefit of
customer involvement is an increased level of commitment on the part of the end-user making
agile development methods more attractive than waterfall methods (Awad, 2005).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 24
Adaptability
According to Datta (2006), the most critical aspect of successful software development
projects is the ability to cope with change, specifically change in requirements and technology.
Agile development methods fundamentally differ from waterfall development methods in that
agile development methods are more capable of dealing with unpredictability and cope with
change. According to Byrd and Turner (2006), IT flexibility is defined as the ability to quickly
and readily support a wide variety of hardware, software, and other resources within the existing
IT infrastructure. Variability, adaptability, and flexibility can be achieved during multiple
phases of system development ranging from the architectural level through implementation or
testing using agile development methods (Babar et al., 2013). Agile methods rely on people and
their creativity to do this instead of process, as in the waterfall method (Downs, 2005).
Improved System Quality
Agile development methods became successful not just because the method reduces costs
associated with system changes, but because agile methods produced higher quality products
while providing quicker business value to the end-user (Cline, 2015). MacCormack (2001)
suggests software quality is significantly improved through the principles of agile development:
short iterative development, continuous rapid feedback and testing, and incremental
development. According to Ahmed et al. (2010), the quality of the finished product is improved
using agile development methods due to several key attributes of agile development: knowledge
sharing, active stakeholder participation, self-organizing teams, reduced documentation,
responding to change, team size, flexible design, and training.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 25
Organizational Agility
Organizational agility allows an organization to more quickly provide high-quality
products and services to stakeholders through the unification of processes and people with IT
(Crocitto & Youseff, 2003). Despite this simplistic description of how an organization can
benefit from agility, there are many similar, yet different, definitions of agility. According to
Dove (1994), agile is a seductive yet confusing word, one that finds an immediate and personal
interpretation for almost everyone. Conboy and Fitzgerald (2004, p. 40) define agility as “the
continued readiness of an entity to rapidly or inherently, proactively or reactively, embrace
change, through high quality, simplistic, economical components and relationships with its
environment.” Wong and Whitman (1999) argue enterprise agility is one whose processes
respond efficiently to rapid and unexpected change. Perhaps the most comprehensive definition
of organizational agility is offered by Qumer & Henderson (2006):
Agility is a persistent behavior or ability of a sensitive entity that exhibits flexibility to
accommodate expected or unexpected changes rapidly, follows the shortest time span,
uses economical, simple, and quality instruments in a dynamic environment and applies
updated prior knowledge and experience to learn from the internal and external
environment (p. 505).
Organizational agility does not have to refer to organizational change from a reactionary
point-of-view. Najrani (2016) proposes three types of organizational agility: reactive agility,
proactive agility, and innovative agility. Reactive agility refers to an organization responding to
events that have occurred; proactive agility refers to organizations identifying trends early and
optimizing the organization based on the early identified trend; and innovative agility refers to
organizational changes becoming the impetus for other organizations to change (Najrani, 2016).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 26
Most organizations can and do change, even bureaucratic organizations, though they do
so with limits and embrace change slowly, incrementally, and with reluctance (Dyer & Shafer,
2003). Organizations who refuse to attain some level of agility due so at their peril, creating the
potential for detrimental failure to the organization (Appelbaum et al., 2017).
To further understand organizational agility, it is beneficial to identify characteristics of
organizational agility. According to Breu et al. (2002), characteristics of organizational agility
include environmental scanning, responsiveness to change, skills assessment and development,
employee empowerment in decision making, access to knowledge, collaboration, business
process integration, and information system integration. One characteristic of organizational
agility not to overlook is the willingness and ability of the organization to transform into an
organization that values learning. For an organization to continuously improve and transform
while avoiding stagnation in performance, organizations must encourage employees to
continually seek learning opportunities (Harraf et al., 2015).
Information Technology and Organizational Agility
Over the past three decades, agile development methods have increased success rates in
software development, improved quality and speed to market, and boosted motivation and
productivity (Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016). Organizations must make decisions faster
despite changing conditions to achieve organizational agility. Since most decisions are based on
data collected from one or more information systems, the information system itself must be more
agile (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011). IT agility or flexibility has also shown to have a significant
and positive effect on organizational agility (Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011).
As has been previously discussed, organizations seek enterprise agility to cope with
turbulent environmental factors. The alignment between business strategy and IT creates value
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 27
to organizations whose leaders appreciate the relationship between IT and organizational agility
(Luftman, & Ben-Zvi, 2010). According to Tallon (2008), aligning IT with business strategy is
the practice of continually evaluating and focusing IT assets on supporting current and future
organizational needs. Zain et al. (2005) suggest organizational leaders’ attitude towards IT is a
crucial element to increasing organizational agility.
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Before an organization can begin to design and implement change the organization must
first identify weaknesses within the organization. The Clark and Estes (2004) gap analysis
framework is an essential component in the effort to identify and close performance gaps in an
organization. According to the Clark and Estes framework, gaps in organizational performance
are grouped into the three categories: knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Therefore, a modified gap analysis framework will be used as the conceptual framework for this
research.
Evaluating potential organizational strengths and weaknesses using the three categories
previously mentioned will help guide the organization towards proper and effective methods to
strengthen the identified deficiencies. Without this framework, an organization may design and
implement change incorrectly. These ineffective solutions may not only fail to improve
organizational performance but may also contribute to additional problems.
The conceptual framework for this research serves as a key component of the research
design as a system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories (Robson, 2011).
According to Maxwell (2013), the function of the conceptual theory is to inform the research
design aiding in assessing and refining research goals, developing relevant research questions,
choosing an appropriate method, and identifying potential validity threats to any conclusions.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 28
The conceptual framework seeks to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of stakeholders that may affect stakeholders and the organization from accomplishing
their respective goals.
The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are organized independently of
each other in an attempt to classify the type of influence and method for assessing the influence.
Despite classifying the influences according to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences, a relationship exists between the identified influences and the classification
suggesting an influence may apply to another classification. It may be possible that knowledge
influences are impacted by motivation influences and vice-versa. Furthermore, organizational
culture and influences may impact both knowledge and motivation influences of stakeholders.
For example, stakeholders may be unmotivated to use agile development methods in the
organizational due to a lack of knowledge about agile development methods and the potential
benefits to the organization. Similarly, the organizational culture may not embrace agile
development methods because of historical experiences leading to previous failures attempting to
use agile development methods.
The conceptual framework for this study suggests the knowledge and motivation
influences of stakeholders is a part of and related to organizational influences and the overall
success of organizational goals. The culture of the organization along with organizational
influences impact the knowledge and motivation influences of stakeholders. Conversely, the
knowledge and motivation of stakeholders affect organizational influences as well as the
organizational culture.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 29

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) illustrates the relationship between knowledge and
motivation influences of stakeholders combined with organizational influences affecting the
successful accomplishment of the organizational goal. Knowledge and motivation influences are
depicted in the center to illustrate that knowledge and motivation influences are core components
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 30
in accomplishing the organizational goal. A gap in any of the knowledge or motivation
influences will create a hole which may result in failure to accomplish the organizational goal.
Organizational influences are positioned around the knowledge and motivation influences to
illustrate that organizational influences affect both the knowledge and motivation influences of
stakeholders.
The organizational influences include cultural model and cultural setting factors.
Knowledge influences involve declarative knowledge, both factual and conceptual, and
procedural knowledge. Finally, motivation influences include utility value and self-efficacy
factors. The knowledge and motivation influences should not be thought of as independent of
each other, but rather holistic and cyclical in that knowledge influences affect motivation
influences and vice versa.
The knowledge of stakeholders, specifically knowledge types and skills is affected by
their motivation. Conversely, the motivation of stakeholders, specifically self-efficacy and
value, is affected by their knowledge. Finally, organizational influences encompass both
knowledge and motivation influences to support stakeholders. Without the support of
organizational influences, the stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation may be of little use to
facilitate accomplishing the organizational goal.
Knowledge Influences
Determining whether or not management possesses the requisite knowledge of software
development methods and their relationship to organizational agility is critical to the success of
the organizational goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), identifying the scope of an
employee’s knowledge is relational to the success of the employee and achieving goals.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 31
To accomplish a goal, one must possess knowledge and skill (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Specifically, management must have knowledge of software development methods and
organizational agility to accomplish the organizational goal. Krathwohl (2002) defined four
knowledge types: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Management must possess factual and conceptual knowledge of
development methods and organizational agility to accomplish the organizational goal.
According to Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge is basic information serving as
building blocks for other types of knowledge. An example of factual knowledge is management
must comprehend various development methods including agile and waterfall development.
Another example of factual knowledge is the definition of organizational agility. Conceptual
knowledge is the ability to use factual knowledge to understand larger concepts (Krathwohl,
2002). For example, once management comprehends development methodologies, conceptual
knowledge is the understanding of how agile development methods and organizational agility are
unique but relational. Though management need not be skilled in software development, they
must be familiar with the software development process to understand the necessary resources –
time, financial, and human – to accomplish the organizational mission.
According to a report from Accenture (2015), only three percent of chief executive
officers and six percent of the board directors overseeing leading banks have technology
experience and more than two-fifths of banks have no board members with professional
technology experience. The banking industry is not alone; technology is transforming how
organizations operate in almost every sector (Moyo, 2016). Table 2 describes the organizational
mission, organizational performance goal, assumed knowledge influence and type, and how the
assumed influence will be assessed.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 32
Table 2. Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Division is to provide the safety, most efficient aviation system in the
world.
Organizational Performance Goal
To become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission,
the Division should incorporate agile development methods in 50% of new
organization-specific information system development projects by 2020.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Managers need to differentiate
between agile development
methods and organizational
agility.
Declarative
(factual)
Interview to demonstrate
knowledge, responses to interview
questions to gauge knowledge.
Managers need to comprehend
the relationship between agile
development methods and
organizational agility.
Declarative
(conceptual)
Interview to demonstrate
knowledge, responses to interview
questions to gauge knowledge.
Managers need to be proficient
in IT development processes
including agile and waterfall
development methods.
Procedural Interview to demonstrate
knowledge, responses to interview
questions to gauge knowledge

Table 2 outlines the organizational mission, organizational performance goal, and
knowledge influences identified in this literature review.
Declarative Knowledge Influences
Organizational agility refers to the organization’s ability to adapt to change in the face of
dynamic and evolving conditions, requiring speed and swiftness (Harraf, Wanasika, Tate, &
Talbott, 2015). Though an organization may develop IT projects using agile development
methods, the organization may not increase agility. Similarly, an organization may be agile
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 33
responding to changing conditions without developing IT projects using agile development
concepts and principles.
Management must be capable of using appropriate terminology in the correct context.
Agile development methods and organizational agility, though both refer to agile, are terms that
cannot be used interchangeably. If management asserts their organization is agile and therefore
assumes their organization uses agile development methods, the organization may be unable to
accomplish their goal. According to Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi (2016), executives used
agile-related terms and claimed their companies were becoming nimbler, but because they had
not received training, the executives interviewed did not comprehend agile development
methods.
Differentiating agile development methods from organizational agility is imperative for
accurate communication between leaders, developers, and associated stakeholders. Stakeholders
at all levels, particularly leaders who define the information systems strategy, end-users who will
use the information systems, and developers who create the systems must all communicate
clearly and effectively. Communication must reach beyond a common language of similar
vocabulary and extend to communicate similar concepts (Weyrauch, 2006).
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Software development methods are classified into two broad categories: agile and
waterfall. Agile and waterfall differ in many facets including the process by which systems are
developed. Examples of these differences include the level of documentation, timeliness of
feedback, incorporating feedback received, testing, evaluation, deployment, and implementation
(Huo et al., 2004). Furthermore, each methodology has pros and cons that differ from each
other. Below is a table of advantages and disadvantages of agile and waterfall methods as
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 34
described by Balaji and Murugaiyan (2012). Table 3 describes the pros and cons of waterfall
and agile development methods.
Table 3. Software Development Methods Advantages and Disadvantages
Pros and Cons of Agile and Waterfall Development Methods
Development
Method
Pros Cons
Waterfall Liner model – easier to implement

Requirements clearly defined before
beginning development

Each phase complete before moving
to next phase
Problems identified in one
phase may not be completed
on-time

Changes suggested after
beginning may not be
implemented during the
development cycle.
Agile Respond to changing project
requirements during development

Constant input and feedback directly
from customer to developer
Difficult to judge level of effort
and time required for large
projects

Motivation Influences
Having knowledge of software development methods is not the sole factor in
accomplishing the organization’s mission. Stakeholder motivation is also an important factor.
According to Worley et al., (2014), appreciating the role of motivation, emotion, and
interpersonal relationships and their contributions to the effectiveness of change is a missing
component in the thinking of too many organizations and their leaders. Rueda (2011) suggests
motivation is a key factor to the success of the organization and stakeholder’s goals because
motivation impacts whether an individual begins, persists, and completes a task. Mayer (2011)
described motivation as a force causing individuals to engage a task from inception to
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 35
completion. Table 4 shows the organizational mission, organizational performance goal,
motivation influences and influence assessments identified in the literature review.
Table 4. Motivation Influences
Motivation Influences and Motivation Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Division is to provide the safest, most efficient aviation system in the
world.
Organizational Performance Goal
To become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission,
the Division should incorporate agile development methods in 50% of new
organization-specific information system development projects by 2020.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Type Motivation Influence Assessment
Management needs to see the
value of using agile development
methods.
Utility Value Interview managers (stakeholder)
to assess knowledge of
development methods and the
value of agile to accomplishing
the organizational global goal
(which management may be
motivated to accomplish).
Management needs to feel
efficacious in their ability to lead
information systems
development projects.
Self-Efficacy Interview managers to determine
how experience is motivation
factor to accomplishing the
organizational goal.

Value of Agile Development Methods
According to Eccles (2006), there are multiple ways an individual may find value in
completing a task: 1) intrinsic value, the feeling of joy an individual may receive when
performing a task; 2) attainment value, the expected perception of the individual when
performing a task; 3) utility value, how the completion of a task may contribute to accomplishing
a goal; and 4) cost value, the associated time, financial, and other resources contribute to
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 36
performing a task. While each of these four facets of value may contribute to the motivation of
stakeholders, utility value is most apropos vis-à-vis accomplishing the organizational goal.
Agile development methods provide rapid value to the end-user often delivering
capabilities while waterfall methods are still planning (Boehm & Turner, 2005). This difference
is fundamental between agile and waterfall development methods. Unfortunately, management
may not find value in agile methods. One fear of management is software projects using agile
will continue in perpetuity (Cohn & Ford, 2003). According to Cohn and Ford (2003),
management is uncomfortable when told IT projects will persist as long as the customer
identifies high-priority, high-value work to be performed.
Chan & Thong (2008) outline five motivation-related factors of incorporating agile
development methods: career consequences, top management support, voluntariness, subjective
norm, and organizational culture. Additionally, the perceived usefulness, ease of use,
compatibility, results, and demonstrability of results are characteristics associated with the level
of interest and motivation to utilizing agile development methods. (Chan & Thong, 2008).
Almahamid (2013) also suggests the perceived ease of use of an information system, and its
usefulness, are reliant upon the attitude of users towards the new information system.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (2000) described self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to
complete a task or accomplish a goal. As a result, self-efficacy is a fundamental aspect of one’s
motivation. Self-efficacy and motivation are also relational. An individual who does not believe
they will be successful when attempting a task may be less motivated to attempt the task (Rueda,
2011). Conversely, an individual who is confident in their abilities may be more motivated to
complete a task or aspire to accomplish goals. Self-efficacy is developed by the individual based
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 37
on a self-evaluation of their perceived abilities, their experiences, and their observations of
others (Pajares, 2006).
Self-efficacy theory impacts the accomplishment of the organizational goal in multiple
facets. These facets include a lack of confidence in their ability and the influence of experiences.
Managers who lack knowledge of IT concepts, including software development methods, may
lack the confidence to attempt new development concepts and processes. Furthermore, managers
who lack IT knowledge and experience may not be early adopters of new technology. The term
early adopter refers to a person who adopts a new technology, process, approach, or idea before
others (Early Adopter, 2015).
Managers may be resistant to concepts considered new and novel within their
organization, despite the success of new concepts experienced by other organizations. Managers
may also be fearful of trying something new based on a bad experience the last time a new
concept was attempted. Research shows uncertainty avoidance plays a significant role in
determining how groups will adopt information technologies suggesting since IT is inherently
risky, those less comfortable with uncertainty will be less likely to adopt new technologies
(Leidner & Kayworth, 2006).
Motivation also plays a key role in facilitating organizational agility. Organizational
agility is the outcome of advanced organizational structure, technological achievement, and the
product of human abilities, skills, and motivation (Kidd, 1995). According to Efstathiades
(2002), motivation and growth of employees in addition to proper training and empowerment are
all necessary for developing organizational flexibility within an organization. However,
according to Tsourveloudis & Valavanis (2002), motivation is a differentiating factor between
organizational agility and flexibility.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 38
Organizational Culture Influences
Before discussing organizational culture influences of agile development methods and
organizational agility, it is necessary to define organizational culture. According to Schein
(1985), organizational culture is defined as:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 12).
Organizational culture influences the social structure of an organization (Kautz et al.,
2009). According to Clark and Estes (2008), culture is a dominant force in performance and is a
way to describe goals, beliefs, emotions, processes, and core values learned by persons in a work
environment over time. The following literature review focuses on two areas of organizational
influences that affect stakeholders and the organization accomplishing their goal – culture
models and cultural settings. According to Rueda (2011), cultural models are the shared mental
schema of how the world functions and shapes how an organization is structured, including
values, practices, policies, and reward structures. By contrast, Rueda (2011) suggests cultural
settings are the various social contexts where the policies and practices of an organization are
enacted. The cultural model and setting of an organization should not be considered independent
and static, but instead relational and dynamic (Rueda, 2011). Table 5 shows the organizational
mission, organizational performance goal, organizational influences and influence assessments
identified in the literature review.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 39
Table 5. Organizational Influences
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Division is to provide the safest, most efficient aviation system in the
world.
Organizational Performance Goal
To become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission,
the Division should incorporate agile development methods in 50% of new
organization-specific information system development projects by 2020.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The organization may generally be resistant
to developing IT projects counter to existing
models.
Interview to determine the level of resistance
and identify barriers.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
The organization may be afraid of
abandoning failing IT projects for fear of
losing their stature, career, etc. Instead,
organization invests resources to salvage
underperforming IT projects.
Interview to determine fears vis-à-vis
abandoning failing IT projects.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Lack of IT project management training or
education for managers. Lack of education
prohibits knowledge-based decisions
regarding IT project development methods.
Interview to determine IT project management
training afforded to management.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Lack of leadership/experience with agile
development methods within the
organization. The lack of
leadership/experience contributes to
mentoring/shepherding new projects.
Interview to identify persons with
knowledge/experience developing IT projects
using agile development methods.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 40
Cultural Model Influences
Organizational culture and the implementation of system development methods are
related. While the presumption that specific organizational culture traits lead to the adoption of
agile development methods, the adoption of agile methods may yield changes in organizational
culture (Strode, Huff, & Tretiakov, 2009). Whether agile development impacts organizational
culture or vice versa, a multitude of challenges exists when attempting to integrate agile
development methods. Misra et al. (2006) outline several challenges and risks organizations
encounter when incorporating agile development methods: upper management resistance, human
resources resistance, tester resistance, problems incorporating agile in legacy systems,
differences in development processes, and conformance with traditional process standards.
Gandomani (2013) suggests the origins of challenges faced when adopting agile development
methods focus on organizational culture and structure and include people, management, and
process.
In addition to the above-listed risks and challenges, organizations may simply lack
interest integrating new technologies and processes. Like a body fighting off a perceived foreign
obstacle, change management describes similar organizational antibodies that begin to gather as
soon as something new appears in an existing culture (Boehm & Turner, 2005). Lindvall et al.
(2004) identified integrating existing processes as the most significant challenge to adopting
agile development methods. Organizational culture further impacts the adoption of agile
development methods because business processes and infrastructure require near-perfect
predictions of difficult-to-estimate tasks rather than encouraging creativity, prototyping, and
evolution resulting in visible short-term results and accepting long-term uncertainty (Boehm &
Turner, 2005).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 41
Another cultural model influence is organizational leaders may be afraid to abandon
failing IT projects due to fear of failure. Leaders may feel failure is unacceptable and reflects
negatively on their self-worth and security (McGregor & Elliot, 2005). In a cognitive motivation
relational context, individuals who associate failure with adverse consequences may feel
threatened by fear (Conroy, Kaye, & Fifer, 2007). Leaders may also fear experiencing shame if
an IT project is abandoned. Sagar and Stoeber (2009) suggest shame may be experienced by an
individual when they fail through a cognitive process of self-evaluation.
Cultural Setting Influences
Leaders must accept how they lead and manage IT contributes to the problems their
organizations experience using IT (Peppard, 2015). Additionally, leaders must develop a
strategy to define how IT will be leveraged by the organization relying on business imperatives
to guide this strategy (Peppard, 2015). Leaders must also be supportive of and committed to the
adoption of agile development methods since their support and commitment has a profound
impact on successful adoption (Pikkarainen et al., 2012). Furthermore, the adoption of agile
development methods in an organization requires a different management style and approach
compared to traditional waterfall methods (Yang et al., 2009).
Convincing organizational leaders of the importance of IT and the correlation with
organizational strategy is difficult (Lederer & Mendelow, 1986). Many leaders may lack interest
and knowledge of IT and, therefore, be unmotivated to participate actively in the IT decision-
making process. Organizational leaders lacking interest and knowledge of IT may defer strategic
decisions to subordinates resulting in the organization’s ineffective use of IT (Keen, 1991).
Increasing the organization’s ability to incorporate innovative IT solutions requires significant
interactions between organizational leaders and technical personnel (Lind & Zmud, 1991).
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 42
Organizational leaders may lack experience with IT in addition to lacking knowledge of
IT, which may affect their self-efficacy. This lack of knowledge and experience may contribute
to their avoidance of engaging in the IT decision-making process. According to Lederer and
Mendelow (1988), many organizational leaders lack experience with IT due to the widespread
adoption of IT later in a leader’s career. Organizational leaders may lack experience with agile
development methods given how relatively new agile development methods are compared to
waterfall development methods. Agile development methods do not rely on documenting
detailed system requirements, instead focusing on providing only enough information to begin
development (Highsmith, 2003). Therefore, agile development methods may be a new concept
for organizational leaders who are accustomed to detailed requirements and planning before
beginning new IT projects. Additionally, organizational leaders may not be aware of the
differences in leadership styles required to manage projects using agile development methods
compared to waterfall development methods (Yang et al., 2009).
Summary
This literature review sought to identify academic and professional literature relating to
agile development methods and organizational agility. While the research illustrates how the
terms “agile” and “agility” are unique in the contexts of IT development and organizational
performance, the research suggests a relationship between the use of agile development methods
and organizational agility. The literature review also included a gap analysis using Clark and
Estes’ knowledge, motivation, and organization influences framework. The gap analysis
identified declarative and procedural knowledge influences of agile development methods and
organizational agility. Additionally, the literature review identified motivation influences,
specifically utility value and self-efficacy, related to agile development methods and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 43
organizational agility. Finally, the literature review identified cultural model and cultural setting
organizational influences related to agile development methods and organizational agility. The
discussions from the literature used in this review provide context to understand the problem of
practice and research questions.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The focus of this research was one department (“Department”) in an organization
(“Division”) within the FAA. This evaluation study aimed to identify knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences affecting managers in the Department which contribute to
accomplishing the suggested organizational performance goal to incorporate agile development
methods in 50% of new organization-specific information system development projects by 2020.
This study utilized a modified gap analysis framework following an emergent, qualitative design.
This chapter outlines the following elements of the research study: research design and
methodology, data collection and instrumentation, and data analysis. The questions guiding this
study included:
1. What knowledge influences affect managers’ comprehension of agile
development methods and organizational agility?
2. What motivation influences affect stakeholders’ interest, or lack thereof, in
information systems development methods?
3. What organizational influences, real or perceived by stakeholders, affect the
adoption of agile development methods within the organization?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this research were approximately 40 managers at various levels of
responsibility in the Department within the Division. The management levels included front-line
supervisors, middle-level managers, and senior managers or executives. For this research, front-
line supervisors are defined as persons supervising at least five or more employees, none of
whom are managers. Middle-level managers are defined as persons supervising two or more
front-line supervisors and are responsible for the persons managed by the front-line supervisors.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 45
Senior managers or executives are defined as persons supervising two or more middle-level
managers and are responsible for all persons managed by middle-level managers.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Managers sampled included managers with various levels of experience and
years of service as a manager. However, persons in a temporary management position were
excluded given their lack of experience and formal management training received by managers
in a permanent capacity.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Stakeholders were contacted by phone, email, or in-person to solicit interest in
participating in this research study. Twenty-seven managers expressed interest in participating
in this study including 14 front-line supervisors, eight middle-level managers, and five senior
managers or executives. Interested managers were categorized based on their management type
and entered into a spreadsheet based on their management type and assigned a unique identifier.
A sample of five front-line supervisors was randomly selected from the list of interested front-
line supervisors; a sample of four front-line supervisors was randomly selected from the list of
middle-level managers; a sample of three senior managers or executives was randomly selected
from the list of interested senior managers or executives. The choice of participants
approximates the ratio of managers in the stakeholder group. Though none of the participants
were subordinate to the researcher, some participants directly or indirectly supervised, or
otherwise managed, the researcher.
The participants were interviewed using an emergent design methodology. According to
Creswell (2013), an emergent design does not rely on a well-defined initial strategy, but rather
evolves during data collection since the goal of qualitative research is to collect pertinent
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 46
information from participants relevant to the problem of practice. Furthermore, Merriam and
Tisdell (2015) suggest an emergent and flexible qualitative research design is ideal as the design
is responsive to changing conditions of the research study.
Therefore, a baseline set of interview questions was used at the outset of each interview,
but questions were modified or amended based on responses from participants. The goal of each
interview was to facilitate an in-depth discussion of interview questions and identify additional
information not previously conceived during the research design.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Interviews were the method of data collection for this study. This method provided the
researcher qualitative data to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of
stakeholders related to accomplishing the organizational goal to become agile and responsive by
optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. The following sections discuss, in detail, the
methods used to collect data for this study.
Interviews
As previously discussed, the researcher conducted 12 interviews of managers who
indicated their willingness to participate during the recruitment phase. The researcher
qualitatively explored approximately 12 questions with each interviewee during a period lasting
between 45 and 60 minutes. This approach allowed the researcher to collect qualitative data as
part of the initial research design while allowing the researcher to collect additional data not
conceived as part of the initial research design. The composition of the interview group ensured
the interviewees represented the approximate ratio of front-line supervisors, middle-level
managers, and senior managers or executives in the stakeholder group. The interviews were
conducted either in-person or over-the-phone, depending on the geographical location and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 47
preference of the participants. In-person interviews were conducted in the office of the
individual interviewed or in a location of their choice. Interviewee responses were recorded with
permission and transcribed for use in the data analysis phase. Appendix A outlines the interview
questions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this research involved three phases of open coding interview transcripts.
NVivo 11 Pro for Windows was used to assign codes to transcripts and organize codes creating
an electronic codebook (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The first phase of analysis
identified empirical and priori codes developed from the conceptual framework. The second
phase aggregated empirical and priori codes into axial and analytical codes. The third and final
phase of data analysis identified themes from the axial codes related to the conceptual framework
and addressed each of the research questions. Identifying themes from the data attempted to
establish the existence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences or introduce a
reasonable level of deniability for the assumed influences. The interview data was cleaned to
remove information which may be used to identify the interviewee. Themes identified during
data analysis, including the frequency with which these themes appeared in the transcripts, is
presented in Chapter 4.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
It was important to ensure credibility and trustworthiness in this study to limit researcher
bias since the researcher served as a component of qualitative data collection. It was the
researcher who conducted interviews with participants and subsequently coded and analyzed the
data collected. The emergent, qualitative, research design was one strategy to increase
credibility and trustworthiness while limiting researcher bias. Data collected in interviews was
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 48
used to solicit information in subsequent interviews in an attempt to triangulate data. The use of
triangulation to collect data from multiple sources increased the credibility and trustworthiness of
the study while limiting researcher bias (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Additional measures were also implemented to enhance the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study. Verbatim transcripts were created from interviews which produced
rich data for analysis (Maxwell, 2012). The rich data provided by transcripts improved the
coding and analysis of responses and ensured no relevant data was excluded from the study.
Furthermore, the study utilized member checks to solicit feedback of preliminary findings from
interview participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Interviewees were contacted after the data
analysis phase of the study to schedule follow up interviews, if they desire, to discuss the
preliminary results. Participants were also asked supplemental questions during follow up
interviews to clarify information collected and analyzed. Finally, the research study incorporated
discrepant case analysis seeking data that challenged expectations or emergent findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Ethics
Though the researcher was not a supervisor, direct or otherwise, of any research
participants, the researcher is a member of the organization which the research was focused.
Additionally, research participants are members of the organization which was the focus of the
study and may have been apprehensive about providing honest and forthcoming information
about themselves or the organization. Therefore, it was important to ensure the confidentiality of
research participants during and after the study to protect participants. Ensuring confidentiality
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 49
hopefully assuaged participant’s fear of providing honest and open answers and increased the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study (Creswell, 2014).
Every effort was made to protect the researcher’s notes and any audio recording collected
during the interview process. Paper copies of research artifacts were stored in a locked office
controlled by the researcher. Electronic records were stored on a password-protected computer
or on third-party servers utilizing two-factor authentication and encryption to protect the data.
Furthermore, information was not shared without permission and a valid need to review the data
collected by the researcher. Additional safeguards were utilized to further protect the data in the
event of unauthorized access. Pseudonyms were used to identify interview participants. The
sound of the interviewee’s voice was altered in recorded audio to eliminate the possibility of
identifying participants. Though no breach is known to have occurred, in the event of a future
breach that makes research artifacts accessible to unauthorized parties, participants will be
notified promptly.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this research study was to identify knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting managers in the Department contributing to accomplishing
the suggested organizational performance goal to incorporate agile development methods in 50%
of new organization-specific information system development projects by 2020. This study
utilized a modified gap analysis framework following an emergent, qualitative design. This
chapter outlines the following elements of the research study: participating stakeholders,
interview results, and findings. The questions guiding this study were:
1. What knowledge influences affect managers’ comprehension of agile
development methods and organizational agility?
2. What motivation influences affect stakeholders’ interest, or lack thereof, in
information systems development methods?
3. What organizational influences, real or perceived by stakeholders, affect the
adoption of agile development methods within the organization?
Participating Stakeholders
Twelve managers from the Department participated in this research study including five
front-line managers, four middle-level managers, and three senior managers or executives. The
experience of participants ranged from 2 years to 27 years with 13 years as the mean years of
management experience in the organization. Nine participants were male; three participants
were female representing each of the three management categories. The participant’s
professional background included nine managers with experience in structural, electrical, and
other engineering disciplines: one engineer with experience in manufacturing, and two managers
with experience in non-technical disciplines. The interviewees approximate the ratio and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 51
diversity vis-à-vis gender and discipline of the stakeholders of focus in the Department. Table 6
identifies the participant’s management type, discipline, and years of management experience.
Table 6. Stakeholder Participants
Demographic Information of Participants
ID Management Type Discipline Management
Experience
FL1 Front-Line Engineering 5 years
FL2 Front-Line Administrative 11 years
FL3 Front-Line Engineering 2 years
FL4 Front-Line Administrative 6 years
FL5 Front-Line Engineering 5 years
ML1 Middle-Level Engineering 15 years
ML2 Middle-Level Engineering 9 years
ML3 Middle-Level Manufacturing 27 years
ML4 Middle-Level Engineering 20 years
SM1 Senior Manager / Executive Engineering 18 years
SM2 Senior Manager / Executive Engineering 16 years
SM3 Senior Manager / Executive Engineering 20 years

Findings
The data presented below is organized by influence: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational. Within each influence, the findings are categorized by influence type per the
conceptual framework. In analyzing the data, influences were considered gap validated if more
than 75% of the evidence confirmed the assumed influence. A validated gap represents an area
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 52
for improvement and will be discussed in the recommendations presented in Chapter 5. An
influence is determined gap invalidated if more than 75% of the evidence rejects the assumed
influence. Invalidated gaps do not necessarily indicate improvement is not warranted; however,
the criticality to address invalidated gaps is not as important as validated gaps. An influence is
considered undetermined if less than 75% of the evidence does not validate or invalidate the
assumed influence. In this circumstance, further research may be necessary to validate or
invalidate the assumed influence.
Knowledge Influences
Several interview questions were asked to assess knowledge influences affecting
stakeholders’ comprehension of agile development methods and organizational agility. The
findings suggest stakeholders comprehend organizational agility concepts. Managers
consistently described organizational agility similar to definitions identified in the literature
review. Asked what affects organizational agility, managers were also consistent in identifying
factors affecting organizational agility. Despite the apparent knowledge of organizational
agility, managers were less knowledgeable about agile development methods and the process by
which information systems are developed. Managers vaguely described the process by which
information systems are developed, suggesting a lack of knowledge about the process used by
the organization to develop information systems. When discussing information systems
development processes used in the organization, managers referenced broad concepts and did not
mention specifics of the development process. Discussing information systems that may have
been developed using agile development methods, managers focused on two characteristics of
agile development methods: development is considered quicker than waterfall development
methods, and the information system can be modified more quickly or adapted to changing
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 53
business processes. Table 7 identifies the assumed knowledge influences and the summary of
findings for each assumed influence.
Table 7. Determination of Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings.
Assumed Knowledge Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or
Undetermined
Managers need to differentiate between agile
development methods and organizational
agility.
Gap Validated. Managers comprehend
organizational agility but lack knowledge of
agile development methods.
Managers need to comprehend the
relationship between agile development
methods and organizational agility.
Gap Invalidated. Managers demonstrate
knowledge of relationship between systems
developed using agile development methods
and influence on organizational agility.
Managers need to be proficient in IT
development methods and organizational
agility.
Gap Validated. Managers lack procedural
knowledge of information system
development process.

Declarative Knowledge
Differentiate between organizational agility and agile development methods. Managers
were asked during the interview to define organizational agility and describe the process by
which systems are developed to assess their comprehension of agile development methods and
determine if managers differentiate between organizational agility and agile development
methods.
According to the literature, organizational agility allows organizations to more quickly
provide high-quality services to stakeholders through the unification of processes and people
with IT (Crocitto & Youseff, 2003). When asked during the interview to define organizational
agility, the data indicates all managers defined organizational agility consistent with the
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 54
literature. FL5 described organizational agility as the ability to “change and adapt to a changing
business… It means being able to adapt to not only continuously improve but remain relevant.”
As a self-described tactical person instead of a strategic person, ML1 said, “For me,
organizational agility would be to be able to shift, to be flexible to meet the needs of our
customers.” SM2 provided a succinct definition of organizational agility as it relates to the
organization saying, “We’ve got a clear safety goal, but an industry that’s constantly reinventing
itself. To me, agility is the ability to see those things coming and to prepare and support the
organization to work in changing conditions.” Table 8 identifies the terms used by managers to
define organizational agility.
Table 8. Organizational Agility Definitions
Terms Used During Interviews to Define Organizational Agility.
Term Manager
Adaptive FL1, FL5, SM1
Flexibility FL2, ML3, SM1
Reacting / Pivoting Quickly FL3, FL4, ML4, SM3
Responsive ML1, ML2
Foresight SM2

In addition to defining organizational agility, managers were asked to describe influences
affecting organizational agility. Managers described multiple influences affecting organizational
agility. The most commonly referenced influences include organizational culture, mindset,
adequate resources, leadership, and communication.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 55
According to FL1, the organizational culture is “a mindset shared by all within the
organization, all the individuals from the top level of leadership down to the worker bee, no
matter what role you play, that characterizes the culture.” Contributing to the organizational
culture is a culture of innovation and inquiry. FL5 said, “You need an organization that fosters
innovation with its employees… Employees should not be constrained but given the freedom to
pursue or explore solutions to a problem and present those ideas to leadership to make a
decision.”
Two common cultural setting influences affecting organizational agility involve
resources, specifically adequate human and financial resources. According to FL4, “I don’t think
you can be agile unless you have enough people who approach problems differently and create
some really good stuff. To me, that’s probably the biggest factor [affecting organizational
agility].” Discussing financial resources and leadership, FL2 said: “If you don’t have executive
support and you don’t have the money to support it, without those two key things, you wouldn’t
achieve organizational agility.” Further affecting organizational agility is communication. FL5
stated, “Often we don’t have all the same information. Good communication with all
stakeholders is important and makes the organization function better.” Table 9 identifies terms
used by interviewees to describe influence affecting organizational agility.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 56
Table 9. Affects Organizational Agility
Terms Used During Interviews to Describe Influences Affecting Organizational Agility.
Category Term Manager
Cultural Model
Organizational Culture FL1, FL2, FL3, FL4, FL5, ML1,
ML2, ML4, SM2
Politics FL2
Attitudes FL3
Awareness SM3
Cultural Setting
Adequate Human Resources FL3, FL4, ML1, ML3, ML4
Leadership FL2, FL4, FL5, ML2, SM1
Financial Resources FL2, ML1, ML3
Communication FL2, FL3, ML2, SM3
Organizational Structure SM1
Stakeholder Buy-in FL2
Failure to Learn from Mistakes FL3

Interviewees were asked to describe the process by which information systems were
developed in the organization to assess their knowledge of agile development methods.
Managers were not asked to define agile development methods because it was assumed
participants would be unfamiliar with the term given none of the managers work directly in the
IT field. Descriptions of the development process were classified as either agile development
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 57
methods or waterfall development methods. The detail with which managers described the
process was indicative of their knowledge of software development methods.
Descriptions of the information systems development process used by the organization
were mixed. Managers described enterprise-level systems as being a “top-down” approach to
development whereby personnel in headquarters identified system requirements and contracted
third-party vendors to design, develop, and maintain the information system per system
requirements documentation. Managers described local-level systems as being a “bottom-up”
approach to development whereby a small cadre of developers assigned to and embedded with
field offices quickly developed solutions based on the needs of the field office without formal
documentation.
The data suggests the organization may be using waterfall development methods for
enterprise-level systems and, conversely, may be using agile development methods for local-
level systems. Managers consistently described the development time of local-level systems as
quicker than developing enterprise-level systems. Discussing the development of an enterprise-
level system, FL4 stated, “My sort of take on the whole thing was that it was laboriously slow. It
would take a year just to get a draft list of requirements. Well, after a year there's probably been
an update to the business requirements.” Further delineating between enterprise-level and local-
level systems, managers also described local-level systems as being more capable of adapting to
changing organizational needs. Despite the contrast between enterprise-level and local-level
systems, only two managers used the term agile development in their description of the
information system development process. Discussing the development of a local-level system in
which he participated, FL1 stated, “At the time, we wouldn’t call it anything. None of us knew
about waterfall; none of us knew about agile. What we did know was what we needed. Looking
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 58
back, it was very much an agile approach.” FL1 continued, saying, “We had the [development]
scripts in mind because we were users ourselves. We talked with others about what their
expectations were, and we shared our in-progress work as we went back and forth. That
[process] comports with an agile approach.”
The findings indicate managers comprehend organizational agility; however, managers
lack declarative and procedural knowledge of agile development methods. The absence of detail
or the use of system development terminology when describing the development process
suggests managers lack knowledge of agile development methods as a formal development
process. Managers are cognizant of some differences between enterprise-level and local-level
systems, but they may not fully comprehend the differences in the development process between
the two. Without knowledge of agile development methods, managers may confuse the context
of agile when discussing information systems development methods. While organizational
agility and agile development methods involve timely response to changing stakeholder needs,
organizational agility is a concept whereas agile development is a process.
Comprehend relationship between agile development methods and organizational
agility. Though none of the managers interviewed recognized agile development methods as a
formal process to develop information systems, those who described the development of local-
level information systems demonstrated comprehension of the relationship between agile
development and organizational agility. This comprehension was most apparent when
participants discussed the development of local-level systems and the benefit they provide the
organization.
Discussing the relationship between systems developed at the local-level and
organizational agility, ML2 said, “Certainly, there are benefits from the tools developed locally.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 59
There are certain data and reporting adjustments you can make to the tool at a local-level that
give us a lot of [organizational] agility.” ML2 continued, saying, “We can adapt the tool to what
we need in real-time or very quickly as opposed to tools that aren’t developed locally.” This
belief suggests information systems developed following agile development methods are better
suited to enabling organizational agility.
The limited size and lack of complexity of local-level systems may also contribute to the
ability to enhance organizational agility. Comparing enterprise-level and local-level
development, ML1 said: “We’re able to do it more quickly at a local-level, but I think it’s
probably a much narrower scope at a local-level because we’re just looking at how we operate
versus at a national level.” Elaborating on the dichotomy between local-level and enterprise-
level systems, FL5 said:
The difference probably is a question of overhead. A locally developed tool implies two
things: it implies a much smaller development team, and it implies a much small user
group. Both factors make development and updates or continuously improving the tool
an easier task just by their various scale perspective.
Procedural Knowledge
Knowledge of information systems development process. Managers demonstrated
conceptual knowledge of systems development processes; however, managers did not
demonstrate procedural knowledge of systems development. Contributing to the lack of
procedural knowledge is most managers have limited experience participating in the
development process. Several managers indicated they participated in an information system’s
development throughout their tenure with the organization, either as a manager or non-manager.
The level of involvement expressed by those managers included contributing user requirements,
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 60
conducting functionality assessments, and providing system feedback to developers. Despite this
participation, no manager indicated their participation throughout the entire system development
process.
Though most managers participated in the development of information systems, none of
the managers described the development process in enough detail to demonstrate comprehension
of development methods and processes. Despite the lack of procedural knowledge, nearly all
managers indicated identifying the system’s needs as the first step in the development of an
information system regardless of whether following agile or waterfall development processes.
However, the evidence suggests challenges documenting system requirements for enterprise-
level systems. Describing the requirements documentation process for enterprise-level systems,
FL5 suggested, “People who don’t do the work are designing these systems. There is very little
or no representation by the end-users and stakeholders.” Managers described the importance of
accurately documenting system requirements for enterprise-level systems as the development
was performed by third-party contractors who develop according to requirements without
intimate knowledge of the business needs. ML3 said “The [developers] don’t know our job well,
so it’s up to us to tell them not just our job functions, but what we need in our systems. They do
what we ask them; that’s all they know.” These challenges were less significant in local-level
systems since development was not performed by contractors but, instead, performed by
employees within the organization. The flexibility provided by agile development methods
afforded the organization the ability to adjust or amend system requirements when necessary.
Motivation Influences
Several interview questions were asked to assess motivation influences affecting
stakeholders’ self-efficacy and the perceived utility value of agile development methods. The
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 61
findings suggest stakeholders lack self-efficacy when discussing IT concepts. Asked to describe
their level of confidence discussing IT concepts, most managers indicated they did not feel
efficacious in their abilities. Most managers indicated they rely on the counsel of technical
experts to inform their decision-making process vis-à-vis IT tools, development, and resources.
The evidence suggests managers value agile development methods, despite their lack of
knowledge of the development process. The findings indicate managers found value in the
development of local-level systems, which were described using agile development concepts.
Overwhelming evidence suggests managers rely on local-level systems to facilitate
accomplishing their mission. Furthermore, these local-level systems and the ability to quickly
develop or alter the system proved invaluable for some managers who lack adequate human
resources. Despite the perceived value of agile development to develop local-level systems, the
evidence suggests agile development methods are not used to develop enterprise-level systems.
However, the evidence also suggests the lack of using agile development methods for enterprise-
level systems is not related to a gap in the perceived utility value but instead may be related to
organizational influences. Table 10 identifies the assumed motivation influences and the
summary of findings for each assumed influence.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 62
Table 10. Determination of Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings.
Assumed Motivation Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or
Undetermined
Management needs to feel efficacious in their
ability to lead information systems
development projects.
Gap Validated. Managers do not feel
confident discussing information technology
concepts.
Management needs to see the value of using
agile development methods.
Gap Invalidated. Managers value
information systems developed using agile
development methods.

Self-Efficacy
Feeling efficacious in one’s ability to lead information systems development projects.
Two-thirds of managers indicated they participated in the development of information systems
including identifying system requirements, testing and evaluating systems, and working closely
with development teams creating information systems. Additionally, three-quarters of managers
indicated they directly, or indirectly, supervise information system developers. However, most
managers indicated their experience was not recent. Despite their involvement or their
management of system developers, 83% of managers self-described their level of confidence
discussing IT concepts as less than confident. Ten of 12 participants indicated they were not
confident in their ability to discuss IT concepts or relied on others when discussing IT concepts.
The evidence suggests the lack of confidence is, in part, due to the following factors: scarcity of
recent involvement in information systems development projects; lacking knowledge of IT
concepts; and failure to maintain awareness of technological advancements.
The confidence expressed by two managers could not be conclusively attributed to any
particular factors. Though neither manager supervises developers, both managers actively
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 63
participated in previous information systems development projects. FL1 suggested his
confidence stems from his curious exploration and passion for IT stating “I do a fair amount of
research and general reading of scholarly articles so I that I can adapt what I learn to other
purposes.” FL2 suggested her confidence stems from previous experience stating, “I’m pretty
confident; I understand it. I’ve seen quite a bit of the dynamics related to information
management from who is setting up systems to who is managing systems, and the strategic focus
for the organization.” Table 11 indicates the manager’s level of confidence, their experience in
the development of information systems, and whether they supervise system developers.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 64
Table 11. Degree of Self-Efficacy
Description of Self-Efficacy Discussing IT Concepts.
Manager Previous Participation
in Information System
Development
Currently Manage
Information System
Developers
Degree of Self-Efficacy
Discussing IT Concepts
FL1 Yes No Confident
FL2 Yes No Confident
FL3 Yes No Not Confident
FL4 Yes Yes Little Confidence
FL5 Yes No Little Confidence
ML1 Yes Yes Not Confident
ML2 Yes Yes Not Confident
ML3 Yes No Not Confident
ML4 No Yes Not Confident
SM1 No Yes Little Confidence
SM2 No Yes Little Confidence
SM3 No Yes Little Confidence

While only two managers expressed confidence in their ability to discuss IT concepts,
several managers expressed confidence in knowing the outcomes they desired from an IT
solution. FL3 stated, “I know exactly what I want and what counts. I know enough about the
organization to know what our core responsibilities are. I feel confident I can marry those two
things. I just need a tool to make that happen.” Additionally, ML2 said, “I know what I want
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 65
and what I need. I don’t know how to put that in place. I just don’t have the knowledge of what
systems and hardware and software we would need.”
One emerging theme was manager’s reliance on subject matter experts to inform their
decision-making process vis-à-vis IT decisions. ML3 stated, “I don’t have the expertise in IT,
I’ll admit that, so I defer to people with the appropriate skill sets. I have no problem deferring to
them rather than trying to represent what I know.” Additionally, ML2 said, “I tend to rely on
folks in the organization. I’m fortunate to have some people who like to understand the details,
so I’m lucky I’ve been able to be surrounded by those kinds of individuals.” Managers may not
value knowledge of IT concepts, especially if IT experts are available to counsel managers. FL2
said, “I think, the easy answer for a lot of managers is if somebody had a question about IT, they
say go see your IT guy.”
As a result of lacking knowledge and self-efficacy, managers must trust those providing
IT advice or counsel. “I would usually talk with somebody like [advisor] to determine what we
need or the resources we need. I trust his judgment and input much more than my own in that
regard,” said ML2. One challenge raised by several managers was the organization lacks
adequate human resources with IT knowledge and experience. Discussing the availability of
human resources in the organization, FL2 said, “I think in some cases we step out there with
grand plans and we just don’t have what’s needed in order to actually get the work done. I think
that’s critical.”
Asked whether it was important for managers to possess knowledge of IT concepts,
managers generally agreed it was essential to possess a basic level of IT concepts knowledge.
FL3 said, “I think you have to have some sort of background in the area you’re managing.
Otherwise, you don’t have a feel, a gut feel, for what is going on.” ML3 went so far as to
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 66
describe managers without IT knowledge managing IT persons as perilous saying “Having a
non-IT savvy manager managing IT people, that’s very dangerous. I could not do that because I
couldn’t even help them or contribute if they had questions.”
Though managers expressed the importance to possess basic comprehension of IT
concepts, managers did not feel they should be technically proficient in various IT skills.
Instead, managers thought they should possess sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions
about, and manage, IT projects. FL4 said, “I don’t think I should know how to write code, but I
think it’s important to understand enough about how things connect, how they’re laid out, and
what their limitations are to be able to make a decision.” The evidence suggests managers feel it
is important they possess knowledge of IT concepts due to: their role as a decision maker
involving IT projects, the influence they have to manage projects and resources, or their
authority to hire personnel with the requisite IT skills. “I’ll defer to IT experts, but we (i.e.,
managers) need to have enough information or knowledge to ask the right questions. If [IT
experts] are steering us off track, we need to recognize that and get them back on track,” said
ML3.
Utility Value
Value of using agile development methods. The evidence suggests while managers may
not comprehend agile development methods, they are familiar with systems developed using
agile development methods and value those systems. Specifically, managers expressed the value
of local-level systems described by managers as following agile development concepts. FL3
said, “As far as I’m concerned, I’ve seen more success with bottom-up [local-level] solutions
than I’ve ever seen from top-down [enterprise-level].” One reason why managers value local-
level systems developed following agile development methods is the ability of local-level
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 67
systems to address the challenges of the local office. FL4 stated, “To me, where the local
development piece comes from is a much more needs-based genesis whereas the enterprise stuff
comes from a grand idea. It [local-level systems] genuinely comes from they’re not letting me
hire anybody else, but they want x, y, and z.” Additionally, FL2 said, “We know what our
business is here locally; we can put the resources into it. We know what the outcome is that we
want from it [local-level systems]; we can build it and tailor it to what we need.” The value of
local systems developed using agile development methods is also recognized by senior managers
in addition to front-line managers. SM1 said, “Bottom-up solutions, for the most part, the people
who actually are using it believe in it and want it versus top-down solutions that are put upon
them… People struggle when they’re not involved in the development to buy-in.”
Organizational Influences
Several interview questions were asked to assess organizational influences, specifically
cultural model, and cultural setting influences. Additionally, participants were asked to identify
and discuss barriers affecting organizational agility in the organization. The findings are
inconclusive as to whether the organization is resistant to developing IT projects counter to
existing models; however, evidence suggests the organization relies on contractors to develop
enterprise-level information systems, in part, due to the lack of available human resources and a
potential knowledge gap related to development processes. Additionally, the findings are
inconclusive as to whether the organization is afraid of abandoning failed IT projects. However,
evidence suggests the organization is incapable of abandoning failed IT projects, in part, due to
bureaucratic oversight and the failure to learn lessons from previous development project
failures. The findings suggest the organization lacks experience with agile development
methods. Contributing to the lack of experience is a lack of IT project management training
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 68
provided to managers. Managers indicated IT concepts training is not provided to managers, nor
does the organization expect managers to be knowledgeable about development concepts and
processes. This study also identified five barriers affecting organizational agility and the
development of information technology systems: a non-existent culture of inquiry, a culture of
consensus building, lack of adequate human resources, bureaucracy, and the current IT
development process. Table 12 identifies the assumed organizational influences and the
summary of findings for each assumed influence.
Table 12. Determination of Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influences, Determination, and Summary of Findings.
Assumed Knowledge Influence Gap Validated, Invalidated, or
Undetermined
The organization may generally be resistant to
developing IT projects counter to existing
models.
Gap Undetermined. The evidence suggests
the organization may be resistant; however,
the evidence could neither confirm nor reject
this assumed influence.
The organization may be afraid of abandoning
failing IT projects for fear of losing their
stature, career, etc.
Gap Undetermined. The evidence suggests
the organization may be incapable of
abandoning failing projects; however, the
evidence could neither confirm nor reject
this assumed influence.
Lack of IT project management training or
education for managers.
Gap Validated. Managers indicated the
organization does not afford managers
information technology training.
Lack of leadership/experience with agile
development methods within the organization.
Gap Validated. The evidence indicates the
organization lacks experience using agile
development methods.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 69
Cultural Model
Organization is generally resistant to developing IT projects counter to existing models.
The evidence suggests the organization may be resistant to using alternative development
methods which differ from the status quo. The evidence suggests an inability to incorporate new
ideas is due to a non-existent culture of inquiry. According to FL1, “I think organizationally we
don’t know what we don’t know. I think we’ve got to eliminate blind spots; we have to be
informed about what IT does for us.” The inability to foster a culture of inquiry creates a
mindset within the organization to solve problems without fully considering a problem and
exploring all potential solutions. According to SM3, “I wish people wouldn’t jump to the
solution before they actually explored options and understood the pros and cons. We have this
mindset that you’re rewarded if you come in on your shiny horse and solve the problem.” This
inability to identify and consider potential solutions contributes to the organization’s reliance on
existing development methods and perpetuates the organization’s resistance to incorporate new
technology trends and capabilities to enhance organizational agility. SM3 continues saying:
Once we’ve identified a solution, we latch on to the solution, and it’s not appropriate to
question that. It’s sort of like ‘Okay, we’ve got a solution, and we’re going to put the
blinders on. We’re going to go marching forward. This is the way we’re going to do it.’
The inability to consider alternative solutions extends beyond the development methods
chosen for information systems to include whether systems should be developed at an enterprise-
level or a local-level. The evidence suggests the organization’s headquarters prefer enterprise-
level systems while field offices prefer locally-developed solutions. According to FL3,
“Headquarters wants the enterprise-level solutions, and the field offices want local-level
solutions, but the enterprise-level solutions don’t work for us in the field.” SM1 said, “We’ve
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 70
experienced years of frustration trying to develop local solutions. There needs to be a different
way to develop home-grown solutions and grow them.”
One reason why enterprise-level and local-level information systems are opposed are the
different outcomes each system is intended to provide. According to FL1:
We know what our business is here locally, and we can put the resources into it. We
know what the outcome is what we get from [the information system]. We can build it
and tailor it to what we need. At a national level, they feel we need to be consistent,
which is a positive thing, but in an effort to achieve consistency they muddy the water
because they’re adding on requirements from other offices.
Contributing to the resistance to consider alternative development methods is the
consensus building culture of the organization. “We’re very much a consensus organization,”
said FL5, “there’s nothing wrong with building consensus and making consensus decisions, but I
feel like that decreases our speed of action.” The speed of action described by FL5 contributes to
the organization’s ability to develop information systems on schedule to meet the organization’s
needs. “I think you want to develop a system that meets the schedule requirements,” said ML1.
ML1 continued, saying, “Sometimes we need a system and if you spent forever to build it you
probably could get a perfect product, but at some point, you’ve got to say I need it by this time.”
The evidence also suggests the organizational culture seeks to achieve consensus
amongst all stakeholders during the decision-making process instead of finding consensus with a
limited number of key stakeholders or through an executive decision. According to ML3:
We always like to reach consensus, but sometimes the best ideas get squashed when the
majority of the group doesn’t understand the proposal. So, we fall back to our comfort
zone, and if we don’t understand it we don’t want to try it; there’s resistance to change.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 71
The idea might be the best idea we’ve ever had, but the consensus would overrule the
idea and drive the few folks who have the idea away because the group consensus will
make a different decision or go down a different path.
The evidence further suggests the organization struggles to find a balance between
seeking consensus from all stakeholders and executive decision. “It’s funny, we complain about
taking too long. However, the times when management has said ‘You’ll do this,’ the next thing
is a bunch of complaints that nobody was involved,” said ML4. Additionally, SM1 said, “Some
leaders love consensus; they want everybody to get along and be happy, but you don’t need to
wait until the whole table comes to consensus because it really never happens.”
Organization is afraid of abandoning failed IT projects. The evidence suggests the
organization fails to learn from past mistakes and may be incapable of abandoning failed IT
projects as opposed to being fearful of abandoning failed IT projects.
Managers described enterprise-level systems as large-scale information systems projects
spanning multiple years and costing millions of dollars. Discussing the failure of one enterprise-
level information system, one manager discussed the bureaucratic process authorizing funding
for the project as a contributing factor to the project’s failure. ML4 said, “In the case of [the
project], I think we got too much money. I think we signed up for more than we could do and
then we were tied. We felt like we had to justify spending that much money.” ML4 continued to
say “A couple years into [the project] we realized this was not turning out how we thought, but
we were like no, we’ll just keep going, we’ll make it work. We’re going to get there.” Another
factor contributing to the bureaucratic process is the difficulty changing system requirements
once the project is approved and funded. According to ML4:
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 72
We discovered if we’re going to do this right, we’re going to need to change what we
wanted to do under the original requirements, but we couldn’t change them enough that
the [oversight body] would come back and say ‘Hey, this is not what we gave you money
for.’ So, to do with them, we simply started on an unclear system definition because we
had to base it on the needs at a time before we developed the system requirements.
The organization may also lack reflection and self-assessment to learn from previous
mistakes and failures. Discussing the same project failure referenced by ML4, ML3 said: “We
need to challenge ourselves to go back and look at how much money was spent, how much time
and how many people, and analyze why after all that effort it turned out not to work.” SM2
provides a similar observation regarding the organization’s need to learn lessons from past
mistakes. Discussing the failure of the same IT project, SM2 said:
One of the things I think the organization has difficulty with is stepping back and being
critical of ourselves and doing lessons learned. I’m not sure anybody actually went back
and said ‘OK if we spent X number of dollars and this thing is a bust, why was it a bust
and how would we change our procedures.
Cultural Setting
Lack of leadership/experience with agile development methods within the organization.
The evidence suggests the organization lacks leadership and experience using agile development
methods to develop enterprise-level information systems. Contributing to the organization
lacking leadership and experience with agile development methods is a lack of skill set diversity
and culture that utilizes available personnel despite the inexperience of available persons.
Specifically, the organization often satisfies IT roles such as information systems developer,
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 73
SharePoint administrator, data analyst, and data visualization with existing personnel despite the
employee’s lack of requisite skills and knowledge. According to SM3:
What we’ve done is, somebody gets tapped, and we say, ‘We need somebody to do this.
You’re now the new expert in this.’ And either they learn it, or they don’t. Or we say,
‘Oh well, nobody wants to do it.’ So, then we don’t do it because all the people that we
hired with a different skill set don’t want to do it.
In addition to lacking skill set diversity amongst employees, the organization lacks senior
leadership with IT knowledge. According to SM1:
[The organization] doesn’t have a leader with IT development knowledge. They take an
engineer and put them into an IT position. We are trying to make do with people with
engineering and inspection backgrounds or even administrative backgrounds, but we
didn’t ever pursue an IT person who has the leadership skills and knowledge to probably
do better.
Despite the lack of skill set diversity amongst IT jobs in the organization, a gap may not
exist universally across the organization. Evidence suggests the organization is adept at ensuring
persons with the requisite skill sets are performing engineering and inspecting job functions.
However, the organization may be less adept at ensuring persons with the requisite skill sets are
performing non-engineering and non-inspecting job functions. According to SM2:
I think we do have the right people doing, for instance, tech writing stuff. For the most
part, we do have the right people with the right skills doing engineering work or
inspection work. I would say generally there’s a set of skills that we’ve not done a good
job of inventorying. If we want people to do these jobs that round out the organization,
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 74
we need to bring in capable people whether it be from a planning standpoint, an IT
standpoint, or an analytical or problem-solving standpoint.
Contributing to the lack of skill set diversity within the organization is a lack of
experience hiring non-engineers and non-inspectors. Managers described experience hiring
engineers and inspectors, in part, because they understand those job functions. However, when
hiring persons to perform other job functions, the organization lacks knowledge and experience
hiring people who are not engineers or inspectors. ML3 said, “We are very often restricted by
the number of people and the type of skill sets because we haven’t done it before.” Additionally,
the organization may also be limited in the skill set diversity it can hire. According to ML2,
“Often times there will be a certain headcount established for [the organization], and so you have
to weigh the need for inspectors or engineering versus developers.”
The organization lost a lot of IT experts as part of an Agency reorganization which may
contribute to the lack of leadership and experience with agile development methods in the
organization. As part of the Agency reorganization, a new organization (i.e., the IT
Organization) is responsible for managing information technology resources for the Agency and
provides oversight of enterprise-level development projects. The evidence also suggests the
reorganization has increased bureaucracy, specifically the IT development process. The
coordination between the organization and the IT Organization increases bureaucracy and creates
an inefficient development process. According to FL2:
The [IT Organization] was established to provide a shared services concepts to all of the
Agency for IT requirements. They pulled the individual organization’s IT personnel into
one organization to focus on a national effort and provide standards and a national
approach to IT services. Instead, what it did was combined a management and employee
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 75
structure so scattered throughout the Agency and across the nation that it has become
cumbersome and such a nightmare to work with that it’s easier to try to get things done
internally than working with [the IT Organization].
FL5 echoed a similar belief as FL2 saying:
Historically, one of our major barriers has been working with the [IT Organization] who
control what and how we spend our resources on IT projects. If we want to be agile and
actually be able to develop tools to support our business in a quick manner we probably
need a much more streamlined approach to approving and committing resources. It
seems very difficult to get a commitment from the hierarchy of our organization.
The evidence further suggests the use of contractors instead of employees to develop IT
systems may contribute to the lack of leadership and experience with agile development methods
and contributes to the bureaucracy and inefficient development process. ML2 said, “There’s a
cultural decision whether we as an organization should use contractors or whether we should
build tools in-house.” Some managers believe organizational agility and improved IT quality
can be achieved with employee developers instead of contractor developers. According to FL3,
“Locally, we know the position we’re in. We have to get staffed up so we can respond, but I feel
like we have more control over what we need than contractors.” ML4 shared a similar belief
saying:
The main reason I would eliminate the use of contractors is that we need to have the
ability to change the tool our self. When we see a need, we should be able to fix it and
continue on. The current process of making changes in our tools is costly. We often
don’t get what we want because we have to go through all these contractor hoops.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 76
Lack of IT project management training or education for managers. The findings
indicate the organization does not provide IT project management training or education for
managers. The findings also suggest the organization does not expect managers to be
knowledgeable about IT concepts.
None of the managers interviewed stated they have received any IT training. Instead, the
organization affords managers training in the areas of human resources, labor relations, and
accountability. According to FL5, “Most of the training we receive, other than the normal
technical training, allows us to remain compliant with EEO [equal employment opportunity],
travel and human resources policy.” Asked whether the organization expects managers to
possess knowledge of IT concepts, all of the managers agreed the organization does not expect
managers to be knowledgeable of IT concepts. FL2 stated, “I don’t think there’s an expectation
to know [IT development processes].” Similarly, FL1 said, “Looking at my individual
performance plan and my required training, no. We have a shared services organization that
handles that.” FL1’s comments reinforce the belief expressed by many managers that possessing
knowledge of IT concepts is not necessary since the organization has IT persons who are
expected to be knowledgeable.
Managers were asked if the organization should provide IT concepts training to
managers. Generally, managers expressed it would benefit them and the organization if the
organization provided IT training to managers. FL3 said, “It would be helpful. Bringing new
concepts to the management teams is probably a good idea when it comes to technology. It’s
such an integral part of our job now that we probably need refresher courses.” Despite the
majority of participants believing the organization should provide managers IT training, some
managers expressed concerns they would not have time to participate in training given the time
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 77
constraints of their management duties. “There’s just a lot of fundamental training that we get,
and that is expected of us,” said ML2, “but that’s one area where it probably would be beneficial
for us to have.” This seems to indicate that even though managers express interest in IT training,
the benefit of training may not be realized unless the organization prioritizes IT training for
managers.
Managers were also asked if the organization should expect managers to possess
knowledge of IT concepts. Many managers believe the organization should expect managers to
possess fundamental knowledge of IT concepts. According to FL4, “I do think there should be
an expectation. I think we should have the kind of level of understanding where we
systematically understand how things hook together or how they play off each other.” The
majority of managers suggest the organization should expect managers to be “knowledgeable
enough” to ask inquisitive questions, make informed decisions, and evaluate potential new hires
to ensure the organization is appropriately staffed. However, not all managers agreed the
organization should expect them to possess knowledge of IT concepts. ML4 suggested the
organization should expect front-line managers, not middle-level managers, to possess IT
knowledge saying, “Not so much at my level, but certainly at the section level.” ML4 shared a
conversation he recently had with a subordinate front-line manager who told ML4 “I need to take
a course in agile [development methods]. If that’s the way we’re going to develop tools, I need
to take a course in it.” ML4 continued, saying, “He [the subordinate manager] has people on his
staff that lead teams to support the development processes.” Perhaps the most eloquent response
to whether the organization should expect managers to be knowledgeable of IT concepts was
offered by FL1, who said:
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 78
I believe in my heart, where our organization needs to be in terms of our ability to affect
mission delivery in the most efficient and effective manner possible requires us to design
systems to help us do that. We must be more intelligent about operations, and
information management is a critical component of that. There is an awareness that we
need information management as an essential capability.
Synthesis
This research study assumed nine influences which may affect the organization’s ability
to achieve its goal to become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its
mission. This study identified two areas for improvement related knowledge influences, one
declarative and one procedural influence. Additionally, this study identified one motivation
influence, self-efficacy, as a challenge to the organization’s ability to achieve its goal. Finally,
each of the four organizational influences, two cultural model influences, and two cultural setting
influences, were identified as areas for improvement.
Many of the influences, especially those identified as areas for improvement are related
to one or more influence and should be considered a facet of that relationship. For example, the
findings indicate managers do not feel efficacious discussing information technology concepts.
The findings also indicate managers lack comprehension of information technology concepts.
The lack of comprehension may contribute to the lack of self-efficacy expressed by managers.
Contributing to the lack of comprehension is the organization does not afford managers
information technology training nor does the organization expect managers to possess
knowledge of information technology concepts.
While it cannot be said that managers comprehend the relationship between agile
development methods and organizational agility, the findings suggest managers appreciate
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 79
information systems developed or modified quickly to support changing organizational needs.
The findings indicate managers demonstrated comprehension of agility in the context of
organizational agility; however, managers did not recognize agile development methods as a
formal process to develop information systems.
Despite lacking comprehension of agile development methods, managers expressed value
of information systems described as developed following agile development methods. Managers
described benefits of agile development methods compared to waterfall development methods
despite the inability to describe either development method consistent with the literature.
Managers demonstrated their comprehension of agile development methods was limited to
characteristics or outcomes of agile development, namely the speed to develop systems and the
ability to modify systems quickly to facilitate organizational agility. Without comprehending
agile development methods, managers may confuse the context of agile when developing
information systems.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 80
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 4 presented the results and findings from data collected through interviews to
answer the study’s research questions identifying knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting accomplishing the organizational goal to enhance organizational agility and
responsiveness. Each influence was determined to be gap validated, gap invalidated, or
undetermined. An influence was determined gap validated or gap invalidated if more than 75%
of the evidence confirmed or rejected the assumed influence gap. An influence was considered
undermined if less than 75% of the evidence did not validate or invalidate the assumed influence.
Five of the influences initially identified in this research through a review of the literature were
found to have gaps that contribute to the organization’s ability to become agile and responsive by
optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. Two influences were invalidated while two
additional influences were neither validated nor invalidated.
This chapter identifies recommendations based on current knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources to improve the organization’s ability to become agile and responsive in
achieving its mission. The recommendations discussed in this chapter are based on validated
influences evaluated during data collection and analysis. The recommendations are organized
and presented by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence. In addition, integrated
implementation and evaluation recommendations are presented using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The recommendations, implementation,
and evaluation plans are interlinked and designed to work holistically to reduce or eliminate
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gaps. Finally, this chapter discusses the
limitations of the study and recommendations for future research.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 81
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Two knowledge gaps, one factual and one procedural, were validated during data
collection: manager’s ability to differentiate agile development methods and organizational
agility, and manager’s comprehension of information systems development processes. One
motivation gap, manager’s confidence in their ability to lead information systems development
projects, was also validated during data collection. Additionally, two organizational influences
related to cultural setting were validated during data collection: a lack of leadership or
experience developing information systems using agile development methods, and a lack of IT
training provided to managers. The lack of self-efficacy leading IT development projects is, in
part, related to the lack of knowledge of IT development processes. Though not an identified
assumed influence, and therefore neither validated or invalidated, it is important to consider
whether the organization expects managers to be knowledgeable about IT development process.
The findings indicate managers do not believe the organization expects managers to be
knowledgeable of IT development processes which may contribute to a lack of self-efficacy
leading IT development projects.
Knowledge Recommendations
Three of the four knowledge types identified by Krathwohl (2002) were analyzed in this
study concerning organizational agility and developing information systems including factual,
conceptual, and procedural. One factual and one procedural knowledge gaps were validated and
determined to affect the organizational goal to become agile and responsive by optimizing
effectiveness in achieving its mission. According to Krathwohl (2002), factual knowledge is
basic information serving as building blocks for other knowledge types. Krathwohl (2002)
described procedural knowledge as understanding how an activity is performed or accomplished.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 82
Clark and Estes (2008) proposed four types of support to close knowledge gaps:
information, job aids, training, and education. Providing information to someone is the most
basic type of support to close the knowledge gap and involves telling someone a fact or facts he
or she must know to perform their job. Job aids include checklists, process diagrams, or other
training aids to reinforce procedural knowledge and are more complex than providing
information. Training is a formal process of sharing knowledge and consists of presenting
information combined with learning opportunities to practice skills and receive performance
feedback. Education is the most complex type of support to close knowledge gaps and involves
providing theories and strategies to learners that may be applied in new or more complex
situations.
The goal of the recommendations listed in Table 13 is to close the declarative and
procedural knowledge gaps of managers in the organization. The table lists the assumed
knowledge influences previously identified through the literature review and validated as having
a gap through data collection and analysis. The table identifies the knowledge influence,
knowledge type, principle related to the assumed influence and the recommendation to close the
validated gap.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 83
Table 13. Knowledge Recommendations
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations.
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers need to
differentiate
between agile
development
methods and
organizational
agility.
Declarative
(factual)
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Conduct collaborative
and informal training
sessions to engage
managers to differentiate
organizational agility
and agile development
methods.
Managers need to
be proficient in IT
development
processes
including agile and
waterfall
development
methods.
Procedural To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and know when to
apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide training to
managers to enhance
proficiency of
development process.
Include mock decision-
making exercises as
practice for future IT
development projects.

Factual knowledge. The results of the interview indicate managers conceptually
understand organizational agility and identify factors contributing to organizational agility
consistent with the literature. However, there is a lack of knowledge amongst managers to
recognize agile development methods as a formal IT development process. Though managers
described the development of local-level information systems using agile-related terms, because
managers had not received training, they did not comprehend agile development methods
(Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016).
According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), information can be learned and
remembered more quickly when new information is learned meaningfully and connected with
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 84
prior knowledge. Therefore, to assist managers’ comprehension of agile development methods,
information of agile development methods building on organizational agility concepts will be
shared with managers. To facilitate this information sharing, collaborative and informal training
sessions will be conducted to engage learners to differentiate organizational agility and agile
development methods. Based on Scott and Palinscars’ (2013) principle of sociocultural theory, it
is important for individuals to engage in social interaction and cooperative learning to create new
knowledge. Using this approach should allow managers to effectively learn concepts of agile
development methods because they will be able to relate new knowledge to existing knowledge
of organizational agility.
Procedural knowledge. The results of the interviews revealed a gap in proficiency of IT
development processes. The lack of proficiency suggests managers do not comprehend IT
development processes including procedural differences between agile and waterfall
development methods. These differences include the level of documentation, timeliness of
feedback, incorporating feedback received, testing, evaluation, deployment, and implementation
(Huo et al., 2004). The differences between agile and waterfall development methods and
processes contribute to the quality of an information system and the time to develop the system.
The lack of procedural knowledge will be mitigated through training provided to
managers. The training will include knowledge of development method characteristics and
procedural knowledge of agile and waterfall development methods. The training will
differentiate the two development processes as well as the pros and cons of each development
method. Mock decision-making exercises will be conducted to provide managers the
opportunity to practice their decision-making process for future IT development projects to
reinforce the knowledge provided to managers. The approach comports with research suggesting
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 85
individuals must first acquire new knowledge, practice, and apply the knowledge to successfully
master new knowledge (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivation Recommendations
Two types of motivation influences were evaluated in this study, self-efficacy and utility
value. One gap, self-efficacy, was validated through data collection and analysis while the other
gap, utility value, was not validated. The validated gap related to manager’s self-efficacy
discussing IT concepts. Managers generally felt confident describing their expectations from IT
systems but were not confident defining system requirements, development processes, resources
necessary, or the time to successfully complete IT development projects.
The goal of the recommendation listed in Table 14 is to close the self-efficacy gap of
managers in the organization. The table lists the assumed motivation influence previously
identified through the literature review and validated as having a gap through data collection and
analysis. The table identifies the motivation influence, motivation type, principle related to the
assumed influence and the recommendation to close the validated gap.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 86
Table 14. Motivation Recommendations
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations.
Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Type
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Management needs
to feel efficacious
in their ability to
lead information
systems
development
projects.
Self-efficacy 1. High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares,
2006).
Information technology
subject matter experts
will meet with managers
to discuss IT decision-
making strategy before
meetings concerning IT
decisions. Experts will
provide corrective
feedback and positive
encouragement on
manager’s ability to
make strategic decisions.
Experts will also meet
with managers following
meetings to review
proceedings and provide
additional feedback.

Self-efficacy. The results of the interviews revealed a gap in manager’s self-efficacy
discussing IT concepts. Managers need to believe they are capable of having intelligent
conversations about IT. Additionally, managers need to feel efficacious in their ability to make
informed strategic decisions concerning IT development projects. Increasing the self-efficacy of
managers is critical to their ability to function effectively (Bandura, 2000). Therefore, to
increase the self-efficacy of managers discussing IT concepts, managers should engage in routine
conversations with the organization’s IT experts. Managers should meet with experts before
attending meetings discussing IT development projects or other strategic planning or initiatives
vis-à-vis IT solutions. During these conversations, managers should review with experts
upcoming IT decisions and receive feedback from experts to inform their decision-making
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 87
process. Additionally, managers should engage with experts following meetings to review the
proceedings and solicit feedback.
To increase managers’ self-efficacy discussing IT concepts, managers must have the
appropriate declarative and procedural knowledge (Bulgurcu et al., 2010). According to Clark
and Estes (2008), employees will put effort toward accomplishing tasks when they believe they
will be successful and possess the necessary skills. Additionally, an individual’s self-efficacy
will increase when provided an opportunity to observe peers they find knowledgeable and
credible (Pajares, 2006). Therefore, manager’s performance will improve after receiving
detailed feedback from experts in one-on-one sessions before and after managers attend meetings
discussing IT projects or strategies (Shute, 2008).
Organizational Recommendations
Four organizational influences were evaluated in this study, two cultural model
influences and two cultural setting influences. Two gaps related to cultural setting were
validated through data collection and analysis while the two assumed influences related to
cultural model could not be validated. The two validated gaps related to cultural setting include
a lack of leadership or experience with agile development methods within the organization; and a
lack of IT training or education for managers. The findings indicate the organization lacks
persons leading IT development projects with experience in agile development methods.
Contributing to this influence is the organization does not afford managers training or education
of IT development concepts, processes, or methods. Additionally, the findings indicate the
organization does not expect managers to possess knowledge of IT development concepts,
processes, or methods.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 88
The goal of the recommendations listed in Table 15 is to close the cultural setting gaps in
the organization. The table lists the assumed organizational influences previously identified
through the literature review and validated as having a gap through data collection and analysis.
The table identifies the organizational influence, influence type, principle related to the assumed
influence and the recommendation to close the validated gap.
Table 15. Organizational Recommendations
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations.
Organizational
Influence
Organizational
Type
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Lack of IT project
management training
or education for
management.
Cultural
Setting
Organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders ensure
that employees have
the resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Implement IT training
programs for managers.
Organization should
establish expectation for
managers to possess IT
concepts knowledge.
Lack of
leadership/experience
with agile
development
methods within the
organization.
Cultural
Setting
Create an environment
that fosters desirable
behaviors (Tuckman,
2009).
Provide opportunities
for managers to gain
experience with agile
development methods.
Recruit persons with
experience to serve as
managers.

Cultural setting. The organization should establish the expectation that managers will
comprehend basic IT concepts. The organization must provide managers the necessary resources
to meet this expectation and be successful (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Therefore, the organization should provide educational opportunities for managers to increase
their comprehension of IT concepts. The organization must also prioritize IT concepts training
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 89
and provide managers the requisite time to complete training. These educational opportunities
may include formal or informal training, including information sharing. Additionally, the
organization should seek relationships with external stakeholders to routinely educate or inform
managers to ensure the training and information provided to managers represent prevailing
industry trends and cutting-edge technology.
The organization should recruit persons experienced in agile development methods to
mitigate the lack of leadership or experience with agile development methods. These individuals
can provide the organization the necessary experience in agile development methods for current
and future IT development projects. The organization should consider these recruits for
management positions in the organization to serve as role models. According to Pajares (2006),
credible roles models will assist the organization to establish expectancy and positive values in
other managers. These role models can assist the organization by reinforcing the organization’s
expectations and helping educate colleagues.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan is based on the New World
Kirkpatrick Model. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), there are three reasons to
formally evaluate improvement programs: program improvement, demonstration of value, and
maximizing the conversion of learning into employee behavior changes that facilitate achieving
organizational goals. The New World Kirkpatrick Model consists of four levels of training and
evaluation: (4) Results, (3) Behavior, (2) Learning, and (1) Reaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Level 4 defines results of a program or desired outcomes of an initiative and the degree
to which the objectives are being met. Level 3 defines critical and required behaviors which
must be performed by individuals to achieve the desired results. Critical and required behaviors
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 90
should also be monitored to ensure consistent performance and encouraged to reinforce
continued use of learned behaviors. Level 2 assesses individual’s learning through measuring
knowledge, skills, attitudes, self-efficacy, and commitment toward desired behavior. Level 1
evaluates an individual’s reaction to desired behavior including learner’s engagement and
satisfaction. Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model as a framework for the implementation
and evaluation plan will allow the organization to measure the success of the desired outcomes
while providing opportunities for continuous improvement during the execution of the
implementation and evaluation plan.
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
The purpose of this study was to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting the organization’s ability to become agile and responsive by optimizing
effectiveness in achieving its mission. Through a review of the literature and interviews
conducted with managers in the organization, five assumed influences were determined as areas
for improvement. The identified influences include manager’s knowledge of agile development
methods; manager’s knowledge of IT development processes; manager’s self-efficacy discussing
IT concepts; a lack of IT training provided to managers; and a lack of leadership or experience
using agile development methods within the organization. The proposed solutions to mitigate
these gaps include the successful implementation and execution of training programs for
managers in the organization. The desired outcome of these proposed solutions is to increase the
number of information systems developed using agile development methods to enhance
organizational agility and effectiveness.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 91
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 16 identifies the desired outcome, both internal and external, the metric used to
measure success, and the method for collecting data to evaluate the Level 4 results of the
implementation and execution plan. There are four desired outcomes – three internal outcomes
and one external outcome – that will result from the proposed training. The three internal
outcomes include increasing the number of IT development projects incorporating agile
development principles, increasing manager’s comprehension of IT development methods and
process, and increasing manager’s self-efficacy discussing IT concepts. If the three internal
outcomes are met as expected, this should contribute to the organization reaching their goal to
become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. The external
outcome to improve the relationship between the organization and industry stakeholders will be
used to assess the organization accomplishing its goal.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 92
Table 16. Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes.
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Increase number of IT
development projects
incorporating agile
development principles.
Annual assessment of IT
development projects using
agile development methods.
Annual survey of IT project
managers and developers.
Increase manager’s
proficiency of IT
development methods and
procedures.
Annual assessment of
manager’s comprehension of
IT development methods and
processes.
Following annual IT training,
managers will be assessed to
measure their level of
proficiency.
Increase manager’s self-
efficacy discussing IT
concepts.
Managers self-disclosed level
of efficacy discussing IT
concepts.
Annual discussions with
managers to measure their
self-described level of
efficacy.
External Outcomes
Improve relationship
between organization and
industry stakeholders.
Organizational rating as agile
and responsive to changing
industry needs.
Annual survey of key
industry stakeholders.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are managers in the Division. Critical
behaviors are actions that managers must consistently demonstrate to facilitate Level 4 targeted
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The first critical behavior is managers must be able
to differentiate agile development methods from organizational agility. Though both concepts
relate to the ability to react to changing environments, managers must recognize agile
development methods as a formal IT development process. Managers must use appropriate
terminology when discussing agile in different contexts. The second critical behavior is
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 93
managers must demonstrate proficiency of agile and waterfall development methods and
processes. Understanding these differences should help managers during their decision-making
process of new IT development projects. The metrics, methods, and timing for each outcome
behaviors are listed in Table 17.
Table 17. Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation.
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1) Differentiate
agile
development
methods from
organizational
agility.
Number of key
terms and concepts
identified in the
correct context.
Knowledge and/or
confidence
assessment.
Semi-annually for
first two years, after
that, annually so
long as successful.
2) Demonstrate
proficiency of
agile and
waterfall
development
processes.
Number of IT
projects using agile
or waterfall
development
methods.
Assessment of
selected development
method for current IT
projects.
Semi-annually for
first two years, after
that, annually so
long as successful.

Required Drivers. Required drivers provide an additional level of support and
accountability to ensure implementation of the proposed solutions though reinforcement,
monitoring, and encouragement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Managers do not know IT
development processes, including agile and waterfall development methods. Additionally,
managers do not have the motivation and organizational support to increase their knowledge on
their own. The identified required drivers will provide support to managers and reinforce
knowledge gained during training and encourage them to apply those lessons learned. Multiple
required drivers will be used to support managers including job aids, monthly check-ins and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 94
coaching by IT experts in the organization with managers, and individual performance
incentives. Table 18 identifies the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of
managers and the timing of each driver.
Table 18. Required Drivers
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors.
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Lunch and Learn training session to review and discuss IT
concepts
Monthly 1, 2
Job Aids defining IT development process focusing on agile
and waterfall development methods.
Ongoing 2
Encouraging
Weekly meetings with managers to review upcoming IT
decisions
Weekly 2
Feedback and coaching from IT experts Ongoing 1, 2
Rewarding
Individual performance incentives in the form of public
recognition or financial bonus.
Annually 1, 2
Team performance incentives in the form of public
recognition or financial bonus.
Annually 1, 2

Organizational support. The organization must provide managers the necessary
resources and support to increase the chance of success. First, the organization should establish
the expectation that managers be knowledgeable in the IT development process and various
development methods. This expectation must be established at the highest level of leadership in
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 95
the organization and expected of all managers in the organization. Second, the organization must
provide training for managers and prioritize managers’ time to ensure accessibility to available
training. Without prioritizing IT training for managers, it is likely managers may not complete
training or may not realize the full value of the training provided. Third, the organization must
ensure managers are provided support by IT experts to mentor and coach managers and aid in the
IT decision-making process.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Managers must possess specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
support the performance of Level 3 critical behaviors listed in Table 18. Following
implementation of the recommended solutions, managers will be able to:
1. Differentiate organizational agility from agile development methods. (Declarative)
2. Articulate characteristics of agile and waterfall development methods. (Declarative)
3. Demonstrate proficiency of IT development processes. (Procedural)
4. Articulate confidence in their ability to make decisions about IT development
projects. (Self-efficacy)
5. Articulate confidence leading IT development projects. (Self-efficacy)
Program. The identified learning goals will increase the knowledge and motivation of
managers and will be achieved through training and information sharing. To develop managers’
knowledge and skills, they will be provided with training, information, job aids, and coaching
sessions with IT experts. Since managers typically stay in their position for several years, and
new managers are hired as necessary, the program will be ongoing. Managers will experience
annual training through multiple modalities. Each year, managers will participate in
asynchronous training providing information of key concepts and definitions of key terms.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 96
Additionally, managers will receive in-person training conducted during annual face-to-face
meetings. The in-person training will also provide tabletop exercises to evaluate the knowledge
and skills learned by managers. Following in-person training, managers will receive feedback
and be provided encouragement from IT experts who serve as coaches and advisors to managers.
Components of learning. According to the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016), there
are five components of learning: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
These components complement the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework (2008). Managers
must demonstrate knowledge to perform tasks and must also demonstrate procedural knowledge
to complete the task. Managers must also find value in performing the task and feel confident in
their ability to successfully complete the task. Table 19 identifies the recommended evaluation
method and time for each component of learning.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 97
Table 19. Level 2: Learning
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussion during tabletop
exercises.
During in-person training
Use of multiple choice questions during asynchronous training. After training event
Procedural Knowledge “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrate proficiency of IT development processes. During in-person training
Use of multiple choice questions during asynchronous training. After training event
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor and mentor observations. During in-person training
Pre- and post-training assessments During and after
asynchronous and in-
person training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions during tabletop exercises. During in-person training
Discussions with IT experts Monthly
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Individually developed action plan. During in-person training

Level 1: Reaction
Measuring the reaction of managers to training is important. Assessing the reaction of
managers is necessary to determine if they are engaged during training, perceive the training
valuable, and consider the training relevant to their job. According to Kirkpatrick and
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 98
Kirkpatrick (2016), reactions can be measured through the observations of the leader, dedicated
observer, or surveys. Table 20 identifies the methods used to determine reactions by managers
and their level of engagement during training.
Table 20. Level 1: Reaction
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of asynchronous training modules measured
through platform analytics.
Ongoing
In-person instructor observations. After training event
In-person training evaluation. After training event
Observations from IT experts. After monthly discussions
Relevance
Asynchronous training evaluation. After training event
In-person training evaluation. After training event
Observations from IT experts. After monthly discussions
Customer Satisfaction
Asynchronous training evaluation After training event
In-person training evaluation. After training event

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following program implementation. Following asynchronous and in-
person training events, participants will complete a survey (see Appendix B). The survey will
indicate the participant’s satisfaction, commitment, attitude, the degree to which the participant
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 99
valued the training, and the participant’s level of confidence applying what was learned.
Additionally, a dedicated observer will complete a checklist following in-person training (see
Appendix C). The observer will indicate observations of participant’s attitude and engagement
during training. Finally, IT experts will complete a checklist following monthly discussions with
managers (see Appendix D). The IT expert will indicate the manager’s level of satisfaction,
commitment, attitude, and mastery of what has been learned.
Delayed for a period after program implementation. The organization will administer
a survey approximately 90 days after each learning event. The survey will contain a combination
of nominal, interval, and ratio questions to assess: the manager’s satisfaction and relevance of
training for managers to make informed decisions about IT development projects (Level 1);
knowledge, skills, confidence, attitude, commitment and value of applying training (Level 2);
applicability of learning event to manager’s ability to make decisions vis-à-vis IT development
projects (Level 3); and the extent to which they are able to make informed decisions of IT
development projects on a consistent basis (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of this implementation plan is to provide managers in the organization
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to effectively lead and manage IT
development projects. Multiple metrics of IT development projects will be used to measure the
effectiveness of program including the number of current IT development projects, the number
of future IT development projects, the preferred and chosen development method used for each
project, the number of human resources used to complete the project, the time to complete the
project, and the end-user satisfaction post-implementation of the project.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 100
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis model along with the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model provided a comprehensive method for
identifying, organizing and validating influence gaps as well as implementing and evaluating
recommendations to mitigate the validated gaps. However, the structure of the Gap Analysis
model proved difficult to organize influences when the assumed influence related to a
combination of knowledge, motivation, or organizational influence. Furthermore, the Gap
Analysis model did not easily allow for influences external to either knowledge, motivation, or
organizational influence.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations of this study, many of which were apparent at the outset of
the project while others developed over two years during which this study was in progress.
Limitations of this study known to the researcher include:
• Self-selection due to voluntary participation in the study may have resulted in
participation bias;
• The truthfulness of respondents when providing interview answers;
• The study only included members of one Department within the Division and may
lack generalizability beyond the Department;
• The study was conducted in a short amount of time with limited resources
preventing a larger sample size;
• Many, if not all, participants in the study lack formal education in IT given the
type of work performed by Department members;
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 101
• The Department may lack diversity of the management population given the
technical nature of the work performed in the Department.
The stakeholder group for this study, managers in a Department within a Division, were
randomly selected based on interest expressed during the pre-selection recruitment phase of this
study. However, this study may be affected by participation bias as a result of the voluntary
participation and self-selection of participants. The study focused on managers who do not serve
the organization as a manager in an information technology role. It was assumed managers had
limited IT experience and little formal IT education. While this was confirmed during the study,
what was not accounted for was the reliance on managers to consult with IT experts internal to
the organization. This reliance on experts to advise managers during their IT decision-making
process may contribute to managers’ comprehension of IT concepts. Furthermore, this study did
not seek to identify the availability of IT experts, the level of reliance managers have for experts
to provide counsel, and the amount of influence IT experts have concerning IT decisions in the
organization. In general, participants seemed truthful and transparent providing insight into their
level of knowledge and motivation as well as organizational influences. However, several
managers could not speak with great confidence about some organizational influences as they
were not included in decisions previously made by the organization. Additional participants in
senior manager or executive roles may have provided a deeper history of organizational
decisions contributing to validating or invalidating organizational influences. Finally, the
researcher must acknowledge their participation in the study as an instrument of data collection
and analysis.
Delimitations, boundaries established by the researcher for this study, may have also
affected this study and include:
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 102
• Study participants only included managers and did not include persons with IT
experience who advise and counsel managers;
• Though study participants were managers, they may not influence the decision-
making process for the organization’s information system development projects.
Future Research
This study evaluated nine assumed influence contributing to the organization’s goal to
become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. Twelve
managers in the organization, representing less than ten percent of the organization’s
management population, were interviewed during this study to identify knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences affecting the organization accomplishing its goal. Interviews with
additional managers in the organization should be conducted to verify the validity of assumed
influences identified in this study. Additionally, this study did not interview IT experts in the
organization to who may counsel managers and influence their decision-making process
regarding IT solutions. Future research should identify potential relationships between IT
experts and managers and determine the level of influence experts have on managers when
making IT-related decisions. This research study was also confined to one organization within
the FAA, which impacts the generalizability of the findings beyond the organization. Expanding
the scope of this research to include additional organizations within the FAA may confirm the
validity of identified influences or validate additional influences. Incorporating other
organizations within the FAA would also be beneficial in determining whether the validated
influences are isolated to one organization in the FAA or are generalizable to other organizations
within the FAA.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 103
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine one organization in the Federal Aviation
Administration and evaluate influences affecting the organization’s goal to become agile and
responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission. Using the Clark and Estes
(2008) Gap Analysis framework, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were
studied and evaluated through a review of literature and interviews with organizational
stakeholders. Based on the findings identified through data collection and analysis,
recommendations were proposed to close knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps
affecting the organization’s ability to accomplish its goal. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) New World Model was used to construct an implementation and evaluation plan to
incorporate the proposed recommendations successfully.
The key takeaway from this research is managers in non-IT roles lack knowledge of
information system development processes. This lack of knowledge fosters confusion between
organizational agility and agile development methods. Though managers demonstrated
comprehension of organizational agility concepts, including factors contributing to
organizational agility, they failed to recognize agile development methods as a formal
development process. Though managers expressed value in information systems possessing
attributes similar to the characteristics of organizational agility, managers did not possess
knowledge of agile development methods. Managers desire information systems capable of
keeping pace with changing environments but are unable to identify necessary resources and
processes to accomplish agility in the development of information systems without knowledge of
agile development methods. Managers also did not express confidence in their ability to discuss
information technology concepts. Though managers generally felt confident describing desired
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 104
outcomes from information technology solutions, they were unable to identify technological
resources and processes necessary to accomplish their desired outcome. Contributing to the lack
of knowledge and lack of self-efficacy expressed by managers is a lack of organizational
support. Managers indicate the organization does not provide information technology training to
managers, nor does the organization appear to expect managers to be competent in information
technology concepts.
Considering the value of quality information systems, that the organization has a history
of developing information systems to accomplish its mission, and that managers are often
involved in the decision-making process for information system development projects, it is
prudent that managers be knowledgeable about information technology development concepts,
terminology, and processes. Instead, managers expressed their reliance on subject matter experts
in the organization to counsel and inform their decision-making process of information
technology decisions. This reliance on subject matter experts may be risky if experts are
unavailable to organizational leaders or are not trusted by leaders to provide sage advice.
Successfully implementing the recommendations discussed in this study is but one facet
contributing to the accomplishment of the organization’s goal. Failure to incorporate the
recommendations discussed in this study may lead to the inability to close validated knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps and may also hinder the organization’s ability to achieve its
goal to become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its mission.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 105
References
Accenture. (2015). Bridging the technology gap in financial services boardroom. New York,
New York: Accenture.
Ahmed, A., Ahmad, S., Ehsan, N., Mirza, E., & Sarwar, S. Z. (2010). Agile software
development: Impact on productivity and quality. Paper presented at the 287-291.
Almahamid, S. M. (2013). E-government system acceptance and organizational agility:
Theoretical framework and research agendas. International Journal of Information,
Business and Management, 5(1), 4.
American Council for Technology. (2013). Planning for success: Agile software development in
federal agencies. Fairfax, VA: Author.
Appelbaum, S. H., Calla, R., Desautels, D., & Hasan, L. (2017). The challenges of organizational
agility (part 1). Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(1), 6-14.
Awad, M. A. (2005). A comparison between agile and traditional software development
methodologies. University of Western Australia.
Babar, M. A., Brown, A. W., & Mistrík, I. (2013). Agile software architecture: Aligning agile
processes and software architectures. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.
Balaji, S., & Murugaiyan, M. S. (2012). Waterfall vs. V-Model vs. Agile: A comparative study
on SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management,
2(1), 26-30.
Balter, B. J. (2011). Toward a more agile government: The case for rebooting federal IT
procurement. Pub. Cont. LJ, 41, 149.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 106
Bastian, Z. (2012). Too big to succeed: The need for federal IT reform. Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... &
Kern, J. (2001). The agile manifesto.
Benington, H. D. (1983). Production of large computer programs. Annals of the History of
Computing, 5(4), 350-361.
Bishop, C. (2013). Modular software development – the federal government challenge. ICF
International.
Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on
budget, and on value. Harvard Business Review.
Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5),
61-72.
Boehm, B. (2000). Requirements that handle IKIWISI, COTS, and rapid change. Computer,
33(7), 99-102.
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in
traditional development organizations. IEEE software, 22(5), 30-39.
Breu, K., Hemingway, S.J., Strathern, M., Bridger, D., 2002. Workforce agility: the new
employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology 17
(1), 21–31.
Byrd, T. A., & Turner, D. E. (2000). Measuring the flexibility of information technology
infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 17(1), 167-208.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 107
Chan, F. K., & Thong, J. Y. (2009). Acceptance of agile methodologies: A critical review and
conceptual framework. Decision support systems, 46(4), 803-814.
Charette, R. N. (2005). Why software fail. IEEE Spectrum, 16(5).
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions.
Cline, A. (2015). Agile development in the real world. Apress.
Cohn, M., & Ford, D. (2003). Introducing an agile process to an organization [software
development]. Computer, 36(6), 74-78.
Conboy, K., & Fitzgerald, B. (2004, November). Toward a conceptual framework of agile
methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM
workshop on Interdisciplinary software engineering research (pp. 37-44). ACM.
Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P., & Fifer, A. M. (2007). Cognitive links between fear of failure and
perfectionism. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25(4), 237-
253.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Crocitto, M., & Youssef, M. (2003). The human side of organizational agility. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 103(6), 388-397.
Cusumano, M. A., & Smith, S. A. (1995). Beyond the waterfall: Software development at
Microsoft.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 108
Datta, S. (2006, March). Agility measurement index: a metric for the crossroads of software
development methodologies. In Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional
conference (pp. 271-273).
Dove, R. (1994). The meaning of life and the meaning of agile. Production Magazine.
Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and
organizational agility with people.
Early Adopter. (2015). In J. Mcray (Ed.), Leadership glossary: Essential terms for the 21st
century. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Bell Media.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Efstathiades, A., Tassou, S., & Antoniou, A. (2002). Strategic planning, transfer and
implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT). Development of an
integrated process plan. Technovation, 22(4), 201-212.
Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Destination 2025. Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/Destination2025.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). The economic impact of civil aviation on the U.S.
economy. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/2014-
economic-impact-report.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). Performance measure profiles (portfolio of goals).
Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/performance_profiles/
Federal Aviation Administration. (2015). Safety: The foundation of everything we do. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/about/safety_efficiency/
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 109
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28-35.
Gandomani, T. J., Zulzalil, H., Ghani, A. A. A., Sultan, A. B. M., & Nafchi, M. Z. (2013).
Obstacles in moving to agile software development methods; at a glance. Journal of
Computer Science, 9(5), 620.
General Rulemaking Procedures, 14 C.F.R. pt. 1 (2016). §11.39.
Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., & Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational agility. Journal of
Applied Business Research, 31(2), 675-686.
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems (Vol. 13). Addison-Wesley
Professional.
Highsmith, J. (2003). Agile project management: Principles and tools. Cutter consortium, 4, 1-
37.
Huo, M., Verner, J., Zhu, L., & Babar, M. A. (2004, September). Software quality and agile
methods. In Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2004. COMPSAC 2004.
Proceedings of the 28th Annual International (pp. 520-525). IEEE.
Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2011). The relationship between organizational culture and the
deployment of agile methods. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 509-520.
Ji, F., & Sedano, T. (2011). Comparing extreme programming and waterfall project results.
Paper presented at the 482-486.
Kautz, K., Pedersen, C. F., & Monrad, O. (2009). Cultures of agility—Agile software
development in practice. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on
information, Melbourne, Australia.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 110
Keen, P. G. (1991). Shaping the future: business design through information technology.
Harvard Business School Press.
Khalifa, M., & Verner, J. (2000). Drivers for software development method usage. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(3), 360-369.
Kidd, P. T. (1995). Agile manufacturing: forging new frontiers. Addison-Wesley Longman
Publishing Co., Inc.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kundra, V. (2010). 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology
Management. Executive Office of the President Washington DC/Office of Management
and Budget Office of E-Government and Information Technology.
Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental development: A brief
history. Computer, 36(6), 47.
Lederer, A. L., & Mendelow, A. L. (1986). Issues in information systems planning. Information
& Management, 10(5), 245-254.
Lederer, A. L., & Mendelow, A. L. (1988). Convincing top management of the strategic potential
of information systems. MIS quarterly, 525-534.
Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems
research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly,
30(2), 357-399.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 111
Lind, M. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1991). The influence of a convergence in understanding between
technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness. Organization
Science, 2(2), 195-217.
Lindvall, M., Muthig, D., Dagnino, A., Wallin, C., Stupperich, M., Kiefer, D., Kahkonen, T.
(2004). Agile software development in large organizations. Computer, 37(12), 26-34.
Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology
capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. Mis Quarterly, 931-954.
Luftman, J., & Ben-Zvi, T. (2009). Key issues for IT executives 2009: Difficult economy’s
impact on IT.
MacCormack, A. (2001). Product-development practices that work: How Internet companies
build software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 75.
Marchand, D. & Peppard, J. (2015). Firms need a blueprint for building their IT systems.
Harvard Business Review.
Mahadevan, L., Kettinger, W.J., & Messervy, T.O. (2015). Running on hybrid: Control changes
when introducing an agile methodology in a traditional “waterfall” system development
environment. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36,1.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's not,
and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2005). The shame of failure: Examining the link between fear
of failure and shame. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 218-231.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 112
Melarkode, A., From-Poulsen, M., & Warnakulasuriya, S. (2004). Delivering agility through
IT. Business Strategy Review, 15(3), 45-50.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and
organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS
quarterly, 28(2), 283-322.
Meritalk. (2015). The agile advantage: Can devops move cloud to the fast lane? Alexandria, VA:
Author.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Meso, P., & Jain, R. (2006). Agile software development: adaptive systems principles and best
practices. Information systems management, 23(3), 19-30.
Misra, S. C., Kumar, U., Kumar, V., & Grant, G. (2006, December). The organizational changes
required and the challenges involved in adopting agile methodologies in traditional
software development organizations. In Digital Information Management, 2006 1st
International Conference on (pp. 25-28). IEEE.
Moyo, D. (2016). Does your board need a tech expert? Harvard Business Review.
Najrani, M. (2016). The endless opportunity of organizational agility. Strategic Direction, 32(3),
37-38.
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile
methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72-78.
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Enterprise agility and the enabling role
of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 120-131.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 113
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 2,
697-698.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peppard, J. (2015). Executives get the IT they deserve. Harvard Business Review.
Petersen, K., Wohlin, C., & Baca, D. (2009, June). The waterfall model in large-scale
development. In International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process
Improvement (pp. 386-400). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Pikkarainen, M., Salo, O., Kuusela, R., & Abrahamsson, P. (2012). Strengths and barriers behind
the successful agile deployment—insights from the three software intensive companies in
Finland. Empirical software engineering, 17(6), 675-702.
Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2006, February). Measuring agility and adoptability of
agile methods: a 4-dimensional analytical tool. In IADIS International Conference
Applied Computing (pp. 503-507).
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review,
94(5), 40-50.
Roberts, N., & Grover, V. (2012). Leveraging information technology infrastructure to facilitate
a firm's customer agility and competitive activity: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 28(4), 231-270.
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research. John Wiley & Sons.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 114
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ruparelia, N. (2010). Software development lifecycle models. ACM SIGSOFT Software
Engineering Notes, 35(3), 8-13.
Sagar, S. S., & Stoeber, J. (2009). Perfectionism, fear of failure, and affective responses to
success and failure: The central role of fear of experiencing shame and
embarrassment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(5), 602-627.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership (1st ed., Jossey-Bass management
series). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts,
frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5).
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189.
Stoica, M., Mircea, M., & Ghilic-Micu, B. (2013). Software development: Agile vs. traditional.
Informatica Economica, 17(4/2013), 64-76.
Strode, D. E., Huff, S. L., & Tretiakov, A. (2009, January). The impact of organizational culture
on agile method use. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International
Conference on (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
Szalvay, V. (2004). An introduction to agile software development. Danube technologies, 1-9.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 115
The Standish Group International, Inc. (2013). Think big, act small. Boston, MA: The Standish
Group International, Inc.
Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic
information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation
model. Mis Quarterly, 463-486.
Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 18 (4), 235-241.
Thomke, S., & Reinertsen, D. (1998). Agile product development: Managing development
flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review, 41(1), 8-30.
Tseng, Y. H., & Lin, C. T. (2011). Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying agile drivers,
capabilities and providers. Information Sciences, 181(17), 3693-3708.
Tsourveloudis, N. C., & Valavanis, K. P. (2002). On the measurement of enterprise
agility. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 33(3), 329-342.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2008). OMB and agencies need to improve planning,
management, and oversight of projects totaling billions of dollars. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2012). Effective practices and federal challenges in applying
agile methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2012). Agencies need to establish and implement incremental
development policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
West, D., Grant, T., Gerush, M., & D’silva, D. (2010). Agile development: Mainstream adoption
has changed agility. Forrester Research, 2(1), 41.
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 116
Weyrauch, K. (2006, July). What are we arguing about? A framework for defining agile in our
organization. In Agile Conference, 2006 (pp. 8). IEEE.
Wong, S. P., & Whitman, L. (1999). Attaining agility at the enterprise level. In Proceedings of
The 4th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications
and Practice, San Antonio, TX.
Worley, C. G., Williams, T., & Lawler, E. (2014). The agility factor: Building adaptable
organizations for superior performance (First ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a
Wiley brand.
Yang, H., Huff, S., & Strode, D. (2009). Leadership in software development: Comparing
perceptions of agile and traditional project managers.
Zain, M., Rose, R. C., Abdullah, I., & Masrom, M. (2005). The relationship between information
technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia. Information &
Management, 42(6), 829-839.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 117
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
(approximately 60-90 minutes per interview)

Demographic Information:
Management Level: Front-line Supervisor, Middle-Level Manager, Senior Manager/Executive
Management Experience: 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 10 or more years
Primary Management Field: Engineering, Analyst, Administrative, Other (Please describe)
Previously or Currently Manage Information System Project(s): Yes, No
Indicate number of employees you manage (directly or indirectly) whose primary work
involves developing or maintaining information technology systems: Number

Knowledge Influences
Declarative (Factual)
1. When leaders suggest the organization is increasing organizational agility, do you
think they assume the organization's information systems are developed using
agile development methods?
a. Why do you think leaders make this assumption?
2. How do you define organizational agility?

Declarative (Conceptual)
3. What characteristics of information system development are most important to the
success of the system?
(e.g. defining features and functions, user feedback, thorough testing, complete
documentation, incremental development, or the time to complete the project)
4. Describe the effect, if any, the organization’s information systems and the
processed used to develop the system have on organizational agility.

Procedural
5. How comfortable are you discussing information systems development concepts
such as agile and waterfall development methods?
a. What contributes to your level of comfort?
6. Describe the process the organization uses to develop information systems.

Motivation
Utility Value
7. What effect, if any, does an organization’s information systems have on
accomplishing organizational goals?
8. What effect, if any, does the process used to develop an organization’s
information systems have on accomplishing organizational goals?

Self-Efficacy
9. How important is it for you to have personal knowledge of information system
development projects?
ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 118
10. Describe your decision-making process for approving or denying new information
systems projects.

Organization
Cultural Model Influences
11. Do you believe the organization continues developing failing or poor performing
information system projects?
a. Why do you think the organization continues developing failing or poor
performing information systems?
12. What do you think helps or hinders the organization develop better quality
information systems quickly?

Cultural Setting Influences
13. How do you think organizational leadership influence the development of
information systems?
14. What training, if any, does the organization afford managers of information
systems?

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 119
APPENDIX B
For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Disagree Neutral Agree
1. The training held my interest. 1 2 3 4 5
2. 2. I found value in the training I
received.
1 2 3 4 5
3. The training clearly related
the information to my job.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Discussions during training
helped me understand how to
apply what I learned.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I will recommend this
program to other managers.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I believe it is important for me
to incorporate what I’ve learned
in my job.
1 2 3 4 5
7. The feedback I received has
increased my confidence to apply
what I’ve learned in my job.
1 2 3 4 5

Please provide feedback for the following questions:
1. What part of training was most beneficial for you?
2. What part of training was least beneficial for you?
3. What were the major concepts you learned today?

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 120
APPENDIX C
This checklist will be completed by observers following in-person training.

Rating Scale
1 = Effective Use of targeted behavior
2 = Moderately effective use of targeted behavior
3 = Ineffective use of targeted behavior

Feedback comments may include specific observations that will support the rating, as well as
feedback to help managers be more effective when making decisions related to the
organization’s information technology needs.

Target Behavior Rating Feedback Comments
Instructor connected with students
by listening and validating student
feedback.

Instructor asked open-ended
questions and encouraged discussion
with students.

Instructor clarified knowledge with
follow-up questions after receiving
student feedback.

Instructor recommended appropriate
knowledge and resources based on
student feedback.

Instructor worked collaboratively
with students to engage students and
enhance learning environment.

Instructor satisfactorily answered
students’ questions.

ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY AND AGILE DEVELOPMENT 121
APPENDIX D
For each of the questions below, circle the response that best characterized how you feel about
the statement.

Disagree Neutral Agree
1. I have the opportunity to use
what I learned in my job.
1 2 3 4 5
3. 2. I believe the training was a
good use of my time.
1 2 3 4 5
3. After training, I have
successfully applied what I
learned on the job.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I have received support from
my supervisor to apply what I
have learned on the job.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I am seeing positive results
from the training.
1 2 3 4 5

Please provide feedback for the following questions:
1. Describe any challenges you are facing implementing what you learned.
2. Describe possible solutions to overcome the challenges you described.
3. How could this training program be improved?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

Prior learning assessment portfolios: an evaluation study

PDF

Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing qualified workers to support individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in home and community settings: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Deer, Michael (author)

Core Title Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/06/2018

Defense Date 03/12/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag agile development,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational agility,software development methods,waterfall development

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Pearson, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email deer@usc.edu,Drmichaeldeer@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-941

Unique identifier UC11671846

Identifier etd-DeerMichae-6159.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-941 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DeerMichae-6159.pdf

Dmrecord 941

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Deer, Michael

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 a...

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