# Playing to Win & Agile  ## Metadata - Author: [[Roger Martin]] - Full Title: Playing to Win & Agile - Category: #articles - Summary: The article discusses the integration of Agile principles with strategic planning in the context of software development and project management. It emphasizes the importance of combining Agile methodology with strategic thinking to create distinctive advantages and economic viability. The author suggests that a mix of Agile and strategic planning yields the best outcomes. - URL: https://rogermartin.medium.com/playing-to-win-agile-49b5cb2784a4 ## Highlights - [The Agile Manifesto](https://www.agilealliance.org/agile101/the-agile-manifesto/) in 2001. The Manifesto espouses four values: *1)* *Individuals and interactions* > processes and tools *2)* *Working software* > comprehensive documentation *3)* *Customer collaboration* > contract negotiation *4)* *Responding to change* > following a plan ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxcjdkn0cj1dfpy4jz4x0j5x)) - The Agile founders saw waterfall as an unhelpfully linear, inflexible, and internally centered way to develop software, and in response developed an iterative, flexible and user centered alternative. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxcjdy0tet2pctppy5zapn0q)) - They focus on software development’s analog, which is strategic plan development. Their criticism is consistent with my criticism of most strategic planning as too linear, too process focused, too internally oriented, and too impervious to adjustments as learning occurs along the way. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxcjerb2fv6a3h1sk2vb2x2k)) - The Agile aficionados who see Scrum/Agile as a broadly applicable project management tool can wander into the territory of viewing Agile as a de facto strategy development process. That is, great strategy will emerge naturally if you simply listen to customers, expose them frequently to iterations of the offering, adjust repeatedly to take account of new learning from the client, and work in well-functioning, face-to-face teams. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf8zyph8mjpecct9vk14fwk)) - That is where I part company, as I also do with many of the Design Thinking folks. No amount of listening to customers, short cycle iteration, self-organization/emergence, face-to-face working teams, and reflectiveness is, on its own, going to produce a robust strategy. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf90ydgmr233jvst5x2x3rw)) - All those features are positive contributors to a better rather than worse strategy. But strategy requires understanding of the economic viability of your choice and the sustainability of advantage relative to current and potential competitors. I have seen far too many of both user-centered Design Thinking processes and Agile processes that have no concept of economic viability or sustainability relative to competitors, despite producing products/services or software that users like. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf8trgkeyk9pdjqfn73t9ha)) - The fundamental strategy limitation of Agile is that the opposites of its basic premises are stupid on their face. (And the same holds as well for Design Thinking.) The core rule of strategy is that if [the opposite of your choice is stupid on its face](https://medium.com/@roger_78069/is-the-opposite-of-your-choice-stupid-on-its-face-5b247ffd7f94), it isn’t a strategic choice. Not listening to customers is stupid on its face. Not changing when change is required is stupid in its face. If the opposite is stupid on its face, in due course everyone will do the smart thing. Reputedly, 90% of the Fortune 500 uses an SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. It has come to the point whereby not having an ERP system is stupid on its face. Having one is not a competitive advantage — since 90% of your competitors are likely to have one. It is just dumb not to do it. That is the trouble with winning. When a choice becomes obvious and it is doable for everyone, everyone does it. In contrast, strategy is the act of making choices whereby the opposite is not stupid on its face. That is what can lead to distinctive advantage. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxcpa3599z5jmrq85fykebcc))