Agile Research in the Corporate Environment - Have you tried it?

Recently, my team has started to explore deep and complex questions in an agile fashion. What I mean by this is:

  1. Short, focused 'sprints'. Two weeks each, in this case.
  2. Iterative deliverables that build value, one at a time.
  3. A continual effort to re-focus based on the findings and feedback from each iteration.
Credit: Teigane Mackay

Credit: Teigane Mackay

Here's what I have noticed so far:

  1. It doesn't feel safe for everyone at first. It can be nerve wracking to communicate findings that might change at a later date, when the model is more complete or refined.
  2. Stakeholders can be unsure on how to respond to iterative outcomes. "So... I'll invest in x?", "No, not yet, but maybe...just wait". It's slightly awkward, but that is short-lived, as a true sense of collaboration builds.
  3. It provides a great opportunity to include stakeholders and Subject Matter Experts in guiding the research agenda. I can see a 'peer review' type of tone building, which is a refreshing difference from the 'you did WHAT? You probably forgot x and y' reaction that can ensue when dealing with other areas of expertise.
  4. Communication is hard (as usual). Findings that are incomplete, but significant, with caveats, that are complicated, are annoying as hell to fit on a one page infographic.
  5. When you get the comms right, the impact is invigorating and rewarding.
  6. The sense of joint learning feels like it will influence the ultimate ability of stakeholders to make good decisions with the research findings. They are unlikely, I think, to simply take the headline finding; the intricacies, dependencies and secondary findings might all be taken into proper account.
  7. Team members seem to really value the external reassurance that we are doing something worthwhile. Over a six month research project analysts can start to question the validity of their research, their own connection to the problem, and whether value will ever be added by delivering their findings. Those are all valid concerns. But continued re-alignment to the original intent and steering from the new findings helps to ensure both value and commitment to the cause.
  8. The risk of introspective fluffy, non-relevant research is being minimised, which means the risk of waste is also lowered. And what a risk it is: Research takes time and effort beyond your standard piece of analytics. The propensity for waste is high.

What I'm cautious of:

  1. Cross-functional collaboration and ongoing feedback could influence the direction of the research to areas that are not relevant to the original intent. Thankfully, strong sponsorship and established roles and responsibilities can help mitigate that risk.
  2. What if we just keep iterating and never draw a conclusion / stop to the research, thus missing the chance to deliver 'one model' and the communication / influencing opportunities that would help with?
  3. Over-reaching, too early. As findings are iterative and may not hold true in later iterations, it would be very unfortunate and costly for actions to be taken too soon. Balancing that risk with the need to communicate what actually has been observed is tricky.

So far, agile research feels effective, more purposeful and more valid. It also feels somewhat unsafe and a little foreign to the corporate context, where it can sometimes be easier to hide behind a deliverable that has been signed-off and wrapped in a bow. You are baring your methodology and its limitations for all to see. We'll see how all that comes out in the wash.

I'm curious to hear if others have tried this method of research and have their own view on benefits, risks or mitigants?

Andrew Smith