Research surveys confirm that software developers using Agile find that it improves their ability to manage changing priorities, increases team productivity and promotes closer working relationships with their clients. What lawyer would not want to achieve the same?I have had some interesting discussions with some teams in law firms about using Agile. Upon reflection, I think a problem with Agile lies in the word itself. Often, and this is not confined to lawyers, people seem to interpret the word Agile as a licence to seek solutions quickly but haphazardly: ‘so, yeah – we’re Agile’. Sometimes things work out OK (largely by applying brute force such as working throughout the night and / or putting more people on the job) and sometimes they work out less well. The reality is that that no method is being followed.
Agile is a methodology. As such it has some core principles and practices. I have not got space to discuss these in any detail here but take as an example, Sprint Reviews and Sprint Retrospectives. Sprints are defined blocks of time (say 2 – 6 weeks) during which the delivery team must complete a set amount of work. Sprint Reviews allow delivery teams, and the client, to review progress (the client is walked through the work done so far). Sprint Retrospectives allow the team to assess how well team members have worked together and consider what action to take to try and improve team-working further.
When I have explained the above to lawyers, some have explained they already do project reviews. From there is but a short step for them to claim that they must, therefore, be ‘doing Agile’ or being ‘Agile-like’ in the way they work. Further questioning however usually reveals that the reviews are neither regular nor consistent. This is not a methodology – Agile or otherwise – that I recognise!
Lawyers are not alone in finding Agile methods more difficult to grasp and implement than might be expected. Agile has a combination of discipline and lightness of form which can be challenging. For example the Retrospective and Review meetings must be held at the end of every sprint if they are to be truly useful, but the meetings themselves can be very informal and lightly documented. This lightness of form is deceptive. It can lead people to believe they can skip things without loss. This is a misconception. Skip the core practices of Agile and its benefits will never be realised fully. Agile can be adapted, but adaptation can be taken only so far for whatever is left to be still recognisable as the Agile methodology.
Often a considerable amount of time and effort is needed to transition software development teams from ‘Waterfall’ to ‘Agile’ methods. The transition process will include training and coaching. It will also include learning by the delivery team about what works best in their particular environment. We should expect the same for lawyers.
Associated Blogs:
A Week of Agile LPM - Introduction
Day 1 - Reed Smith’s Commitment to Providing Agile Training and Certification
Day 2 - Baker Donelson, Improving matter profitability with Agile techniques
Day 3 - Seyfarth Shaw, Agile - it’s no magic bullet!