What Defines Success in Agile Transformation?

Author's note: Recent discussions in my live‑stream community raised the question “Is there a success standard for agile transformation?” Some say there is none; others claim success is visible through continuous improvement. I will address this topic.

To answer comprehensively, we need to cover three aspects:

What significance does a success standard for agile transformation have for enterprises and individuals?

How should we discuss whether another organization’s agile transformation is successful to gain useful insights?

Is becoming an agile organization truly a good objective?

First, agile organizations have observable characteristics even though a universal success definition is lacking.

Conceptually, an agile organization exhibits the following traits:

Openness: A relatively relaxed environment where opinions are freely expressed, communication is candid, and reasonable suggestions are adopted.

Transparency: Information flows smoothly, rules are clear and applied equally, and goals, results, and performance are visible across all levels.

Self‑management: Employees participate actively in team and company governance, with few hierarchical layers and minimal traditional management authority.

Self‑motivation: Team members proactively seek solutions, take responsibility, and demonstrate strong goal orientation, supported by appropriate empowerment and assistance.

Continuous improvement: Visible changes occur every 1‑2 months, indicating that improvements are implemented and produce results, unlike superficial retrospectives.

If an organization clearly displays these attributes, it can be regarded as an agile organization; partial or flawed presence of these traits does not qualify.

Defining success of agile transformation is difficult because “success” itself is subjective.

Success varies widely: some equate it with personal milestones (e.g., becoming a CEO), others with job security, health, or achieving a modest but stable life. Likewise, agile transformation success depends on the organization’s own goals.

Examples of differing goals:

Some adopt Scrum merely to boost efficiency without seeking openness or transparency; for them, a functional Scrum process equals success.

Others aim to eliminate legacy burdens, requiring structural and talent changes beyond agile practices.

When evaluating another organization’s transformation, the discussion often devolves into “you used agile practices, so you must become an agile organization,” leading to criticism about lack of empowerment or self‑management. This approach is unproductive.

To make the discussion meaningful, take two steps:

First, remove the “tool‑expert” who dictates how agile should look.

Second, clarify the organization’s actual aspirations.

Finally, is becoming an agile organization a good goal?

Being agile can make an organization highly capable, but it is only one path to excellence. Companies like Alibaba, Huawei, Xiaomi, and Kuaishou are successful without being strictly agile. The agile route may not be cost‑effective for every firm, and other successful models exist.

In summary, while an “agile organization” has observable standards, debating those standards is less valuable than defining what outcomes you expect from adopting agile practices.

Overall, the “agile organization” has criteria, but for both enterprises and individuals, focusing on the results you want from agile is far more meaningful.

Event promotion: In the “Gold September, Silver October” series, IDCF’s “Winter Brother’s Talk” invites three banking experts in October to share DevOps exploration and practice from major banks.

Scan the QR code and reply “金九银十” to receive the live‑stream address.