The standard for project management

Figure X3-1. Model for Suitability of Agile Approach

Te

am

Si

ze

   

    

Ex

pe

rie

nce

   

  Access 

   Bu

y-In

    

   T

ru

st  

  D

ec

isio

n M

akin

g

  Te

am

 

  C

ult

ure

Project

Ch

an

ges

   

    Criti

cality  

  Deli

very

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Agile  

Hybrid

Predic-

tive

---

128 

  

Appendix X3

X3.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

X3.3.1 COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS A GROUP

For small projects, this group may simply be the sponsor, technical lead, and a customer. For large projects, this 

may include representatives from the sponsoring group, project execution team, impacted business group(s), project 

governance group(s), and customer community. The idea is that just as no single stakeholder should estimate or plan a 

project because of representing only one viewpoint and having personal bias; so too should no single person assess the 

suitability of an approach since any one person will also have a limited view with a bias.

Instead, the value of the tool is the conversation it encourages with the invested parties of the project. Even if the 

results point to a hybrid approach, but the stakeholders want to proceed with a largely agile or predictive approach, 

follow the stakeholder consensus. This tool is a high-level diagnostic only, the final decision should rest and be supported 

by the people involved.

X3.3.2 SCORE THE QUESTIONS FROM 1 TO 10

As a group, discuss and agree (or compromise) on a score that most accurately reflects the subjective evaluation 

of the question. While definitive options are only provided for the start, middle, and end points of the answer spectrum 

representing scores of 1, 5, and 10, it is fine (and desirable) to use scores such as 2 for “almost a 1, but not quite,” 

or 7 for “somewhere between a 5 and a 10.” Again, the assessment is a discussion tool—views will be subjective 

and shades of gray are to be expected.

When the group cannot agree on a score, discuss the issues openly and honestly. Before suggesting compromises 

(i.e., using average scores or marking PMO scores with a blue “X” and the development team with a green “O”), consider 

how successful is the project likely to be when the participants cannot agree on completing a simple assessment? 

When discussing the issues, if the differences of opinion can be identified—then great, it is working; now come to an 

agreement. Likewise, if the assessment indicates a predictive approach but everyone wants to try an agile approach (or 

vice versa) that is fine too, just understand the issues and discuss how the impacts of the approach will be handled.

---

��

129

X3.3.3 INTERPRET THE RESULTS

Mark the answers from the questions on a blank suitability assessment chart and connect the points. Results clustered 

around the center in the agile zone indicate a good fit for a purely agile approach.

Results predominantly in the hybrid zone indicate some combination of agile and predictive approaches might work 

best. However, it is also possible that an agile approach with some additional risk reduction steps such as extra 

education and training or extra validation and documentation rigor in the case of high criticality projects may suffice. 

Alternatively, a predictive approach with some proof-of-concept work or extra processes could also work.

Results predominantly in the predictive zone indicate a good fit for a purely predictive approach. As mentioned in 

Section X3.3.2 (Score the Questions step), this diagnostic tool is aimed at starting meaningful conversations with the 

impacted parties about the most appropriate approach to use. If the approach suggested by the tool is not acceptable it 

is allowed to use a different approach. Use the results as inputs to the risk management process, since the tool indicates 

mismatches that will need to be managed.