The Design Sprint as an applied learning framework in Agile workflows
Characteristics of the DS method and its effects on the cultural DNA as a multiloop and multilevel learning framework
The Sprint methodology was popularized by Jake Knapp in 2016 and since then many businesses and startups have adopted the method. The main claim is that the method is a great tool to quickly answer critical business questions by sustaining in-depth learning processes in cross-functional work teams. Although practitioners of the method swear by it, academic research evaluating the Design Sprints claims of value is still in its infancy, mostly restricted to case description studies. To my knowledge, Amr Khalifeh from Aj&Smart did the first initial empirical evaluation of the method on the ROI of doing Sprints. As part of my own master thesis in Work and Organizational psychology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), I wanted to explore this topic further and from a different angle. What follows is my attempt to deconstruct and demystify the learning impact of the Design Sprint.
The main insight I want to share is that the Design Sprint can be understood as multi-loop and multilevel learning framework for project management. I will present a model describing these processes with the intention that this frame of reference can act as useful leverage at informing adoption, especially in convincing upper management of its value. Before coming out in the clearing and presenting my results, I’d like to first describe some key concepts from an organizational psychology perspective. The full research paper is fairly dense and discusses these concepts at length, but here is quick rundown.
From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization
Two disparate, yet closely related streams of research are relevant to our understanding of learning in organizations. Research on organizational learning mechanisms and capabilities begins to address what an organization needs to do to become a learning organization. Organizational learning therefore denotes collective learning experiences used to acquire knowledge and develop skills — i.e. it is the activity and the process by which organizations eventually reach the ideal of a learning organization as outlined by Peter Senge (1990). The central concerns have been somewhat different so the two literatures have developed along divergent paths.
Researchers like Argyris and Schön focused on how learning takes place from an underlying educational psychology perspective. Single-loop learning is used when the current goals, values and strategies are sound and the emphasis is on techniques and their effectiveness. In double-loop learning, after the detection and correction of errors, the organizational rules, policies and objectives are reexamined and modified. These concepts apply not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in their models. The focus of much of Argyris’ intervention research has been to explore how organizations may increase their capacity for double-loop learning. He argues that double-loop learning is necessary if practitioners and organizations are to make informed decisions in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts. Furthermore, other researchers have conceived of an additional, or metaphorically ‘higher’ or ‘deeper’ level, typically described as ‘triple-loop’ learning. As such, it challenges one’s existing learning framework as well as one’s mental models and assumptions (Figure 1).
Very few organizations attain the double (and triple-loop learning) operating modes as systemic thinking is a difficult discipline. These concepts are analogous to what Senge refers to as the fifth discipline (See figure 2) and the cornerstone of becoming a learning organization. Senge describes, with case examples and from the perspective of leadership and systems theory, what a learning organization does or practices. To summarize, Organizational Learning research is largely descriptive and deals with the detached collection and analysis of learning processes in the organization, while the research on Learning Organizations is prescriptive, with a strong practical focus.
Integrating intervention strategies
The point of inflexion between these streams of research points to individual mental models as a critical source of leverage for creating learning organizations. The individual acts as an agent of the collective mind-set (the culturally embedded knowledge of the organization) and by changing the mental models of key individuals, the organizational mind-set is changed. Senge’s unique contribution to system dynamics lies in his proposal that organization members must engage in a process of learning to understand their own system. At the same time, the work of Argyris and Schön enhances our understanding of the psychological process through which systemic thinking becomes the cornerstone of a learning organization. Both strategies have some flaws but the main criticism boils down to implementation failures. I evaluated the shortcomings of these and other OL frameworks implemented in isolation when developing the conceptual model I will present later on. But first, let’s look at the cultural perspective.
How to change a culture
To define organizational learning is to understand the importance of creating a learning culture within an organization. A cultural perspective is concerned with what is shared across the organization — its vision, values, attitudes, and shared history. Schein (1996) provides a definition of culture as “a pattern of basic assumptions- invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration’’. According to Schein (2016) studies of effective organizations have consistently shown that successful performance and effective learning hinges on not separating these two dimensions, thinking instead in terms of “socio-technical systems,” in which the external and internal are at least aligned if not integrated. In addition, John Shook’s article lays out that the way to change culture is not first to change how people think, but instead to start by changing how people behave.
Reading Shook’s article and taking part in a Design Sprint gave me the impetus to look into Agile innovation approaches, specifically, the Design Sprint’s impact on culture and behavior change. Learning is defined as a persisting change in human performance or performance potential, and this change will often come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world.
The software development world commonly uses Agile methodologies. Short ‘sprints’ keep teams focused on the highest priority task that takes them closer to their vision. That involves testing solutions with the customer or user, and identifying and correcting errors in the light of constant feedback. The result is incremental, but very regular delivery of value, and the solution flexes in the light of internal and external changes.
So if it works for software development, are Agile approaches suited to changing an organizations culture and the behavior of its people? After all, the culture of an organization is analogous with its ‘software’.
Enough stalling! What are the results?
Research findings
The results are based on eight qualitative interviews from Design Sprint practitioners in the management domain. All the participants had previous experience from running Sprints and were well positioned to evaluate aspects of the Design Sprint method from a holistic perspective.
The main research question was to investigate how Agile workflows inform cultural change processes — divided into the following sub-questions:
- Which enabling factors embedded in the Design Sprint method act as the means of triggering organization-wide learning?
- What is their relationship to key factors supporting the transition to an agile learning organization?
I will focus on the first central theme and maybe write another article on the relationship of the Sprint’s enabling factors with respect to the steps sustaining culture change according to the ADKAR change model.
Analysis: The SLC (Sprinting-Learning-Changing) model
The SLC model is my own modified model illustrating variables of interest in line with the first research sub-question (the DS’s impact on learning applied to several levels). The model was originally meant to be ‘standalone’ as the relationships and mediating effects can certainly be understood in the same way without including Senge’s (1990) five disciplines to build a learning organization on top (in parenthesis). It was ultimately decided that their inclusion broadens and amplifies conceptual understanding. My interpretation is that the model is overall strengthened by integrating previous ideas and concepts from well-established learning frameworks. It also provides a useful frame of reference, a new and useful mental model so to speak. The theoretical framework that informed the development of the SLC model integrates the work of Argyris and Schön, Senge and other well known organizational learning frameworks. For example, Crossan, Lane and White’s (1999) 4I model is one of the few that considers strategic renewal tensions.
The Design Sprint was developed as a structured framework for brainstorming and testing ideas and most firms arguably use it as such, but let us take it a step further. In essence, ‘learning by doing’ triggers internalization, so the DS framework can also be operationalized as an ad hoc learning framework. As such, individuals are both the source and the target of influence in the organization. Creativity and innovation lead to organizational learning, but the reverse can also be said to occur. An Agile innovation culture relies heavily on cross-functional teams. Hence team learning accrued during new product development processes (e.g., the Design Sprint) can be conceived as the principal means of informing and achieving the strategic renewal of an enterprise.
Taken together, these findings suggest an association between the enabling factors embedded in the Design Sprint and other OL frameworks. The method takes some key concepts from each and integrates those learning processes in a holistic way, but the greatest advantage is practicality and relatively easy implementation. I believe that broadening and amplifying our conceptual frameworks allows us to perceive and make sense out of that which previously seemed to be simple white noise. The conceptual model shows how integrating these different approaches may help to overcome the shortcomings of other OL frameworks implemented in isolation (I provide an in-depth explanation in the full paper). Few organizational learning frameworks consider how one level affects the other. As a result, the transition between these processes from the individual to the organizational level and vice versa is better developed in the SLC model.
The processes in the model are not empirically tested, but at least in part, empirically derived. To my great surprise, I found that the enabling factors mirror a great deal of research on creativity and innovation in organizations. For example, the informants talked about the focus-building aspect of Sprints and how it reduces ‘switching costs’ since employees usually work on several projects at the same time. Research shows how doing more than one task at a time takes a toll on productivity, and leads to more errors, and if the tasks are complex then these time and error penalties increase. Dealing with a design problem’s complexity is a matter of negotiation between many different and probably conflicting perspectives. The DS process can thus be regarded as a “reflective conversation with the situation” (Schön, 1983). Furthermore, organizational psychologist Teresa Amabile noted how the single most powerful event that influences the inner work life of employees is progress in meaningful work. This was a recurring focal point in the interviews as well. Meaningful work can be as simple as providing a valuable product or useful service to a customer. The people doing the work only need to feel that they are contributing to something worthwhile. Against this background, I found lot of objective data in the literature that validates different aspects of the Sprint method. Let me know if there is interest, and I will make this into a 10-part series going through the research pertaining to each enabling factor — with quotes from the interviews (follow me for updates).
Learning is said to be the only sustainable competitive advantage in today’s fast-paced turbulent global economy. Organizational learning is defined as a process that can be initiated, developed, and practiced by engaging individuals in reflecting upon and developing their own thinking processes, an essential component of creating learning organizations. The SLC or Sprinting-Learning-Changing model, thus operationalized, brings together these conceptual categories into an integrative multilevel learning framework of relevance for managing Agile workflows in organizations. It can also be perceived through a cultural lens as a ‘transformational device’ (I will address this issue in future articles).
For more questions about the research, please feel free to email me directly at peternikolafistonic@gmail.com and I’ll be happy to discuss my findings with you and send you the full research paper once it is published.
