Over the years I have seen a number of writers and speakers claim that military units are an example of or perhaps a model for Agile teams. To evaluate these assertions, let us consider the problems faced by military units, specifically those in combat, that might lead them to adopt some Agile-like behavior:
- Highly dynamic environment
- Need for independent decision-making based on timely situation assessment
- Need for role flexibility as conditions require
- Focus on obtaining a specified goal by means to be determined by the unit if the situation differs from the expected
Despite these surface similarities, there are substantial differences between the situations faced by combat units and those faced by typical Agile teams, both in the problems they face and in expected solution approaches:
- Problem:
- Hostile environment with life-threatening consequences (extremely high risk)
- Frequently broken communications channels
- Need for split-second decision-making based on immediate perceptions
- Solution:
- Standard and very rigid command and control structure in military; even in isolation, teams follow prescribed command structure
- Substantial standardization and training of team prior to engagement
- Rules of engagement are highly prescriptive (see, for example, the Danish film Krigen (A War) which dramatizes the consequences of failure to follow combat rules resulting in war crime charges against military leaders)
- Prior knowledge (intelligence) used to set goals and framework and supporting logistics of the plan (i.e., an architecture)
- Relatively short periods of independence interspersed with top-down direction from command structure
Some other points of comparison suggest that there is little in common between military combat units and Agile teams:
| Military combat units | Agile teams | |
| 100’s of hours of mandatory, focused training on core team and individual skills, conducted in a rigidly command-and-control (C&C) environment (i.e., bootcamp) prior to attempting any mission | 0 to 10’s of hours of optional training (possibly during a project) on team engagement but not focused on core team skills (i.e., Agile training, not business analysis, coding, or testing training), conducted in a coaching style environment | |
| Team remains in C&C environment except in specific situations (i.e., planning, preparation, maneuvers, and logistics are C&C, active combat is intermittently not) | Team works primarily in Agile environment with only specific C&C situations. | |
| Advance planning often is detailed based on previously gathered information: “Every battle is won before it is fought” -Lao Tzu“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail” -Benjamin Franklin | Intent is to keep a short planning horizon to enable response to shifting needs Responding to change over following a plan – Agile Manifesto | |
| Hostile environment with life-threatening consequences (extremely high risk) | Collaborative environment without life-threatening consequences (low risk) | |
| Critical need for split-second decision-making | Desire for well-paced but considered decision-making (hours to days) | |
| Frequently broken communications channels or requirement for communications suppression | Expectation of open communication channels, routine use of communications |
Given these significant differences between military combat units and Agile teams, I am skeptical of claims like those made in Brigades are built out of agile teams , but I will leave that critique to another installment. For now, I consider the correlation between the two to be quite low and the metaphor tenuous at best. Given that, application of learnings from military units to Agile teams would need to be based on a different connection.
