Martyn Richard Jones

“Logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes.”

ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN

Martyn Richard Jones, Córdoba, 3rd October 2024

Narrator: Here is a billion-dollar question: Can Agile-to-Scale be effectively used to fight a war, a regional conflict, or a global existential threat?

Martyn: When advocates of agile at scale claim to be able to support any type of large, huge, and meta-massive projects, I always pose them this question: Can your agile approach be used to fight a war?

Narrator: It is said, so I hear, that Agile can contribute to the art of war:

• By providing the means of rapidly adapting to fast-changing facts, signals and conjecture on the ground.
• By allowing for better means of communicating and shorter communication paths, but simultaneously bypassing short communication channels if needed. That is, leapfrogging the chain of command.
• By potentially allowing for iterative planning, which in warfare would include things like continuous assessment of the theatre of warfare and adjustments based on the real-time analysis of big and fast data.
• By better enabling cross-functional teams and the collaboration between teams and people.
• By providing a set of decentralised decision-making capabilities, allowing for quicker decisions and reactions.
• By providing a high degree of flexibility not found in conventional approaches to fighting wars.
• By allowing for self-organising teams to decide their priorities, identify their significant challenges, and choose their tactics.

These are all compelling arguments, but are these justifications valid regarding real wars rather than aggressive market wars between businesses? Won’t these new ways of working lead to decadence, much more significant uncertainty and a deterioration in the quality and effectiveness of coordination?

Martyn: For those reasons, I pose the same question again. Can your agile approaches be used to fight a war? At the same time, cede the floor to Pete and Dud.

Pete: Can you imagine it, Pete? “Dear Enemy, any chance of stopping the war for a moment? We will have our daily standup meeting in a couple of minutes?”

Dud: Jesus, wept.

Pete: To say nothing of his mum!

Dud: What did the enemy say?

Pete: They are fighting an asymmetric conflict unpredictably and irregularly. What does that mean? They are better at agile than we are. There, I said it. And what did they respond? They said, “Do what you want. Your problems are not on our backlog list”.

Dud: A right lippy one you have there, Pete!

Pete: Indeed. There’s one born every minute, Dud.

Dud: What do you think of fighting wars using Agile methods?

Pete: These days, we are talking about conventional armed forces versus what usually get labelled asymmetrically opposed forces, also known as “terrorists”, insurgents or “evil-doers”. I know next to nothing about how terrorists are organised or what drives the creation of their backlogs. Still, I know that conventional armed forces are naturally highly disciplined, have iron-clad chains of command and control, and have a very acute sense of strategies for conflict and warfare. Also, they are incredibly conservative organisations. These are things that the spirit and intention of Agile (especially Agile to Scale) seem to be in confrontation with.

Dud: I read this book once, Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton, by a bloke called Martin van Creveld. He emphasised the importance of logistics in armed conflicts.

Pete: Well, of course, Dud. Two of the most critical challenges to the armed forces are adaptability and logistics. Adaptability deals with the changing nature of warfare, but, for me, the timeless key issue in warfare is precisely centred on logistics. Ensuring the timely supply of equipment, munitions, and personnel is an ancient and timeless issue, one as important as life itself.

Dud: What do you make of the supreme and unquesioning arrogance and conceit of Agile cultists?

Pete: I don’t notice what they are or how they behave. They aren’t my kids. But do not get me wrong, Dud. Agile has its place in software development with highly experienced and proficient technical professionals working in connected teams. It works fine there.

Dud: So, not for everyone, then?

Pete: Absolutely not. Use agile in offshore development? Use agile with mediocre technical teams? Use agile with people who need to be told what to do? Then you’re asking for trouble, Dud. It’s good for some things but not all things.

Dud: Got it. I think.

Pete: Yes, agile has its place. However, suppose businesses think they can embrace agile for everything they do, and that does happen. In that case, they are delusional fools looking to be hammered by the competition and magbificently ripped off by their IT suppliers.

Narrator: One of the main things we forget about when we think of military operations is the fact that this means working in operational mode rather than project mode. Agile is not a useful partner when it comes to operations related to counterinsurgency, command and control, coordination and cooperation, legal restrictions and expedient rejection of legal restrictions, the minimisation of risk and damage – including collateral damage, financial and none financial risks, political will, public perception, budgetary pressures, finite resource allocation, the rate at which arms can be produced and distributed, and a whole range of other interdependent issues.

So, can you use Agile to Scale or SAFe to fight a war?

This is a serious question that eventually needs to be addressed at length and in detail. However, I would say that if faced with an actual military conflict, I would not bet the house on using Agile. Or trust it with the lives, hopes and assets of my family, friends and fellow citizens. For me, it seems like a risk that is too far. You are not dealing with how many banking customers you can retain, how many punters you can keep, or how many additional cakes you can sell. We are talking about existential life-or-death issues here. Contrasted with that, what we do in our real lives is just a walk in the park, sometimes it can be difficult, especially when we must walk alone, but it is still a walk.

Can you use SAFe to fight a war?

“Logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes.”

ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN

Narrator: Here is a billion-dollar question: Can Agile-to-Scale be effectively used to fight a war, a regional conflict, or a global existential threat?

Martyn: When advocates of agile at scale claim to be able to support any type of large, huge, and meta-massive projects, I always pose them this question: Can your agile approach be used to fight a war?

Narrator: It is said, so I hear, that Agile can contribute to the art of war:

• By providing the means of rapidly adapting to fast-changing facts, signals and conjecture on the ground.
• By allowing for better means of communicating and shorter communication paths, but simultaneously bypassing short communication channels if needed. That is, leapfrogging the chain of command.
• By potentially allowing for iterative planning, which in warfare would include things like continuous assessment of the theatre of warfare and adjustments based on the real-time analysis of big and fast data.
• By better enabling cross-functional teams and the collaboration between teams and people.
• By providing a set of decentralised decision-making capabilities, allowing for quicker decisions and reactions.
• By providing a high degree of flexibility not found in conventional approaches to fighting wars.
• By allowing for self-organising teams to decide their priorities, identify their significant challenges, and choose their tactics.

These are all compelling arguments, but are these justifications valid regarding real wars rather than aggressive market wars between businesses? Won’t these new ways of working lead to decadence, much more significant uncertainty and a deterioration in the quality and effectiveness of coordination?

Martyn: For those reasons, I pose the same question again. Can your agile approaches be used to fight a war? At the same time, cede the floor to Pete and Dud.

Pete: Can you imagine it, Pete? “Dear Enemy, any chance of stopping the war for a moment? We will have our daily standup meeting in a couple of minutes?”

Dud: Jesus, wept.

Pete: To say nothing of his mum!

Dud: What did the enemy say?

Pete: They are fighting an asymmetric conflict unpredictably and irregularly. What does that mean? They are better at agile than we are. There, I said it. And what did they respond? They said, “Do what you want. Your problems are not on our backlog list”.

Dud: A right lippy one you have there, Pete!

Pete: Indeed. There’s one born every minute, Dud.

Dud: What do you think of fighting wars using Agile methods?

Pete: These days, we are talking about conventional armed forces versus what usually get labelled asymmetrically opposed forces, also known as “terrorists”, insurgents or “evil-doers”. I know next to nothing about how terrorists are organised or what drives the creation of their backlogs. Still, I know that conventional armed forces are naturally highly disciplined, have iron-clad chains of command and control, and have a very acute sense of strategies for conflict and warfare. Also, they are incredibly conservative organisations. These are things that the spirit and intention of Agile (especially Agile to Scale) seem to be in confrontation with.

Dud: I read this book once, Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton, by a bloke called Martin van Creveld. He emphasised the importance of logistics in armed conflicts.

Pete: Well, of course, Dud. Two of the most critical challenges to the armed forces are adaptability and logistics. Adaptability deals with the changing nature of warfare, but, for me, the timeless key issue in warfare is precisely centred on logistics. Ensuring the timely supply of equipment, munitions, and personnel is an ancient and timeless issue, one as important as life itself.

Dud: What do you make of the supreme and unquesioning arrogance and conceit of Agile cultists?

Pete: I don’t notice what they are or how they behave. They aren’t my kids. But do not get me wrong, Dud. Agile has its place in software development with highly experienced and proficient technical professionals working in connected teams. It works fine there.

Dud: So, not for everyone, then?

Pete: Absolutely not. Use agile in offshore development? Use agile with mediocre technical teams? Use agile with people who need to be told what to do? Then you’re asking for trouble, Dud. It’s good for some things but not all things.

Dud: Got it. I think.

Pete: Yes, agile has its place. However, suppose businesses think they can embrace agile for everything they do, and that does happen. In that case, they are delusional fools looking to be hammered by the competition and magbificently ripped off by their IT suppliers.

Narrator: One of the main things we forget about when we think of military operations is the fact that this means working in operational mode rather than project mode. Agile is not a useful partner when it comes to operations related to counterinsurgency, command and control, coordination and cooperation, legal restrictions and expedient rejection of legal restrictions, the minimisation of risk and damage – including collateral damage, financial and none financial risks, political will, public perception, budgetary pressures, finite resource allocation, the rate at which arms can be produced and distributed, and a whole range of other interdependent issues.

So, can you use Agile to Scale or SAFe to fight a war?

This is a serious question that eventually needs to be addressed at length and in detail. However, I would say that if faced with an actual military conflict, I would not bet the house on using Agile. Or trust it with the lives, hopes and assets of my family, friends and fellow citizens. For me, it seems like a risk that is too far. You are not dealing with how many banking customers you can retain, how many punters you can keep, or how many additional cakes you can sell. We are talking about existential life-or-death issues here. Contrasted with that, what we do in our real lives is just a walk in the park, sometimes it can be difficult, especially when we must walk alone, but it is still a walk.