A Balancing Act

Abstract

Agility is increasingly being used in the public sector as its adaptive approach through short-cycled development could allow public services to keep up with developments in technology and the complex problems contemporary societies face. There are, however, some dilemmas at play when it comes to agility and the public sector’s transparency and stability for accountability. Furthermore, agile projects appear to be less predictable and more likely to go off track. The main paradox of agility is that even though it appears to be at odds with control, it is required for agility to be effective. Besides, public sector bureaucracies come with their own control mechanisms which theoretically conflict with agility. The research explores these phenomena by considering how control over agile processes in the public sector can be enhanced through the use of control mechanisms. By using an explorative and single case study approach with validation sessions the research combines qualitative data from theoretical and practical findings which are analyzed through a Revised Levers of Control framework to provide recommendations for controlling public sector agility. It indicates that the agile process itself is the main means of control for which an extensive list of mechanisms is provided of both strategic and operational nature. Besides, the vast presence of interfaces in the public sector increases complexity while external deadlines and tight budgets provide a clear desire for planning as control. A main recommendation therefore consists of mechanisms to be used to perform planning within agility. The research also showcases that types of bureaucratic control can facilitate or are even required for the agile process to function when it comes to centralized strategic visions on priorities and an organizational vision on implementation of agility. Overall, this implies control over agility in the public sector to be a balancing act between mechanisms associated with ‘pure agility’ and with public sector bureaucracies. Further empirical research into the use and implications of proposed control mechanisms and presence of interfaces in practice would help in enriching the findings and provide more insight into the requirements of different types of public sector organizations to control their agile processes.