Balancing People-Centric and Framework-Centric Approaches with Minimum Viable Agile

Organizations face a choice: focus on people or frameworks. Spoiler alert: frameworks are just tools. They’re not magical solutions that fix everything. Misuse them, and you’ll have blocked creativity, slow decisions, and a workforce distracted by process instead of progress.

This article dives into why prioritizing people works better and introduces an approach that combines flexibility with just enough structure to keep things from descending into chaos.

Comparing People-Centric and Framework-Centric Cultures

Organizations tend to lean into either their people or their frameworks. This choice shapes how teams function and deliver results. Here’s a side-by-side comparison:

People-Centric	Framework-Centric
Builds trust and collaboration	Follows defined steps for consistency
Empowers teams to make decisions	Requires approval for every decision
Uses feedback to improve processes	Treats feedback like an obligatory task
Adjusts frameworks to suit team needs	Sticks rigidly to established rules
Values individuals over tools	Values tools and processes over people
Encourages innovation and fresh ideas	Sticks with tried-and-tested methods
Measures success by meaningful outcomes	Measures success by checklist completion
Leadership prioritizes trust and safety	Leadership ensures compliance
Collaboration spans across roles	Collaboration is dictated by hierarchy
Improvements happen naturally	Improvements follow strict schedules

People-centric cultures let teams explore and adapt. Framework-centric cultures deliver predictability but often stifle creativity.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Approach

People-Centric Cultures

Strengths:

• Encourages creative thinking and fresh ideas.

• Builds trust and boosts morale.

• Quickly adapts to change.

Weaknesses:

• Can lead to inconsistencies between teams.

• Risks misalignment without a shared foundation.

  
  

Framework-Centric Cultures

Strengths:

• Provides clear expectations and structure.

• Reduces confusion by outlining steps.

• Makes onboarding and training easier.

Weaknesses:

• Limits creativity and innovation.

• Slows down decisions with too many rules.

• Frustrates teams when processes feel restrictive.

  
  

A Balanced Approach: Combining Flexibility with a Shared Baseline

You don’t have to choose one extreme over the other. Minimum Viable Agile (MVA) gives you the best of both. It sets a common baseline for everyone while giving teams the freedom to adjust to their needs.

What is Minimum Viable Agile?

MVA is not about overloading teams with rules. Instead, it defines the bare minimum principles, practices, and tools teams need to stay aligned. Beyond that, it’s all about flexibility. Think of it as the organizational equivalent of a skeleton: enough structure to hold things together, but not so much that you’re become to stiff to have some flexibility.

Core Elements of MVA:

• Shared Priorities: Align on what’s important. Let teams figure out the best way to deliver those priorities.

• Templates and Workflows: Provide basic templates to keep things transparent. Teams can tweak these to fit their needs.

• Regular Reviews: Hold periodic reviews to ensure the baseline evolves based on real-world feedback.

  
  

How MVA Works in Practice:

1. Define the Baseline: Agree on essentials, like what "done" means, to keep everyone on the same page.

2. Let Teams Customize: Teams adapt the baseline to fit their workflows, whether they prefer Kanban, Scrum, or something else entirely.

3. Encourage Collaboration: A shared baseline simplifies cross-team work. It’s easier to collaborate when everyone speaks the same basic language.

4. Inspect and Adapt: Teams review and adjust the baseline regularly. What works stays. What doesn’t gets changed. Simple as that.

   
   

Why This Approach Succeeds:

MVA provides enough structure to prevent chaos while giving teams the freedom to innovate. It balances alignment with adaptability, creating a space where teams can do their best work.

Conclusion

Balancing people-centric and framework-centric approaches doesn’t have to be a headache. People drive creativity and results, while frameworks offer clarity and consistency.

Minimum Viable Agile combines the strengths of both, providing a shared baseline without overburdening teams with unnecessary rules.