Agile Trends and Technology
About UsConferencePartner With Us
CIOREVIEW >> Agile >> NEWS

Agile Trends and Technology

CIO Review

Who would have predicted that Agile would grow when the world went remote?  After all, Agile promotes co-located teams working face to face.  As the word ‘agile’ would imply, we have adapted. I see several trends emerging in this time of growth and adaptation, based on my interactions and networking with people in organizations across the country.  I’d like to share the top Agile process and technology trends as I see them.

The first trend is the acceptance and growth of distributed teams. Technology has made it possible to conduct virtual standups with video and digital Scrum/Kanban boards. This trend was born out of necessity, but companies that had previously rejected this as an option have seen proof that it can and does work. This trend may even play a role in the decision by some companies to continue working 100 percent virtually, or to work in a blended environment.

“If we’re not measuring business value, we’re focusing on metrics that could drive the wrong behaviors. When we do measure business value, it encourages IT and business teams to work more closely together to make sure they get it right.”

The second trend is the expansion of Agile practices into business and operational areas. As more business associates interact with Agile development teams, they start to realize it translates quite well to most any type of work. I’ve seen Security and Audit teams at multiple companies asking to learn how they can do their jobs better when working with Agile teams.  This has led to the avoidance of issues rather than reporting on issues after they occur. Operational teams are asking to be trained on how to work together more efficiently by embracing standups, and through visualization and better prioritization of their work. They also seem to really like shorter, more frequent, planning cycles with feedback loops.

Trend number three is that scaling seems to be more popular, using frameworks such as SAFe. In my own area of the country, I’ve seen a growing number of companies scaling, including one that I never thought would embrace something that could be considered controversial in the Agile space.  The reason for this trend, in my opinion, is that as companies grow and mature, they need processes that support multiple Agile teams working together to build large or complex solutions. It also helps some large, hierarchical organizations adopt Agile because of the built-in leadership inclusion in the process.  It’s been heavily debated by what I would call “Agile purists”, which I can say because I used to be one…but my thought is that if it helps more companies adopt Agile practices, great!

Trend number four revolves around how we measure success. Measuring business value is increasing in popularity. This is one of my personal favorites because it happens in real-time as major features are deployed, not months or years after the completion of the entire body of work, like ROI. It’s also a measure that matters!!  I mean, who cares if the timeline slips a little if the business value is high.  Likewise, who cares if the team delivered on time if the business value is low. If we’re not measuring business value, we’re focusing on metrics that could drive the wrong behaviors. When we do measure business value, it encourages IT and business teams to work more closely together to make sure they get it right.

The fifth trend that has gained popularity in many Agile shops is the move away from projects to thinking about the work in terms of products. The difference is that projects have a finite beginning and end, usually with a specific scope and budget in mind. Organizing teams around products allow us to think about the work in terms of the full lifecycle of that product. Projects typically have a hand off to a supporting team to handle bugs and defects, which often causes the customer to try to cram as much work into the project as they can because they feel they won’t have the ability to request enhancements after the project is done.  This is a very positive trend because products typically require continuous evolution to keep up with change. It also allows the business more control over priorities and the ability to make course corrections along the way.

Finally, DevOps practices are showing up more and more as companies modernize their development tools and practices, even with Legacy systems.  This trend has been coming for a long time, but finally seems to have gained momentum and is becoming more mainstream. This is great news because Agile isn’t just about having a Scrum Master and standups every day.  There are engineering practices that need to be included as part the transformation to realize the full value. In fact, many teams start out small with the basics of Scrum and stop there. I like to ask teams, “what could we do to become even more Agile?”  In other words, I don’t believe in judging whether or not a team “qualifies” as an Agile team based on what they’re doing or not doing. If they’ve adopted a few practices, they’re on their way, but they need to continue bringing in more practices over time, such as DevOps, so they get the full benefit and deliver value in the most reliable and efficient manner. Oftentimes, DevOps is seen as a separate transformational effort when in reality, it should be part of the Agile transformation.

Those are my observations in terms of Agile trends and technology. I’m sure there are others, but these stand out to me because they are either changing the way we think about Agile, or they are demonstrations of continuous improvement. The Agile Manifesto was written 20 years ago, which is really just 4 Values and 12 Principles, not a detailed implementation guide. However, one of the first lines in the manifesto says, “We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.”  The trends I’ve outlined here show that even today, we continue to uncover better ways.

Check Out This: Top 10 Agile Solution Companies

More in News

Distributors can have plenty of inventory across their network and still struggle to meet demand at individual branches. Stock sitting in one warehouse does little good when customers need it elsewhere, while keeping every location stocked for its highest historical demand can tie up unnecessary capital. With thousands of product and location combinations to manage, purchasing teams cannot review every decision manually. Executives evaluating demand forecasting software need to know whether it can improve local product availability without driving up inventory costs across the business. Network-wide averages can easily hide costly gaps at individual locations. Past sales provide a useful starting point, but irregular buying patterns can make forecasting difficult. Slow-moving products may not generate enough transactions to produce a reliable forecast on their own. Seasonal spikes can also skew averages long after demand has returned to normal. Buyers should look at whether the software can draw insights from related products and distinguish recurring demand from unusual orders. External factors such as weather may also help improve predictions, but their value needs to be demonstrated for the products concerned rather than assumed across the entire catalog. Knowing what customers will buy is only half the equation. Buyers also need to know when to reorder. Changing supplier lead times can make it difficult to act on even an accurate demand forecast, while order frequency and minimum purchase quantities affect how much stock needs to be kept on hand. Software should account for actual purchase order history rather than rely solely on fixed lead times. Safety stock should also reflect how individual products sell at each location. Applying the same buffer everywhere can leave fast-selling products out of stock while slower-moving items pile up. “Lantern refreshes recommendations weekly and lets buyers compare suggested stocking levels with existing settings before approving or overriding them.” The way forecasting software works with existing ERP systems is another important consideration. If recommendations sit in a separate dashboard, buyers may still have to enter them manually into their purchasing systems. They should establish whether the software can read transactions from their existing ERP and feed approved stocking parameters or purchase orders back into it. Buyers also need to understand why the system recommends a particular change. When a business wins a new account or a branch receives an unusually large order, experienced staff should be able to override a forecast without having to work outside the system. Forecast accuracy matters, but it does not tell the whole story. Lower inventory means little if it leads to stockouts and unhappy customers. In some cases, holding more stock may be the right decision if those products sell consistently. Buyers should look at how the software affects product availability, inventory turns and the capital tied up in excess stock. Testing its recommendations against past transactions can also show where they differ from existing purchasing practices before a wider rollout. Buyers should also account for the work involved in preparing historical data and managing exceptions once the system is in place. Lantern builds a custom machine learning forecasting model for each distributor, using historical ERP data and business-specific purchasing practices. It combines demand forecasts with projected supplier lead times to recommend order timing and safety stock at the item-location level. Lantern refreshes recommendations weekly and lets buyers compare suggested stocking levels with existing settings before approving or overriding them. Approved purchase orders or stocking parameters can be written back into the ERP. Its models also examine relationships across products, supporting forecasts where individual sales histories are sparse. Distributors with large catalogs spread across multiple branches, especially those balancing excess inventory against missed sales, are the relevant buyers for this model. ...Read more
Enterprise imaging purchases rarely fail because a scanner cannot create a digital file. Trouble starts when document volumes and legacy applications collide with downstream workflows that were built around older processes. A platform may handle clean, standardized forms well, yet slow down when incoming files vary substantially or demand different routing rules. Executives, therefore, need to examine how completely a proposed environment can absorb the real document mix without forcing extensive manual preparation or creating new bottlenecks elsewhere. Capture architecture deserves close attention as the front end determines how much work remains after scanning. Useful systems should support classification, optical character recognition, data extraction and validation in ways that match actual document types and exception rates. Human review also matters. Automated recognition is valuable when confidence is high, but buyers should understand where validation screens enter the process and how questionable fields are routed before information reaches a database or content repository. Hardware choices belong in the same discussion. Desktop scanning and high-volume production work impose very different demands, and forcing both through a single equipment model can inflate costs or limit throughput. The proposed design should reflect actual preparation effort, peak intake volumes and the physical scanning environment rather than nominal device speed alone. Scanner flexibility also matters where several departments process different document sets at substantially different volumes. “EDAC Systems provides first-line support across the hardware and software it sells, reducing the need for customers to separate faults among multiple providers.” Legacy compatibility is equally consequential. Many enterprises still depend on older capture software and long-standing repositories while retaining scanners embedded in established processes. Replacing everything at once can increase implementation risk and budget pressure. A stronger proposal should account for migration and configuration from the outset, with integration planned around how existing records move into the new environment and how the changeover will be tested. Buyers should also examine whether the architecture can adjust when document volumes increase or automation requirements change without requiring a wholesale rebuild. That flexibility becomes more important when an organization expects its capture requirements to shift over several budget cycles. Security and records requirements can narrow the field quickly, particularly in government or regulated environments. Encryption and records-management controls need to be resolved against approved deployment conditions before installation, rather than treated as post-deployment configuration. Procurement teams should verify that both hardware and software satisfy applicable requirements and that the provider can work within on-premises or approved hosted environments when needed. Support after go-live is another practical separator. Document imaging environments combine scanners, capture software, connectors and repositories, which can leave customers coordinating multiple suppliers when something fails. Contract review should establish who owns first-line troubleshooting and whether hardware and software issues are handled through one support path. Availability of on-site assistance also matters when remote fixes are insufficient. EDAC Systems designs document imaging and data capture environments around each customer’s document types, workflow, existing technology and budget constraints. Its approach can combine Ricoh or OPEX scanning hardware with capture software and Doxis-based document or records management, depending on the application. It also handles migration, configuration, testing and training during implementation. It provides first-line support across the hardware and software it sells, reducing the need for customers to separate faults among multiple providers. For enterprises with mixed legacy environments, compliance requirements or varied document volumes, the breadth of design and support makes EDAC Systems a practical vendor to consider. ...Read more
Moving from Google Workspace or legacy Exchange to Microsoft 365 involves more than transferring mailboxes. File structures may not translate cleanly, account permissions can change and an overlooked dependency can interrupt access after cutover. Executives comparing migration providers must establish how thoroughly each one investigates the existing environment before committing to a transfer schedule. A technically completed migration offers little reassurance when employees cannot retrieve the information they previously used. Pre-migration assessment establishes the boundaries of the work. User inventories should account for inactive accounts and shared mailboxes, while file assessments must identify naming restrictions, excessive path lengths and permission structures that Microsoft 365 handles differently. Tenant-to-tenant transfers introduce additional complications around identity mapping and existing collaboration spaces. Providers should document these differences before migration begins rather than discovering them during execution. Compliance requirements can alter the migration design considerably. Retention policies and access restrictions may determine where information resides after transfer or which users can retrieve it. An assessment that concentrates exclusively on data volume risks overlooking controls that governed the original environment. Procurement teams benefit from examining whether the provider produces a documented migration scope connecting technical dependencies to the organization's internal requirements. “RyanTech incorporates Microsoft Defender and Purview into tenant planning, allowing security requirements to shape the destination environment before users begin working in it.” Cutover scheduling exposes a different set of risks. DNS propagation may take longer than anticipated, while network interruptions can delay synchronization during a planned transition. Promises of zero downtime leave little room for these external dependencies. A credible migration approach includes contingency procedures, defined escalation responsibilities and a cutover window that reflects the organization's working patterns. The provider should explain what happens when an expected transition does not occur on schedule. Business continuity also depends on what employees encounter after the switch. Missing shared files or unfamiliar permissions can generate support requests even when mailbox transfers succeed. Validation should establish that users can access the resources required for their work, not merely confirm that data reached its destination. Clear responsibility for resolving post-cutover issues reduces the burden on internal IT teams. Security configuration cannot be deferred until employees have settled into Microsoft 365. A newly provisioned tenant may introduce unfamiliar exposure through identity settings or insufficiently configured data protection policies. Microsoft Defender, Intune and Purview provide controls that can be incorporated into the destination design. Providers differ in whether they configure these protections during migration planning or treat them as later projects. Licensing decisions also influence which controls are available and whether organizations purchase functionality they will actually use. Support arrangements become particularly relevant once the migration specialists have completed their assignment. Changes to compliance requirements or user access may expose decisions made during the original transfer. Continuity between migration and support personnel helps retain that context. RyanTech conducts Microsoft 365 migrations through an initial environment audit that establishes customer requirements and informs a documented transfer plan. Its migration team prepares for DNS delays and other cutover interruptions, scheduling transitions around business requirements rather than promising uninterrupted service. RyanTech incorporates Microsoft Defender and Purview into tenant planning, allowing security requirements to shape the destination environment before users begin working in it. Its project and support teams subsequently address configuration changes, user adoption and evolving compliance requirements. Experience spanning Google Workspace, on-premises Exchange and tenant-to-tenant migrations informs its handling of differing source environments. Organizations consolidating disparate systems into Microsoft 365 while requiring security configuration and continuing technical support are particularly suited to this approach. ...Read more
The management of cloud environments involves the proper coordination of infrastructure, access rights and resource allocation as companies expand their operations digitally. In Latin America, organizations adopting cloud-based systems must account for regional data protection requirements, varying infrastructure capabilities and the complexity of overseeing multiple service providers. Cloud management is an effective tool that enables the IT professionals to control the workloads, ensure the standard configuration, resource consumption and detect the possible disruption of services that could impact critical business operations. Clear governance policies, automated monitoring and well-defined access controls can help businesses maintain reliable cloud environments while managing operational complexity. How Does Cloud Management Benefit Businesses? Cloud management makes it possible for companies to have more options when dealing with varying loads without making significant investments in infrastructure. Organizations can scale computing capacity to match project demands, support remote teams and deploy digital services across different locations. For companies operating in Latin America, this flexibility can help accommodate expansion into new markets while allowing technology resources to evolve alongside business requirements. The other significant benefit relates to visibility in finances. Centralized oversight helps organizations understand spending across cloud services, identify underused resources and select suitable service plans. These insights support more informed budgeting and reduce the likelihood of paying for capacity that delivers little practical value. Businesses can also evaluate service usage against departmental needs to allocate technology budgets more effectively. Cloud management can be an important tool to improve the continuity and collaboration of business operations. Backup planning, recovery procedures and coordinated service administration help organizations prepare for unexpected outages and restore essential applications when disruptions occur. Shared digital workspaces and accessible business applications can further support collaboration among distributed teams. For businesses in Latin America, these capabilities can help maintain consistent operations across regional offices while supporting day-to-day productivity. What Are the Emerging Trends in Cloud Management? Artificial intelligence is reshaping cloud management through intelligent analytics, predictive monitoring and automated decision-making. These tools can help IT teams identify unusual performance patterns, anticipate capacity demands and investigate potential technical issues before they escalate. In Latin America, growing interest in AI-enabled infrastructure management is creating opportunities for businesses to simplify complex technology environments while improving the speed and precision of routine IT operations. The other emerging trend is the increasing adoption of hybrid and multi-cloud solutions, which combine private infrastructure with public clouds and services offered by several different providers. FinOps approaches are another area where enterprises are increasingly focusing, which involves financial decision-making around cloud usage, along with security methods that keep a check on the risks to which access is exposed. For businesses in Latin America, these developments highlight the need for cloud strategies that balance technical flexibility, cost transparency, regulatory requirements and evolving cybersecurity risks. Together, these approaches are shaping a more intelligent and adaptable future for cloud management.  ...Read more