Agile Work Process for Urban Innovation in Amsterdam

Guest blog by Bruno Ávila Eça de Matos, IPP ’23

Embarking on the Implementing Public Policy (IPP) program offered by Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) marked the beginning of an eye-opening journey, shifting my perspective from traditional program management and the instruments of the Scrum framework to a new methodology that embraces uncertainty and the need to learn more about the problem we are trying to address. The program offered a deep dive into the art and science of public policy implementation, informed by world-class professors with substantial hands-on experience. 

Context 

The City of Amsterdam has a very established Innovation Department guided by a mission-drive innovation agenda. As part of the newly founded i-Domain of the city government, teams within this department are gradually adopting agile principles of work or integrating to existing methods of work by departments developing or managing digital products. The Digital Urban Planning Lab is one of these teams, responsible for the community research and development of digital tools to make the city-making process more inclusive and data-based. 

Adapting Agile to Urban Innovation

The Agile Principles, born in the world of software development, is celebrated for its flexibility, iterative nature, emphasis on collaboration and customer feedback. Applying it in the IT domain of a governmental institution requires some important adjustments such as guaranteeing the public interest and considering political decision-making in the development process. When applying the principles to a multidisciplinary innovation team focused in the complexity of urban development, a significant set of specific tools is required. Beyond product development, this work consists also on community engagement, social research and cocreation, so it often cannot be easily translated to feature requirements and user stories. 

The Digital Urban Planning Lab of the City of Amsterdam was the testbed for the combination of principles of the Problem-Driven Adaptative Iteration – PDIA to the Scrum Framework (sprints, planning sessions and stand-ups), framing the result into the Scaled Agile Framework – SAFe, adopted by the whole IT domain of the municipal government in order to enable coordination of our work with other teams in their product vision. The adopted process for each quarter (a three-month work period) is further explained below in the phases Preparation, Description, Planning and Execution. 

1. Preparation

This phase lays the groundwork for every quarter. Based on the understanding that we don’t know everything and acknowledging the need for continuous learning, we delve into the root causes of complex societal issues, exploring the “why?”. This phase is crucial for setting the stage for meaningful change, making use of one or more of the following tools depending on how far we are in the project timeline: 

• A fishbone diagram (Ishikawa), where the roots of the problem we are trying to solve is extensively investigated in team sessions and in-depth interviews with stakeholders. 
• Exploration of the Design Space: beyond best practices that solve the identified problem in other places of the world, also understand the current practice and its limitations (through a gap analysis), identify the positive deviance (small-scale solutions that already work in the local context) and promote insights from latent practice (provide room to actors involved in addressing the problem to come to possible solutions). 
• Stakeholder assessment based on the quadruple helix framework for innovation ecosystems: partners and interested parties from knowledge institutions, government, society and businesses. 

2. Description 

Most of the work activities cannot be completed in a single discussion. It means that the expected output, possibles activities and responsibilities related to that piece of work need to be described to ensure they will executed as expected. In Scrum these would be “user stories”, but in urban innovation the nature of these activities can be very diverse. The complexity of larger blocks of work (named Epic or Features in the SAFe context) are broken down in work pieces that can be executed in 1-3 weeks. The template below guides this description: 

3. Planning 

This phase is the time to match the workload with the available resources, such as capacity and time availability within the team. A quarter is divided in four sprints of three weeks each. Activities are granted a size and complexity and allocated in the sprints based on the logical order of execution and external factors.  

4. Execution 

Each sprint concludes with a reflection on learning moments, documenting what we have learned, who we have involved, what questions still linger, and how we would pursue answers in the following stages. This reflective practice is not only about adjusting our course of action but also about evolving our understanding of the problem and possible solutions. Each sprint and quarter is an iteration and it means that by receiving feedback from colleagues and stakeholders we revisit this cycle to prepare, plan, describe and execute again. Making small steps is the key to a creative, effective and comprehensive solution to problem being addressed. 

Overcoming Challenges and Celebrating Successes 

The journey was not without its challenges. Implementing an Agile framework in a field entrenched in traditional, often bureaucratic, processes required tenacity and a willingness to advocate for change. We encountered skepticism and resistance, but as we progressed through the sprints, the results began to speak for themselves. Small wins in early sprints, such as improved stakeholder engagement and visible enhancements in product prototypes, generated momentum and increased ability, authority and acceptance, expanding our change space.  

Conclusion: An Agile Future for Urban Innovation 

The IPP program at HKS did more than introduce a novel concept; it catalyzed a profound shift in how we approach the digital transformation in urban planning and development processes. As we continue to refine this methodology, there is a promise of a future where innovative solutions for Amsterdam and Amsterdammers continuously evolve through the collaborative efforts of policymakers, planners, and residents alike. This method intertwines the technical with the human, illustrating the powerful synergy between learning and doing. 

This is a blog series written by the alumni of the Implementing Public Policy Executive Education Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. 47 Participants successfully completed this 7-month hybrid program in December 2023. These are their learning journey stories.