WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AGILE ORGANIZATION? ? DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

FAKULTÄT WIRTSCHAFTSWISSENSCHAFTEN
DRESDNER BEITRÄGE ZUR WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, NR. 68/14
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AGILE
ORGANIZATION? – DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
ROY WENDLER
THERESA STAHLKE
HERAUSGEBER:
DIE PROFESSOREN DER
FACHGRUPPE WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK
ISSN 0945-4837

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT DRESDEN
Faculty of Business Management and Economics
Chair of Information Systems,
esp. IS in Manufacturing and Commerce
What Constitutes an Agile Organization?
– Descriptive Results of an Empirical Investigation –
Roy Wendler
Theresa Stahlke
contact:
Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Business Management and Economics
Chair of Information Systems, esp. IS in Manufacturing and Commerce
Helmholtzstr. 10, 01069 Dresden / Germany
roy.wendler@tu-dresden.de
Copyright notice: Linking or citing this document is welcomed without fee, provided that the original source is clearly cited. It is not
allowed to make or distribute digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for profit or commercial advantage. Permission to make
copies is only granted for personal or classroom use.
Recommended citation: Wendler, R. & Stahlke, T. (2013). What Constitutes an Agile Organization? - Descriptive Results of an
Empirical Investigation. Dresdner Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Nr. 68/14. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden. (online:
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-130916

Contents
List of Figures III
List of Tables V
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Participants 5
3 Selected Results 9
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1 Agile Values and Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2 Agile Conditions and IT/IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3 Agile Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.4 Agile Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Differentiated Discussion by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.1 Analysis by Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.2 Analysis by Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.3 Analysis by Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.4 Analysis by Customers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 Conclusion 29
4.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References 32
A Appendix VI
A.1 Participating Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
A.2 Complete Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
A.2.1 English Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
A.2.2 German Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
A.3 Item Sources and Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI
A.4 Additional Graphics and Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX
A.4.1 Details by Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX
A.4.2 Details by Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXVIII

Contents II
A.4.3 Details by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXVII
A.4.4 Details by Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLVI

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Interdependencies between agility-related concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2.1: Respondents and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.2: Fields of activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.3: Location vs. size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2.4: Location vs. role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2.5: Region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 3.1: Distribution of answers regarding agile values and principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3.2: Distribution of answers regarding agile conditions and IT/IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3.3: Distribution of answers regarding agile capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.4: Distribution of answers regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) . 17
Figure 3.5: Distribution of answers regarding agile activities (general) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3.6: Illustrative example for differences between CEOs and Architects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 3.7: Details for difference between CIOs/CTOs and IT/ITCManagers regarding train-ing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3.8: Details for items focusing on cooperative activities by role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3.9: Illustrative example for size-dependent trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 3.10: Examples demonstrating hierarchy-dependent problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 3.11: Averages regarding partner-related activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3.12: Exemplary items showing higher average value for European organizations . . . . . 25
Figure 3.13: Illustrative examples showing adaptability issues for organizations with local
customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 3.14: Details about agile IT/IS for companies serving customers abroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure A.1: Averages regarding agile values and principles by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII
Figure A.2: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV
Figure A.3: Averages regarding agile capabilities by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXV
Figure A.4: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by role . . . . . . . . XXVI
Figure A.5: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXVII
Figure A.6: Averages regarding agile values and principles by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXII
Figure A.7: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIII
Figure A.8: Averages regarding agile capabilities by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIV
Figure A.9: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by size . . . . . . . . XXXV
Figure A.10: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXVI
Figure A.11: Averages regarding agile values and principles by location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLI
Figure A.12: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLII
Figure A.13: Averages regarding agile capabilities by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLIII

List of Figures IV
Figure A.14: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by location . . . . XLIV
Figure A.15: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLV
Figure A.16: Averages regarding agile values and principles by region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . L
Figure A.17: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . LI
Figure A.18: Averages regarding agile capabilities by region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LII
Figure A.19: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by region of
customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIII
Figure A.20: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIV

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Location and size (no. of employees) of participating organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3.1: Ratio and average regarding agile values and principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3.2: Ratio and average regarding agile conditions and IT/IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3.3: Ratio and average regarding agile capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3.4: Ratio and average regarding agile activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 3.5: Details regarding agile conditions rated by CEOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 3.6: Proportion of participants answering that all employees share particular capabil-ities
(illustrative examples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 3.7: Average values of customer-related items by region of customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table A.1: Complete list of countries of participating organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
Table A.2: Item sources and related agility concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVIII
Table A.3: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by role . . . . . . . . . . . . XIX
Table A.4: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by role . . . . . . . . . . . . XX
Table A.5: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI
Table A.6: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXII
Table A.7: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by size . . . . . . . . . . . . XXVIII
Table A.8: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by size . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIX
Table A.9: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXX
Table A.10: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXI
Table A.11: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by location . . . . . . . XXXVII
Table A.12: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by location. . . . . . . . XXXVIII
Table A.13: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIX
Table A.14: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XL
Table A.15: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by region of cus-tomers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLVI
Table A.16: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by region of cus-tomers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLVII
Table A.17: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by region of customers . . . . . XLVIII
Table A.18: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by region of customers . . . . . . . XLIX

1. Introduction
For several years, businesses and organizations have faced an increasingly volatile environment, marked
with challenges such as increased competition, globalized markets, and individualized customer require-ments.
These challenges are accompanied by many changes in every organizational field. Such scenarios
were already described in the 90s, for instance by Goldman, Nagel, and Preiss (1995) or the Iacocca In-stitute
(1991). As a response, different concepts have emerged that should enable organizations to master
these challenges. Agility is the most recent, but others like flexibility and leanness are mentioned often, too.
Many research activities concerning agility and its related concepts have been conducted in the meantime.
However, there currently exists no common understanding of what constitutes agility. This makes it difficult
for both researcher and practitioner audiences to build upon the insights obtained thus far. On the one
hand, researchers are missing a well-founded basis to develop the topic further, while on the other hand,
practitioners cannot easily uncover what parts of their organizations have to be changed and in what respect
they have to be changed to respond to new market challenges.
This is of particular interest for organizations in the software and information technology (IT) service in-dustry.
With the appearance of agile software developing methodologies in the early 2000s, or in a broader
sense agile values and principles (see for instance Beck et al., 2001; Cockburn, 2007; Highsmith, 2002),
the advantages of these new approaches became visible. However, it turned out to be difficult to transfer the
experienced benefits beyond the team level (Abrahamsson, Conboy, & Wang, 2009; °Agerfalk, Fitzgerald,
& Slaughter, 2009; Wendler & Gr¨aning, 2011), though this step is necessary so that the whole organization
can benefit from agility.
Hence, the report presented here is part of a research project aimed at identifying the structure and com-ponents
of an agile organization within the software and IT service industry. To fulfill this aim, a survey
from a comprehensive organizational perspective has been carried out that was based on a systematic com-parison
of available agility frameworks. The purpose of this publication is to give an initial comprehensive
overview over the collected data. Together with a comprehensive literature review conducted prior to this
study (Wendler, 2013), it answers the research questions: What are potential components of an agile orga-nization?
and To what extent are these components reflected by the software and IT service industry?
The paper is structured as follows: Chapter 1 introduces the research background and acknowledges the
people that contributed to the success of this survey. Chapter 2 provides tables and figures describing the
actual participants of the survey, while Chapter 3 contains a descriptive analysis of the data obtained. For
this, an overview is given in section 3.1, while section 3.2 discusses the results differentiated by various
subgroups. The results are summarized in Chapter 4, and limitations are given as well as an outlook on on-going
research. In addition, the report includes a comprehensive appendix covering a list of all participating
countries, the complete questionnaire in English and German language, additional literature sources for the
items, and a collection of additional tables and figures containing more details about the data.

1. Introduction 2
1.1. Background
The concept of agility is nothing new. Early works that date back to the 1950s are already found within the
social sciences (Parsons, Bales, & Shils, 1953). However, agility gained significantly more attention in the
1990s, especially after the so-called “Lehigh report” (Iacocca Institute, 1991) was published explaining a
new concept of manufacturing strategies. This development was accompanied by the increasing emphasis
on customer orientation and proactivity instead of reactivity. Later on, mainly after the year 2000, process
orientation was an additional focus, which led to an examination of agility from an organizational perspec-tive
(F¨orster & Wendler, 2012). Simultaneously, agility became well known within the software industry,
whereby the “Agile Manifesto” (Beck et al., 2001) triggered extensive research in this field.
“Agile” is defined by the dictionary as “having the faculty of quick motion; nimble, active, ready” (Simpson
& Weiner, 1989, p. 255), whereby agility is the “quality of being agile” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p.
256). Given this explanation as a basis for understanding organizational agility, a variety of definitions
have emerged today which are heavily influenced by context and application domain. A discussion of all
available definitions is beyond the scope of this report. Different authors already list various definitions
of agility (for instance Bernardes & Hanna, 2009; Gunasekaran & Yusuf, 2002). Another comprehensive
collection is given in the appendix of F¨orster and Wendler (2012).
An extensive definition appropriate to the context of this work was developed by Ganguly, Nilchiani, and
Farr (2009) based on the work of Dove (1999, 2001). They define agility as “an effective integration of
response ability and knowledge management in order to rapidly, efficiently and accurately adapt to any
unexpected (or unpredictable) change in both proactive and reactive business / customer needs and oppor-tunities
without compromising with the cost or the quality of the product / process” (Ganguly et al., 2009,
p. 441).
There are two other closely connected and underlying concepts: flexibility and leanness. Although both
share some common ground with agility, they are not the same and should be distinguished. A detailed
discussion is given in (Conboy, 2009), which is shortly summarized here. First, flexibility is very similar
to agility. The main differences between flexibility and agility lie in issues like lack of speed and rapid
action, continual change instead of a one-off change, a missing inclusion of knowledge and learning, and
the application as single practices in specific parts of the company instead company-wide. The difference
of leanness, however, is much more straight-forward. In contrast to agility, leanness is unsuitable to vari-ability
and uncertainty and emphasizes simple cost reduction over value-related issues, mainly value for the
customer (Conboy, 2009).
However, it remains unclear what elements constitute the construct of organizational agility. In a previous
work (Wendler, 2013), 28 agility frameworks were analyzed. The aim was to identify common ground and
differences and to search for recurring concepts of agility. Finally, this procedure resulted in 33 concepts
of agility that were heavily interdependent on each other (please refer to Wendler, 2013 for more details).
The final model of all identified concepts and interdependencies is illustrated in figure 1.1 and forms the
theoretical basis of this survey, which covered all identified concepts. The methodology of the survey is
further described in section 1.2.

1. Introduction 3
Figure 1.1.: Interdependencies between agility-related concepts
1.2. Methodology
To fulfill the research aims, we used a quantitative web-based survey. A quantitative approach seemed
appropriate because the purpose of this study was to generate an understanding of organizational agility in
a specific industry from a comprehensive and global view. Hence, it would be insufficient to investigate
single organizations and time-consuming to collect data qualitatively. A survey allows for the collection of
a huge amount of data from many entities within a relatively short time frame. Furthermore, much research
has already been conducted, making measurement scales for agility available that can be applied to this
study (see appendix A.3 for more details).
The survey items emerged from a comprehensive literature review (see section 1.1 and Wendler, 2013)
that identified 33 concepts of agility. These concepts were formulated as questionnaire items with support
from already existent studies (see appendix A.3). To ensure an appropriate measurement, different scales
were used, because as Tsourveloudis and Valavanis (2002) point out, the parameters affecting agility are not
homogenous. In addition, we willfully relinquished agree/disagree scales, although many authors work with

1. Introduction 4
these. In our opinion, an organization is not agile when its employees and managers “agree” with statements
describing agility or when they “think’ they are agile. Instead, it is the actions, capabilities, values, etc. of an
organization that represent its agility. So, item-specific scales were developed to measure the dissemination
of values and the implementation of conditions (fromcompletely to not at all), the distribution of capabilities
among employees and managers (from all to none), and the frequency of activities (from always to never).
This approach has already been used successfully by other authors (for instance Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
and has been proven to reduce errors and enhance the quality of the answers (Saris, Revilla, Krosnick, &
Shaeffer, 2010). The complete questionnaire is given in appendix A.2.
The target group of the survey was general and IT-related decision-makers (like CEOs, CTOs, Managers,
and employees in leading positions) in organizations of the software- and IT service industry worldwide.
Hence, a web-based survey was appropriate because the targeted respondents normally have a high affinity
for web-based tasks. Furthermore, worldwide distribution of the survey was much easier by email than
paper-based mail. To ensure that the respondents understood the items, the questionnaire was carefully
pretested by academics and practitioners. The pretests resulted in a comprehensive revision of the original
questionnaire. First, the questionnaire was shortened by deleting inappropriate or duplicate items. Further-more,
items were reformulated to enhance understandability, clarity, and applicability to the topic. Finally,
the questionnaire contained 68 items.
The survey has mainly been distributed via newsletters of organizations representing a majority of compa-nies
from the targeted industry (see section 1.3 for details). Furthermore, the survey has been advertised
via forum posts, blogs, and website entries in appropriate communities and a sample of randomly drawn
companies from databases like Amadeus (www.bvdinfo.com), Yellow Pages, and others were invited to
participate via email. This approach, utilizing multiple channels, ensured that a sufficient number (437) of
valid and complete responses could be collected (see Chapter 2 for more details).
1.3. Acknowledgments
Many people helped to make this survey a success. We would like to thank all who supported us in
any matter, especially our colleagues for their constructive discussions and tips. In addition, we thank
all our academic and practitioner pretesters, especially Michael Maicher, CEO, Ardour Consulting Group
GmbH (ardour.de) and Jens Frenzel, CTO, PROLOGA GmbH (prologa.de), who helped us to redefine
unclear items. Furthermore, we thank everybody who distributed the survey among colleagues, forums,
and newsletters, especially Damaris Bode, Global Community Director, Iasa Global (iasaglobal.org), and
Hans-Peter Fr¨oschle, former CEO, itSMF Deutschland e.V. (itsmf.de), as well as Manuel Fischer, head
of section Software and Dr. Mathias Weber, head of section IT Services, BITKOM Bundesverband Infor-mationswirtschaft,
Telekommunikation und neue Medien e.V. (bitkom.org). Finally, we thank Russ Lewis,
Senior Partner, Storm Consulting (storm-consulting.com) for fruitful discussions and new ideas for inter-preting
the results of the survey.

2. Participants
Altogether, the survey has been viewed by 1522 persons and 768 of them answered at least one question.
Among those respondents, 490 completed the questionnaire. Unfortunately, 53 invalid responses had to be
excluded from analysis because they do not belong to the focused industry of software development and IT
services. Hence, 437 responses were included for further analysis (see figure 2.1). All following numbers,
figures, and tables apply to these 437 responses.
In addition, figure 2.1 shows the roles of all participants within their organization. More than one third of
them are Enterprise and IT Architects, followed by Chief Executive Officers at nearly 30 %. Chief Informa-tion
Officers, Chief Technology Officers, and other IT and ITC Managers sum up to more than 20 %. Roles
summarized as Other include leading positions like Managerial Board Members, Chief Financial Officers,
Technical Directors, or Senior Managers of Quality Management, Research & Development, Sales, IT, and
others. In general, all participants hold leading or managerial positions in their organizations, and hence it
is assured that they are able to assess their organization from an extensive point of view and are suitable to
answer the survey questions.
Figure 2.2 shows the fields of activity of the participating organizations. Most of them are nearly equally
distributed within Programming and Software Development (43.1 %), and IT Services and Consultancy
(41.6 %). Computer Facilities Management (6.5 %) is less represented. Other includes a mix of different
industries, for instance banking, telecommunications, commerce, and advertising, among others. However,
all are closely connected with the software and IT service industry or even operate in one of the other three
fields, too. Over all, 239 organizations are active in more than one field of activity.
Furthermore, the participants were asked to state the location of their organization or, in case of multina-tional
companies, the location of their headquarters. As table 2.1 reveals, most companies are situated in
Europe, especially Germany. Due to the high number of German participants, a differentiation between
Germany and other European countries is possible. A high number of participating organizations are from
Chief Executive
Officer; 29.1%
Chief
Information /
Technology
Officer; 8.2%
IT / ITC Manager;
13.5%
Other; 13.7%
Enterprise / IT
Architect; 35.5%
no answer;
754
completed,
valid; 437
completed,
invalid; 53
started; 278
[out of 437 valid responses]
Figure 2.1.: Respondents and participants

2. Participants 6
43.1%
41.6%
6.5%
8.8%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Programming and
Software
Development
IT Services and
Consultancy
Computer
Facilities
Management
Other
Figure 2.2.: Fields of activity
Location Quantity Ratio No. of Employees Quantity Ratio
Germany 178 40.7 % less than 10 95 21.7 %
Europe (w/o Germany) 82 18.8 % 10 to 49 87 19.9 %
North America 104 23.8 % 50 to 249 87 19.9 %
Asia 39 8.9 % more than 250 167 38.2 %
Other 34 7.8 % n.a. 1 0.2 %
Table 2.1.: Location and size (no. of employees) of participating organizations
North America, and 92 are situated in the United States of America. Altogether, organizations from 45
countries worldwide participated in the study. The complete list is given in table A.1 in appendix A.1. The
countries were assigned to the regions according the United Nations Statistics Division (United Nations
Statistics Division, 2013).
The organizations were further distinguished by size, i. e. by their number of employees. For this, the
classification of the European Union was used (The Commission of the European Communities, 2003)
and the corresponding results are also given in table 2.1. Most of these organizations are huge companies
with more than 250 employees. The rest are nearly equally distributed among medium, small, and micro
enterprises.
However, it is noticeable that the different sizes of participating organizations are unevenly distributed
within the regions, as figure 2.3 shows. Most huge companies are situated in North America, whereas the
majority of the participating small and medium-sized companies are German. This has an effect on the
distribution of the role of the participants, too. The proportion of CEOs is much smaller the larger the
organization becomes, and the persons answering the survey more often hold the role of Architects or IT
Managers. Thus the roles are also unevenly distributed within the regions (see figure 2.4). This has to be
taken into account when interpreting the results.

2. Participants 7
Europe
Germany without
Germany
North
America
Asia Other
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
less than 10 13.5% 3.0% 3.0% 0.9% 1.4%
10 to 49 11.0% 2.3% 3.9% 1.1% 1.6%
50 to 249 10.5% 4.6% 2.1% 1.1% 1.6%
more than 250 5.7% 8.9% 14.6% 5.7% 3.2%
n.a. 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 2.3.: Location vs. size
Germany
Europe
(without
Germany)
North
America
Asia Other
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Chief Executive Officer 20.4% 3.4% 2.5% 1.6% 1.1%
Chief Information/Technology Officer 3.2% 1.1% 2.1% 1.4% 0.5%
IT/ITC Manager 6.4% 2.3% 3.0% 1.1% 0.7%
Enterprise/IT Architect 3.2% 10.1% 13.3% 3.9% 5.0%
Other 7.6% 1.8% 3.0% 0.9% 0.5%
Figure 2.4.: Location vs. role

2. Participants 8
local; 7.3%
national;
24.0%
own region;
27.0%
worldwide;
38.0%
"abroad"; 1.6%
n.a.; 2.1%
Germany
Europe
(without
Germany)
North
America
Asia Other
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
local 3.7% 0.5% 2.1% 0.0% 1.1%
national 14.0% 4.1% 3.4% 1.6% 0.9%
own region 13.7% 4.8% 4.8% 1.8% 1.8%
worldwide 9.4% 9.2% 12.6% 4.6% 2.3%
"abroad" 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.2%
n.a. 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.4%
Figure 2.5.: Region of customers
Finally, the respondents were asked to state the regions where they serve their customers. The companies
were classified as follows:
• local: companies that only serve customers in a local area
• national: companies that serve customers in a local and/or national area
• own region: companies that serve customers in their own region (Europe, North America, etc.)
• worldwide: companies that serve customers in at least one additional region than the one where they
are located (for instance, a German company with customers in Europe and North America)
• “abroad”: companies that serve customers in any region but the one where they are located (for
instance, an Indian company with customers in Europe and North America)
The left side of figure 2.5 shows the numbers of the whole sample. The proportions of the different classes
were found to be well distributed. Approximately one third (31.3 %) only serve local and national cus-tomers.
27 % serve customers in their own region. That means their customers are often farther away but
the cooperation is not as complex as in worldwide operating companies (for instance, due to similar time
zones). Most of the companies (38 %) are operating worldwide in at least two different regions. Finally, the
numbers of companies that only have customers in other regions or that did not give sufficient information
about their customers are very small.
The right side of figure 2.5 distinguishes the region of customers between the locations of the participating
organizations. It becomes clear that there is similar distribution within the different regions. The only
exception is, again, a smaller proportion of companies operating worldwide within the German participants.

3. Selected Results
Selected descriptive results of the survey are presented and discussed in this chapter. Section 3.1 gives the
reader a summary of the results of all questions asked. For every part of the questionnaire, the distribution
and ratio of all answers as well as the average value are given in a summarizing table and figure and are
shortly described.
Section 3.2 takes a closer look at various subgroups of participants regarding role, location, company size,
or region of customers. Remarkable and interesting facts are discussed and interpreted. Furthermore,
additional statistics and figures are given in appendix A.4.
3.1. Overview
3.1.1. Agile Values and Principles
The first section of the questionnaire dealt with values and principles that are prevalent within the organi-zations.
These questions help to determine the overall culture and the way of thinking of the company’s
managers and employees. Table 3.1 summarizes the answers of all participants and averages each item. The
table reveals that all items have an average around 2 (mainly). However, the given percentages for every
item show that there are a variety of answers across the complete scale.
This picture is further illustrated by figure 3.1. It shows that huge parts of the respondents answered the
items with mainly or completely. This indicates a rather agile attitude in most of the participating organi-zations.
Nevertheless, a proportion of approximately 20 to 30 % of the respondents state that they see the
given values and principles only partly fulfilled. Finally, around 10 % say that their company shares these
values and principles little or even not at all.
Furthermore, one can recognize that the average values for the first five items, representing the general
values of an organization (“. . . values a culture. . . ”), are slightly lower than for the second group of items,
representing concrete aspects of implementations of such a culture (“. . . prefer. . . ”). Hence, one may con-clude
that the majority of respondents states that their organization shares agile values but cannot put them
into practice accordingly.
The following is an illustrative example: nearly three quarters state that their company values a culture
that “considers changing customer-related requirements as opportunities” completely or mainly. But at the
same time, more than 40 % stated that their company prefers “simplicity, i. e. skipping [...] features that go
beyond the customer requirements” and “market-related changes [...] to generate new opportunities” partly
at best. This indicates that there may be room for improvements regarding customer-related behavior.

3. Selected Results 10
1 2 3 4 5 Average
completely mainly partly little not at all
Our organization values a culture that. . .
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. 32.5 % 39.4 % 21.3 % 5.7 % 1.1 % 2.0
. . . considers team work as integral part. 48.3 % 38.9 % 10.3 % 2.1 % 0.5 % 1.7
. . . accepts and supports decisions and proposals of
29.7 % 41.2 % 25.2 % 3.4 % 0.5 % 2.0
employees.
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of
innovative ideas.
26.5 % 40.3 % 26.3 % 6.2 % 0.7 % 2.1
. . . considers changing customer-related requirements as
opportunities.
30.9 % 41.2 % 22.0 % 5.0 % 0.9 % 2.0
Our organization prefers. . .
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than
reacting to crisis or “fire-fighting”.
28.4 % 38.2 % 22.2 % 9.2 % 2.1 % 2.2
. . . the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or
departments, e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.
39.4 % 30.4 % 18.3 % 9.4 % 2.5 % 2.1
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying
information within our organization.
29.7 % 36.6 % 22.2 % 10.8 % 0.7 % 2.2
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service
features that go beyond the customer requirements.
22.0 % 36.4 % 30.2 % 9.4 % 2.1 % 2.3
. . .market-related changes (e. g. new competitors,
preferences) to generate new opportunities.
24.9 % 34.8 % 27.5 % 11.0 % 1.8 % 2.3
Table 3.1.: Ratio and average regarding agile values and principles
Our organization values a culture that...
...harnesses change for competitive advantages.
…considers team work as integral part.
…accepts and supports decisions and
proposals of employees.
...is supportive of experimentation and the
use of innovative ideas.
…considers changing customer-related
requirements as opportunities.
Our organization prefers...
…a proactive continuous improvement rather
than reacting to crisis or "fire-fighting".
...face-to-face communication for conveying
...simplicity, i.e. skipping product and/or service features
that go beyond the customer requirements.
…market-related changes (e.g. new competitors,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
…the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or
departments, e.g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.
Figure 3.1.: Distribution of answers regarding agile values and principles

Additionally, two items are interesting because the proportion of respondents answering completely is larger
for these than for the others. These are the items “Our organization values a culture that considers team
work as integral part,” and “Our organization prefers the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or
departments, e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.” Both items are related to the structural aspects
of how the work is organized with and between the employees and managers. That is a positive sign
because supporting teamwork and reducing hierarchical barriers are basic fundamentals for an organization
to become agile (Sherehiy, Karwowski, & Layer, 2007; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005).
3.1.2. Agile Conditions and IT/IS
To become agile, it is not enough to simply “value” or “prefer” an organizational culture containing agility-related
aspects. An organization has to establish the necessary infrastructure and environment to provide
the base for an agile organization. Elements are an appropriate strategy that shapes the path to agility,
effective communication processes throughout the whole organization, and informed, motivated, and skilled
people, as well as suitable information systems and technologies that support the organization in all matters
(Kettunen, 2009; Sharifi & Zhang, 1999; Sharifi, Colquhoun, Barclay, & Dann, 2001).
Hence, the second part of the questionnaire focused on these issues, with five items related to general con-ditions
and seven items asking about IT- and IS-specific conditions. Table 3.2 summarizes the distribution
of answers over all participants and the average value for every item. An additional illustration is again
given in figure 3.2.
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Our organization has. . .
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up”
communication processes.
20.6 % 38.2 % 30.0 % 8.2 % 3.0 % 2.3
. . . an intensive employee training program. 14.2 % 28.0 % 27.2 % 22.2 % 8.5 % 2.8
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how
23.1 % 45.5 % 23.3 % 6.9 % 1.1 % 2.2
their own job relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all
hierarchical levels in terms easily understood by all.
21.5 % 40.1 % 26.8 % 7.3 % 4.4 % 2.3
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market
changes from the very start.
22.4 % 40.1 % 24.0 % 8.9 % 4.6 % 2.3
Our organization has Information Systems and Technologies that. . .
. . .make organizational information easily accessible to
all employees.
28.6 % 39.6 % 24.3 % 6.6 % 1.1 % 2.1
. . . provide information helping our employees to quickly
respond to changes.
20.8 % 41.9 % 27.0 % 8.2 % 2.1 % 2.3
. . . are appropriate to our needs and allow us to be
competitive in the marketplace.
23.8 % 42.8 % 26.3 % 5.7 % 1.3 % 2.2
. . . enable decentralization in decision making. 18.5 % 30.7 % 33.0 % 12.8 % 5.0 % 2.6
. . . are integrated amongst different departments and/or
30.0 % 36.2 % 21.5 % 9.8 % 2.5 % 2.2
business units.
. . . are standardized or comparable amongst different
departments and/or business units.
26.1 % 33.0 % 26.1 % 10.5 % 4.3 % 2.3
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners
into our processes.
15.6 % 27.4 % 34.3 % 18.3 % 4.3 % 2.7
Table 3.2.: Ratio and average regarding agile conditions and IT/IS
In general, the obtained results reveal that the implementation of the mentioned conditions is also at an
advanced stage, with averages between 2 (mainly) and 3 (partly). However, the average values, as well as

Our organization has...
...effective "top-down" and "bottom-up"
...an intensive employee training program.
...employees that have a good understanding of how
their own job relates to the firm's overall activity.
…a strategy that is clearly communicated to all
...a strategic vision that allows flexibility for
market changes from the very start.
Our organization has Information Systems and Technologies that...
…make organizational information easily
accessible to all employees.
...provide information helping our employees
to quickly respond to changes.
…are appropriate to our needs and allow us
to be competitive in the marketplace.
...enable decentralization in decision making.
...are integrated amongst different
…are standardized or comparable amongst
different departments and/or business units.
...enable us to fully integrate our customers
and partners into our processes.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3.2.: Distribution of answers regarding agile conditions and IT/IS
the proportion of people answering with little or not at all (approximately 8 to 15 %), are slightly higher
than the averages of agile values and principles (see section 3.1.1). That supports the assumption that it
takes some effort from valuing an agile culture to take the actions needed.
One result within the first set of items stands out. It is the item “Our organization has an intensive em-ployee
training program.” This item achieved only an average of 2.8 (partly) and shows a clearly different
distribution of answers. Only 42 % agree completely or mainly with this statement. However, continuous
and purposeful training of employees is one essential component to creating an agile workforce and, as
Sherehiy et al. state, “represents an investment into future success” (p. 448).
Additionally, two other items only reach an average score that lies within the scope of partly. These are
both IS-related aspects that “. . . enable decentralization in decision making” and “. . . enable [the organiza-tions]
to fully integrate [their] customers and partners into [their] processes.” Both are tasks that are not
easily fulfilled, so it is surprising that even approximately 19 % and 16 %, respectively, claim that their
organization fulfills these requirements completely.
3.1.3. Agile Capabilities
The well-known “Lehigh-Report” from 1991 has already stated that “agility is accomplished by integrating
three resources: technology, management, workforce” (Iacocca Institute, 1991, p. 8). Hence, the third part
of the questionnaire focused on the capabilities that are needed within an agile organization. Capabilities
enhancing agility enable an organization to cope with uncertainty and change and to stay competitive in

1 2 3 4 5 Average
all many some few none
Our managers. . .
. . .maintain an informal management style with focus on
coaching and inspiring people.
27.0 % 38.4 % 24.0 % 9.2 % 1.4 % 2.2
. . . understand the value of IT investments from a
company-wide perspective.
31.6 % 37.1 % 22.2 % 7.8 % 1.4 % 2.1
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage change. 24.7 % 36.6 % 26.1 % 11.4 % 1.1 % 2.3
. . . are able to quickly implement changes in products and/or
22.2 % 32.7 % 32.5 % 11.0 % 1.6 % 2.4
services.
. . . are able to recognize future competitive advantages that
may result from innovations in products, services, and/or
processes.
19.7 % 36.6 % 28.6 % 14.0 % 1.1 % 2.4
. . . are able to flexibly deploy their resources (material,
financial, human, . . . ) to make use of opportunities and
minimize threats.
20.4 % 34.1 % 31.8 % 11.0 % 2.8 % 2.4
. . .manage the sharing of information, know-how, and
knowledge among employees appropriately.
20.8 % 36.8 % 28.8 % 11.4 % 2.1 % 2.4
Our employees. . .
. . . are able to act with a view to continuous improvement of
our products, services, processes, and/or working methods.
16.9 % 44.9 % 29.5 % 8.0 % 0.7 % 2.3
. . . are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best
opportunities which come up in our environment.
10.1 % 35.7 % 41.7 % 12.4 % 0.2 % 2.6
. . . are able to meet the levels of product and/or service quality
demanded by our customers.
23.6 % 50.6 % 21.3 % 4.4 % 0.2 % 2.1
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other tasks
when needed.
16.0 % 48.7 % 26.3 % 8.7 % 0.2 % 2.3
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill, and
esteem.
31.1 % 47.1 % 14.4 % 6.9 % 0.5 % 2.0
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly access,
apply and update knowledge.
27.5 % 47.6 % 18.8 % 6.0 % 0.23 % 2.0
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from one
another and to pass their knowledge to others.
29.5 % 41.7 % 21.5 % 7.1 % 0.2 % 2.1
. . . obtain and develop appropriate technological capabilities
purposeful.
18.8 % 46.9 % 26.5 % 7.6 % 0.2 % 2.2
. . . can re-organize continuously in different team
configurations to meet changing requirements and the newly
arising challenges.
21.3 % 38.4 % 29.1 % 9.8 % 1.4 % 2.3
. . . are self-motivated. 17.6 % 43.0 % 30.2 % 8.5 % 0.7 % 2.3
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner. 13.0 % 35.2 % 35.9 % 14.9 % 0.9 % 2.6
Table 3.3.: Ratio and average regarding agile capabilities
a volatile market environment. These are therefore a key aspect of an agile organization (Sharifi et al.,
2001; Tseng & Lin, 2011). However, the people of an organization rather than the organization itself
possess capabilities. Thus, seven items addressed the capabilities of managers, while eleven items focused
on the employees’ capabilities. Please note the changed answer scale asking how many of the managers and
employees share the stated capabilities.
Table 3.3 and figure 3.3 summarize the answers regarding agile capabilities. The average values over all
participants are all between 2 (many) and 3 (some). Not many participants answered with few, and nearly
nobody stated that none of the managers and employees share the stated capabilities. The distribution of
answers is very similar for every item within both blocks. No item shows any conspicuous deviations.
The two items with the worst average value of 2.6 each both address employees’ capabilities. They are
namely that the employees “. . . are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best opportunities which come
up in our environment” and “. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner.” Although the dif-ference
to the other items is not that huge, the latter is still interesting. An agile organization is characterized

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
all many some few none
Our managers...
...maintain an informal management style with
focus on coaching and inspiring people.
...understand the value of IT investments
from a company‐wide perspective.
...have the knowledge and skills
necessary to manage change.
...are able to quickly implement changes
in products and/or services.
...are able to recognize future competitive
advantages that may result from innovations
in products, services, and/or processes.
...are able to flexibly deploy their resources
(material, financial, human, ...) to make use
of opportunities and minimize threats.
...manage the sharing of information, know‐how,
and knowledge among employees appropriately.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Our employees...
...are able to act with a view to continuous
improvement of our products, services,
processes, and/or working methods.
...are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best
...are able to meet the levels of product and/or
service quality demanded by our customers.
...use a broad range of skills and can be
applied to other tasks when needed.
...communicate with each other with
trust, goodwill, and esteem.
...are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly
access, apply and update knowledge.
...are in general always willing to continuously
learn from one another and to pass their
knowledge to others.
...obtain and develop appropriate technological
capabilities purposeful.
...can re‐organize continuously in different team
configurations to meet changing requirements
and the newly arising challenges.
...are self‐motivated.
...take responsibility and think in
a business‐like manner.
Figure 3.3.: Distribution of answers regarding agile capabilities

by a culture that allows decision making at all hierarchical levels and distributes authority to all employees
of the organization (Breu, Hemingway, Strathern, & Bridger, 2001; Goldman et al., 1995). However, the re-sults
for the named item indicate that, despite the fact that an appropriate culture is valued (please compare
item “Our organization values a culture that accepts and supports decisions and proposals of employees”
in section 3.1.1), the employees are to some extent reluctant to take responsibility. This is an important
issue that should not be neglected. A similar phenomenon has already been identified with a case study at
an agile software development company, where the employees had a tendency to let their own decisions be
confirmed by management (Wendler & Gräning, 2011).
Another interesting aspect is the different distribution of answers between the two item blocks. Looking
at the items for employees, one can see that the majority of respondents answered with many. At the
managers’ side, however, the answers all, many, and some share relatively equal proportions.
3.1.4. Agile Activities
Finally, an organization may have a generally agile attitude and the needed capabilities may be available.
These are prerequisites, but they do not automatically make an organization agile. In the end, the actions
and activities that are carried out by the organization and its members determine the organization’s actual
degree of agility. Similar to methodologies in the field of agile software development, the literature suggests
a lot of practices determining what things and how these things have to be done (see appendix A.3 for related
sources). Hence, the last and most comprehensive part of the questionnaire concentrated on this issue.
Six items focused on the activities of employees, and another six items looked at the activities of the
organization regarding its employees. Finally, another set of 16 items summarized the general activities of
the whole organization. Please not that the answer scale changed again, now asking how often the activities
are carried out.
Again, table 3.4 and figures 3.4 and 3.5 deliver an overview of the answers regarding agile activities. The
majority of answers lie in the area of always, often, and sometimes. The average values are seldom below
2, i. e. “better” than often and never above 3 (sometimes). However, for some items, the proportion of
participants answering with 4 (seldom) or 5 (never) is around 20%. This is higher than within the other parts
of the questionnaire and may show some weaknesses in carrying out activities indicating agile behavior.
First, two employee-related items attract attention with the lowest average values of 1.9 and 1.8, respec-tively,
and less than 5 % of participants answering with seldom or never for both. These items are “Our
employees work in small teams in their projects” and “Regarding our employees, we trust them to get their
job done.” The items concerning self-organized teams and a close collaboration between different teams
and departments are closely connected, and a relatively high proportion of participants stated always and
often (approximately 70 to 75 %) for these items. This is positive because both a flexible structure with
small teams and an environment of trust are important indicators for an agile organization especially in the
software and IT services industry (Lindvall et al., 2002; Misra, Kumar, & Kumar, 2009; Nerur et al., 2005).
To the contrary, up to approximately 25 % state that their employees seldom or never “rotate amongst
different activities, tasks, positions, or departments.” This is critical because job rotation is useful to train
employees in multiple skills and to enhance job enrichment, both important aspects for an agile workforce
(Gunasekaran, 1999; Vázquez-Bustelo, Avella, & Fernández, 2007). Also, offering incentives to promote
training and the alignment of incentives with team-based behavior is less developed.

1 2 3 4 5 Average
always often sometimes seldom never
Our employees. . .
. . . collaborate closely with different teams, departments,
and/or business units.
26.5 % 49.2 % 16.7 % 7.1 % 0.5 % 2.1
. . . organize themselves in their teams. 26.8 % 44.9 % 20.8 % 6.2 % 1.4 % 2.1
. . . reflect at regular intervals on how to become more
14.7 % 33.9 % 37.3 % 13.0 % 1.1 % 2.5
effective in their team, then tune and adjust their behavior
accordingly.
. . .work in small teams in their projects. 32.0 % 49.4 % 15.3 % 2.5 % 0.7 % 1.9
. . . form teams that are geographically closely located. 24.7 % 41.7 % 20.6 % 9.6 % 3.4 % 2.3
. . . rotate amongst different activities, tasks, positions or
11.7 % 28.2 % 33.6 % 21.7 % 4.8 % 2.8
departments.
Regarding our employees, we. . .
. . .manage proposals, new ideas, and solutions from all
levels consequently.
16.7 % 46.2 % 25.6 % 9.2 % 2.3 % 2.3
. . . trust them to get their job done. 36.6 % 48.3 % 11.7 % 3.0 % 0.5 % 1.8
. . . offer incentives not only for individuals, but for the team
21.5 % 28.8 % 26.1 % 15.8 % 7.8 % 2.6
and their contribution to the overall organization.
. . . offer incentives to encourage our employees to upgrade
their skills and training.
22.0 % 32.3 % 27.0 % 12.4 % 6.4 % 2.5
. . . encourage also employees at lower levels to make
decisions and take responsibility.
23.8 % 38.9 % 23.6 % 10.8 % 3.0 % 2.3
. . . develop employees skills with a view to the firm’s
long-term future development.
26.3 % 34.8 % 23.3 % 10.8 % 4.8 % 2.3
In our organization, we. . .
. . . scan and examine our environment systematically to
anticipate change.
18.8 % 37.5 % 30.9 % 10.3 % 2.5 % 2.4
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating
our business strategy.
13.7 % 37.3 % 34.8 % 11.2 % 3.0 % 2.5
our processes.
12.1 % 34.1 % 34.8 % 15.6 % 3.4 % 2.6
. . . are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face of
market- and/or customer-related changes.
22.0 % 42.3 % 24.7 % 9.8 % 1.1 % 2.3
. . . change authorities when tasks change. 15.6 % 30.9 % 32.7 % 16.3 % 4.6 % 2.6
. . . jointly and intensively operate throughout different
23.1 % 39.4 % 25.2 % 10.5 % 1.8 % 2.3
functions and/or departments for strategic decision making.
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments
and/or functions in new product and/or service development.
21.5 % 41.4 % 24.9 % 10.8 % 1.4 % 2.3
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development
of new products and/or services.
16.5 % 34.3 % 31.4 % 15.1 % 2.8 % 2.5
. . . inform ourselves systematically about information
technology innovations.
28.8 % 38.7 % 22.9 % 8.7 % 0.9 % 2.1
. . . strategically invest in appropriate technologies and have a
clear vision how IT contributes to business value.
24.7 % 38.2 % 26.3 % 9.6 % 1.1 % 2.2
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further
tasks to our partners and subcontractors.
18.5 % 41.4 % 25.6 % 12.6 % 1.8 % 2.4
. . .monitor the performance of our partners and
subcontractors very closely.
25.4 % 35.0 % 23.6 % 13.5 % 2.5 % 2.3
. . . select our partners and subcontractors by quality criteria
(rather than pure cost-based decisions).
27.2 % 38.7 % 20.6 % 11.2 % 2.3 % 2.2
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements and
needs.
31.1 % 43.9 % 18.1 % 5.3 % 1.6 % 2.0
. . . encourage compilation and internal dissemination of
information on customers needs.
23.1 % 38.7 % 25.9 % 10.3 % 2.1 % 2.3
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast feedback
from our customers.
35.5 % 39.8 % 17.2 % 5.7 % 1.8 % 2.0
Table 3.4.: Ratio and average regarding agile activities

Our employees...
...collaborate closely with different teams,
departments, and/or business units.
...organize themselves in their teams.
...reflect at regular intervals on how to become
more effective in their team, then tune
and adjust their behavior accordingly.
...work in small teams in their projects.
...form teams that are geographically
closely located.
...rotate amongst different activities,
tasks, positions or departments.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Regarding our employees, we...
...manage proposals, new ideas, and
solutions from all levels consequently.
...trust them to get their job done.
...offer incentives not only for individuals,
but for the team and their contribution
to the overall organization.
...offer incentives to encourage our employees
to upgrade their skills and training.
...encourage also employees at lower levels
to make decisions and take responsibility.
...develop employees skills with a view to the
firm's long-term future development.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3.4.: Distribution of answers regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
In our organization, we...
...scan and examine our environment
systematically to anticipate change.
...react to approaching changes by immediately
updating our business strategy.
updating our processes.
...are quick to make appropriate decisions in the
face of market- and/or customer-related changes.
...change authorities when tasks change.
...jointly and intensively operate throughout
different functions and/or departments
for strategic decision making.
...encourage early involvement of several
departments and/or functions in new
product and/or service development.
...design our processes simultaneously to the
development of new products and/or services.
...inform ourselves systematically about
information technology innovations.
...strategically invest in appropriate technologies
and have a clear vision how IT contributes
to business value.
...focus on our core competencies and delegate
further tasks to our partners and subcontractors.
...monitor the performance of our partners
and subcontractors very closely.
...select our partners and subcontractors by quality
criteria (rather than pure cost-based decisions).
...align all our activities to customer
requirements and needs.
...encourage compilation and internal dissemination
of information on customers needs.
...closely collaborate with and encourage
fast feedback from our customers.
Figure 3.5.: Distribution of answers regarding agile activities (general)

The items of general activities are relatively similar to each other. Activities that are carried out less
frequently throughout all participating organizations are “. . . change authorities when tasks change” and
“. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our business strategy,” with an average value of
2.6 each.
On the other hand, items concerning customer collaboration and customer satisfaction are assessed with a
higher frequency of activity. Both aspects are important and are seen as key issues for every company, espe-cially
in software development (Kettunen, 2009; Sherehiy et al., 2007). However, no single item regarding
activities was answered by more than 40 % of the participants with always. This is quite surprising because
all stated activities are known as practices that enhance the agility of an organization. This shows that these
activities are not carried out on a regular basis and hence are not established in the majority of organizations
in processes, instructions, strategies, etc.
3.2. Differentiated Discussion by Subgroups
This section discusses some details of the results concerning agile values and principles. Selected figures
and tables will illustrate the findings. For additional tables and graphics showing more details, please
refer to appendix A.4. Please note that a shorter bar (i. e. a lower average) generally represents a “better”
assessment of the respective items and shows a higher dissemination of agile values, more people sharing
particular capabilities, a more frequent execution of agility-related activities, and so on.
3.2.1. Analysis by Role
When comparing the answers given by respondents in different roles, the first noticeable aspect is that CEOs
often answered in the “most positive” way (i. e. with the lowest average values) for nearly all items in the
complete questionnaire. For instance, approximately 40 to 50 % of CEOs answered completely to the items
dealing with values and principles.
On the contrary, the group of Enterprise and IT Architects often answered in the “most critical” way. One
particular example is the item “Our organization prefers the elimination of barriers between individuals
and/or departments, e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.” Architects assess this item with 2.6 on
average and more than 50 % answered partly or less. On the other hand, CEOs score 1.4 on average, with
more than 90 % answering mainly or better. This comparison is illustrated in figure 3.6.
Furthermore, it is suspicious that CEOs very seldom answer in the “worst” two categories (little or not at
all / few or none / seldom or never). For example, table 3.5 shows the distribution of CEOs’ answers to the
first five items containing the general conditions. In most cases (with the exception of employee training),
less than one percent of CEOs chose one of the last two categories. This marks a clear differentiation from
all other groups where these percentages are higher.
Similar distributions are observable for agile capabilities and activities, too. The difference between CEOs
and other groups is mostly from 0.5 up to 1.0 points, and sometimes even greater. Generally, the differences
between CEOs and others are relatively huge for items related to strategy, decentralization in decision
making, and cooperation and communication issues. This is supported by the relatively huge deviation
of the Architects’ answers for items that are about the elimination of barriers, managers coaching and

Our organization prefers the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or departments,
e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Enterprise/IT Architect
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Executive Officer Enterprise/IT Architect
completely 66.14% 20.65%
mainly 29.13% 26.45%
partly 3.94% 30.97%
little 0.00% 18.71%
not at all 0.79% 3.23%
Figure 3.6.: Illustrative example for differences between CEOs and Architects
1 2 3 4 5
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication processes. 37.8 % 44.1 % 16.5 % 0.8 % 0.8 %
. . . an intensive employee training program. 12.6 % 31.5 % 32.3 % 18.9 % 4.8 %
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how their own job
39.4 % 49.6 % 11.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %
relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all hierarchical levels in
terms easily understood by all.
35.4 % 52.0 % 11.0 % 0.8 % 0.8 %
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market changes from
the very start.
33.1 % 48.8 % 14.2 % 3.2 % 0.8 %
Table 3.5.: Details regarding agile conditions rated by CEOs
inspiring people, a long-term oriented employee development, and cooperation and involvement of several
departments and functions in strategic decision-making and new product development. This emphasizes
that there is room for improvement concerning these aspects, although the management board might regard
them as sufficient.
As mentioned above, Enterprise and IT Architects score a higher average for some of the items, but in most
cases the averages of CIOs / CTOs, IT Managers, Architects, and others are close to each other. Hence,
differences between the other groups (except CEOs) in the organization are of minor importance.
Only very few items throughout the questionnaire show answers that do not confirm the observations above.
One exception is the item “Our organization has an intensive employee training program.” This item is
rather interesting because it shows the worst assessment from CIOs and CTOs (with nearly 50 % stating
little or not at all). Yet this item simultaneously shows the best, nearly opposite rating, from IT Managers
(see figure 3.7). This could indicate that the training programs do not optimally match the requirements of
different stakeholders.
Other exceptions are the items regarding the activities of employees (see figure A.4). Although CEOs still
give the “best” assessment in most cases, the different roles (including CEOs) are much closer to each other
for these items than for most other items. Hence, a consensus seems to exist about what the employees do
and how they do it. However, the items containing the general activities of the organization and activities
regarding employees (see figures A.4 and A.5) deliver very large differences as well. For instance, the
items “In our organization, we jointly and intensively operate throughout the functions and/or departments

Our organization has an intensive training program.
IT/ITC Manager
CIO/CTO
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CIO/CTO IT/ITC Manager
mainly 16.67% 27.12%
partly 27.78% 28.81%
little 33.33% 22.03%
not at all 13.89% 1.69%
Figure 3.7.: Details for difference between CIOs/CTOs and IT/ITC Managers regarding training
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
1.7
1.8
2.4
2.2 2.3
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.3 2.3
Figure 3.8.: Details for items focusing on cooperative activities by role
for strategic decision making” and “. . . encourage early involvement of several departments and/or func-tions
in new product and/or service development” show an assessment that differs approximately 0.5 points
between CEOs and CIOs/CTOs and again between IT Managers and Architects (see figure 3.8). However,
an effective cooperation between departments and/or functions for strategic purposes has to be supported by
management and employees in managing positions. The fact that the assessment is so differentiated shows
that the perception of organizational activities, which are often also shaped by the participants themselves,
is dependent on the actual role of the participants.
In summary, it can be assumed that CEOs look at the overall agility of the company from a different and
potentially more positive perspective than other members of the company. Generally, the more specialized
the role of the participant, the more critically they assess the given items. However, it is also possible that
these differences stem from the different sizes of the participating companies. Taking into account that the

majority of participating CEOs are from small and micro companies (24.5 % of all participants), this is
likely to result in an interactive effect of role and size.
3.2.2. Analysis by Size
Analyzing the data for the different sizes (measured by number of employees), a clear trend is that the
smaller the company is, the better the participants assessed nearly all items, indicating a more agile atti-tude
and behavior. This observation is consistent with the literature. It is assumed that organizational size
(besides the environment and an organizational strategy) is one of the key contingencies allowing an organi-zation
to fit changing circumstances over time (Sherehiy et al., 2007). Charbonnier-Voirin also found in her
study that small entities allow organizations to be more reactive and sensitive and that sometimes processes
are slowed down when organizations are larger (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011).
Although the overall difference is not as large as expected, another issue confirms this trend. The proportion
of participants from large organizations choosing the best value from the answer scales (completely, all,
always) is in most cases smaller, and the proportion of people choosing answers like partly, not at all,
never, etc. rises compared to smaller organizations (see figure 3.9 for an example).
Our organization values a culture that is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative ideas.
more than 250
50 to 249
10 to 49
less than 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
less than 10 10 to 49 50 to 249 more than 250
completely 43.16% 29.89% 25.29% 16.17%
mainly 46.32% 43.68% 36.78% 36.53%
partly 9.47% 24.14% 28.74% 35.93%
little 1.05% 2.30% 8.05% 10.18%
not at all 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 1.20%
Figure 3.9.: Illustrative example for size-dependent trend
The results indicate that the organization’s size is an important factor influencing the efforts necessary to
become agile, which must be taken seriously. The more complex and distinctive the structure and hierarchy
of an organization is, the more problems arise hindering the way to organizational agility. This is further un-derscored
by the observation that micro and small organizations (up to 50 employees) with a less distinctive
structure often score similarly for many items, while medium and large organizations reach a clearly worse
(i. e. higher) average value. Figure 3.10 illustrates this aspect with a sampling of examples from all over
the questionnaire, pointing out some problems that arise as soon as a certain level of hierarchy exists. The
main problem areas for large- and medium-sized organizations are internal communication and cooperation
across departments and hierarchical levels, as well as customer collaboration.
Another interesting size-related aspect is the area of employees’ capabilities. In principal, the size-dependent
trend is again confirmed. However, especially for items concerning a trust-based communication among the

total average
less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
more than 250
Our organization prefers the elimination of barriers
between individuals and/or departments, e.g. by
flat hierarchies or simple structures.
Our organization prefers face-to-face
communication for conveying information
within our organization.
Our organization has employees that have a
good understanding of how their own job relates
to the firm's overall activity.
Our managers are able to flexibly deploy their
resources (material, financial, human, ...) to
make use of opportunities and minimize threats.
Regarding our employees, we manage
proposals, new ideas, and solutions
from all levels consequently.
In our organization, we encourage early involve-ment
of several departments and/or functions
in new product and/or service development.
In our organization, we encourage compilation
and internal dissemination of information on
customers needs.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3.10.: Examples demonstrating hierarchy-dependent problems
less 10 50 more
than 10 to 49 to 249 than 250
Our employees. . .
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill, and esteem. 52.6 % 41.4 % 21.8 % 15.0 %
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly access, apply and update
50.5 % 27.6 % 26.4 % 9.0 %
knowledge.
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from one another and to pass
their knowledge to others.
53.7 % 32.2 % 28.7 % 12.0 %
Table 3.6.: Proportion of participants answering that all employees share particular capabilities (illustrative
examples)
employees and the principal willingness to continuously learn, large organization have suspiciously higher
average values. This indicates that these important capabilities are less existent among their employees
(see figure A.8 in appendix A.4.2). Additionally, the proportion of participants from large organizations
stating that all employees share these capabilities is much lower than for smaller companies (see table 3.6).
This is a critical aspect again because training programs are only one piece of the puzzle – capability and
willingness to learn is equally important. Only when both aspects are well established can an appropriate
form of organizational learning result, which again is an important element for organizational agility (Chan
& Thong, 2009; V´azquez-Bustelo et al., 2007; Wendler, 2013).
When speaking about training, the item “Our organization has an intensive training program” shows a
surprising distribution because it is distributed against the identified size-related trend. This seems obvious
initially because small firms often cannot afford such programs. Despite this, the fact that the results
for smaller organizations normally indicate a higher agility within this survey raises the question of how
important is the aspect of employee training to increasing agility (besides informal learning like mentoring
or “learning by doing”). One explanation could be that intensive employee training programs are only

total average
less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
more than 250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3.11.: Averages regarding partner-related activities
an essential issue for larger firms because their structure hinders them from relying on informal training
techniques.
Partner-related activities reveal another interesting issue. For the items “In our organization, we focus on
our core competencies and delegate further tasks to our partners and subcontractors” and “. . .monitor the
performance of our partners and subcontractors very closely,” medium-sized organizations have the high-est
average value (see figure 3.11). Although the differences between the sizes are not large here, this
is still meaningful because these are the only items where medium-sized organizations score worst. This
may indicate that medium-sized companies have the most problems managing their outsourcing relation-ships,
maybe because they did not yet incorporate such processes as successfully as larger companies. The
outsourcing relations of smaller companies, however, may not yet be as complex.
However, some items show no or only negligible differences between the differently sized organizations.
First of all, a culture supporting teamwork is always high rated, with approximately 40 to 60 % of partici-pants
stating that their organization shares that idea completely. Also, looking at the IT-related conditions
(see figure A.7), there is one item where almost no difference is observable: “Our organization has In-formation
Systems and Technologies that enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners into our
processes”. This indicates either that the technological requirements to integrate partners and customers are
not satisfactory or that the organizations – no matter of what size – do not really want to integrate them into
their own processes. Such a situation was discovered in a case study, where a kind of fear of sharing knowl-edge
or losing bargaining power existed among the employees and managers of the company (Wendler &
Gr¨aning, 2011). A last interesting aspect is also that the adaption to changing tasks by changing authorities
shows nearly no differences between the differently sized organizations (see figure A.10).
To summarize this section, the size of an organization seems to be an important factor influencing the
potential organizational agility. It becomes clear that smaller companies have advantages in most aspects
covered by the questionnaire. This is underscored by the fact that items directly related to the organizational
structure reveal greater differences between the differently sized companies. But as the analysis shows,
there are also activities where no differences exist. Hence, although size may determine the initial grade
of organizational agility, this only means that larger firms have to extend more effort when improving their
agility.
3.2.3. Analysis by Location
Analyzing the data differentiated by location allows for the observation of cultural differences within the
different regions. As explained in Chapter 2, the data was divided into participating organizations from
Europe, North America, Asia, and others (see A.1 for further details). Additionally, a detailed view on
Germany is possible due to the high number of responses.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3.12.: Exemplary items showing higher average value for European organizations
For most of the items, a clear differentiation or trend between the locations, or conspicuous deviations, is
missing. This indicates that cultural influences are of minor importance in the field of software development
and IT services. The reason may be that this is a rather globally oriented industry and, as figure 2.5 shows,
many companies serve their customers worldwide. However, this does not imply that cultural differences
are irrelevant, it just shows that they are less prevalent than one would expect.
One observation is surprising: the European countries (without Germany) show a slightly worse assessment
(i. e. a higher average value) for many items than all other regions. In particular, the difference between
Germany and the other European countries is relatively high. Additionally, the unequal distribution of micro
and small organizations seems to play a less important role here because the differences in the average values
between participants from Germany and other locations worldwide are often very small. This deviation of
European countries becomes particularly apparent when looking at the items asking about general activities
and regarding employees (see figures A.14 and A.15). For instance, the items addressing the offering of
skill-based incentives, the reactivity by updating strategies and processes, the internal collaboration for
strategic decision making, or the monitoring of subcontractors show a clearly higher average value for
European countries (see figure 3.12).
The reason for this phenomenon cannot be easily uncovered by the survey data. One explanation may be
that the results reflect the current economical situation in Europe, where Germany has a better economic
situation than the European average. However, the data shows that the answers of German participants
indicate a slightly higher agility, whereas other European countries seem to struggle more than others with
adapting to new situations. Additionally, a slightly higher percentage of European participants chose the
“worst” category of the answer scale (not at all, none, never) for the items.
There are a few exceptions to this phenomenon: For instance, the item regarding the elimination of barriers
shows the highest average value for participants from Asia. This is also true for IT-related items focusing
on decentralization in decision making as well as integrated and standardized technologies among different
departments. The items asking about the capabilities of employees and managers, as well as the items
concerning the activities of employees, were answered in a relatively similar manner worldwide.

Our organization values a culture that harnesses
change for competitive advantages.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"abroad"
worldwide
own region
national
local
local national own region worldwide "abroad"
completely 15.63% 28.57% 31.36% 39.76% 28.57%
mainly 37.50% 40.95% 39.83% 37.95% 57.14%
partly 28.13% 23.81% 21.19% 18.67% 14.29%
little 12.50% 5.71% 6.78% 3.01% 0.00%
not at all 6.25% 0.95% 0.85% 0.60% 0.00%
Our organization prefers market-related changes
(e. g. new competitors, preferences) to generate new opprtunities.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
"abroad"
worldwide
own region
national
local
local national own region worldwide "abroad"
completely 18.75% 20.00% 25.42% 28.31% 42.86%
mainly 28.13% 31.43% 36.44% 37.35% 28.57%
partly 31.25% 36.19% 21.19% 25.90% 28.57%
little 18.75% 9.52% 13.56% 8.43% 0.00%
not at all 3.13% 2.86% 3.39% 0.00% 0.00%
Figure 3.13.: Illustrative examples showing adaptability issues for organizations with local customers
3.2.4. Analysis by Customers
Finally, a differentiated analysis by the region of customers has been applied. The results are a bit unex-pected.
Generally, the concept of agility, especially in the software development and IT service context,
puts a lot of emphasis on aspects like frequent communication, close collaboration, and personal interac-tion
with customers to ensure the delivery of products with expected quality and scope (Beck et al., 2001;
Misra et al., 2009; Sarker & Sarker, 2009). With that in mind, one could assume that a customer nearby is
a prerequisite for an agile organization or at least would enhance the actual organizational agility.
Interestingly, in most cases the participants of companies that only serve local customers score the highest
averages for the items, which indicates a worse organizational agility. At first, this looks like a contradiction.
However, companies serving only local customers are often very specialized and thus can be too niche-oriented.
With a too strong alignment to a few key customers, it is more difficult to adapt to changes in
the environment. Figure 3.13 shows two illustrative examples underscoring this assumption. It becomes
clear that the proportion of participants stating that their organization completely shares the stated values
and principles gets smaller for organizations operating with local customers only. Simultaneously, the
proportion of respondents stating little or not at all rises.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
...enable decentralization
in decision making.
mainly 14.29% 14.29%
partly 14.29% 28.57%
little 14.29% 0.00%
not at all 28.57% 28.57%
Figure 3.14.: Details about agile IT/IS for companies serving customers abroad
Of course, companies with local customers have the opportunity to quickly communicate or physically meet
with their customers if required. This is a reactive behavior confirming a good flexibility, but agility asks for
proactivity instead of or in addition to reactivity (Conboy, 2009). Also, organizations serving customers in
other regions of the world are in a much greater need to establish methods and processes to ensure a frequent
and regulated collaboration with the customer (see Simons, 2006 for an illustrative example). This, in turn,
actively supports the agility of these organizations. That is underscored by the fact that the integration of
customers works best for organizations serving only customers “abroad”. It can be assumed that they don’t
have the opportunity to arrange in person meetings on a regular basis for close cooperation and hence have
to put more emphasis on a functioning and efficient (remote) integration of customers.
The phenomenon described above is also present for many items concerning the capabilities of managers
and employees as well as for some of the activity-related items (see figures A.18 to A.20). Activities
concerning team- and skill-based incentives, as well as a long-term-oriented development of employees’
skills, peaks negatively for organizations with local customers. In addition, reaction to changes by updating
strategies and processes shows the highest average values here and hence supports the assumption of a too
specialized focus.
Furthermore, there are also items showing the worst results for organizations with customers “abroad”.
First, IT and IS are less integrated throughout the organization and so the ability to support a decentralized
decision-making suffers (with nearly 30 % stating not at all). Figure 3.14 illustrates this aspect further.
Looking at the capabilities for managers, two other items garner attention and underscore this observation:
The item “Our managers understand the value of IT investments from a company-wide perspective” shows
a clearly higher average value for these organizations and may explain the lack of integrated IT systems.
In addition, the capability to “quickly implement changes in products and/or services” is also assessed
in a similar way (see figure A.18). Finally, activities concerning the change of authorities with changing
tasks and internal cooperation reveal the worst assessment for these organizations (see figure A.20). An
explanation could be that these companies often mainly serve as outsourcing partners.
Items directly related to customers are of particular interest within this section. However, a closer look at the
last three items of general activities reveals no deviations between the groups of different customer regions.
Only the dissemination of information on customer needs shows a slightly better rating for organizations
serving customers “abroad”, but this is more related to organizational learning than actual customer align-

local national own world- “abroad” total
region wide average
needs.
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0
2.5 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.3
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast feedback from
our customers.
2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Table 3.7.: Average values of customer-related items by region of customers
ment. This is rather surprising because it shows that the actual distance to the customer does not directly
influence the customer-related organizational agility. This is illustrated by the average values in table 3.7.
Summarizing the observations, it becomes clear that a close distance to the customers does not automatically
lead to advantages regarding organizational agility. This is somehow inconsistent with theory. A missing
proximity to the customer, which inhibits the possibility of personal interaction at short notice, is mostly
seen as an obstacle for agility, especially in the software domain (Bleek &Wolf, 2008). But the results of the
survey show that organizations with local or national customers do not automatically gain any advantages
– on the contrary, the results even show a worse rating for many items by participants from companies
only serving local customers. Therefore, the geographical distance seems to be less important than one
might expect. Maybe organizations with customers farther away are even better at aligning their processes
and actions to their customers because they are somehow forced to handle customer interaction in a more
structured way. However, this question cannot be answered by the collected data.

4. Conclusion
4.1. Summary
This report gives a descriptive overview of the survey results. For all items, the average values have been
calculated over the whole sample as well as for different subgroups regarding role of the participants, size
and location of the organizations, and region of customers. Furthermore, the results have been compared
and selected issues have been identified and discussed. The purpose of this document was to give a compre-hensive
overview, particularly to the participants of the survey. Further statistical investigations will follow
(see section 4.3).
In general, the results indicate that the international software and IT services industry is relatively well
set up regarding its organizational agility on average and should continue with its efforts to improve agile
behavior. To be agile requires more than sticking to particular methodologies or programs. It starts with
values, which are translated into an appropriate culture and strategy as well as aligned with staff sharing
corresponding capabilities. Finally, all this has to be implemented in an environment that allows the people
to display and develop their abilities and ensure that they are able to organize their everyday work with
concrete activities supporting agile behavior. The survey covered all these aspects with various items from
a comprehensive perspective on organizational agility.
However, it turned out that concrete implementations fall behind general attitudes. The results indicate
rather agile values and principles, but concrete conditions and circumstances only achieve less agile or at
least equal values. That observation is the same regarding agile capabilities and activities, whereby the
availability of capabilities gains slightly better scores than the concrete activities of the members of the
organizations. In addition, these phenomena seem to be independent from cultural differences or organiza-tional
size.
Aspects that show a good realization across all participating organizations include a trustful environment
and an emphasis on purposeful cooperation between employees within and between teams. Furthermore,
a good alignment to customer needs and an overall willingness to continuously learn and update skills are
visible. This is underscored by the fact that items belonging to the agility areas “Organizational Culture”
and “Customer” (see figure 1.1) have the lowest values on average (and hence indicating a higher agility).
Main problem areas are a lack of decentralization of decisions, which has the risk of undermining the culture
of trust. This issue is accompanied with unclear strategies and a lack of including employees in strategic
decisions. In addition, internal collaboration across departments and functions, as well as early involvement
of all affected departments in strategic matters, shows room for improvement. Issues of further interest are
compensation and incentives that are often not based on team results and peoples’ skills. Finally, although
the satisfaction of customer needs is not a problem, the integration of customers and also partners into

4. Conclusion 30
processes and activities reveals some weaknesses. Hence, activities affecting the area of “Workforce” and
the concepts “Processes” and “Innovation” (see figure 1.1) show the lowest agility ratings.
Furthermore, the analysis by subgroups revealed some interesting differences. First, CEOs seem to have
a much more positive perception of nearly all items than other roles in an organization. This is surprising
because all participants had managing or at least leading positions in their organizations and thus were able
to answer the items from a comprehensive perspective. Although it is appropriate to assess agility from
an organizational view, it still raises the question of whether other employees, for instance programmers
or consultants, would show different results. A case study already refuted this assumption (Wendler &
Gr¨aning, 2011), but it is open if this result could be repeated in a global context.
The size of an organization turned out to be a very important factor influencing organizational agility. The
analysis revealed that smaller organizations (up to 50 employees) benefit from a less complex structure
and hence are faster to adjust to a changing environment. However, there was no evidence to suggest small
organizations are automatically agile organizations. The results rather indicate that larger organizations have
to put more emphasis on how to negate the disadvantages that result from their more complex structures,
such as more indirect communication or more difficult internal cooperation.
Unexpected results were obtained while analyzing the data differentiated by location and customer region.
The observed differences were less distinctive, as expected. Concerning the location of the organizations, in
most cases only European organizations showed a slightly worse assessment – especially when comparing
German ones with other European countries. One assumption as a possible explanation was the current gen-eral
economical situation; another assumption was that German companies may be more effective in what
they do. But the results obtained imply that cultural differences play a less important role for organizational
agility in the software and IT service industry.
Regarding the region of customers, it turned out that customers located in geographic proximity do not lead
to a higher organizational agility of the respective organizations. In contrast, the results from participants
of companies only serving local customers reveal a worse grade of organizational agility. This may stem
from the fact that these companies are often very specialized and niche-oriented and thus have difficulty
adjusting to new situations. On the other hand, there exist no remarkable differences between companies
with national (and local) customers and companies serving their customers over the whole continent or even
worldwide. Hence, the geographical distance between an organization and its customers is also from less
importance for organizational agility in the considered industry.
4.2. Limitations
The presented survey results suffer from some limitations that have to be taken into account when interpret-ing
the results. First of all, the differently sized organizations are unequally distributed among the sampled
countries. Hence, it cannot be excluded that this affects the results obtained by the analysis of the sub-groups.
This was explicitly addressed in the respective sections of this report and will be further analyzed
(see section 4.3). In addition, it was not possible to explicitly ask more than one person from each orga-nization,
and thus this study risks key informant bias. However, the overall number of participants from
different companies and in different roles helps to reduce this risk. Finally, the results presented here are of
a purely descriptive nature. Of course, further analysis calculating significance, dependency, and coherent

4. Conclusion 31
agility factors is necessary and will follow (see section 4.3). The purpose of this report was to provide first
overview, fulfilled with the given statistics and interpretations.
Although it was the goal of the survey to examine organizational agility, specifically in the software and
IT service industry, it would also be interesting to see if the results are different in other industries. At
the moment, though, it is not possible to transfer the findings to other industries. Analogously, the survey
targeted only persons in managing or leading positions. This was appropriate to fulfill the aim of a com-prehensive
assessment from an organizational perspective. However, data on the opinions and attitudes of
other employees could deliver additional insights.
4.3. Further Research
The data obtained by the survey is currently being further analyzed. The next steps include a factor analysis
to identify which items have a latent construct behind them and how the conceptual framework (figure 1.1)
reflects this. In case of a successful identification of agility constructs, the available data can be used to
further investigate the different subgroups in more detail and to search for significant differences. Finally, a
cluster analysis could deliver additional insights.
Besides, it would be interesting to replicate the survey (the complete list of items is given in appendices A.2
and A.3) with different target groups, for instance employees or multiple responses from different roles in
the same organizations. An application to other domains and industries may also yield interesting results,
although the questionnaire would have to be adjusted.

References
Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K., & Wang, X. (2009). ’Lots done, more to do’: the current state
of agile systems development research. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4),
281–284. Available from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/
10.1057/ejis.2009.27
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. (2007). Modeling agility of supply chain. Indus-trial
Marketing Management, 36(4), 443–457. Available from http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0019850106000022
°Agerfalk, P. J., Fitzgerald, B., & Slaughter, S. A. (2009). Introduction to the Special Issue -
Flexible and Distributed Information Systems Development: State of the Art and Research
Challenges. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 317–328. Available from http://
isr.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/isre.1090.0244
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. van, Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et
al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available from http://
agilemanifesto.org/
Bernardes, E. S., & Hanna, M. D. (2009). A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and
responsiveness in the operations management literature: Toward a conceptual definition
of customer responsiveness. International Journal of Operations & Production Man-agement,
29(1), 30–53. Available from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.
1108/01443570910925352
Bleek, W. G., & Wolf, H. (2008). Agile Softwareentwicklung: Werte, Konzepte und Methoden.
Heidelberg: dpunkt.
Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: the new em-ployee
strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 21–
31. Available from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.
1080/02683960110132070
Chan, F. K., & Thong, J. Y. (2009). Acceptance of agile methodologies: A critical review and con-ceptual
framework. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 803–814. Available from http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167923608002133
Charbonnier-Voirin, A. (2011). The development and partial testing of the psychometric properties
of a measurement scale of organizational agility. M@n@gement, 14(2), 120–155. Available
from http://www.management-aims.com/vol14 en.html
Cockburn, A. (2007). Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.

References 33
Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Infor-mation
Systems Development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354. Available
from http://isr.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/isre.1090.
0236
Dove, R. (1999). Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise. Journal
of Knowledge Management1, 3(1), 18–35. Available from http://www.parshift.
com/Files/PsiDocs/Rkd9Art1.pdf
Dove, R. (2001). Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Förster, K., & Wendler, R. (2012). Theorien und Konzepte zu Agilität in Organisationen (Tech.
Rep. No. 63). Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden. Available from http://
nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-129603
Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. V. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. In-ternational
Journal of Production Economics, 118(2), 410–423. Available from http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092552730800385X
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations:
strategies for enriching the customer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and development.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 87–105. Available fromhttp://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925527398002229
Gunasekaran, A., & Yusuf, Y. Y. (2002, January). Agile manufacturing: A taxonomy of
strategic and technological imperatives. International Journal of Production Research,
40(6), 1357–1385. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/00207540110118370
Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Hoyt, J., Huq, F., & Kreiser, P. (2007). Measuring organizational responsiveness: the development
of a validated survey instrument. Management Decision, 45(10), 1573–1594. Available
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00251740710837979
Iacocca Institute. (1991). 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy: An Industry-Led View.
Bethlehem, PA: Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University.
Kassim, N. M., & Zain, M. (2004). Assessing the Measurement of Organizational Agility. The
Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 174–177.
Kettunen, P. (2009). Adopting key lessons from agile manufacturing to agile soft-ware
product development - A comparative study. Technovation, 29(6-7), 408–
422. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
S0166497208001302
Lindvall, M., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Costa, P., Dangle, K., Shull, F., et al. (2002). Empirical find-ings
in agile methods. In D. Wells & L. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of extreme program-ming
and agile methods - xp/agile universe (pp. 197–207). Chicago: Springer. Available
fromhttp://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-45672-4 19

References 34
Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the Link Between Information Technol-ogy
Capability and Organizational Agility: An Empirical Examination. MIS Quarterly,
35(4), 931–954. Available from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=67129445&site=ehost-live
Misra, S. C., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2009). Identifying some important success factors in
adopting agile software development practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(11),
1869–1890. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/
pii/S016412120900123X
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile method-ologies.
Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 73–79. Available from http://dl.acm.
org/citation.cfm?id=1060712
Parsons, T., Bales, R., & Shils, E. (1953). Working Papers of the Theory of Action. Berlin: Free
Press.
Power, D. J., Sohal, A. S., & Rahman, S.-U. (2001). Critical success factors in agile supply chain
management - An empirical study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-tics
Management, 31(4), 247–265. Available from http://www.emeraldinsight.
com/10.1108/09600030110394923
Saris, W. E., Revilla, M., Krosnick, J. A., & Shaeffer, E. M. (2010). Comparing Questions
with Agree/Disagree Response Options to Questions with Item-Specific Response Options.
Survey Research Methods, 4(1), 61–79. Available from http://www.stanford.edu/
dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2010/2010 srm saris
comparing.pdf
Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2009). Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Devel-opment
Teams: An Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context. Information Systems
Research, 20(3), 440–461. Available from http://isr.journal.informs.org/
cgi/doi/10.1287/isre.1090.0241
Sharifi, H., Colquhoun, G., Barclay, I., & Dann, Z. (2001). Agile manufacturing: a management
and operational framework. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 215(6), 857–869. Available from http://pib.
sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1243/0954405011518647
Sharifi, H., & Zhang, Z. (1999). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisa-tions:
An introduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 7–22.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts,
frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445–
S0169814107000236
Simons, M. (2006). Global Software Development: A Hard Problem Requiring a Host of Solu-tions.
Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 32–33. Available from http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=22665301&
site=ehost-live

References 35
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
The Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Commission Recommenda-tion
of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized
enterprises. Official Journal of the European Union, L124, 36–41. Available
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
L:2003:124:0036:0041:EN:PDF
Tseng, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-T. (2011). Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying ag-ile
drivers, capabilities and providers. Information Sciences, 181(17), 3693–
S0020025511002088
Tsourveloudis, N. C., & Valavanis, K. P. (2002). On the Measurement of Enterprise Agility.
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 33, 329–342. Available from http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1015096909316
United Nations Statistics Division. (2013). Composition of macro geographical (continental)
regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Available
from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
Vázquez-Bustelo, D., Avella, L., & Fernández, E. (2007). Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes:
Empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model. International Journal of Op-erations
& Production Management, 27(12), 1303–1332. Available from http://www.
emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01443570710835633
Wendler, R. (2013). The Structure of Agility from Different Perspectives. In M. Ganzha,
L. Maciaszek, & M. Paprzycki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 federated confer-ence
on computer science and information systems (pp. 1177–1184). Kraków,
Poland. Available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?
tp=&arnumber=6644163&tag=1
Wendler, R., & Gräning, A. (2011). How Agile Are You Thinking? - An Exploratory Case Study.
In A. Bernstein & G. Schwabe (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference
on wirtschaftsinformatik, wi 2.011 (pp. 818–827). Zurich, Switzerland. Available from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2011/33
Zelbst, P. J., Sower, V. E., Green Jr., K.W., & Abshire, R. D. (2011). Radio Frequency Identifica-tion
Technology Utilization and Organizational Agility. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 52(1), 24–33. Available from http://www.iacis.org/jcis/articles/
JOCISV52N1-Article3.pdf
Zhang, Z., & Sharifi, H. (2007). Towards Theory Building in Agile Manufacturing Strat-egy
- A Taxonomical Approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(2),
351–370. Available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs all.jsp?
arnumber=4160195

A. Appendix
A.1. Participating Countries
Region Country Quantity Ratio
Europe Germany 178 40.7 %
Sweden 11 2.5 %
Italy 9 2.1 %
Great Britain 8 1.8 %
Netherlands 8 1.8 %
Switzerland 8 1.8 %
France 6 1.4 %
Portugal 5 1.1 %
Spain 4 0.9 %
Ukraine 4 0.9 %
Ireland 3 0.7 %
Austria 2 0.5 %
Bulgaria 2 0.5 %
Denmark 2 0.5 %
Greece 2 0.5 %
Norway 2 0.5 %
Romania 2 0.5 %
Belgium 1 0.2 %
Croatia 1 0.2 %
Hungary 1 0.2 %
North America USA 92 21.1 %
Canada 12 2.7 %
Asia India 14 3.2 %
Malaysia 5 1.1 %
Indonesia 3 0.7 %
Pakistan 3 0.7 %
Singapore 3 0.7 %
United Arab Emirates 3 0.7 %
Israel 2 0.5 %
Japan 2 0.5 %
Bangladesh 1 0.2 %
China 1 0.2 %
continued on next page . . .

A. Appendix VII
Region Country Quantity Ratio
Thailand 1 0.2 %
Turkey 1 0.2 %
Other Colombia 5 1.1 %
Brazil 3 0.7 %
Costa Rica 3 0.7 %
Australia 2 0.5 %
South Africa 2 0.5 %
Argentina 1 0.2 %
Chile 1 0.2 %
Mexico 1 0.2 %
Namibia 1 0.2 %
New Zealand 1 0.2 %
Uruguay 1 0.2 %
n.a. 14 3.2 %
TOTAL 437 100 %
Table A.1.: Complete list of countries of participating organizations

A. Appendix VIII
A.2. Complete Questionnaire
A.2.1. English Version
General Information
What are the main fields of activity of your organization? [multiple answers possible]
• Programming and Software Development
• IT Services and Consultancy
• Computer Facilities Management
• Other, please specify [text box]
What is your role in your organization?
• Chief Executive Officer
• Chief Information Officer
• Chief Financial Officer
• IT Manager, ICT Manager, or related
• Enterprise Architect, IT Architect, or related
• other, please specify [text box]
Where is your organization located (if your organization has subsidies in different countries, please refer to
your headquarter)?
• Germany
• USA
• other, please specify [text box]
In which regions are your customers located? [multiple answers possible]
• regional
• national
• Europe
• North America
• Latin America / Caribbean
• Asia / Pacific
• Africa
• no answer
What is the approximate number of employees in your organization?
• less than 10
• 10 to 49
• 50 to 249
• 250 to 500
• more than 500
• no answer

A. Appendix IX
Values and Principles – Organization
Please state to what extend the following statements reflect the values and principles in your organization.
[Scale: completely–mainly–partly–little–not at all]
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages.
. . . considers team work as integral part.
. . . accepts and supports decisions and proposals of employees.
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative ideas.
. . . considers changing customer-related requirements as opportunities.
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than reacting to crisis or “fire-fighting”.
. . . the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or departments, e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple
structures.
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying information within our organization.
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service features that go beyond the customer requirements.
. . . market-related changes (e. g. new competitors, preferences) to generate new opportunities.
Conditions – Organization
Please state to what extend the following conditions and circumstances are implemented in your organiza-tion.
[Scale: completely–mainly–partly–little–not at all]
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication processes.
. . . an intensive employee training program.
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how their own job relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all hierarchical levels in terms easily understood by all.
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market changes from the very start.
. . . make organizational information easily accessible to all employees.
. . . provide information helping our employees to quickly respond to changes.
. . . are appropriate to our needs and allow us to be competitive in the marketplace.
. . . enable decentralization in decision making.
. . . are integrated amongst different departments and/or business units.
. . . are standardized or comparable amongst different departments and/or business units.
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners into our processes.
Capabilities – Employees and Managers
Please state how many of your employees and managers share the following capabilities. [Scale: all–many–
some–few–none]

A. Appendix X
Our managers. . .
. . . maintain an informal management style with focus on coaching and inspiring people.
. . . understand the value of IT investments from a company-wide perspective.
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage change.
. . . are able to quickly implement changes in products and/or services.
. . . are able to recognize future competitive advantages that may result from innovations in products, ser-vices,
and/or processes.
. . . are able to flexibly deploy their resources (material, financial, human, . . . ) to make use of opportunities
and minimize threats.
. . . manage the sharing of information, know-how, and knowledge among employees appropriately.
Our employees. . .
. . . are able to act with a view to continuous improvement of our products, services, processes, and/or
working methods.
. . . are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best opportunities which come up in our environment.
. . . are able to meet the levels of product and/or service quality demanded by our customers.
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other tasks when needed.
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill, and esteem.
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly access, apply and update knowledge.
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from one another and to pass their knowledge to
others.
. . . obtain and develop appropriate technological capabilities purposeful.
. . . can re-organize continuously in different team configurations to meet changing requirements and the
newly arising challenges.
. . . are self-motivated.
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner.
Activities – Employees
Please specify how often your employees carry out the following activities. [Scale: always–often–some-times–
seldom–never]
Our employees. . .
. . . collaborate closely with different teams, departments, and/or business units.
. . . organize themselves in their teams.
. . . reflect at regular intervals on how to become more effective in their team, then tune and adjust their
behavior accordingly.
. . . work in small teams in their projects.
. . . form teams that are geographically closely located.
. . . rotate amongst different activities, tasks, positions or departments.

A. Appendix XI
Activities – Organization in general
Please specify how often your organization carries out the following activities. [Scale: always–often–
sometimes–seldom–never]
. . . manage proposals, new ideas, and solutions from all levels consequently.
. . . trust them to get their job done.
. . . offer incentives not only for individuals, but for the team and their contribution to the overall organiza-tion.
. . . offer incentives to encourage our employees to upgrade their skills and training.
. . . encourage also employees at lower levels to make decisions and take responsibility.
. . . develop employees skills with a view to the firm’s long-term future development.
. . . scan and examine our environment systematically to anticipate change.
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our business strategy.
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our processes.
. . . are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face of market- and/or customer-related changes.
. . . change authorities when tasks change.
. . . jointly and intensively operate throughout different functions and/or departments for strategic decision
making.
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments and/or functions in new product and/or service
development.
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development of new products and/or services.
. . . inform ourselves systematically about information technology innovations.
. . . strategically invest in appropriate technologies and have a clear vision how IT contributes to business
value.
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further tasks to our partners and subcontractors.
. . . monitor the performance of our partners and subcontractors very closely.
. . . select our partners and subcontractors by quality criteria (rather than pure cost-based decisions).
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements and needs.
. . . encourage compilation and internal dissemination of information on customers needs.
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast feedback from our customers.
Other
Does your organization share additional activities, capabilities, values, etc. that make you more agile than
others? If so, you may specify them here, if you wish. [Text Field]
A.2.2. German Version
Allgemeine Informationen
Was sind die Hauptt¨atigkeitsbereiche Ihres Unternehmens? [Mehrfachantworten m¨oglich]

A. Appendix XII
• Programmierung und Softwareentwicklung
• IT-Dienstleistungen und Beratung
• DV-Anlagenwartung und -betrieb
• andere: [Textfeld]
Was ist Ihre Rolle im Unternehmen?
• Geschäftsführer (CEO)
• IT-Vorstand (CIO)
• Finanzvorstand (CFO)
• IT Manager, IKT Manager oder vergleichbar
• Unternehmensarchitekt, IT Architekt oder vergleichbar
• andere: [Textfeld]
Wo ist der Sitz Ihres Unternehmens (sollten Sie Niederlassungen in mehreren Ländern haben, beziehen Sie
sich bitte auf den Hauptsitz)?
• Deutschland
• USA
• anderes: [Textfeld]
In welcher Region befinden sich Ihre Kunden? [Mehrfachantworten möglich]
• regional
• national
• Europa
• Nordamerika
• Lateinamerika / Karibik
• Asien / Pazifik
• Afrika
• keine Antwort
Wie groß ist die ungefähre Anzahl von Mitarbeitern in Ihrem Unternehmen?
• weniger als 10
• 10 bis 49
• 50 bis 249
• 250 bis 500
• mehr als 500
• keine Antwort
Werte und Prinzipien – Unternehmen
Bitte geben Sie an, in welchem Ausmaß die folgenden Aussagen die Werte und Prinzipien Ihres Unterneh-mens
widerspiegeln. [Skala: völlig–überwiegend–teilweise–wenig–gar nicht]
Unser Unternehmen schätzt eine Unternehmenskultur, welche. . .
. . . Veränderungen für Wettbewerbsvorteilen nutzbar macht.
. . . Teamarbeit als zentralen Bestandteil betrachtet.

A. Appendix XIII
. . . die Entscheidungen und Vorschläge von Mitarbeitern akzeptiert und unterstützt.
. . . Experimentieren erlaubt und die Nutzung innovativer Ideen fördert.
. . . Veränderungen von Kundenanforderungen als Chancen betrachtet.
Unser Unternehmen bevorzugt. . .
. . . proaktive und kontinuierliche Verbesserung anstatt Krisenmanagement und “Brandbekämpfung”.
. . . die Eliminierung von Barrieren zwischen Individuen und/oder Abteilungen, z. B. durch flache Hierar-chien
oder einfache Strukturen.
. . . Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht zur Informationsweitergabe innerhalb des Unternehmens.
. . . Einfachheit, d. h. den Verzicht auf Merkmale bei Produkten und/oder Dienstleistungen, welche die
Kundenanforderungen übersteigen.
. . . ein sich änderndes Marktumfeld (z.B. Wettbewerber, Präferenzen) zur Generierung neuer Chancen.
Bedingungen – Unternehmen
Bitte geben Sie an, in welchem Ausmaß die folgenden Gegebenheiten in Ihrem Unternehmen ausgeprägt
sind. [Skala: völlig–überwiegend–teilweise–wenig–gar nicht]
Unser Unternehmen hat. . .
. . . effektive Kommunikationsprozesse, sowohl “top-down” als auch “bottom-up”.
. . . ein gut ausgeprägtes Weiterbildungsprogramm für Mitarbeiter.
. . . Mitarbeiter, welche verstehen, wie ihre eigene Arbeit mit den Aktivitäten des Unternehmens zusam-menh
ängt.
. . . eine Strategie, welche klar und leicht verständlich über alle Hierarchieebenen kommuniziert wird.
. . . eine strategische Vision, die Spielraum für Marktänderungen von Anfang an berücksichtigt.
Unser Unternehmen besitzt Informationssysteme und Technologien, welche. . .
. . . unternehmensbezogene Informationen allen Mitarbeitern leicht zugänglich machen.
. . . Informationen zur Verfügung stellen, welche unseren Mitarbeitern helfen, schnell auf Veränderungen
zu reagieren.
. . . entsprechend unseren Bedürfnissen ausgestaltet sind und uns erlauben wettbewerbs- und überlebensfä-hig
zu bleiben.
. . . die Dezentralisierung von Entscheidungen ermöglichen.
. . . über verschiedene Abteilungen und/oder Bereiche des Unternehmens hinweg integriert sind.
. . . über verschiedene Abteilungen und/oder Bereiche des Unternehmens hinweg standardisiert oder ver-gleichbar
sind.
. . . uns die vollständige Einbindung von Kunden und Partnern in unsere Prozesse ermöglichen.
Fähigkeiten – Mitarbeiter und Manager
Bitte geben Sie an, wie groß der Anteil Ihrer Mitarbeiter und Manager mit den folgenden Fähigkeiten ist.
[Skala: alle–viele–einige–wenige–keine]
Unsere Manager. . .
. . . pflegen einen informellen Führungsstil, welcher auf Mentoring und Vorbildfunktion beruht.

A. Appendix XIV
. . . verstehen den Wert von Investitionen in IT aus einer gesamtunternehmerischen Sicht.
. . . haben das Wissen und die Fähigkeiten, um Veränderungen zu steuern.
. . . sind in der Lage, Änderungen in Produkten und / oder Dienstleistungen schnell zu implementieren.
. . . erkennen zukünftige Wettbewerbsvorteile, die sich aus innovativen Produkten, Dienstleistungen und /
oder Prozessen ergeben können.
. . . können ihre Ressourcen (Materialien, Finanzen, Mitarbeiter, . . . ) flexibel verteilen, um aufkommende
Chancen zu nutzen und Risiken zu minimieren.
. . . koordinieren die Verteilung von Informationen,Wissen und Kenntnissen unter denMitarbeitern zweck-m
äßig.
Unsere Mitarbeiter. . .
. . . sind in der Lage, mit einem Sinn für die kontinuierliche Verbesserung unserer Produkte, Dienstleistun-gen,
Prozesse und/oder Arbeitsmethoden zu agieren.
. . . sind in der Lage, die besten Chancen wahrzunehmen, zu identifizieren oder vorherzusehen, welche sich
in unserem Umfeld ergeben.
. . . sind in der Lage, die von Kunden geforderte Qualität von Produkten und / oder Dienstleistungen zu
erfüllen.
. . . besitzen ein breites Spektrum an Fähigkeiten und können für andere Aufgaben eingesetzt werden, falls
nötig.
. . . kommunizieren mit anderen vertrauensvoll, wohlwollend und wertschätzend.
. . . sind bereit zu Lernen und ihr Wissen stets abzurufen, anzuwenden und weiterzuentwickeln.
. . . sind bereit von Kollegen zu lernen und ihr Wissen an andere weiterzugeben.
. . . erwerben und entwickeln technologische Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse zielgerichtet.
. . . sind in der Lage, sich in verschiedenen Teamumgebungen neu zu organisieren, um veränderten Anfor-derungen
und neuen Herausforderungen zu begegnen.
. . . sind intrinsisch motiviert.
. . . übernehmen Verantwortung und denken unternehmerisch.
Aktivit äten – Mitarbeiter
Bitte geben Sie an, wie oft die folgenden Aktivitäten von Ihren Mitarbeitern ausgeführt werden. [Skala:
immer–oft–gelegentlich–selten–nie]
Unsere Mitarbeiter. . .
. . . arbeiten eng mit anderen Teams, Abteilungen und/oder Bereichen zusammen.
. . . organisieren sich in ihren Teams selbständig.
. . . reflektieren in regelmäßigen Abständen, wie ihr Team effektiver werden kann und passen ihr Verhalten
entsprechend an.
. . . arbeiten in kleinen Teams in ihren Projekten.
. . . bilden Teams, welche geografisch eng beisammen liegen.
. . . rotieren zwischen verschiedenen Aufgaben, Tätigkeiten, Positionen oder Abteilungen.

A. Appendix XV
Aktivit äten – Unternehmen allgemein
Bitte geben Sie an, wie oft die folgenden Aktivitäten in Ihrem Unternehmen ausgeführt werden. [Skala:
immer–oft–gelegentlich–selten–nie]
Mit Blick auf unsere Mitarbeiter. . .
. . . steuern wir Vorschläge, neue Ideen und Lösungen aus allen Ebenen bis zur Umsetzung konsequent.
. . . vertrauen wir ihnen bei der Erledigung ihrer Arbeit.
. . . bieten wir Anreize, welche sich nicht nur an der individuellen, sondern auch an der Teamleistung und
dem Beitrag für das Gesamtunternehmen orientieren.
. . . bieten wir Anreize, welche Mitarbeiter ermutigen, ihre Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse auszubauen.
. . . ermutigen wir auch die unteren Hierarchieebenen, Entscheidungen selbst zu treffen und Verantwortung
zu übernehmen.
. . . bilden wir Mitarbeiter mit einer langfristigen Perspektive für die Entwicklung des Unternehmens wei-ter.
In unserem Unternehmen. . .
. . . beobachten wir unsere Umgebung systematisch, um Veränderungen zu prognostizieren.
. . . reagieren wir auf bevorstehende Veränderungen, indem wir umgehend unsere Strategie anpassen.
. . . reagieren wir auf bevorstehende Veränderungen, indem wir umgehend unsere Prozesse anpassen.
. . . fällen wir wichtige Entscheidungen schnell, um Veränderungen imMarkt und/oder von Kundenbedürf-nissen
zu begegnen.
. . . passen wir Weisungsbefugnisse an, sobald sich Aufgaben ändern.
. . . arbeiten wir eng und intensiv über verschiedene Bereiche und/oder Abteilungen zusammen, um strate-gische
Entscheidungen zu treffen.
. . . unterstützen wir die frühzeitige Einbindung verschiedener Bereiche und/oder Abteilungen in die Ent-wicklung
neuer Produkte und/oder Dienstleistungen.
. . . gestalten wir unsere Prozesse zeitgleich mit Entwicklung neuer Produkte und/oder Dienstleistungen.
. . . informieren wir uns systematisch über IT-Innovationen.
. . . investieren wir strategisch in angemessene Technologien und haben eine klare Vision, wie unsere IT
einen Wert schafft.
. . . fokussieren wir uns auf unsere Kernkompetenzen und delegieren andere Aufgaben an Partner und Sub-unternehmer.
. . . überprüfen wir die Leistung unserer Partner und Subunternehmer sorgfältig.
. . . wählen wir unsere Partner und Subunternehmer vorrangig nach Qualitätskriterien aus (statt einer reinen
Kostenbetrachtung).
. . . richten wir alle Aktivitäten konsequent an Kundenanforderungen und -bedürfnissen aus.
. . . unterstützen wir die Sammlung und interne Verbreitung von Informationen über Kundenbedürfnisse.
. . . arbeiten wir eng mit unseren Kunden zusammen und ermutigen sie zu schnellen Rückkopplungen.
Weiteres
Sind in Ihrem Unternehmen weitere Tätigkeiten, Fähigkeiten, Werte, etc. vorhanden, welche Sie agiler ma-chen
als andere? Wenn ja, dann können Sie hier weitere Angaben machen, sofern Sie wünschen. [Textfeld]

A. Appendix XVI
A.3. Item Sources and Related Literature
Table A.2 shows all items of the questionnaire again and gives the literature sources from which they are
taken. The reader may refer to these source to learn more about the concepts behind this items. Further-more,
the corresponding concept of agility according Wendler (2013) is listed for every item used in the
questionnaire (please see section 1.1 for more information).
Item Agility Concept Related Sources
Values & Principles – Our organization values a culture that. . .
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. Change (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . considers team work as integral part. Org. Culture (V´azquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . accepts and supports decisions and proposals of employees. Org. Culture (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative ideas. Org. Learning (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011;
V´azquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
opportunities.
Customer (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011; Misra et
al., 2009)
Values & Principles – Our organization prefers. . .
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than reacting to crisis
or “fire-fighting”.
Org. Abilities (Power et al., 2001)
Org. Culture (Power et al., 2001)
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying information within our
organization.
Org. Culture (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service features that go
beyond the customer requirements.
Product (Misra et al., 2009)
. . .market-related changes (e. g. new competitors, preferences) to
generate new opportunities.
Market (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011)
Conditions & IT/IS – Our organization has. . .
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication processes. Processes (Power et al., 2001)
. . . an intensive employee training program. Org. Learning (Hoyt et al., 2007)
Workforce/Team (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Hoyt et
al., 2007)
Strategy (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market changes from
the very start.
Strategy (Zelbst et al., 2011)
Conditions & IT/IS – Our organization has Information Systems and Technologies that. . .
. . .make organizational information easily accessible to all
employees.
Org. Learning (Kassim & Zain, 2004;
. . . provide information helping our employees to quickly respond to
changes.
Technology/IS (Kassim & Zain, 2004; Zelbst et
al., 2011)
. . . are appropriate to our needs and allow us to be competitive in the
marketplace.
Technology/IS (Power et al., 2001)
. . . enable decentralization in decision making. Technology/IS (Kassim & Zain, 2004)
. . . are integrated amongst different departments and/or business units. Integration (Vazquez-´Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . are standardized or comparable amongst different departments
Technology/IS (Sarker & Sarker, 2009)
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners into our
processes.
Technology/IS (Kassim & Zain, 2004;
Capabilities – Our managers. . .

A. Appendix XVII
. . .maintain an informal management style with focus on coaching
and inspiring people.
Org. Culture (Zhang & Sharifi, 2007)
. . . understand the value of IT investments from a company-wide
perspective.
Technology/IS (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011)
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage change. Change (Zelbst et al., 2011)
. . . are able to quickly implement changes in products and/or services. Product (Hoyt et al., 2007; Sharifi et al.,
2001)
. . . are able to recognize future competitive advantages that may result
from innovations in products, services, and/or processes.
Innovation (Zhang & Sharifi, 2007)
. . . are able to flexibly deploy their resources (material, financial,
human, . . . ) to make use of opportunities and minimize threats.
Org. Abilities (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . .manage the sharing of information, know-how, and knowledge
among employees appropriately.
Integration (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
Capabilities – Our employees. . .
. . . are able to act with a view to continuous improvement of our
products, services, processes, and/or working methods.
Change (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best opportunities
which come up in our environment.
Workforce/Team (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
Quality (Zelbst et al., 2011)
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other tasks when
needed.
Workforce/Team (Hoyt et al., 2007; Kassim & Zain,
2004)
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill, and esteem. Cooperation (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly access, apply and
Org. Learning (Misra et al., 2009;
update knowledge.
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from one
another and to pass their knowledge to others.
Org. Learning (Misra et al., 2009)
purposeful.
Org. Abilities (Sharifi et al., 2001)
. . . can re-organize continuously in different team configurations to
meet changing requirements and the newly arising challenges.
Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . are self-motivated. Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner. Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
Activities – Our employees. . .
. . . collaborate closely with different teams, departments, and/or
Cooperation (Misra et al., 2009)
business units.
. . . organize themselves in their teams. Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . reflect at regular intervals on how to become more effective in
Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
their team, then tune and adjust their behavior accordingly.
. . .work in small teams in their projects. Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . form teams that are geographically closely located. Workforce/Team (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . rotate amongst different activities, tasks, positions or departments. Workforce/Team (Vazquez-´Bustelo et al., 2007)
Activities – Regarding our employees, we. . .
. . .manage proposals, new ideas, and solutions from all levels
Innovation (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
consequently.
. . . trust them to get their job done. Org. Culture (Misra et al., 2009)
. . . offer incentives not only for individuals, but for the team and their
contribution to the overall organization.
Org. Culture (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . offer incentives to encourage our employees to upgrade their skills
and training.
Org. Learning (Hoyt et al., 2007)

A. Appendix XVIII
. . . encourage also employees at lower levels to make decisions and
take responsibility.
Org. Culture (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Kassim
& Zain, 2004)
. . . develop employees skills with a view to the firm’s long-term
future development.
Org. Learning (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
Activities – In our organization, we. . .
. . . scan and examine our environment systematically to anticipate
change.
Change (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our
business strategy.
Change (Sherehiy et al., 2007)
processes.
Processes (Zelbst et al., 2011)
. . . are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face of market-and/
or customer-related changes.
Market (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011)
. . . change authorities when tasks change. Org. Culture (Sherehiy et al., 2007)
. . . jointly and intensively operate throughout different functions
and/or departments for strategic decision making.
Cooperation (Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments and/or
functions in new product and/or service development.
Processes (Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development of new
products and/or services.
Processes (Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . inform ourselves systematically about information technology
innovations.
Technology/IS (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011)
. . . strategically invest in appropriate technologies and have a clear
vision how IT contributes to business value.
Technology/IS (Lu & Ramamurthy, 2011; Sharifi
et al., 2001)
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further tasks to our
partners and subcontractors.
Cooperation (Agarwal et al., 2007)
. . .monitor the performance of our partners and subcontractors very
closely.
Cooperation (Hoyt et al., 2007)
. . . select our partners and subcontractors by quality criteria (rather
than pure cost-based decisions).
Cooperation Experts (Pretest)
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements and needs. Customer (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011)
. . . encourage compilation and internal dissemination of information
on customers needs.
Org. Learning (Vázquez-Bustelo et al., 2007)
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast feedback from our
customers.
Customer (Misra et al., 2009)
Table A.2.: Item sources and related agility concepts

A. Appendix XIX
A.4. Additional Graphics and Statistics
A.4.1. Details by Role
This section gives a number of comprehensive tables and figures for every item differentiated by the role of
the participants. They serve as additional information for chapter 3.
CEO CIO/ IT/ITC Ent./IT Other total
CTO Manager Architect average
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.0
. . . considers team work as integral part. 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.7
1.6 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.0
employees.
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative
ideas.
1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1
opportunities.
1.7 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.0
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than reacting to
crisis or “fire-fighting”.
1.8 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2
1.4 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.1
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying information
1.8 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service features
2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3
2.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3
Table A.3.: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by role

A. Appendix XX
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication
processes.
1.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3
. . . an intensive employee training program. 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.8
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how their
1.7 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2
own job relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all hierarchical
levels in terms easily understood by all.
1.8 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market changes
from the very start.
1.9 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3
employees.
1.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1
respond to changes.
1.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3
. . . are appropriate to our needs and allow us to be competitive
in the marketplace.
1.8 2.2 2.3 2.5 2,1 2.2
. . . enable decentralization in decision making. 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6
1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.2
business units.
2.1 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners into
our processes.
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7
Table A.4.: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by role

A. Appendix XXI
Our managers. . .
1.6 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.2
1.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage
change.
1.7 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3
services.
1.8 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.4
processes.
1.9 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4
minimize threats.
1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.4
1.8 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.4
Our employees. . .
1.9 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3
2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6
1.7 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.1
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other
tasks when needed.
1.9 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.3
esteem.
1.6 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.0
1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from
one another and to pass their knowledge to others.
1.6 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.1
purposeful.
1.9 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2
arising challenges.
2.0 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.3
. . . are self-motivated. 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner. 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6
Table A.5.: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by role

A. Appendix XXII
Our employees. . .
1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1
. . . organize themselves in their teams. 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1
. . . reflect at regular intervals on how to become more effective
2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.5
in their team, then tune and adjust their behavior accordingly.
. . .work in small teams in their projects. 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4 1.9
. . . form teams that are geographically closely located. 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.3
2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8
departments.
consequently.
1.9 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.3
. . . trust them to get their job done. 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.8
2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6
2.0 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.5
1.7 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.3
1.9 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.3
anticipate change.
2.1 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4
business strategy.
2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5
processes.
2.3 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6
1.7 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3
. . . change authorities when tasks change. 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6
1.7 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments and/or
functions in new product and/or service development.
1.8 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.3
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development of
new products and/or services.
2.1 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.5
1.8 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.1
1.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.2
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further tasks
to our partners and subcontractors.
2.0 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.4
2.0 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.3
1.8 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.2
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements and needs. 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.0
1.8 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.3
our customers.
1.5 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.0
Table A.6.: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by role

A. Appendix XXIII
...harnesses change for competitive
...is supportive of experimentation
and the use of innovative ideas.
advantages.
…the elimination of barriers between
individuals and/or departments, e.g.
by flat hierarchies or simple structures.
...simplicity, i.e. skipping product and/or
service features that go beyond
the customer requirements.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
total average
Chief Information/Technology Officer
IT/ITC Manager
Other
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure A.1.: Averages regarding agile values and principles by role

A. Appendix XXIV
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
total average
Chief Information/
Technology Officer
IT/ITC Manager
Other
Figure A.2.: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by role

A. Appendix XXV
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Our managers...
from a company-wide perspective.
...manage the sharing of information, know-how,
Our employees...
...can re-organize continuously in different team
...are self-motivated.
a business-like manner.
total average
Chief Information/
Technology Officer
IT/ITC Manager
Other
Figure A.3.: Averages regarding agile capabilities by role

A. Appendix XXVI
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Our employees...
closely located.
total average
Chief Information/
Technology Officer
IT/ITC Manager
Other
Figure A.4.: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by role

A. Appendix XXVII
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
to business value.
Figure A.5.: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by role

A. Appendix XXVIII
A.4.2. Details by Size
This section gives a number of comprehensive tables and figures for every item differentiated by the size
(i. e. number of employees) of the participating organizations. They serve as additional information for
chapter 3.
less 10 50 more total
than 10 to 49 to 249 than 250 average
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0
. . . considers team work as integral part. 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.7
. . . accepts and supports decisions and proposals of employees. 1.7 2.0 2.0 2,3 2.0
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative ideas. 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.1
. . . considers changing customer-related requirements as opportunities. 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than reacting to crisis or
1.8 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.2
“fire-fighting”.
. . . the elimination of barriers between individuals and/or departments,
e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple structures.
1.6 1.6 1.9 2.6 2.1
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying information within our
organization.
1.8 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.2
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service features that go beyond
2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3
. . .market-related changes (e. g. new competitors, preferences) to
generate new opportunities.
2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3
Table A.7.: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by size

A. Appendix XXIX
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication processes. 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3
. . . an intensive employee training program. 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.8
1.7 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.2
1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.3
. . . a strategic vision that allows flexibility for market changes from the
very start.
1.9 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3
. . .make organizational information easily accessible to all employees. 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1
. . . provide information helping our employees to quickly respond to
2.0 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.3
changes.
. . . are appropriate to our needs and allow us to be competitive in the
marketplace.
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.2
. . . enable decentralization in decision making. 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6
. . . are integrated amongst different departments and/or business units. 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.2
. . . are standardized or comparable amongst different departments and/or
2.3 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.3
business units.
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners into our
processes.
2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7
Table A.8.: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by size

A. Appendix XXX
Our managers. . .
. . .maintain an informal management style with focus on coaching and
inspiring people.
1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 2.2
. . . understand the value of IT investments from a company-wide
perspective.
1.6 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.1
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage change. 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.3
. . . are able to quickly implement changes in products and/or services. 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.4
. . . are able to recognize future competitive advantages that may result
1.9 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.4
from innovations in products, services, and/or processes.
. . . are able to flexibly deploy their resources (material, financial, human,
. . . ) to make use of opportunities and minimize threats.
2.0 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.4
. . .manage the sharing of information, know-how, and knowledge among
employees appropriately.
1.8 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.4
Our employees. . .
. . . are able to act with a view to continuous improvement of our products,
services, processes, and/or working methods.
1.9 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3
. . . are able to sense, perceive, or anticipate the best opportunities which
come up in our environment.
2.3 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6
. . . are able to meet the levels of product and/or service quality demanded
by our customers.
1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.1
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other tasks when
needed.
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill, and esteem. 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.0
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly access, apply and
1.6 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.0
update knowledge.
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from one another
and to pass their knowledge to others.
1.6 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.1
. . . obtain and develop appropriate technological capabilities purposeful. 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.2
. . . can re-organize continuously in different team configurations to meet
2.1 2.0 2.2 2.9 2.3
changing requirements and the newly arising challenges.
. . . are self-motivated. 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner. 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6
Table A.9.: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by size

A. Appendix XXXI
Our employees. . .
. . . collaborate closely with different teams, departments, and/or business
units.
1.8 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.1
. . . organize themselves in their teams. 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.1
. . . reflect at regular intervals on how to become more effective in their
2.4 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5
team, then tune and adjust their behavior accordingly.
. . .work in small teams in their projects. 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.9
. . . form teams that are geographically closely located. 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.3
. . . rotate amongst different activities, tasks, positions or departments. 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.8
1.9 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3
consequently.
. . . trust them to get their job done. 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.8
. . . offer incentives not only for individuals, but for the team and their
2.3 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6
contribution to the overall organization.
. . . offer incentives to encourage our employees to upgrade their skills and
training.
2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.5
. . . encourage also employees at lower levels to make decisions and take
responsibility.
1.8 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.3
. . . develop employees skills with a view to the firm’s long-term future
development.
2.0 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3
. . . scan and examine our environment systematically to anticipate change. 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our business
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5
strategy.
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately updating our processes. 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.6
. . . are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face of market- and/or
1.9 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.3
customer-related changes.
. . . change authorities when tasks change. 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6
. . . jointly and intensively operate throughout different functions and/or
1.9 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.3
departments for strategic decision making.
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments and/or functions
in new product and/or service development.
2.0 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.3
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development of new
products and/or services.
2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.5
. . . inform ourselves systematically about information technology
innovations.
1.9 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.1
. . . strategically invest in appropriate technologies and have a clear vision
how IT contributes to business value.
1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further tasks to our
partners and subcontractors.
2.2 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.4
. . .monitor the performance of our partners and subcontractors very
closely.
2.1 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.3
. . . select our partners and subcontractors by quality criteria (rather than
pure cost-based decisions).
2.0 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.2
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements and needs. 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.0
. . . encourage compilation and internal dissemination of information on
2.0 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.3
customers needs.
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast feedback from our
customers.
1.7 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.0
Table A.10.: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by size

A. Appendix XXXII
total average
less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
more than 250
advantages.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure A.6.: Averages regarding agile values and principles by size

A. Appendix XXXIII
0.0
" $ $ % %
Figure A.7.: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by size

A. Appendix XXXIV
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Our managers...
Our employees...
total average
less than 10
10 to
()
50 to 2
()
more than 250
Figure A.8.: Averages regarding agile capabilities by size

A. Appendix XXXV
Our employees...
closely located.
total average
less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
more than 250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure A.9.: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by size

A. Appendix XXXVI
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
to business value.
total average
less than 10
10 to
'
50 to 2
'
more than 250
Figure A.10.: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by size

A. Appendix XXXVII
A.4.3. Details by Location
This section gives a number of comprehensive tables and figures for every item differentiated by the location
of the participating organizations. They serve as additional information for chapter 3.
Germany Europe North Asia Other total
w/o Germany America average
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.0
1.8 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.0
employees.
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of
innovative ideas.
2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.1
. . . considers changing customer-related requirements
as opportunities.
2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than
reacting to crisis or “fire-fighting”.
2.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 2,3 2.2
. . . the elimination of barriers between individuals
and/or departments, e. g. by flat hierarchies or simple
structures.
1.7 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.1
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying
2.0 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service
features that go beyond the customer requirements.
2.3 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3
2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3
Table A.11.: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by location

A. Appendix XXXVIII
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up”
2.2 2.7 2..4 2.2 2.2 2.3
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how
2.0 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2
their own job relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all
2.2 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3
2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3
. . .make organizational information easily accessible
to all employees.
2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1
. . . provide information helping our employees to
quickly respond to changes.
2.2 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.3
2.0 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2
. . . are integrated amongst different departments
1.9 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.2
2.2 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.3
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and
partners into our processes.
2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7
Table A.12.: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by location

A. Appendix XXXIX
Our managers. . .
. . .maintain an informal management style with focus
on coaching and inspiring people.
1.9 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.2
1.9 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to
manage change.
2.0 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.3
. . . are able to quickly implement changes in products
and/or services.
2.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
. . . are able to recognize future competitive
advantages that may result from innovations in
products, services, and/or processes.
2.2 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4
. . . are able to flexibly deploy their resources
(material, financial, human, . . . ) to make use of
opportunities and minimize threats.
2.2 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4
2.2 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4
Our employees. . .
. . . are able to act with a view to continuous
improvement of our products, services, processes,
and/or working methods.
2.1 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.3
2.5 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6
. . . are able to meet the levels of product and/or
1.9 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.1
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to
other tasks when needed.
2.2 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3
. . . communicate with each other with trust, goodwill,
and esteem.
1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
. . . are ready to learn and are prepared to constantly
1.9 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn
from one another and to pass their knowledge to
others.
1.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1
. . . obtain and develop appropriate technological
2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2
configurations to meet changing requirements and the
newly arising challenges.
2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like
2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 2,6 2.6
manner.
Table A.13.: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by location

A. Appendix XL
Our employees. . .
. . . collaborate closely with different teams,
1.9 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.1
2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5
effective in their team, then tune and adjust their
behavior accordingly.
. . . rotate amongst different activities, tasks, positions
2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8
or departments.
. . .manage proposals, new ideas, and solutions from
all levels consequently.
2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
. . . offer incentives not only for individuals, but for
2.5 3.1 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6
the team and their contribution to the overall
organization.
. . . offer incentives to encourage our employees to
upgrade their skills and training.
2.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5
2.1 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.3
2.2 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.3
. . . scan and examine our environment systematically
to anticipate change.
2.3 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately
2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
. . . react to approaching changes by immediately
2.5 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6
. . . are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face
of market- and/or customer-related changes.
2.0 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3
1.9 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3
functions and/or departments for strategic decision
making.
. . . encourage early involvement of several
departments and/or functions in new product and/or
service development.
2.1 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.3
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the
2.4 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.5
2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.1
. . . strategically invest in appropriate technologies and
have a clear vision how IT contributes to business
value.
2.0 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.2
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate
2.3 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4
2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3
. . . select our partners and subcontractors by quality
2.1 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2
. . . align all our activities to customer requirements
and needs.
1.8 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0
. . . encourage compilation and internal dissemination
2.2 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3
. . . closely collaborate with and encourage fast
feedback from our customers.
1.7 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.0
Table A.14.: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by location

A. Appendix XLI
total average
Germany
Europe without Germany
North America
Asia
Other
than reacting to crisis or fire-fighting.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
advantages.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure A.11.: Averages regarding agile values and principles by location

A. Appendix XLII
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
...effective top-down and bottom-up
total average
Germany
North America
Asia
Other
Figure A.12.: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by location

A. Appendix XLIII
total average
Germany
North America
Asia
Other
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Our managers...
Our employees...
Figure A.13.: Averages regarding agile capabilities by location

A. Appendix XLIV
total average
Germany
North America
Asia
Other
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Our employees...
...collaborate closely with di
!
ferent teams,
closely located.
Figure A.14.: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by location

A. Appendix XLV
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
to business value.
Figure A.15.: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by location

A. Appendix XLVI
A.4.4. Details by Customers
This section gives a number of comprehensive tables and figures for every item differentiated by the region
of customers of the participating organizations. They serve as additional information for chapter 3.
region wide average
. . . harnesses change for competitive advantages. 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 1,9 2.0
2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.0
employees.
. . . is supportive of experimentation and the use of innovative
ideas.
2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
opportunities.
2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 1,6 2.0
. . . a proactive continuous improvement rather than reacting
to crisis or “fire-fighting”.
2.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2
2.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.1
. . . face-to-face communication for conveying information
2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.4 2.2
. . . simplicity, i. e. skipping product and/or service features
2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.3
2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.3
Table A.15.: Comparison of averages regarding agile values and principles by region of customers

A. Appendix XLVII
region wide average
. . . effective “top-down” and “bottom-up” communication
processes.
2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3
. . . employees that have a good understanding of how their
2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2
own job relates to the firm’s overall activity.
. . . a strategy that is clearly communicated to all hierarchical
levels in terms easily understood by all.
2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.3
2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
employees.
2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1
respond to changes.
2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.3
2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2
2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.9 2.2
business units.
2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3
. . . enable us to fully integrate our customers and partners
into our processes.
2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.7
Table A.16.: Comparison of averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by region of customers

A. Appendix XLVIII
region wide average
Our managers. . .
2.4 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.2
2.3 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.1
. . . have the knowledge and skills necessary to manage
change.
2.4 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3
services.
2.5 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.4
processes.
2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4
minimize threats.
2.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4
Our employees. . .
2.5 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3
2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.6
. . . are able to meet the levels of product and/or service
quality demanded by our customers.
2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
. . . use a broad range of skills and can be applied to other
tasks when needed.
2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3
esteem.
2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0
2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0
. . . are in general always willing to continuously learn from
one another and to pass their knowledge to others.
2.3 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1
purposeful.
2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2
arising challenges.
2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3
. . . take responsibility and think in a business-like manner. 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.6
Table A.17.: Comparison of averages regarding agile capabilities by region of customers

A. Appendix XLIX
region wide average
Our employees. . .
2.3 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.1
2.6 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.5
effective in their team, then tune and adjust their behavior
accordingly.
3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.8
departments.
. . .manage proposals, new ideas, and solutions from all
levels consequently.
2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.3
3.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6
2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5
2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3
2.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3
anticipate change.
2.6 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.4
our business strategy.
2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5
our processes.
3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.6
2.5 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.3
2.3 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.9 2.3
. . . encourage early involvement of several departments
and/or functions in new product and/or service development.
2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.3
. . . design our processes simultaneously to the development
of new products and/or services.
2.8 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.5
2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1
2.4 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2
. . . focus on our core competencies and delegate further tasks
to our partners and subcontractors.
2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.4
2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3
2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.2
needs.
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0
2.5 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.3
our customers.
2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Table A.18.: Comparison of averages regarding agile activities by region of customers

A. Appendix L
total average
local
national
own region
worldwide
abroad
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
advantages.
than reacting to crisis or fire-fighting.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure A.16.: Averages regarding agile values and principles by region of customers

A. Appendix LI
total average
local
national
own region
worldwide
abroad
...effective top-down and bottom-up
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure A.17.: Averages regarding agile conditions and IT/IS by region of customers

A. Appendix LII
total average
local
national
own region
worldwide
abroad
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Our managers...
Our employees...
Figure A.18.: Averages regarding agile capabilities by region of customers

A. Appendix LIII
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
total average
local
national
own region
worldwide
abroad
Our employees...
closely located.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Figure A.19.: Averages regarding agile activities (of and regarding employees) by region of customers

A. Appendix LIV
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
to business value.
Figure A.20.: Averages regarding agile activities (general) by region of customers

FAKULTÄT WIRTSCHAFTSWISSENSCHAFTEN
Bisher erschienene Titel in der Reihe:
Dresdner Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsinformatik
lfd.Nr. Autor/Autoren Titel
1/94 Werner Esswein,
Eric Schoop,
Wolfgang Uhr
Der Studiengang Wirtschaftsinformatik an der Fakultät
Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Technischen Universität
Dresden
2/94 Eric Schoop,
Stefan Papenfuß
Beiträge zum computerunterstützten Lernen
Klaus Körmeier
Führung und Steuerung von Softwareprojekten im Kapsel-
Modell
4/94 Werner Esswein Entwurf integrierter Anwendungssysteme
5/94 Gundula Heinatz CSCW und Software Engineering
6/94 Marco Lehmann-
Waffenschmidt,
Klaus-Peter Schulz
Umweltinformationssysteme in der öffentlichen
Verwaltung
7/94 Eric Schoop,
Stefan Papenfuß,
Jan L. Plass
Echolot: Making an Abstract Hypertext Machine Concrete
- A client/server architecture for authoring and learning
business processes -
8/95 Eric Schoop,
Thomas Schraml
Vom Durchfluß- zum Kreislaufbetrieb: Neuorientierung zu
einem integrierten Umweltinformationsmanagement
9/95 Gundula Heinatz COST14-CoTech Project P4 CSCW and Software
Engineering Dresden, 22-23 May 95 Meeting Papers
10/95 Eric Schoop,
Thomas Schraml
Vorschlag einer hypertext-orientierten Methode für eine
strukturierte Umweltberichterstattung und -zertifizierung
11/96 Eric Schoop,
Uwe Jäger,
Stefan Pabst
Potentiale elektronischer Märkte
12/96 Eric Schoop,
Ralph Sonntag,
Katrin Strobel,
Torsten Förster,
Sven Haubold,
Berit Jungmann
Vergleichende Übersicht von Angeboten der Bundesländer
im Internet
13/96 Eric Schoop,
Hagen Malessa,
Jan L. Plass,
Stefan Papenfuß
Architekturvorschlag für eine offene Hypermedia-
Entwicklungsumgebung zur Erstellung verteilter
Lernsysteme
14/96 Silvia Brink
Wolfgang Uhr
Hypertextbasierte Lernumgebung Investitionsrechnung
- Konzept und Evaluation -
15/97 Thomas Schraml,
Eric Schoop
Umweltinformationsmanagement mit neuen Medien.
Elektronische Berichterstattung durch Hypertext-
Dokumente
16/97 Eric Schoop Multimedia-Kommunikation: Chancen für KMU?

17/97 Eric Schoop Wachstum und Innovation: Herausforderung für ein
Informationsmanagement mit neuen Medien
18/97 Ralph Sonntag Automatisierung der Erstellung und Pflege von Umwelt-handbüchern
sowie der enthaltenen
Verfahrensregelungen
19/97 Eric Schoop Document Engineering: Methodische Grundlage für ein
integriertes Dokumentenmanagement
Gundula Heinatz,
Andreas Dietzsch
WISE.xScape - ein Werkzeug zur Unterstützung
informeller Kommunikation
Gundula Heinatz
Dokumentation von Leistungs- und Informationsprozessen
im Krankenhaus für ein verbessertes
Qualitätsmanagement
Gundula Heinatz
Einsatz von technischen Systemen zur Unterstützung von
Koordination in Unternehmen
Manuela Räbiger,
Achim Selz
Anforderungen an Data-Warehouse-Systeme
24/97 Gerhard Marx Reaktionsfähigkeitsanalyse (RFA)
25/97 Michael Schaffrath
Wolfgang Uhr
Symptomerkennung im Rahmen eines
Entscheidungsunterstützungssystems
26/98 Jens-Thorsten
Rauer
Strategische Erfolgspotentiale von Informations-infrastrukturen
in der deutschen Assekuranz
(Individualversicherungsbranchen) - die betriebliche
Ressource Informationsverarbeitung
27/98 Stefan Papenfuß Vorschlag für eine Informationsstruktur
28/98
Eric Schoop Strukturorientierte Dokumentenmanagement, Aufgaben,
Methoden, Standard und Werkzeug
29/98 Ralph Sonntag Jahresbericht 1994-1997 der Professuren für
Wirtschaftsinformatik
30/99 Ina Müller Integration technologiebezogener Informationen an der TU
Dresden in ein Gründerinformationssystem
31/99 Michael Zilker Einsatz und Nutzenkalküle von Virtual Reality-Projekten in
Unternehmensprozessen Auswertung einer Befragung
von VR-Anwendern und Ableitung eines
Unterstützungsbedarfs durch ein computerbasiertes
Beratungssystem
32/00 Andreas Dietzsch
Werner Esswein
Modellierung komplexer Verwaltungsprozesse:
Arbeitsbericht zum Projekt Finanz 2000
33/01 Sabine Zumpe
Werner Esswein
Automatische Unterstützungssysteme für die
Steuerberatung
34/01 Jürgen Abrams
Wolfgang Uhr
B2B-Marktplätze – Phänomen und organisatorische
Implikationen
35/02 Ruben Gersdorf Verteiltes Content Management für den Document Supply
in der Technischen Dokumentation
36/02 Sabine Zumpe
Werner Esswein
Konzeptuelle Schnittstellenanalyse von eCommerce
Applikationen

37/02 Ernest Kosilek
Wolfgang Uhr
Die kommunale elektronische Beschaffung
Bericht zum Forschungsprojekt „KeB“
38/02 René Rottleb „Verzeichnissysteme – ein Stiefkind der Wirtschafts-informatik?“
39/02 Andrea Anders Ergonomische Dokumente: Wie lassen sich zielgruppen-spezifische
Anforderungen an Lesbarkeit und
Verständlichkeit sicherstellen?
40/03 Anja Lohse Integration schwach strukturierter Daten in betriebs-wirtschaftliche
Prozesse am Beispiel des Kundenservice
41/03 Berit Jungmann Einsatz von XML zur Abbildung von Lerninhalten für
E-Learning-Angebote: Standards, Anwendung,
Handlungsbedarf
42/03 Sabine Zumpe,
Werner Esswein,
Nicole Sunke,
Manuela Thiele
Virtuelle B2B-Marktplätze
Entstehung, Existenz und Umwandlung
43/04 Torsten Sommer Modellierung von standardisierten Behandlungsabläufen
Begriffsanalyse als Voraussetzung zur Wahl einer
geeigneten Modellierungssprache
44/04 Eric Schoop Electronic Business – Herausforderungen im größer
gewordenen Europa - Proceedings zum Europäischen
Integrationsforum 2004 an der Fakultät Wirtschafts-wissenschaften
der TU Dresden
45/04 Andreas Hilbert
Sascha Raithel
Entwicklung eines Erklärungsmodells der Kundenbindung
am Beispiel des High-Involvement-Produktes Automobil
46/04 Andreas Hilbert
Sascha Raithel
Empirische Evaluation eines Kausalmodells zur Erklärung
der Kundenbindung am Beispiel des High-Involvement-
Produktes Automobil
47/05 Sabine Zumpe
Werner Esswein
Nicole Sunke
Manuela Thiele
Die Qualität von Referenzmodellen im E-Commerce
48/05 Daniel Kilper Ressourcenkritische Parameter XML-basierter Trans-aktionsstandards
in mobilen Datennetzen: Eine Unter-suchung
basierend auf der Informationellen Effizienz nach
Hurwicz
49/06 Frank Wenzke Angebot von Informationen für die Wettbewerberanalyse
auf Unternehmenswebsites
50/07
Silke Adam
Werner Esswein
Untersuchung von Architekturframeworks zur
Strukturierung von Unternehmensmodellen
51/07 Markus Westner Information Systems Offshoring: A Review of the
Literature
52/08 Tobias von
Martens
Andreas Hilbert
Kapazitätssteuerung im Dienstleistungsbereich unter
Berücksichtigung des Kundenwertes
53/09 Roy Wendler Reifegradmodelle für das IT-Projektmanagement

54/10 Christian Leyh
Anne Betge
Susanne
Strahringer
Nutzung von ERP-Systemen und RFIDTechnologie in klein-und
mittelständischen Unternehmen - Eine explorative
empirische Untersuchung sächsischer KMU
55/10 André Gräning
Roy Wendler
Christian Leyh
Susanne
Strahringer
Research about before Research with Standards
56/10 Tagungsband des zwölften interuniversitären
Doktorandenseminars
57/10 Andreas Hartmann,
Georg Lackermair
Trends im B2C-Online-Handel
Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung
58/11 Michael Mohaupt,
Andreas Hilbert
Systematisierung und Berücksichtigung von
Unsicherheiten im Revenue Management
59/11 Christian Leyh,
Pia Hübler
Nutzung von ERP-Systemen in sächsischen klein- und
mittelständischen Unternehmen
Eine explorative empirische Untersuchung
Henrique Gottwald
Nutzung von ERP-Systemen in deutschen klein- und
mittelständischen Unternehmen
Eine explorative empirische Untersuchung
61/11 René Michel, Igor
Schnakenburg,
Tobias von
Martens, Andreas
Hilbert
Effektive Kundenselektion für Vertriebskampagnen auf
Basis von Nettoscores
62/11 Christian Leyh Verwendung von ERP-Systemen im Rahmen der
Hochschullehre
Auswertung einer Befragung deutscher Universitäten und
Fachhochschulen
63/12 Kerstin Förster,
Roy Wendler
Theorien und Konzepte zu Agilität in Organisationen
64/12 Tobias Weiss,
Andreas Hilbert
Energy Intelligence
Anwendung von Business Intelligence auf Daten aus dem
Smart Metering
Christian Hennig
ERP – und Campus-Management-Systeme in der
Hochschulverwaltung – Ergebnisse einer Befragung
deutscher Universitäten und Fachhochschulen
66/13 Tim Pidun Assessing the Success of Performance Measurement
Systems
67/13 Marcus Pfitzner Visualisierungstrends von Business Intelligence
Oberflächen

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AGILE ORGANIZATION? ? DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

More Related Content

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AGILE ORGANIZATION? ? DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION (20)

More from iasaglobal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN AGILE ORGANIZATION? ? DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS OF AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION