Managing Time Complexity through Agility: The Cases of Fujitsu's World Record and Four Fortune 500 Companies

Abstract

In the globalized, turbulent, and rushed nature of contemporary work, organizations perceive an increasing pressure to master digital transformation. To do so, organizations are increasingly turning to 'high speed' methods such as agile and flow. We argue that the differentiating feature of these methods is how to address time complexity to increase time-to-delivery, epitomized by terms such as cycle time, lead-time, latency, real-time, and velocity. This emphasis on speed is often an oversimplification of many complex and multi-faceted time complexities in play, and such an obsession on speed alone often results in failure. We examine how Fujitsu succeeded in managing time complexity by keeping multiple temporal challenges imposed by different time conceptions, temporal interdependencies, and management styles in sync to set a Guinness World Record with the largest animated tablet PC mosaic. We compare our findings with four other Fortune 500 companies confirming that applying agile practices can help in managing time complexity.

Full text

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
1
Managing Time Complexity through Agility:
The Cases of Fujitsu’s World Record and Four
Fortune 500 Companies
1
Daniel Gerster(a), Jan vom Brocke(b), Kieran Conboy(c), Christian Dremel(d), Robert
Mayer(e)
2
(a) daniel.gerster@isg-one.com; (b) jan.vom.brocke@uni.li; (c) kieran.conboy@nuigalway.ie; (d)
christian.dremel@uni-bamberg.de; (e) robert.mayer@fujitsu.com
ABSTRACT
In the globalized, turbulent, and rushed nature of contemporary work, organizations perceive an
increasing pressure to master digital transformation. To do so, organizations are increasingly turning to
'high speed' methods such as agile and flow. We argue that the differentiating feature of these methods
is how to address time complexity to increase time-to-delivery, epitomized by terms such as cycle time,
lead-time, latency, real-time, and velocity. This emphasis on speed is often an over-simplification of
many complex and multi-faceted time complexities in play, and such an obsession on speed alone often
results in failure. We examine how Fujitsu succeeded in managing time complexity by keeping multiple
temporal challenges imposed by different time conceptions, temporal interdependencies, and
management styles in sync to set a Guinness World Record with the largest animated tablet PC mosaic.
We compare our findings with four other Fortune 500 companies confirming that applying agile practices
can help in managing time complexity.
KEYWORDS
Agile practices, agility, digital transformation, time complexity, time conceptions.
1
Cite as: Gerster, D., vom Brocke, J., Conboy, K., Dremel, Ch., Mayer, R. (2021), Managing Time Complexity through Agility:
The Cases of Fujitsu’s World Record and Four Fortune 500 Companies, in: MIS Quarterly Executive (MISQE), forthcoming.
2
Except the first author, authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
2
Managing Time Complexity through Agility:
The Cases of Fujitsu’s World Record and Four
Fortune 500 Companies
Digital transformation is ubiquitous and companies of virtually all industries and sizes are under
pressure to innovate on business models as new competitors create new digital products or services
with the help of digital technologies. While startups or born digital companies like Amazon, Facebook
or Google are agile by nature, established companies struggle with the question of how to react fast
and flexibly to rapidly changing market environments. In consequence, many firms perceive the pace
of change in the digital age and the significant increase of resulting challenges
3
. Established companies
face a unique set of challenges when increasing speed and flexibility as they need to balance between
'keeping the lights on' with existing operations while simultaneously allocating sufficient resources (i.e.,
time and capacities) to innovate with digital technologies. In response, many companies are redesigning
their digital strategy
4
and introducing agile practices and structures to increase speed and flexibility
5
ultimately addressing the multi-faceted aspects of time.
To increase flexibility and reduce time-to-market, companies need to manage time and its inherent
complexity such as different time conceptions, temporal interdependencies and management styles. To
do so, organizations and their employees need to perceive and experience time, as well as their
relationship and interaction with time. This perception, the experience of time and the respective
relationship with time are highly depended on a person's social context and on contingencies in an
organizational setting resulting in a phenomenon we refer to as time complexity.
3
Recommended references for challenges imposed by digital transformation are (1) Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., and
Wiesböck, F. 2016. "Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy," MIS Quarterly Executive (15:2), and (2) Dixon,
J. A., Brohman, K., and Chan, Y. E. 2017. "Dynamic Ambidexterity: Exploiting Exploration for Business Success in the Digital
Age," in: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference of Information Systems. Seoul, Korea. Seoul, Korea: AIS.
4
Good case studies on how to formulate a digital strategy include: (1) Sia, S. K., Soh, C., and Weill, P. 2016. "How DBS Bank
Pursued a Digital Business Strategy," MIS Quarterly Executive (15:2), pp. 105-121, (2) Hansen, R., and Sia, S. K. 2015.
"Hummel's Digital Transformation toward Omnichannel Retailing: Key Lessons Learned," MIS Quarterly Executive (14:2), and
(3) Dremel, C., Herterich, M., Wulf, J., Waizmann, J.-C., and Brenner, W. 2017. “How AUDI AG Established Big Data Analytics
in Its Digital Transformation,” MIS Quarterly Executive, (16:2), 81–100.
5
An overview of agile forms of organizational design at established companies including adoption paths can be found at: Gerster,
D., Dremel, C., Brenner, W., and Kelker, P. 2020. "How Enterprises Adopt Agile Forms of Organizational Design: A Multiple-Case
Study," ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, (51:1), pp. 84-103.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
3
We use temporal research to examine how established companies manage challenges resulting from
time complexity applying concepts such as clock time, event time, or time as cyclical pattern. The
adoption of a temporal lens promises to enrich our understanding of strategic change inherent to digital
transformation and can provide a deeper perception including potential conflicts among actors operating
out of different time perspectives
6
.
We examine how agile practices can help established companies in managing time complexity. We
describe how Fujitsu set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest animated tablet PC mosaic
on November 7, 2017. Extending and generalizing these findings, we present four comparative cases
of Fortune 500 companies adopting agile practices to manage challenges imposed by time complexity.
We conclude with providing managerial recommendations on how time complexity can be reduced by
applying agile practices in today's turbulent times.
THE COMPLEXITY OF TIME
Digital transformation can be characterized by multiple complexity dimensions including structural
complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, dynamics, and pace
7
. From a practitioner's perspective, today's
volatile and rapidly changing business world can be characterized as a conglomerate of complex
business changes, situations, and decisions. This includes changes in the business environment
through technological innovations or changing customer requirements, team and project dynamics, or
regulatory changes. Accordingly, there is an immense need to handle multiple complexity dimensions
to understand how an actor or a team responds to different complexity dimensions as teams develop
and exist in a temporal context and work is planned and carried out in real schedules
8
: First, while
uncertainty is inherent to innovation and novelty, it can be experienced as gap between the amount of
available information and information which would be ideally required for decision making. Second,
project dynamics may refer to project changes such as changes in requirements (or changes in
6
A comprehensive literature review on time in strategic change can be found at: Kunisch, S., Bartunek, J. M., Mueller, J., and
Huy, Q. N. 2017. "Time in Strategic Change Research," Academy of Management Annals (11:2), pp. 1005-1064.
7
The following articles provide a review of complexity in projects: (1) Geraldi, J.; Maylor, H.; Williams, T. (2011). "Now, let's Make
it Really Complex (Complicated): A Systematic Review of the Complexities of Projects", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 31(9): 966-990, and (2) Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and building on project management theory in
the light of badly over-run projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(4), 497-508.
8
More on generic temporal problems inherent to collective action can be found in McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups,
Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work, L. In: Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
4
objectives caused by volatile market conditions or competitive pressure) and is highly interrelated with
time uncertainty. Third, pace is an important complexity driver as urgency and criticality of time goals
require different structures and managerial attention
9
. Finally, time complexity itself may result from
temporal structuring like forming of a group (e.g., related to a group's lifecycle with the development
stages forming, storming, norming, and performing
10
) and the temporal patterning of a group's actions
caused by temporal ambiguity, conflicting temporal interests, requirement as well as the potential
scarcity of resources
11
.
As time is a common denominator of these complexity dimensions, we focus on time complexity as a
key challenge imposed by digital transformation. For instance, the question how to respond readily to
uncertain market environments changing in a high pace is heavily related to knowledgeably managing
time complexity. Contrary, research and practice often emphasize a traditional clock view of time where
technology implementation and value are often judged in terms of speed. Yet, time is an inherently
complex, multi-faceted, context-dependent, and subtle concept and is by nature socially embedded – a
phenomenon we refer to as time complexity. Time complexity results in situations where different
temporal dimensions converge and need to be continuously identified and managed. While Information
Systems (IS) practice and researchers often emphasize the impact of information technology on the
speed of organizational and social life, IS research falls short to address the polymorphous, complex,
and nuanced nature of time
12
. For instance, studies of project or organizational complexity tend to omit
a temporal element completely or tend to focus on pace or speed as the single one-dimensional aspect
of time complexity
13
. We argue that there is a need to look at the vast range of temporal complexities
inherent to digital transformation. To do so, we develop a set of temporal complexities (see Table 1) to
9
More on the complexity dimension pace can be found at: (1) Clift, T.B. and Vandenbosch, M.B. (1999), “Project complexity and
efforts to reduce product development cycle time”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 187-98, (2) Remington, K.
and Pollack, J. (2007), Tools for Complex Projects, Gower, Burlington, VT. (3) Shenhar, A.J., and Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing
Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation, HBS Press Book, Boston, MA.
10
A classic reference on the lifecycle of groups is Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development
revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
11
McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups, Intellectual teamwork: social and technological foundations of cooperative work,
L. In: Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.
12
We recommend the following standard references on temporal theory and time complexity: (1) Nandhakumar, J. 2002.
"Managing Time in a Software Factory: Temporal and Spatial Organization of IS Development Activities," The Information Society
(18:4), pp. 251-262, (2) Saunders, C., and Kim, J. 2007. "Editor's Comments: Perspectives on Time," MIS Quarterly, pp. iii-xi,
and (3) Shen, Z., Lyytinen, K., and Yoo, Y. 2014. "Time and Information Technology in Teams: A Review of Empirical Research
and Future Research Directions," European Journal of Information Systems (24:5), pp. 492-518.
13
Geraldi, J.; Maylor, H.; Williams, T. (2011) Now, let's Make it Really Complex (Complicated): A Systematic Review of the
Complexities of Projects, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31(9): 966-990.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
5
provide practitioners with a model to think and engage with these temporal complexities related to digital
transformation building on the foundational work of Ancona et al. (2001)
14
.
Table 1. Classification of temporal complexities.
This set of temporal complexities provides a comprehensive and holistic analysis of temporality, thus
synthesizing various temporal concepts across different areas of studies and provides a common
framework for temporal constructs and variables
15
, emphasizing social issues of temporality. We argue
that a framework that places such emphasis on these issues is particularly suited to explore the
complexities imposed by digital transformation.
Table 1 depicts three categories of time complexity, namely time conceptions, temporal
interdependencies, and temporal management styles. All three dimensions are interrelated rather than
mutually exclusive and are, thus, creating time complexity. The first dimension time conceptions refers
to how time is structured and conceived. For example, one could organize time primarily by clock time
16
,
whereby one might set out a plan broken down by months or might require that a certain activity such
as a release is done on a Friday. Likewise, a sprint of a defined length is related to clock time. Event
time on the other hand organizes work around events and things that need to be achieved (e.g., the
14
Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., and Perlow, L. A. 2001. "Taking Time to Integrate Temporal Research," Academy of
Management Review (26:4), pp. 512-529.
15
More on the framework of Ancona et al. (2001) and how it relates to other temporal theories can be found at: Shen, Z., Lyytinen,
K., and Yoo, Y. 2015. "Time and Information Technology in Teams: A Review of Empirical Research and Future Research
Directions," European Journal of Information Systems (24:5), pp. 492-518.
16
Mosakowski, E., and Earley, P. C. 2000. "A Selective Review of Time Assumptions in Strategy Research," Academy of
Management Review (25:4), pp. 796-812.
Dimension
Subdimension
Examples
1. Time conceptions
Types of time
Activities are structured around event or clock time
Socially constructed time
Work organization (e.g., nine-to-five workdays),
celebrations (e.g., public holidays)
2. Temporal
interdependencies
Single work activities
Estimation, scheduling, rate of completion, and
duration
Repeated work activities
Cycle, rhythm, frequency, and interval
Connecting work activities
Ordering or synchronization
Changing or transforming
work activities
Life cycles, jolts, interruptions, entrainment, and
patterning
3. Temporal
management styles
Temporal perception of work
activities
Experience of time during work, time passing, time
dragging, experience of duration or novelty
Temporal personality of
actors
Temporal orientation or temporal style of actors
(e.g., preference for being early or late)

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
6
release happens when all tests are passed regardless of what day, week, or month it happens to be).
Complexity can be caused by inconsistencies or misunderstandings regarding the exact clock or event
times being used, or when some teams or people are using clock time while others are structuring their
work on an event time basis. Furthermore, complexities can be caused by socially constructed time and
its impact on work organization (e.g., nine-to-five workdays or five workdays per week, public holidays
(e.g., Easter, Passover)
17
). For instance, some may have very different expectations particularly around
what overtime is expected and what public holiday times are sacrosanct. In today's world of global
division, work complexity due to socially constructed time is omnipresent as there are often multiple
teams from different countries and time zones, religions, and cultures working on the same project,
while each acts with their own radically different norms and with their expectations of themselves and
of each other’s obligations.
The second dimension temporal interdependencies refers to how activities are mapped to time. We
suggest that practitioners first of all analyze complexities inherent with each single activity. Even single
activities may be complex in how they are estimated and scheduled, and how long they should take
versus how long they actually take
18
. Then consider activities which repeat (e.g., sprints). Practitioners
need to think about how frequently the activity should take place and how long the intervals between
each should be. Creating a sustainable rhythm of activities can be inherently complex, and managing
multiple, often conflicting rhythms even more so. We then suggest that one considers how different
activities should be temporally connected. What order should they take place in? What happens when
they cannot or do not run in this pre-ordained order and what complexities arise? Can and should they
run simultaneously, should they be synchronized and how can the complexities in maintaining this
synchronization be resolved? Finally, and probably most importantly, we suppose that not all activities
adhere to the original plan, and thus suggest that practitioners examine the temporal complexities of
changing activities. For example, there will be unexpected jolts and interruptions. A good process will
pre-empt or at least address these when they occur. Teams often behave differently under time
pressure and short deadline conditions, and so we suggest that one examines the complexities that
17
Shen, Z., Lyytinen, K., and Yoo, Y. 2015. "Time and Information Technology in Teams: A Review of Empirical Research and
Future Research Directions," European Journal of Information Systems (24:5), pp. 492-518.
18
More on dimensions of world and their underlying aspects of organizational culture can be found at Schriber, J. B., and Gutek,
B. A. 1987. "Some Time Dimensions of Work: Measurement of an Underlying Aspect of Organization Culture," Journal of Applied
Psychology (72:4), p. 642.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
7
occur during these extreme periods. These temporal interdependencies of activities like scheduling,
synchronization, or task allocation can be perceived as a team's response to master challenges
resulting from time complexity. It is easy to assess a process in a calm, quiet stage of the project. It is
often at the times of crisis that one truly sees how well activities are synchronized and how well one is
capable of managing time complexity.
The third dimension temporal management styles refers to how of actors perceive and respond to time.
First, actors may perceive time in a multitude of ways. Also, they have temporal personalities – some
may like to be put under time pressure and create outstanding results as the deadline approaches while
others are incapable of coping with such pressure. Others may enjoy their temporal performance
illustrated in dashboards or team story or sprint boards, others may not. Some depend on a sustainable
work rhythm while others might be bored by it. An actor's relationship to time deeply varies among
different cultures, sub-cultures, and personalities
19
. Generally, methods for managing time complexity
are agnostic in this regard: They tend to ignore the diverse and multi-faceted complexities arising from
temporal perceptions and personalities.
As digital transformation imposes the need to identify and readily respond to frequently changing market
conditions, agility as organizational capability to continually sense environmental change and respond
readily is of highest importance to almost any company
20
. Consequently, agility is a core capability to
master challenges imposed by digital transformation. We argue that an important complexity driver for
organizations today is time complexity while agility is a means to tackle new challenges which are
imposed by an environmental change within an organization, altering the level of time complexity. While
increasing agility is often superficially referred to as speed, the organizational capability to sense
change and respond readily is by far more complex than just increasing speed, but as we argue, helps
beyond others to address an increasing multi-faceted, time-complex digital world.
In the following we illustrate how Fujitsu experienced different dimensions of time complexity during
their endeavor to set a Guinness World Record with the largest animated tabled PC mosaic. We extend
19
Mosakowski, E., and Earley, P. C. 2000. "A Selective Review of Time Assumptions in Strategy Research," Academy of
Management Review (25:4), pp. 796-812.
20
A standard reference on enterprise agility as organizational capabilities to sense environmental change and respond
appropriately is: Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., and Sambamurthy, V. 2006. "Enterprise Agility and the Enabling Role of Informati on
Technology," European Journal of Information Systems (15:2), pp. 120-131.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
8
our findings with four case studies of Fortune 500 companies applying scaled agile practices to master
time complexity challenges imposed by digital transformation.
THE FUJITSU CASE: MANAGING TIME COMPLEXITY TO SET A
GUINNESS WORLD RECORD
In July 2017 Fujitsu started its journey towards setting a Guinness world record which targeted the
composition of the largest animated tabled PC mosaic. This endeavor can be assessed with medium
to high time complexity due to its highly challenging time frame, inherent technical complexity, and the
scope of a single distilled activity (i.e., setting a world record).
Fujitsu is the leading Japanese information and communication technology (ICT) company and
supports with approximately 132,000 employees its customers in more than 100 countries
21
. Fujitsu, in
business since 1935, had highly optimized internal processes early on and therefore is accustomed to
challenges inherent to an innovative endeavor like setting a Guinness World Record – a journey which
combines both, technical complexity and novelty with an ambitious timeline. Consequently, it was
initially far from obvious of whether Fujitsu would succeed especially when considering the remaining
time of less than three months as Fujitsu's Head of Product IT in EMEIA noted:
"We have done something new, something disruptive, something completely different. And this
is currently a real challenge especially for large, established companies in IT departments and
business units" (Fujitsu Head of Product IT in EMEIA).
The attempt was planned as part of a long-run traditional annual fair "Fujitsu Forum 2017" of the EMEIA
region, consisting of the subregions Europe, the Middle East, India, and Africa, for its clients, partners,
and prospects. With over 10,000 visitors from more than 80 countries, Fujitsu Forum is one of the largest
customer events in the ICT industry
22
. Representatives of Fujitsu's EMEIA top 100 clients were invited
to an exclusive dinner reception on the evening before the Fujitsu Forum 2017 – the "showtime" for
setting Fujitsu’s Guinness World Record.
21
More on Fujitsu can be found at Fujitsu's website: http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/corporate/info/index.html.
22
The website of the Fujitsu Forum 2017 has all information about the event, its agenda, speakers, presentations, and videos:
https://www.fujitsu.com/de/microsite/forum-2017/.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
9
To achieve this goal invited guests would get a tablet PC to place it afterwards in a specific order and
to build together a huge screen consisting of a minimum of 220 animated tablet PCs to create the largest
animated tablet PC mosaic. Though this might not sound overly complex at first glance, it turned out to
be quite challenging: For instance, tablet PCs are computers and not monitors, and therefore, need to
be modified to display a dedicated part of an animated mosaic or to prevent unwanted notifications on
antivirus, firewall, Windows updates or Wi-Fi settings.
Beyond the successful management of time complexity, namely considering the diverse time
conceptions of involved contributors, time interdependencies during the attempt as well as temporal
management styles of the project lead and Fujitsu's management were a key success factor.
How to Eat an Elephant? The Importance of Time Slicing and Continuous
Improvement
An evolving step-by-step approach allowing for failure, incorporating instantaneous feedback, and
continuous optimization has been applied by Fujitsu to manage different time complexity dimensions.
Fujitsu purposefully addressed key dimensions of time complexity through instantiating a project lead
who knows how to address a definite event time (i.e., 'showtime' of the Guinness World Record), slicing
available time, and freeing up resources to make best usage of available time and to avoid potential
productivity limitations resulting from socially constructed strict and inflexible working schedules.
Figure 1 shows the different project phases. The subsequent section briefly describes key chronological
events illustrating challenges emerging from the different dimensions (i.e., time conception, temporal
interdependencies, and temporal management style) of time complexity involved.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
10
Figure 1. Overview of key project phases and timeline.
Phase 1: Ideation
The first phase, ideation, lasted from July 26, 2017 to August 31, 2017. Invitations to Fujitsu's dinner
reception guests were sent out on July 26, 2017. In light of the preparation of the dinner reception, the
idea of setting a Guinness World Record with the world's largest animated tablet PC mosaic was created
by an event agency engaged by Fujitsu to host the dinner reception. The initial idea was that the event
agency takes care of the world record attempt. Consequently, Fujitsu did not engage actively in the
realization of the world record endeavor and was on hold reacting only to the event agency's requests.
Phase 2: Preparation and Ramp-up
The second phase, preparation and ramp-up, lasted from September 1, 2017 to October 11, 2017.
Already during this phase, initial time complexity challenges emerged. For instance, one question was
how 250 tablet PCs (including spares, development, and test devices) cloud be manufactured without
the usual production lead time as Fujitsu builds to order only. Furthermore, on a technical level the
handling of the time lag of signals transferred via Wi-Fi to the tablet PCs and the synchronization of
each single device to create a fully synchronized mosaic display across all devices turned out to be
especially challenging requiring a proper signal synchronization.
Within this phase a turning point is acknowledged as the perceived progress was not in line with Fujitsu's
expectations. In consequence, Fujitsu took over sole responsibility for the endeavor to set a Guinness
World Record in early September with just less than two months remaining. Due to time criticality,

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
11
Fujitsu appointed a small team including a fully dedicated project lead endowed with extensive powers.
Fujitsu's project lead formulated two conditions as prerequisites for his engagement: First, relief of all
other duties with 100% time dedicated to the project. Second, a 'flexible budget' to circumvent existing
(non-agile) processes as there would be no time to follow regular processes in place at Fujitsu, related
for instance to purchasing or approval processes. Fujitsu's small project team consisted of just two full-
time team members and three part-time student helpers besides of various colleagues involved ad-hoc
for specific tasks and, in total, 13 external partners.
Right from the beginning, the project team focused on getting everything accomplished until Fujitsu’s
key event time – the 'showtime' of the Guinness World Record attempt. The remaining time of this phase
was used for planning, preparation, and ramp-up of the involved components for the world record
attempt imposing challenges regarding appropriate timing of various activities due to novelty and a lack
of experience with comparable endeavors. For instance, the synchronization of Wi-Fi lags for achieving
a seamless display of the mosaic across all tablet PCs could be sorted out with the help of an Indian
software company. Further, a location for the installation of a test wall for ensuring the readiness for
‘showtime’ could be identified at a science park nearby Fujitsu's Augsburg plant.
Phase 3: Technical Realization and Challenges
The third phase, technical realization and challenges, lasted from October 12, 2017 to October 26,
2017. Wi-Fi was up running and an initial version of the software for the video app was available for
testing by mid-October. However, several unexpected jolts and interrupts occurred, for instance, related
to Wi-Fi connectivity as the quality was perceived as poor regarding the synchronization of pictures and
significant time lags for transmitting signals occurred. One of the three brand-new Wi-Fi routers had
been identified as not working properly, i.e., disturbing the signals of the two other Wi-Fi routers through
generating noise, and was consequently replaced with an old and well-functioning back-up Wi-Fi router.
After this issue was successfully resolved on October 25, the animated mosaic was tested for the first
time. All devices revealing further issues with poor synchronization of pictures causing defects in the
correct display of the mosaic had to be fixed successively by the software provider.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
12
Phase 4: Pre-Showtime
The fourth phase, pre-showtime, lasted from October 27, 2017 to November 6, 2017. With less than
two weeks to showtime, a software update correcting wrong content display allowed the animated tablet
PC mosaic to be displayed seamlessly for the first time on November 1, 2017. This resulted in some
spare time for conducting small software refinements, logistics planning, packing of the tablet PCs and
visiting the event location at the BMW Museum in Munich. The show wall, featuring no power supply
and minimum gaps between the tablet PCs, was set-up in the BMW Museum on the day of the event.
Phase 5: Showtime
The fifth phase, showtime, lasted from November 7, 2017 to November 8, 2017. As part of the VIP
dinner event on November 7, 2017 at the BMW Museum, the tablet PCs were handed out to the guests
just shortly before showtime and guests were asked to put the tablet PCs to a designated grid position
on the show-wall. A maximum of three attempts for the animated tablet PC mosaic was granted and
supervised by representatives of the Guinness World Record committee. After all tablet PCs were
placed by the event's guests at their dedicated position, an initial test revealed that all tablet PCs except
for three devices had connectivity and responded accordingly. Due to the profound trouble shooting
expertise gained earlier, the problem's root cause was identified quickly: Two tablet PCs were
connected erroneously to the BMW Museum's Wi-Fi hotspot and the third device was manually turned
onto flight mode.
After manually correcting the settings of these three devices, the animated tablet PC mosaic was
displayed on all 220 tablet PCs correctly, resulting in setting the Guinness World Record for the largest
animated tablet PC mosaic on November 7, 2017, by Fujitsu
23
. Picture 1 shows the animated tablet PC
mosaic at BMW Museum on the day when Fujitsu set the Guinnes World Record.
23
An event video documenting the first successful Guinness World Record attempt during the VIP dinner event is available on
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrfKUqQgws.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
13
Picture 1. Event location BMW Museum Munich, Germany, on Nov. 7, 2017. The left picture
displays the installation of the tablet PC mosaic by Fujitsu's VIP clients and the right picture
shows the animated tablet PC mosaic.
Phase 6: Clean-up
The final phase, clean-up, lasted from November 9, 2017 to November 21, 2017. Due to the focus on
bringing the tablet PC mosaic to life, everything else that could have been postponed like commercial
topics with providers was postponed after the event. On November 21, 2017, the de-installation of the
training wall including the cleaning of the location took place, and rented electricity equipment and Wi-
Fi routers were returned.
Challenges Related to Time Complexity
1. Time Conceptions
Fujitsu was exposed to all types of time conceptions, specifically, the time types clock time, event time,
and socially constructed time. Once the decision was made that Fujitsu assumes responsibility for
setting the Guinness World Record, available remaining time had been divided into small chunks and
high-level milestones were identified. By de-coupling time into small pieces, available (clock) time could
be allocated most effectively. Fujitsu treated the date for the VIP event, entitled internally as "showtime",
as an irrefutable deadline until which everything required for setting the Guinness World Record needed
to be in place. To master the ambitious timeline, Fujitsu had at the same time to remain flexible with
solution design and to allow for compromises as long as basic functionalities (i.e., defined minimum
requirements to set a Guinness World Record) were to be achieved. In this respect, the concept of
event time was important to Fujitsu as the entire project planning, status tracking, and progress
reporting almost exclusively focused on the day of the VIP event.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
14
Furthermore, Fujitsu was exposed to time aspects of socially constructed work organization: Fujitsu
gave complete freedom to the project team regarding work organization despite of its employees having
a regular weekly 40 hours working contract. Consequently, the team decided not to stick to the usually
applied fixed working day schedule Monday through Friday, but rather to proceed on a needs basis as
project progress and critical activities like trouble shooting required. To do so, the project team had full
flexibility to explore their own and perceived as best-suitable working schedule. This resulted even in
working at night or on weekends while at the same time taking time off during the day on weekdays to
compensate for night shifts. To organize work accordingly, a small core team consisting of fully
dedicated, self-confident, and empowered individuals was essential to Fujitsu's success. This approach
allowed to keep the team-internal alignment and communication to the absolute minimum.
2. Temporal Interdependencies
To set the Guinness World Record, Fujitsu had to master complexities resulting from multiple temporal
interdependencies: Mapping of single and repeated work activities, connecting and synchronizing
different work activities, managing interdependencies, and changing or transforming work activities in
the case of jolts or interruptions.
Fujitsu applied three approaches for mapping single work activities to time: A high level estimation to
completion, scheduling of activities according to available time, and applying a "fail fast – fail often"
approach to make most efficient usage of time. Regarding the estimation to completion, a rough idea
on general feasibility gave the team convidence that it was possible to set the Guinness World Record
given the ambitious timeline and related circumstances:
"I knew that it could work – otherwise I wouldn't have accepted this assignment. I had to know
the involved components and to know of how they could be provided" (Project Manager Fujitsu).
Fujitsu applied a sequential planning of activities to available time to limit the number of potential
sources for errors and to reduce complexity of interrelated work packages. Furthermore, this approach
has been chosen because a traditional approach to project planning with a detailed initial planning of
activities was simply not feasible due to the lack of comparable experience and applicable knowledge
for such an endeavor:

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
15
"I initially tried to draw a Gantt-chart but realized soon that this chart requires more time in
drawing than it provided benefits. I only could do one step after the other, as circumstances and
priorities changed rapidly" (Fujitsu's Project Manager).
In consequence, it was mandatory to develop specifications successively and to plan and proceed step-
by-step in small iterations once single activities were completed successfully. With this approach,
detailed specifications were developed subsequently in sprints along with the implementation, a vital
component of mapping single activities to work time for Fujitsu. Additionally, a "fail fast – fail often"
approach in conjunction with even provoked failure had been applied. This approach allowed to test
possible solution components and to explore issues and limits at an early stage. Exemplarily, one of
the key challenges was the synchronization of single tablets to create a seamless display of the mosaic
across all tablet PCs with a custom-made software. While initial results were poor due to wrong ratios
of the mosaic pieces, the result could be successively improved by trial and error in iterations between
the team and the Indian software provider.
To map repeated work activities and to provide a structured approach on how to develop, test, and
continuously improve features, Fujitsu proceeded in sprints of a defined length of two weeks. This
repeated rhythm provided a clear structure of available (clock) time. Related work packages had to be
adjusted to be feasibly completed within a sprint's length, thus, limiting the available time for a specific
feature or for specific activities like solution development, programming, testing and the like. To make
most efficient use of the available time, Fujitsu even partly adapted the approach of strict time slicing
when planned activities were completed or when technical challenges or hurdles required immediate
attention. With this approach, Fujitsu even stopped a sprint if hurdles required special attention.
Exemplarily, Fujitsu immediately stopped a started sprint as soon as troubles with interfering Wi-Fi
signals occurred and focused on isolating potential sources of errors to identify the root cause.
To connect different work activities, Fujitsu applied time allocation to create an order, synchronization
or interdependencies and relocation of activities, i.e., the re-scheduling of an activity: To allocate
available time most effectively, Fujitsu focused on essential business requirements, i.e., minimum
requirements for setting the Guinness World Record.
One important decision regarding the ordering of work activities was to separate the vision for setting a
Guinness World Record from its realization: Fujitsu took over the lead for technical realization from the
marketing agency who created the idea after almost two months have passed by without satisfying

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
16
progress or results. While Fujitsu focused on overall feasibility and coordination of activities, details of
solution design and realization were left up to specialists. This approach of involving specialists helped
to remain flexible with solutioning and required rescheduling of activities in case of jolts. The relocation
of activities was particularly challenging because of a total of 13 involved external partners requiring
overall steering and management of interdependencies. The wide range of external partners resulted
from covering specific aspects of solution design ranging from providers of hard- and software and
providers of connectivity or power supply to specialists for designing fair booths like video animation on
tablet PCs where Fujitsu had no own expertise. Consequently, the relocation of activities to external
partners avoided resources conflicts and leveraged Fujitsu's comprehensive partner ecosystem most
effectively as Fujitsu soon realized that established and readily workable relationships to a diverse set
of expert partners could save valuable time
24
.
Related to changing or transforming activities, jolts and interrupts stroke Fujitsu soon after the decision
to take on responsibility for the technical realization of the Guinness World Record attempt: Exemplarily,
the question of how to get 250 tablet PCs manufactured on short notice without interference of the
regular PC production had to be resolved. Usual production lead time would be several weeks as Fujitsu
builds to order only. As one approach to address jolts and interrupts, Fujitsu relied on solution
components that had already proven to be successful, and thus, helped in speeding up realization.
Fujitsu experienced this with the latest but untested Wi-Fi routers that were chosen initially: After
causing significant trouble, these brand-new devices had been replaced by old routers that were usually
used as back-up devices for events. With this approach, Fujitsu immediately stopped trouble shooting
once it turned out that the signal noise was generated by one of the routers but decided to employ a
technically suboptimal but workable solution with spare routers and thus, saved valuable time. Likewise,
Fujitsu was exposed to midpoint transitions, i.e., a change of activities after some midpoint: After initially
relying on the external marketing agency for solution development exclusively, Fujitsu realized almost
two months after ideation that the achieved progress was not in line with Fujitsu's expectations and,
thus, decided to assume overall responsibility for the world record endeavor.
24
The section entitled "Overview of partners and architecture involved" in the Appendix further describes architectural solution
components and involved external partners.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
17
3. Temporal Management Styles
Temporal management styles were vital to Fujitsu as the event date on November 7, 2017 was
omnipresent. Temporal perception is related to the experience of time, time passing, duration and
novelty. This perception of novelty was vital as it helped to form a team identity based on this ambitious
and disruptive endeavor. Particularly, temporal perception with Fujitsu's VIP dinner event as an
irrefutable deadline that cannot be influenced, changed, or delayed was essential in keeping in sync all
activities required for on-time completion. Being a hobby lighting designer for concerts, Fujitsu's project
manager was fully aware of the concept of 'showtime':
"There is a fixed date and time called 'showtime' with a precisely defined starting time until that
everything needs to be completed and up running" (Fujitsu Project Manager).
This experience of time as an irrefutable deadline helped to set priorities right from the beginning in
receiving the required freedom regarding decisions and endowments. Likewise, Fujitsu experienced
time passing regarding the initial project progress that led to Fujitsu assuming responsibility for the
world record endeavor. The experience of duration and novelty was associated with the entire endeavor
and was perceived by team members right from the beginning:
"It was the spirit that was new to us: We had this showtime and we had not discussed what could
go wrong" (Project Team Member Fujitsu).
This experience of novelty helped the team to form an own identity and team spirit as additional source
for energy and motivation to handle challenging situations. Temporal orientation and management
styles could also be observed regarding individual leadership styles in response to management
challenges caused by temporal complexities to achieve an ambitious goal under challenging conditions:
Fujitsu's management clearly committed to the initiative by entitling the project lead with comprehensive
endowments to temporally by-pass existing rules and procedures to speed up processes. Furthermore,
a credible commitment that failure had no negative consequences was helpful as it gave the team the
required freedom for experimentation and invention of innovative solutions.
On team level, the project lead applied a temporal management style in response to specific challenges
regarding applying a direct and pro-active communication between team members, external partners,
and Fujitsu management:

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
18
"Agility is result of immediate action. I preferred personal talks to e-mails to immediately address
challenges and needs of key stakeholders" (Project Manager Fujitsu).
Table 2 summarizes measures applied by Fujitsu to handle time complexity caused by different time
types.
Table 2. Measures for addressing different time types as applied by Fujitsu.
Dimension
Subdimension
Recommended measures
1. Time
conceptions
Types of time
– Allocate high-level milestones within available clock time.
– Allocate time to chunks of a defined length (i.e., sprints).
– Focus on the deadline with a defined minimum functionality
and adapt available time accordingly.
Socially constructed
time
– Allow for a flexible working schedule rather than usually
applied working schedules to reflect the project needs.
2. Temporal
inter-
dependencies
Single work activities
– Replace detailed advance-planning by an initially high-level
feasibility assessment.
– Specify requirements successively during implementation.
– ‘Fail fast – fail often’ approach with even provoked failure.
Repeated work
activities
– Apply iterative sprints for gradual solution improvement.
Connecting work
activities
– Leverage specialists for relocation of work activities in case
of unexpected challenges.
Changing/
transforming work
activities
– Rely on tried and tested approaches to address jolts or
interrupts.
3. Temporal
management
styles
Temporal perception
of work activities
– Perceive showtime as irrefutable deadline.
Temporal personality
of actors
– Apply a direct and personal communication style
– Credibly commit that failure has no consequences.
Summarizing the above aspects, Fujitsu succeeded in setting a Guinness World Record with the largest
animated tablet PC mosaic by managing different time concepts, temporal interdependencies, and
different temporal management styles. As each single task required to set the Guinness World Record
might be manageable, the complexity of the very different time concepts applicable to Fujitsu made the
overall goal ambitious as Fujitsu's Head of Product IT in EMEIA noted:
"This is not going to be easy – there are so many bits and bytes that need to work seamlessly in
sync together – this hasn't been done yet".
How Managing Time Complexity Helped Fujitsu to Set a Guinness World Record
To set the Guinness World Record, Fujitsu had to manage and synchronize different aspects of time
including different time conceptions, temporal interdependencies, and temporal management styles
resulting with medium to high time complexity due to the following reasons: (1) The overall timing related

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
19
to the unnegotiable date of the VIP dinner event on November 7, 2017 was especially ambitious as the
initial approach of the event agency turned out to be not feasible because more than half of the time
had already passed by. (2) The in total three different locations caused specific temporal
interdependencies: As the event location at BMW Museum is a museum open to the general public on
six days per week, installation, and testing of the show wall had to be accomplished within just hours
before the event to avoid interference with the museum's regular opening hours. Likewise, the show
wall had to be de-installed and transported immediately after the VIP dinner event at BMW Museum to
the location of the Fujitsu Forum 2017 (Munich fair grounds), re-installed and tested before Fujitsu
Forum 2017 opened at 09:00 am again within less than eight hours. The different locations in
combination with the very tight timing left almost no spare time between scheduled events. (3) Due to
time pressure, technological novelty, and complexity of single tasks to be completed, Fujitsu had to
leverage 13 external partners. While the partners on the one hand contributed with their skills and
expertise, the steering of them caused additional complexities regarding timing of the work packages,
interdependencies, or frictions in case of technical hurdles.
Despite that, mastering the deadline of the event was critical. Managing different and multiple facets of
time complexity caused much more challenges than ‘just’ meeting an ambitious deadline. The different
aspects of time that had to be managed and kept in sync simultaneously reflect the complexity of the
endeavor to set a Guinness World Record with the largest animated tablet PC mosaic.
HOW APPLYING AGILE PRACTICES HELP IN MANAGING TIME
COMPLEXITY
This section introduces comparative cases of four Fortune 500 companies exposed to different time
complexity challenges. While for some companies the time-related challenges are obvious – for
instance, a fixed planned date for a product market launch – other cases involve multiple less obvious
time complexity challenges imposed by digital transformation. Examples include the need to reduce the
number of unsuccessful projects to optimize the rate of completion, the adaption to frequently changing
market conditions, or the increase of competitive advantage in response to competitive market entries.
After a short introduction to the initial situations of the comparative case study companies we illustrate
the resulting time complexity challenges to enrich our findings from Fujitsu.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
20
Introduction to Comparative Case Study Companies
The first two case study companies, AviationCo and CommunicationCo, were formerly state-owned
European companies and in business for more than 90 years exceeding 30,000 employees
(AviationCo), and respectively for more than 20 years exceeding 210,000 employees
(CommunicationCo). Table 3 lists further company details.
Table 3. Overview comparative cases AviationCo and CommunicationCo as of 31.12.2019.
AviationCo primarily aimed at finding ways to increase organizational flexibility and speed. Likewise,
CommunicationCo also aimed at increasing speed and flexibility but focused especially on reducing the
number of unfinished projects causing delays in customer delivery and customer dissatisfaction:
"It is like if the boat was still in the harbor because someone was missing, but everybody else
was in perfect position and if we would have gone out, we would have rowed perfectly" (Product
Owner, CommunicationCo).
Contrary, AviationCo as a leading European airline and aviation pioneer, struggled with fostering
innovation. Exemplarily, as an airline's organization is inclined to reflect hierarchical structures applied
in the cockpit consisting of routines, checklists, clearly defined procedures, and chain of command,
allowing for an error culture is especially demanding:
"We don't want the pilot to test of whether it makes sense to land without the landing gear
extended. Consequently, an error culture at an airline is not a question per se, but rather a
question of how to establish a learning culture allowing for mistakes where there are no negative
consequences" (Director Digital Innovations, AviationCo).
The remaining two comparative case study companies, AutomotiveCo and BankCo, are stock-listed
companies. AutomotiveCo is a leading car manufacturer in Germany in business for more than 100
AviationCo
CommunicationCo
Industry
Airline
Telecommunications/ IT services
Age [years]
90+
20+
Employees [#; '000]
30+
210+
Key challenges
Eliminate bottlenecks to reduce cost
of delay; shorten time-to-market
Reduce the number of unfinished
projects; increase delivery speed
Applied scaled agile
framework
SAFe
SAFe
Type of unit
Business
Business
Employees in agile unit [#]
Approx. 800
Approx. 12,500

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
21
years exceeding 130,000 employees and BankCo is a European direct bank with a country subsidiary
exceeding 5,000 employees and in business for more than 50 years. Table 4 lists company details.
Table 4. Overview comparative cases AutomotiveCo and BankCo as of 31.12.2019.
AutomotiveCo and BankCo differ from AviationCo and CommunicationCo regarding being exposed to
multiple dimensions of high time complexity: AutomotiveCo and BankCo aimed at increasing customer
centricity and organizational innovation to defend their market position as innovation leaders against
tech-companies like Apple or Google becoming increasingly active in innovation topics such as
autonomous driving or electromobility (in the case of AutomotiveCo) or FinTech disrupting the financial
services industry (in the case of BankCo). Consequently, the primary challenge related to time
complexity for both companies was to innovate to maintain and defend their competitive edge.
AutomotiveCo's car development unit responsible for establishing autonomous driving capabilities was
exposed to multiple challenges related to time complexity: Technological novelty (i.e., autonomous
driving or machine learning) and hurdles (i.e., analysing data volumes of up to 200 Petabyte) with
frequent changes or unclear regulatory requirements in combination with an ambitious timeline (i.e.,
start of serial production of high autonomous driving features
25
planned for 2021) and a complex
organizational setting involving feature teams provided by cooperation partners or even competitors
consisting of suppliers and other car manufacturers.
Like AutomotiveCo, BankCo aimed at adopting scaled agile practices due to high time complexity within
their market environment: BankCo, being a direct bank, was successful right from the beginning and
25
High autonomous driving refers to a state where the mind is off according to the SAE's definition
(https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201401/).
AutomotiveCo
BankCo
Industry
Automotive
Financial services
Age [years]
100+
50+
Employees [#; '000]
130+
5+
Key challenges
Manage technical innovation in the
context of unclear requirements
under high time pressure
Increase customer centricity; reduce
organizational complexity
Applied scaled agile
framework
LeSS
Own framework (best of breed)
Type of unit
Business (car development)
Business (entire company)
Employees in agile unit [#]
Approx. 1,100
Approx. 4,800

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
22
had a reputation for disrupting established banks. However, BankCo felt the need to react to the
increasing competition from FinTech and to defend its competitive edge as competitors gained speed.
In consequence, all four comparative case study companies have been exposed to different time
concepts causing specific challenges related to time complexity which are described subsequently.
Challenges Related to Time Complexity at Comparative Cases
1. Time Conceptions
Similar to Fujitsu, the time types clock time or event time were important time conceptions also at the
comparative cases. Exemplarily, event time was important for AutomotiveCo with an intended start of
serial production of autonomous driving cars in 2021 causing high time pressure on development
efforts. In consequence, all activities had to be scheduled and synchronized to match this targeted
date for product launch. All four comparative case study companies also applied clock time regarding
slicing (i.e., allocating short time cycles (sprints) of a defined length to available time).
Socially constructed time was observed regarding how to organize work and was especially present
at AviationCo, AutomotiveCo, and BankCo: While AviationCo aimed at reducing the importance of
hierarchies, AutomotiveCo collocated all resources from the corresponding car development units
working on autonomous driving at the so called Autonomous Driving Campus to foster physical
interaction of teams working together and to prevent potential frictions resulting from collaborating
employees scattered at different work locations. To complement the physical collocation of resources,
AutomotiveCo introduced more flexible working time concepts addressing especially the needs of a
primarily young work force of IT professionals including regular home-based work for activities
requiring no interaction with colleagues to compensate for the remote location of the new Autonomous
Driving Campus. Likewise, at BankCo, the re-organization according to an agile structure comprised
the entire organization as the CEO wanted to prevent frictions resulting from different (socially
constructed) working styles of agile teams collaborating with non-agile teams:
"We have realized that the entire organization has to work agile and not just parts of it as frictions
resulting from two different working styles were too big" (Product Owner, BankCo).

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
23
2. Temporal Interdependencies
Time complexities resulting from temporal interdependencies could be also observed at the
comparative cases. In a similar vein to Fujitsu, the simultaneous occurrence of multiple time concepts
caused challenges resulting in high time complexity as multiple time dimensions needed to be
managed simultaneously. Observed temporal interdependencies challenges were as follows:
Regarding the mapping of single work activities, AutomotiveCo had to ensure that the product launch
for autonomous driving intended for 2021 could be achieved. CommunicationCo applied scheduling of
product development according to SAFe
26
to facilitate that projects could be finished, and customer
requirements could be met. As with Fujitsu, AutomotiveCo and BankCo replaced detailed advance-
planning by a high-level planning and subsequent detailing during implementation. AutomotiveCo
excelled in specifying requirements from a functional perspective only to give IT providers a maximum
degree of freedom regarding implementation. Further, scheduling and mapping of repeated activities
according to sprints took place at all comparative case study companies to slice available time with
slots of a defined length:
"We realized that a classical project setting was not helpful for what we were doing and that it is
much better to proceed in short, interactive cycles" (Agile Coach AviationCo).
This allocation of the available time according to sprints provided a fixed structure and rhythm for
development and improvement cycles of defined length. By this approach, the value generated in a
given time slot could be increased and gradual improvement from sprint to sprint facilitated continuous
improvement and allowed to incorporate early customer feedback.
The mapping of repeated activities could be observed regarding the allocation, ordering, or relocation
of activities: Area product owners played an important role in allocating activities from the backlog to
sprints as well as resources and for relocating in case of conflicting priorities, challenges or hurdles.
BankCo for instance relocated previously conflicting activities by reorganizing the entire company
according to agile structures. Thus, previously conflicting objectives and working styles resulting from
the collaboration of agile and non-agile units could be removed. These renewing cycles for continuous
improvement of features were especially important to CommunicationCo to reduce the number of
errors and unfinished products. Likewise, AutomotiveCo applied feature enhancements with bi-annual
26
More on SAFe can be found at: ScaledAgile. 2017. "Essential SAFe 4.5." Retrieved 29.10.2017, from
http://www.scaledagileframework.com.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
24
release bundles with software updates being deployed continuously over the air. Regarding connecting
different activities, all four Fortune 500 companies applied feature backlogs where feature prioritization
was done by the responsible product owner. In detail, a strict ordering of activities was critical for
AutomotiveCo and CommunicationCo as was rapid development of new features due to
interdependencies between single activities.
Changing or transforming activities could be observed at the comparative cases related to life cycles,
midpoint transitions, jolts, and interrupts: Life cycles played an important role for AutomotiveCo as the
development of autonomous driving capabilities required rapid improvement and optimization of
sensors, lidar, and cameras involved to provide the required capabilities. Midpoint transitions could be
observed at AutomotiveCo related to the bundling of all required resources in one unit and the physical
collocation of all involved resources at a newly created autonomous driving campus or the joint
decision to follow a standardized development toolchain fostering cross-team collaboration. As the
area product owner points out, AutomotiveCo perceived the need to entirely transform the work
organization of the autonomous driving unit to foster collaboration and innovation:
"We wouldn't have achieved such an ambitious objective with the traditional approach" (Area
Product Owner AutomotiveCo).
AutomotiveCo was also exposed to frequent jolts and interrupts when deploying new sensors which
repeatedly caused significant delays. Similarly, CommunicationCo struggled with jolts caused by
challenges to connect large legacy systems containing customer master and invoicing data required
for the provision of new features:
"We have developed too many years on existing systems and have missed the point where
tearing down and rebuilding would have been better" (Product Owner CommunicationCo).
3. Temporal Management Styles
Temporal perception and management styles could be observed at all comparative cases. Temporal
perception was critical for BankCo as it perceived a lack of speed when reacting to emerging
competition from FinTech that was perceived to realize and respond to customer demands quicker:
"We as a bank are the elephant that has to keep up with the greyhounds of the FinTechs.
FinTechs are fast, modern, innovative and customer-oriented and can realize customer
requirements quickly. We have been very successfully for the last years making it difficult for the
ordinary employee to understand why we need to change something" (Product Owner, BankCo).

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
25
Likewise, CommunicationCo perceived a lack of speed regarding organizational decisions that were
perceived as taking too long:
"The challenge was that we had become too rigid, too inflexible, too slow and too expensive. We
have developed too many years on existing systems and have missed the point where tearing
down and rebuilding would have been better" (Product Owner, CommunicationCo).
Similarly, the experience of novelty could be observed at all comparative cases as the reorganization
to fully agile structures along with the adoption of scaled agile practices were perceived as a significant
change in working style, collaboration, and allocation of resources and in particular available time.
Temporal orientation and style, the characteristic in which an actor perceives, interprets, uses,
allocates or otherwise interacts with time proved to be important for all cases: At BankCo, the CEO
sponsored and personally supervised the agile transformation of the entire organization to face the
imminent change to react timely and use time resources adequately. Likewise, at AutomotiveCo the
division head initiated and supervised the collocation of all autonomous driving resources at the
centralized autonomous driving campus as he was convinced that traditional approaches of organizing
work were not feasible anymore to allow for an effective use of time and resources.
Similarly, the management style played an important role at AviationCo during the organizational
transformation as the company had to foster the learning from errors in non-safety critical areas:
"The only mistake a company can make is not learning. There are actually no mistakes, only the
possibility to learn" (Agile Coach, AviationCo).
How Managing Time Complexity Helps in Reducing Time-to-Market and Increasing
Customer Centricity
To master challenges resulting from high time complexity (i.e., situations where time pressure is high
and where different, partly conflicting time dimensions occur simultaneously), all four comparative case
study companies applied scaled agile practices
27
selectively. AutomotiveCo chose LeSS
28
whereas
27
According to Dikert et al., scaled agile structures consist of at least 6 feature teams respectively 50 team members where each
feature is responsible for a product that is managed by a corresponding product owner: Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., and Lassenius,
C. 2016. "Challenges and Success Factors for Large-Scale Agile Transformations: A Systematic Literature Review," Journal of
Systems and Software (119), pp. 87-108. Good summaries and comparisons of the different scaled agile frameworks include: (1)
Conboy, K., and Carroll, N. 2019. "Implementing Large-Scale Agile Frameworks: Challenges and Recommendations," IEEE
Software (36:2), pp. 44-50, and (2) Kalenda, M., Hyna, P., and Rossi, B. 2018. "Scaling Agile in Large Organizations: Practices,
Challenges, and Success Factors," Journal of Software: Evolution and Process (30:10), p. 1954.
28
A good description of the scaled agile framework LeSS can be found at: Larman, C., and Vodde, B. 2017. "Less.Works."
Retrieved 19.4.2018, 2018, from https://less.works/less/framework/index.html.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
26
BankCo decided not to follow a standard framework for scaled agile but rather adopted an own internally
developed framework integrating best practices from various frameworks. Consequently, AutomotiveCo
and BankCo adopted scaled agile practices organization-wide (BankCo) or department-wide
(AutomotiveCo) with the CEO (BankCo) or department-head (AutomotiveCo) as sponsor.
Implementation took place at both companies with a time-boxed approach in waves with a total duration
of 18 months (BankCo) and respectively 9 months (AutomotiveCo).
In detail, AutomotiveCo and BankCo aimed at creating transparency on the contribution of single tasks
and dependencies between squads, feature teams or tribes. Continuous improvement aimed at the
product, process, or organizational level. Regarding structure, focus was on establishing a matrix
structure with product-orientation on the vertical and a professional or technical focus was set on the
horizontal axis. Agile roles were defined on multi-team level and agile routines were used for repeated
activities like quarterly business reviews for product planning.
All four comparative case study companies applied scaled agile practices with iterative delivery cycles
of a defined length (sprints). With the approach of a fixed time and effort of feature teams towards
sprints, scope and value are a deriving result. In consequence, the implementation of requirements as
defined by the product owner can be achieved with minimum resources and time. Contrary, an agile
approach does not require an initial specification of requirements as features are defined successively
based on the product manager's prioritization during the sprints. Likewise, the need for innovation
requires an incremental approach.
Further, AviationCo and CommunicationCo chose a unit-wide scope for adopting scaled agile practices
with a dedicated team assuming the transformation lead. The corresponding team size and constitution
varied with implementation scope. Each feature team consisted at least of one transformation lead, one
agile coach, and one scrum master. AviationCo and CommunicationCo chose a stepwise and iterative
implementation approach to mitigate risks of a big-bang adoption of the scaled agile framework SAFe.
AviationCo and CommunicationCo aimed at reflecting essential agile principles: Transparency,
continuous improvement, result ownership, and customer-centricity. Transparency was intended to be
achieved by a clear allocation of products to dedicated units and by examining time interdependencies
between feature teams and current challenges preventing a prompt delivery. For internal processes or
structures, continuous improvement had been achieved with repeating and structured customer-facing
and non-customer-facing meetings reflecting on success stories and areas for improvement.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
27
Both, AviationCo and CommunicationCo applied a cyclical pattern of repeated activities, i.e., agile
sprints to map activities to a fixed period of time. Both companies followed a demand-driven approach
transforming volunteering teams with no strict implementation timeline but a clear scope for time chunks
(i.e., sprints). CommunicationCo's objective was to eliminate bottlenecks and to reduce the cost of
delay. To do so, achieving transparency on current issues resulting in delays was essential. The
adoption of scaled agile practices consisting of feature teams with a clearly defined product
responsibility and a product backlog with repeated sprints helped to increase transparency on the
delivery status and potential bottlenecks.
Adopting an agile structure while following a transparent team structure consisting of feature teams with
experienced and broadly skilled employees helped AviationCo to increase transparency on an
organizational level. Agile coaches enabled AviationCo's feature team members to adopt agile routines
fostering team alignment and identification and, thus, to increase the team's output within each sprint.
By this, AviationCo found that short sprint cycles were superior to the traditional (non-agile) approach
as a defined workload (i.e., the selected backlog items) is approached within a given period, and in
particular, with a clear focus:
"We realized that a classical project setting was not helpful for what we were doing and that it is
much better to proceed in short, interactive cycles" (Agile Coach, AviationCo).
Agile practices helped CommunicationCo to properly manage time complexity while considering
customer feedback early. Putting the focus on customer priorities and business results by getting things
‘almost ready’ is no feasible option when taking agile practices seriously. Interestingly, AviationCo
realized that an agile approach is not faster per se and that the traditional approach is sometimes even
faster since it requires less time for alignment and communication:
"You only get faster feedback allowing to focus on features with value to the customer but the
implementation itself does not get faster due to an increased communication and alignment effort
in an agile approach" (Agile Coach, AviationCo).
To sum up, all cases purposefully used scaled agile practices and structures to manage their time
complex business and activities by successfully addressing different time conceptions and time
interdependency challenges while acknowledging and building on temporal management styles.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
28
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING TIME COMPLEXITY
The rich and diverse facets of time complexity have been examined with the findings of Fujitsu and four
comparative cases of Fortune 500 companies. To manage situations of high time complexity, we derive
managerial recommendations for how to keep the different dimensions of time complexity in sync.
Based on the measures identified at the individual case study companies, this section summarizes the
findings across all cases and reveals two different evolutionary paths for adoption.
Our findings suggest that there are two different approaches for how established companies can
manage time complexity: The first approach can be referred to as a bottom-up approach for adopting
scaled agile practices retro-actively in cases of initially low complexity or selectively applicable cases
of high time complexity – a path that our Fujitsu case undertook. The second approach can be referred
to as a top-down approach for adopting scaled agile practices in cases of high time complexity –
represented by the comparative cases of AviationCo, AutomotiveCo, CommunicationCo, and BankCo.
Figure 2 displays both approaches which are discussed subsequently.
Figure 2. Managing Time Complexity using two Evolution Paths.
As observed at Fujitsu and the four Fortune 500 companies, adopting agile practices helps managing
time complexity. The approach for adopting agile practices depends on how companies are addressing
imminent challenges resulting from time complexity (i.e., bottom-up evolution approach) or how
companies are addressing foreseeable but business-critical challenges to be able to manage time
complexity in the near future (e.g., new market entrants in case of AutomotiveCo or a shift of market
structure due to digital innovation in the case of BankCo) (i.e., pro-active top-down approach).

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
29
Depending on the trigger, companies either may apply agile practices selectively (bottom-up approach)
or in a scaled and structured manner right from the beginning (top-down approach). Thus, related to
Figure 2, companies evolve from quadrant III to II (in case of Fujitsu's world record) and subsequently
slowly traversing to I (in case of AviationCo and CommunicationCo) or from quadrant III to IV and
subsequently to I (in case of AutomotiveCo and BankCo).
Apply a Bottom-up Approach in Cases of Initial Low Time Complexity
The bottom-up approach refers to situations where companies are exposed to limited/ foreseeable time
complexity or to situations of high time complexity that affect just parts of the organization. This is the
case with Fujitsu where the unit accepting the challenge to set a Guinness World Record had been
confronted with an ambitious timeline and a high time complexity resulting from multiple time concepts.
In these situations, the interdependence across products within a unit or across different units is limited,
which thus allows a more flexible approach towards time complexity. Consequently, the bottom-up
evolution path is not restricted and affected by a finite timeline. Speed is determined by single units and
reflects team-specific requirements for adopting agile practices. This approach can be recommended
when an increasing number of units grow organically and adopt scaled agile practices following other
units based on their positive experience.
For Fujitsu, a selective and partly even intuitive application of agile practices helped in managing time
complexity when setting a Guinness World Record. Likewise, the comparative case study companies
AviationCo and CommunicationCo were in a similar situation: Time complexity resulting from different
time concepts was initially low. While for AviationCo the primary objective was to foster innovation,
CommunicationCo was primarily concerned about decreasing the rate of unfinished projects. In both
cases, a selective approach focusing on a gradual implementation of scaled agile practices based on
initial learnings and voluntary participation of units had been chosen.
The bottom-up approach helped AviationCo and CommunicationCo to identify and eliminate
bottlenecks and to, thus, reducing the cost of delay. Introducing cyclical patterns of repeated activities,
as it is the case of agile sprints, helped CommunicationCo to identify almost but not entirely finished
projects and to focus on getting things accomplished. Similarly, Fujitsu adopted agile practices in a non-
scaled manner as ‘agile island’ to manage high time complexity imposed by the endeavor to set a
Guinness World Record. Fujitsu adopted key principles of agile practices (e.g., focus on functionalities

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
30
rather than processes) to grasp the opportunity of setting a world record. In that endeavor, top
management commitment, while appointing time chunks to a small core team consisting of fully
dedicated, self-confident and empowered individuals helped in conjunction with a strong and reliable
ecosystem of Fujitsu's partners. Thus, Fujitsu applied cyclical patterns for tasks of the activity ‘World
Record’ while thoughtfully transforming activities (e.g., increasing the speed) towards the deadline.
While this approach has the advantage of allowing gradual improvements, trial-and-error, and a more
flexible adoption of agile practices, it comes with the disadvantage of a more heterogeneous
implementation of applied scaled agile practices and a slower rollout to the remaining parts of the
organization. Consequently, as time complexity increases, organizations tend to and should turn
successively into a more structured, top-down approach referring to implementing agile practices in a
more homogeneous and scaled manner. Tendencies towards a more structured and scaled approach
could be observed at both, AviationCo and CommunicationCo, as both decided to apply scaled agile
practices according to SAFe in the meantime.
Apply a Pro-active Top-down Approach in Cases of Imminent High Time Complexity
The pro-active top-down approach refers to situations where high time pressure affects large parts of
the organization and where different dimensions of time concepts initially apply. For AutomotiveCo and
BankCo, new market entrants and high market pressure (e.g., FinTech companies) or innovations (e.g.,
autonomous driving) made it necessary to find ways to increase speed and flexibility to keep a leading
market position. Despite its innovative nature and technological excellence, AutomotiveCo is not
untroubled by bureaucratic and inefficient processes which also holds true for BankCo. As observed
from these cases, different dimensions of time concepts had to be managed simultaneously requiring
a more coordinated and centralized approach.
Both companies already successfully demonstrated that they were able to handle situations of low time
complexity as they already managed to reduce time-to-market, cost of delay, and the number of
unfinished projects. Especially BankCo introduced scaled agile practices selectively more than five
years ago allowing them to already gain profound expertise with agile practices and to fix challenges
related to low time complexity. AutomotiveCo and BankCo aimed at an organization-/ department-wide
implementation of scaled agile practices which was sponsored and supervised by either the CEO

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
31
(BankCo) or the department head (AutomotiveCo) and the implementation took place in a top-down
approach within a defined, comparably short period of time consisting of several months.
The top-down approach comes with the advantage of a faster and more synchronized and
homogeneous implementation allowing for less freedom for individual units. It is suitable for either cases
where time complexity is high and a structured and aligned approach right from the beginning will be
required or in cases of a higher organizational maturity where already a common understanding of
required measures is present and where there is potentially less resistance from individual units towards
a more standardized approach. By this, the adoption of scaled agile practices helped AutomotiveCo
and BankCo to address the significant and imminent challenges imposed by digital transformation and
resulting in high time complexity.
Consequently, in cases of imminent high time pressure, a pro-active top-down path with a broader
scope of implementation can be recommended where the implementation ownership is with the
department head or even the CEO. A time-boxed approach with a pre-defined time horizon to conclude
the adoption of scaled agile frameworks within a given time is a clear benefit in situations of high time
complexity. This approach ensures a closer steering of the implementation with stricter governance and
faster – top-down – decision making.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The question of how to manage time complexity to increase speed and flexibility is essential to virtually
any company in high-velocity markets where the existence of a competitive advantage is inherently
unpredictable. While for startups or born digital companies, innovation, speed, and flexibility is the main
modus operandi, established enterprises struggle with how to respond to uncertainty and rapidly
changing market environments in an adequate and timeline way.
This study is motivated by the lack of empirical evidence on how established enterprises manage
different aspects of time complexity. Against this backdrop, we examine how Fujitsu, the world's seven-
largest IT service provider and being in business since 1935, set the Guinness World Record for the
world's largest animated tablet PC mosaic on November 7, 2017. We adopt a temporal lens justify for
the multiple complexity dimensions caused by different time conceptions imposed by challenges related
to digital transformation. We perceive this temporal lens as especially beneficially as it provides a

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
32
different, more comprehensive view on agility beyond the superficial misperception that agility just
equals speed. We learned from Fujitsu and the comparative cases of four Fortune 500 companies that
companies apply scaled agile practices selectively to manage time complexities. Exemplarily, the shift
from a strict application of sprints following a clock time perspective to modifying a sprint's length in
case of already completed work or to reflect for specific occurrences can be perceived as a pragmatic
approach to handle multiple time complexity challenges simultaneously. By applying agile practices
selectively to manage different time dimensions, Fujitsu succeeded in reducing time complexity despite
of an ambitious deadline in combination with technical hurdles, innovation, and novelty.
By comparing the findings related to Fujitsu with four established companies, we reveal that managers
should apply a bottom-up approach for adopting scaled agile practices in cases of low time complexity,
or a pro-active top-down approach for adopting scaled agile practices in case of high time complexity.
Agile practices can contribute in keeping different facets of time complexity in sync to, thus, manage
time complexity.
APPENDIX
1. Research Approach
The objective of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of how time complexity can be
successfully managed by adopting agile practices. We examined how Fujitsu set the Guinness World
Record for the largest animated Tablet PC mosaic by adopting selective agile practices to succeed in
a project involving a challenging objective (i.e., a Guinness World Record), technical novelty, and an
ambitious timeline and compared these findings with four cases of established companies applying
scaled agile frameworks to manage time complexity. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, a
qualitative case-study research approach had been chosen
29
.
Related to Fujitsu and additionally to the research team, Robert Mayer supported as co-author of this
study with access to interview candidates at Fujitsu and relevant internal information such as internal
reports, photos, videos taken during the project's course, presentations, minutes, etc. To further
29
For further details on how to conduct exploratory research with case studies see: Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research -
Design and Methods. Sage.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
33
calibrate the data, we conducted and tape-recorded in-depth interviews with Fujitsu's project manager
and Fujitsu team members.
Various documentations in the form of pictures, correspondence like e-mails, notes and memos on
specific incidents were taken to create an extensive dataset as fieldwork journal
30
. The third author,
project manager and other team members were interviewed extensively by the first and second author.
This was done through open interviews conducted in person
31
. Transcribed and coded interview
material with a total duration of 192 minutes, 108 pictures and 9 videos were evaluated in detail. This
approach created a rich set of reflections on the project. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed
with the computer-aided qualitative data analysis tool Atlas.ti. The data analysis followed a three-stage
process of open, axial, and selective coding to get a comprehensive view of Fujitsu's endeavor to set a
world record.
For the comparative cases, in total, 13 semi-structured interviews have been conducted lasting from 32
to 60 minutes led in a discovery-oriented way following a semi-structured interview guideline. All
interviews were audio-recorded and immediately transcribed to encourage theoretical sampling and the
coding procedure, resulting in 130 pages of verbatim transcript. The coding procedure consisted of
open, axial and selective coding
32
. The authors checked the transcripts for completeness and analyzed
them separately from one another. Where available, memos or notes were used to capture ideas,
further questions, or thematic differences. The qualitative data analysis software MaxQDA supported
the coding procedure, facilitating comparison of the coding results and memos as well as checking for
sufficient inter-coder reliability. Where interpretations between coders diverged, perspectives were
discussed iteratively to reach a consensus. This was done to ensure consistency of coding and
interpretation.
30
Further helpful recommendations for qualitative research can be found in: Yin, R. K. 2015. Qualitative Research from Start to
Finish. Guilford Publications.
31
For further details on interviewing techniques in qualitative research refer to Myers, M. D., and Newman, M. 2007. "The
Qualitative Interview in IS Research: Examining the Craft," Information and Organization (17:1), pp. 2-26.
32
For more details on interview coding, see McCracken, G., The long interview, Sage, Canada, 1988.

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
34
2. Overview of Partners and Architecture Involved
Figure 3. Architecture key components and involved partners
Figure 3 shows the overall architecture and involved partners and is displayed in the chapter entitled
‘Fujitsu's way to the Guinness World Record’. The following section provides further information on the
involved technical components and partners illustrating the complexity relating to the orchestration of
the involved partners and components.
(1) Hardware
− 250 Tablet PCs Fujitsu Stylistic R726 including 20 devices for development/testing and 10
spare devices.
− Two mobile workstation Fujitsu CELSIUS H770 used for content creation, scripting, and Internet
and for operating Baramundi tools for software distribution to the tablet PCs.
− Cisco wireless access points and WLAN controller, network switches and VPN Routers.
(2) Software
− Central server application for the remote control of 220 tablet PCs developed by Dotsqares with
the features ‘load video’, ‘start play’, ‘stop play’, ‘pause play’. The server app calculates an
offset for each tablet PC according to network latency and start all 220 players simultaneously.
It can also run a visual overview of the available tablet PCs (like an inventory scan). The player
application on the tablet PC is set to a specific location in the grid and displays a video (specific

Managing Time Complexity through Agility
35
part of the video content). The player application software with graphic mosaic content is stored
locally on the tablet PC (approx. 330 MB).
− Baramundi management suite software used for centralized distribution of software, drivers and
scripts to the tablet PCs. Basic controls like reboot, shutdown, applications start and stopping.
− Tool ‘Pingeling’ (developed by Fujitsu) for validating connectivity of tablet PCs and a software
for the unattended installation of specific configurations of Microsoft Windows 10.
(3) Infrastructure
− Wall (grid A-K vertical and 1-20 horizontal) for installation of the tablet PCs:
o Trainings wall for the installation of the tablet PCs including electricity supply with each
tablet PC having a dedicated wall position.
o Show-wall for BMW Museum used for the display of the tablet PCs during the VIP
dinner event – no electricity supply as tablet PCs are operated on battery.
− Wireless network and routers to connect 223 devices (tablets, server, workstations).
− Electricity supply and distribution of 15 kW (for charging the tablets during development and
running on battery during performance).