Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The nature of executive "pushback" to agile technologies?

Expand Messages
  • estherschindler
    I ve been corresponding with one of my CIO Magazine coworkers, about an article that someone proposed. The original working title was The Agile Backlash. ...
    Message 1 of 119 , Feb 28, 2007
      I've been corresponding with one of my CIO Magazine coworkers, about
      an article that someone proposed. The original working title was "The
      Agile Backlash."

      The other editor wrote:
      > The theory, and mind you this is based on one interview with one
      CIO, is
      > that while developers often like agile programming being implemented,
      > operations IT guys do not. And maybe project manages don't either.
      so as a
      > CIO, what do you do about it? can you manage this problem, and if
      so, how?

      I rather suspect that the attitude in this discussion group is very
      different than that of the single CIO whose opinion got my friend
      wondering about article possibilities. I expect you see the issues
      somewhat differently -- a CIO who doesn't "get it" on agile methods,
      for instance, or a project manager who misunderstand the agile
      definition purpose.

      I'm not sure where I expect this to lead. It isn't an article yet;
      it's a question that might lead to an article. _DO_ you see top
      management resisting agile technologies? What are their reasons? Is
      this because of a lack of communication of some form (the CIO has a
      misunderstanding of the basics), because it upsets the apple cart,
      what? In other words: are managers resisting/refusing agile, or do I
      need to write a "5 things that CIOs need to understand about agile
      programming"?

      Help me out, folks. I'd like to understand.

      Esther Schindler
      senior online editor, CIO.com

      P.S. The software requirements article for which I solicited help way
      back in December is *finally* on the copy editor's desk. The reasons
      for the delay are long and boring, but the bottom line is that it'll
      probably be posted next week. I'll let you know when it's up.
    • Steve Ropa
      Oh, darn. I was just thinking I should create a rule that automatically deletes anything that comes in! So close! Oh well. Sorting your email as it comes
      Message 119 of 119 , Mar 6, 2007
        Oh, darn. I was just thinking I should create a rule that automatically
        deletes anything that comes in! So close! Oh well.



        Sorting your email as it comes in is an excellent way to triage what is
        important, what can wait, and what just doesn't matter.



        One approach I learned as a stockbroker (albeit with paper instead of email)
        is to automatically sort everything that comes in into its proper folder if
        it has one. Anything left in the inbox can wait until you have taken care
        of all of the sorted mail. Then, once a month, just wholesale delete
        everything in the main inbox. If it wasn't categorizable (not a real word),
        and you hadn't already acted on it, it couldn't have been important anyway.



        Anyway, I can tell that I currently have enough slack, because I can spend
        time arguing the merits of an empty inbox..



        _____

        From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Roth
        Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 1:19 PM
        To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [XP] What is "bad" management?



        It depends on how you want to set up your workflow,
        and where the bottlenecks occur.

        One insight I've gotten from GTD is that, if you leave
        stuff in your inbox, it's got two rather bad effects.
        First, you go over it multiple times deciding whether
        it's something to be dealt with now, and second, it
        isn't where you need it when you're ready to deal
        with a project.

        That doesn't mean you clean out your mail client!
        If you want to hold mail related to a project on the
        client in a separate folder until you're ready to deal
        with it, that's fine. They have to be easily locatable
        from the central point of the project, and out of the
        way until then.

        John Roth

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Steve Ropa" <sropa@xavient. <mailto:sropa%40xavient.com> com>
        To: <extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:56 AM
        Subject: RE: [XP] What is "bad" management?

        > Which means we might have uncovered where I am not understanding. What is
        > it about my inbox that affects rapid turnaround on work effects?
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Phlip
        > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:22 AM
        > To: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [XP] What is "bad" management?
        >
        >
        >
        > Steve Ropa wrote:
        >
        >> These are a lot of good suggestions if an empty inbox is a goal you have.
        >
        > Then we are back to the "Lean" notion of rapid turnaround on work effects.
        >
        > --
        > Phlip
        > http://c2.com/ <http://c2.com/ <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand>
        cgi/wiki?ZeekLand> cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT
        > a
        > blog!!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.