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

Re: [XP] The Whole Enchilada

Expand Messages
  • Mary Poppendieck
    Hi Laurent, I m with Josh on this. I see lots of floundering Scrum initiatives, typically due to the assumption that essential technical practices will be
    Message 1 of 87 , Feb 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Laurent,

      I'm with Josh on this. I see lots of floundering Scrum initiatives,
      typically due to the assumption that essential technical practices will
      be discovered by "the team" and they are not. Can you explain where the
      incentive would come from to write up the stories? Why bother?

      Mary Poppendieck

      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Laurent Bossavit
      <laurent@...> wrote:
      > Josh,
      > > > I keep hearing that. Where are the stories ? The "Journal of Agile
      > > > Failure" doesn't even list 6.
      > >
      > > Are you familiar with NDAs?
      > >
      > Yes. (Few of my clients bother to have me sign one, though.)
      > My question still stands: where are the stories ? Case studies can be
      > anonymized. Consultants can seek permission to publish, without
      > revealing details. The fact that the one site supposedly devoted to
      > listing "agile failures" has nearly zero content seems significant to
      > me.
      > These stories would be worthwhile. For instance, I haven't the first
      > clue what you call "floundering", and some detailed explanation of the
      > mechanism would give me more of a clue as to what (if anything) needs
      > fixing in Agile discourse.
      > I'm not arguing for or against "whole enchilada" here, rather I'm
      > saying that the general argument ("Scrum teams are failing all over
      > the place, and the ingredients they're missing are the XP
      > ingredients") seems too vague and abstract. And I've noticed that when
      > discussions on this mailing list are about broad generalizations
      > they're less useful than when they focus on specifics.
      > "An example would be helpful about now," to channel Brian Marick.
      > Laurent Bossavit
      > laurent@...
    • Brad Appleton
      Thanks Charlie for the thoughts and advice!
      Message 87 of 87 , Feb 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Charlie for the thoughts and advice!

        Charlie Poole wrote:
        > You have to be careful there. Usually, coaches are people who
        > have been successful with teams in the past. So they have lots
        > of skills and ways of doing things learned in the past. The
        > major thing a new coach needs - what I needed to develop
        > when I first started - is a sense of humility. You don't know
        > what a given team (one you aren't part of) should do.
        > IME, this is the hardest part of being a coach, and it's
        > even harder for coaches who have some standing in the
        > organization, since they have to bend over backwards to
        > avoid the appearance of setting rules.
        >> The change-team also (with input from the practicing agile coaches &
        >> engineers) provides the mechanism to help identify projects
        >> that are good candidates to be agile, and the
        >> sponsorship/advocacy to approach their management and discuss
        >> if they'd be open to it and what the benefits (and
        >> consequences) are. We're actually having some pretty good
        >> successes there.
        > Here, I'd say the risk is beginning to think of agile as
        > one Way of doing things - not that you're thinking that
        > way, but I've seen internal groups like this move from
        > encouragement to standardization a time or two.
        >> Getting back to the original topic of this thread, our
        >> "starter kit" has a menu of practices on it. There is a set
        >> that we say are "required in order to be agile" (we say we
        >> think you cant be agile without it -- even tho we dont force
        >> it). There are some that are considered "scaling"
        >> practices (e.g., "Scrum of Scrums", "Joint Retrospectives",
        >> "Feature-Teams") and we say when we believe those are
        >> applicable and should be used. There are some "optional
        >> practices", meaning that they may not be absolutely necessary
        >> for agility, but they really enhance it a lot. (again we dont
        >> force any things, we recommend and provide support and guidance)
        > To be clear, I too think there are some practices you just
        > have to do to be agile. I just don't think you should necessarily
        > give people lists of them. It works much better (for me anyway)
        > to start fresh with each team, work with them and guide them
        > to decide how they will be agile.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.