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

Re: [XP] The Whole Enchilada

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 9:17 AM, George Dinwiddie ... We might be working from slightly different definitions of fail. Mine includes the aforementioned
    Message 1 of 87 , Feb 1 9:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 9:17 AM, George Dinwiddie
      <lists@...> wrote:
      > Adam Sroka wrote:
      >> However, the idea that we can start
      >> with Scrum at the organizational level and project teams will
      >> magically become more Agile (with or without coaching) is
      >> fundamentally flawed. Most teams that try to adopt an Agile approach
      >> from within the structure of an existing project fail. Even if they
      >> don't fail the existence of legacy code makes it difficult to
      >> introduce new practices and gain any momentum.
      >
      > Yes, expecting teams to "magically become more Agile" is fundamentally
      > flawed, but coaching teams working on legacy code or an existing project
      > to become more agile is not. Yes, it's difficult. But I'm not sure
      > where you get the data that "most teams" fail when they try this.
      > That's not been my experience in coaching collocated teams. (Agile
      > adoption by existing distributed teams seems to be another kettle of fish.)

      We might be working from slightly different definitions of "fail."
      Mine includes the aforementioned "continuing to suck indefinitely."

      ... of course, as a consultant that might still be quite profitable ;-)
    • Brad Appleton
      Thanks Charlie for the thoughts and advice!
      Message 87 of 87 , Feb 7 10:51 PM
      • 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.