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

Re: [XP] Misunderstanding and re-writing the manifesto

Expand Messages
  • Francis Fish
    ... Lots of places do what I call the agile waterfall . They have Business Analysts who distill (i.e. lose at least 30%) of the business knowledge from the
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Kay <tranzpupy@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Since I've been a member of this list since 2002 � I've seen and heard a
      > lot of "lies" and misunderstandings about what XP (and "Agile" IS. I just
      > overheard a webinar where the speaker implied that the manifesto said
      > a'tools and processes were NOT important-- the speaker said "WE (the
      > contracting company) think tools and processes are *VERY* important"
      > AAAGGGGHHHHH! They ALSO said "we Will still be doing requirements, but we
      > will CALL them "user stories" OMG "Agile" is truly dead�.
      > I plan to cry a lot tonight.
      >
      > Kay Pentecost
      >
      >
      >
      Lots of places do what I call the "agile waterfall". They have Business
      Analysts who distill (i.e. lose at least 30%) of the business knowledge
      from the stakeholder. Then there's lots of rework rediscovering the 30% and
      the stakeholder is not involved properly.

      You have the outer forms, e.g. stand up meetings, the board, planning poker
      etc. but the heart of all of this is putting communication with the
      business at the top of the agenda - and the business are "too busy" and the
      analyst isn't putting a lot of detail in the stories - so you get a
      waterfall with shorter iterations by any other name.

      Agile is a state of mind and the labels don't matter, but you get this
      thing where people "unpack the box" and think it changes their thinking.
      Nope. I wish it did. Changing thinking requires a kind of commitment and
      honesty that is hard to find. It also requires the retrospectives to mean
      something, and the team and business to work together on what Deming called
      the common purpose. This is hard when people think in budgets and gantt
      charts, it's *really* hard when you need (say) some kind of uptick in
      productivity and you're just expected to *do it* - if you could have you
      would have.

      --
      Thanks and Regards,

      Francis

      07764 225 942

      "So when targets seem stupid, arbitrary and unfair it's because they *are*.
      The only way to improve is to look at the whole system people are operating
      with, the basic tools, their training, how much initiative they are
      allowed, are you measuring the right things (more about that later) and
      then you can improve. But it's the *system* you improve, not the people you
      beat into performing even worse." Unicorns in the
      mist<https://leanpub.com/unicorns>

      CV http://www.pharmarketeer.com/francis.html

      FJFDIDM Consultancy <http://fjfdidm.com/>


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Steve Berczuk
      ... What always fascinated me about this dynamic is why people feel a need to call what they are doing agile. Why not instead say I read something about
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Kay <tranzpupy@...> wrote:
        > Since I've been a member of this list since 2002 – I've seen and heard a lot of "lies" and misunderstandings about what XP (and "Agile" IS. I just overheard a webinar where the speaker implied that the manifesto said a'tools and processes were NOT important-- the speaker said "WE (the contracting company) think tools and processes are *VERY* important" AAAGGGGHHHHH! They ALSO said "we Will still be doing requirements, but we will CALL them "user stories" OMG "Agile" is truly dead….
        > I plan to cry a lot tonight.


        What always fascinated me about this dynamic is why people feel a need
        to call what they are doing "agile." Why not instead say " I read
        something about Agile, I don't want to do that, but maybe I'll borrow
        some ideas.." Borrowing some ideas won't really work well as the
        practices interact... but at least it is honest...

        The other day I was on the T (which is the name we Boston area
        residents use for "the Subway" :) ) and I over heard 2 people talking
        about "how 'Steve' [another steve, not me] is getting all agile on
        us..." and "how agile says <something agile doesn't actually say>" and
        "how that just /can't/ work for our situation."
        The confidence with which the person said the last bit is probably
        the core problem.

        Steve
        --
        Steve Berczuk | steve.berczuk@... | http://www.berczuk.com
        Twitter: @sberczuk
        ADN: @spb
        SCM Patterns: www.scmpatterns.com
      • Larry Brunelle
        ... When I see such posts, I m reminded of the one-time currency of TQM and Deming methods. These ideas worked fabulously well for Japanese manufacturing
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 7, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Steve Berczuk wrote:> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Kay <tranzpupy@...> wrote:
          >> Since I've been a member of this list since 2002 – I've seen and heard a lot of "lies" and misunderstandings about what XP (and "Agile" IS. I just overheard a webinar where the speaker implied that the manifesto said a'tools and processes were NOT important-- the speaker said "WE (the contracting company) think tools and processes are *VERY* important" AAAGGGGHHHHH! They ALSO said "we Will still be doing requirements, but we will CALL them "user stories" OMG "Agile" is truly dead….
          >> I plan to cry a lot tonight.
          >
          >
          > What always fascinated me about this dynamic is why people feel a need
          > to call what they are doing "agile." Why not instead say " I read
          > something about Agile, I don't want to do that, but maybe I'll borrow
          > some ideas.." Borrowing some ideas won't really work well as the
          > practices interact... but at least it is honest...
          >
          > The other day I was on the T (which is the name we Boston area
          > residents use for "the Subway" :) ) and I over heard 2 people talking
          > about "how 'Steve' [another steve, not me] is getting all agile on
          > us..." and "how agile says <something agile doesn't actually say>" and
          > "how that just /can't/ work for our situation."
          > The confidence with which the person said the last bit is probably
          > the core problem.
          >
          > Steve
          >

          When I see such posts, I'm reminded of the one-time currency
          of TQM and Deming methods. These ideas worked fabulously
          well for Japanese manufacturing concerns, for the simple
          reason they actually paid attention and actually implemented
          the methods "by the book". They believed and followed through.

          American firms, by contrast, rarely paid as close attention,
          and rarely followed throughso faithfully. Indeed, when once
          I signed up for a grad school course in TQM while being
          retreaded at the University of Michigan, I found that the
          instructor taught with an expectation that the structure to
          be found in industry would include something like a "quality
          department" where would perhaps be a head TQM guy to whom
          members of the firm would be responsible for TQM issues.
          This would, it appears to me, be entirely contrary to Deming's
          teaching that the CEO was the head TQM guy, that the change
          had to be believed in at the top and supported from the top.
          (And now Toyota has, what is it? the best selling model in
          the US?)

          "Agile", whichever species, has to be understood, believed in,
          and supported from the top to have the best traction (or even
          any at all) in the organization. What I observe is that it's
          common to believe in something BELIEVED to be "agile", especially
          if there's no requirement for executives to do the homework
          to understand what's meant.

          <Mild rant>
          Corporate America has in many quarters (certainly not all)
          exhibited a belief that "management" is an abstract discipline
          not necessarily requiring actual understanding of the business
          managed. Generally this disease seems to appear in higher-
          level executives who can negotiate one kind or another of
          golden parachute, and may seep down through the ranks. Small-
          business owners generally can't afford this luxury of non-
          understanding: if the business fails, they suffer.

          Of course, sometimes the sailors keep the ship afloat even
          with officers of questionable judgment.
          </Mild rant>
        • marcodorantes
          All these years, learning a lot from communities like this, from authors and practitioners, from my own tries to improve the quality of my software design and
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            All these years, learning a lot from communities like this, from authors and practitioners, from my own tries to improve the quality of my software design and programming, and telling others about all this good stuff of software development as a cooperative game, and still there are lots of programmers around who simply do not care enough to not just repeat the buzzwords but to behave like if they properly understood the concepts.

             

            All this make me remember what have happened with other intellectual pursuits in history. For example, very few people around me, even with several academic computing degrees, are able to articulate, in simple terms, the most general justified true beliefs from quantum theory, much less its relationship with the current computing industry. Whereas those justified true beliefs were published almost a century ago! 



            ---In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, <brunelle@...> wrote:

            Steve Berczuk wrote:> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Kay <tranzpupy@...> wrote:
            >> Since I've been a member of this list since 2002 – I've seen and heard a lot of "lies" and misunderstandings about what XP (and "Agile" IS. I just overheard a webinar where the speaker implied that the manifesto said a'tools and processes were NOT important-- the speaker said "WE (the contracting company) think tools and processes are *VERY* important" AAAGGGGHHHHH! They ALSO said "we Will still be doing requirements, but we will CALL them "user stories" OMG "Agile" is truly dead….
            >> I plan to cry a lot tonight.
            >
            >
            > What always fascinated me about this dynamic is why people feel a need
            > to call what they are doing "agile." Why not instead say " I read
            > something about Agile, I don't want to do that, but maybe I'll borrow
            > some ideas.." Borrowing some ideas won't really work well as the
            > practices interact... but at least it is honest...
            >
            > The other day I was on the T (which is the name we Boston area
            > residents use for "the Subway" :) ) and I over heard 2 people talking
            > about "how 'Steve' [another steve, not me] is getting all agile on
            > us..." and "how agile says <something agile doesn't actually say>" and
            > "how that just /can't/ work for our situation."
            > The confidence with which the person said the last bit is probably
            > the core problem.
            >
            > Steve
            >

            When I see such posts, I'm reminded of the one-time currency
            of TQM and Deming methods. These ideas worked fabulously
            well for Japanese manufacturing concerns, for the simple
            reason they actually paid attention and actually implemented
            the methods "by the book". They believed and followed through.

            American firms, by contrast, rarely paid as close attention,
            and rarely followed throughso faithfully. Indeed, when once
            I signed up for a grad school course in TQM while being
            retreaded at the University of Michigan, I found that the
            instructor taught with an expectation that the structure to
            be found in industry would include something like a "quality
            department" where would perhaps be a head TQM guy to whom
            members of the firm would be responsible for TQM issues.
            This would, it appears to me, be entirely contrary to Deming's
            teaching that the CEO was the head TQM guy, that the change
            had to be believed in at the top and supported from the top.
            (And now Toyota has, what is it? the best selling model in
            the US?)

            "Agile", whichever species, has to be understood, believed in,
            and supported from the top to have the best traction (or even
            any at all) in the organization. What I observe is that it's
            common to believe in something BELIEVED to be "agile", especially
            if there's no requirement for executives to do the homework
            to understand what's meant.

            <Mild rant>
            Corporate America has in many quarters (certainly not all)
            exhibited a belief that "management" is an abstract discipline
            not necessarily requiring actual understanding of the business
            managed. Generally this disease seems to appear in higher-
            level executives who can negotiate one kind or another of
            golden parachute, and may seep down through the ranks. Small-
            business owners generally can't afford this luxury of non-
            understanding: if the business fails, they suffer.

            Of course, sometimes the sailors keep the ship afloat even
            with officers of questionable judgment.
            </Mild rant>
          • Phlip
            ... Pivotal Labs, in downtown San Francisco, is a lean mean pair-programming machine, using RoR and RSpec test suites that might actually remain fast &
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              > I plan to cry a lot tonight.
              >
              > Kay Pentecost

              Pivotal Labs, in downtown San Francisco, is a lean mean
              pair-programming machine, using RoR and RSpec test suites that might
              actually remain fast & efficient. Do they count?
            • Adam Sroka
              I have been a consultant for a long time. There are plenty of good people doing really good things and plenty of people doing mediocre things for a whole lot
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 1, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I have been a consultant for a long time. There are plenty of good people doing really good things and plenty of people doing mediocre things for a whole lot of reasons, most understandable, many silly. Cry if you need to, but don't take it personally. Find some small way that you can make the world a better place and do a little bit of that every day. 


                On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Phlip <phlip2005@...> wrote:
                 

                > I plan to cry a lot tonight.
                >
                > Kay Pentecost

                Pivotal Labs, in downtown San Francisco, is a lean mean
                pair-programming machine, using RoR and RSpec test suites that might
                actually remain fast & efficient. Do they count?


              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.