Re: [scrumdevelopment] Are SCRUM and XP actually Process Oriented?
- The agile approaches are empirical or adaptive processes as opposed to
defined or deterministic processes.
The difference is that agile processes are less rigid and driven by
principles rather than perscription. This allows teams to adapt the
process to context, which in turn allows the process to be more
concise and lightweight (because the process does not have to
explicitly cover every contingency).
On 7/29/06, Vickydhiman <vickydhiman@...> wrote:
> I understand Agile focuses *more on* interaction and collaboration rather
> than processes. However, someone recently asked me, is not updating product
> backlog, having sprint meetings, release planning - all basically a process?
> It may be a more effective process but it is a process. Do you agree?
> I said its not a process, its a light weight framework and is different from
> a process. Then he asked me whats the difference between the two. I tried to
> Google it out with no luck.
> Any thoughts?
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
> countries) for 2¢/min or less.
- --- In email@example.com, "gioramorein" <gmorein@...>
> So maybe when we hear these offensive terms like "New Agile",Giora,
> "Enterprise Agile" or "Agile 2.0" we consider that they may not refer
> to a change in Agile itself, but rather a change in who and where it
> is being used.
> Giora Morein
Good points.... but, there is also a valid point in highlighting
that the basic Agile single-project techniques DO NOT satisfy
the requirements of enterprise development, and that there are
also "advanced agile techniques", not necessarily included in
Scrum (Agile == Scrum 1.0, XP == cheap copy of Scrum without credit,
other methods sorry but NOT Agile enough). [NOTE to Ron: Please
send your standard insults in direct messages to me, and don't waste
the group's bandwith.]
For example, from the enteprise perspective, 1) Super-sprints
that include simultanous testing and release of multiple applications
with reusable functionality across different projects (each with their
own Scrum), and from the "advanced agile techniques" side
2) structured "green hat" sessions, to compare alternative designs
in a single project; are good exmaples of these enterprise
or advanced agile techniques. Other examples are the late
contributions from Jeff Sutherland, and the many unexploited
managment and social techniques derived from agent technologies.
But all this is well known among Scrum practitioners:
We are not done with Agile...
We need more for the enterprise, and
We can improve even the single project techniques
However, what the skeptics and anti-brandists confuse, is the fact
that some of us, that for lack of better words I am going to call
the "enterprise or advance agile developers", have found over time
some techniques that apply to managing multiple project
simultaneously, or more techniques to manage individual projects.
But for those contributions we get the privilege to be
insulted as "brandists", "opportunists", or worse.
We need to "open our minds" and continue to let innovation take
place. We need to stop the overzealous restrain of creativity
and open ourselves to NEW and IMPROVED ideas (yes, while giving
FULL credit to everthing done in the past!!!)
Until then, we will continue to dwell in mediocrity, bashing
and restraining people accusing them of things like:
* it has been done before -- let us find NEW and OLD patterns!
* you are branding! (who cares if they brand! Let them try
new things and follow the course of adaptation)
Change is the only constant... Agile 1.0, or 2.0 or 3.0,
cannot be constant, or cannot be just "one way"...
we thrive in diversity, in cooperation but also in competition.
End of rant,