Re: [scrumdevelopment] Are SCRUM and XP actually Process Oriented?
- On Saturday, July 29, 2006, at 8:30:23 AM, Vickydhiman wrote:
> Interesting comments from Steven and Ron. I am not sure if I have "THE" answer.Vicky, I don't think that's key at all. I think that what's key is
> I might be wrong but the key is to define what is difference
> between process and framework. Probably a very loose version if
> the a very light weight process which is based more on principles
> then set amount of dos and donts is a framework. Or probably
> framework is collection of some best practices.
what the people actually /do/.
> However, some people in my team find SCRUM is rigid where it wantsRigid? You know people who call that rigid? What are they doing now,
> to be [daily meetings, release planning, product backlog et al].
coming in to work if and when they feel like it? ;->
> Another possible version is that Agile focusses on processes thatOf these, frequent delivery, for some use of the word "frequent", is
> facilitate communication and collaboration in the team and with
> the customer. I am not very familiar with RUP [I think frequent
> delivery/ daily meetings/ transparency/ debunking processions/ TDD
> can be achieved with RUP as well]
important in RUP. The others are not terms I generally read in the
RUP literature. But RUP isn't even a process, if we must use the
word. RUP is a "process framework". That is, it's a big laundry list
of ideas that all hang together in a reasonable-seeming pattern.
> but I guess it also focusses onI think I'd advise not worrying much about differentiating Agile vs
> the same BUT it also focusses on whole lot other things. Is that
> the main difference?
anything, or process vs framework. I'd advise learning what Agile
teaches, what the key practices are, and so on. And having learned
what they are, I'd advising trying them.
What matters isn't the headings on the folders in our filing
cabinet: what matters is what we do with the materials in there.
In programming, do, or undo. There is always try. --Yoda
- --- 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,