Re: [scrumdevelopment] The Survey was Re: Agile 2.0
- (responding to George)
that> I know several people who will benefit incredibly from work like
times> of Scott's on the AUP. I know probably many many many
point> more who, without great guidance, will completely miss the> and will be creating artifacts (that is all they will see).As a mentor, the artefacts are useful to me for the same reasonwe were told to "show the workings" in maths classes. Once thestudent is competent, the workings can be omitted... unlessthe worker needs them to help him think through the problem orcommunicate with others. Until then, it helps having somebodywho 'gets it' with the ability to detect and correct poor ways ofthinking. If we had enough such people we could do this all byconversation, producing fewer artefacts.Ceremony is a poor substitute for ability, but sometimes it's auseful stop-gap. It becomes a problem when people getattached to the ceremony rather than the delivery of value;where people are not trying to reduce the gap that ceremonyis 'stopping'. We wouldn't decry Scrum because some peopletry it without the underlying understanding, and things gowrong. Okay, WE wouldn't, others might. Yes, it would begreat if everyone could work directly from the manifesto andapply the values and principles directly to their situation.What actually happens is that there are many 'starting points',partial solutions, vying for attention. You won't stop thathappening; let evolution run its course. I believe that is healthy.What are unhealthy are the parasites who don't 'get it' but tryand wear the colours of those who do. Yet that also happens innature. A healthy system can survive a few parasites buttoo many parasites can kill. Just take note - poorly chosenpest killers will cause more problems than they solve. Firstwe need a reliable way of identifying the parasites among thecrowd. And second, if we can convert parasites into usefulmembers of society, that might be a good thing to do.Paul Oldfield
- --- 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,