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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] The Survey was Re: Agile 2.0

Expand Messages
  • PaulOldfield1@aol.com
    (responding to George) ... As a mentor, the artefacts are useful to me for the same reason we were told to show the workings in maths classes. Once the
    Message 1 of 41 , Aug 1, 2006
      (responding to George)
      > I know several people who will benefit incredibly from work like
      > of Scott's on the AUP.  I know probably many many many
      > 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 reason
      we were told to "show the workings" in maths classes.  Once the
      student is competent, the workings can be omitted... unless
      the worker needs them to help him think through the problem or
      communicate with others.  Until then, it helps having somebody
      who 'gets it' with the ability to detect and correct poor ways of
      thinking.  If we had enough such people we could do this all by
      conversation, producing fewer artefacts.
      Ceremony is a poor substitute for ability, but sometimes it's a
      useful stop-gap.  It becomes a problem when people get
      attached to the ceremony rather than the delivery of value;
      where people are not trying to reduce the gap that ceremony
      is 'stopping'.  We wouldn't decry Scrum because some people
      try it without the underlying understanding, and things go
      wrong.  Okay, WE wouldn't, others might.  Yes, it would be
      great if everyone could work directly from the manifesto and
      apply 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 that
      happening; let evolution run its course.  I believe that is healthy.
      What are unhealthy are the parasites who don't 'get it' but try
      and wear the colours of those who do.  Yet that also happens in
      nature.  A healthy system can survive a few parasites but
      too many parasites can kill.  Just take note - poorly chosen
      pest killers will cause more problems than they solve.  First
      we need a reliable way of identifying the parasites among the
      crowd.  And second, if we can convert parasites into useful
      members of society, that might be a good thing to do.
      Paul Oldfield
    • Mike Beedle
      ... Giora, Good points.... but, there is also a valid point in highlighting that the basic Agile single-project techniques DO NOT satisfy the requirements of
      Message 41 of 41 , Aug 10, 2006
        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "gioramorein" <gmorein@...>

        > So maybe when we hear these offensive terms like "New Agile",
        > "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
        > gmorein@...


        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,

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