The Survey was Re: Agile 2.0
- --- In email@example.com, Ron Jeffries
> That's fine, except that few organizations have as yet masteredLet me start by saying that I DO NOT support any rebranding of Agile,
> "Agile 1.0". I can see why, from a /marketing/ viewpoint, one would
> want to use the term. Perhaps you can see why, from the viewpoint of
> people who actually know and care about Agile being /done/, we might
> decry such a usage.
its goals, values or principles for the sake of purposeless marketing
just as much as I deplore anyone creating his or her own "flavor" of
agile in the hopes of self-promotion and self edification -- or
possibly to sell a few books. At the same time there is an undertone
in some of these posts that there is no room for new thinking or new
ideas for Agile. That somehow there is no room for improvement. I
find this notion contradictory to our Agile principles. I also reject
the idea that somehow the original manifesto signatories have a
monopoly on Agile thought leadership. Some of the best ideas I have
heard on the subject come from people you've never heard of.
I do however wish to propose that perhaps this heinous "Agile 2.0"
that we all hiss at does not in fact refer to a new process,
methodology or set of practices. Perhaps when someone refers to
"Agile 2.0 " or the "Next Generation of Agile" they are referring
instead to the latest wave of Agile adoption. Agile is clearly
becoming increasingly mainstream. The trend has gone from a somewhat
linear adoption to what is arguably an exponential (or is it
logarithmic?) penetration. If you seek proof, look at the trend of
CSM's over the past 3 years. I actually did this using the lists of
registered CSM's and registration dates and could clearly depict the
increasing rate of certifications. Perhaps this new surge in
popularity is this second generation of Agile.
There is further clear evidence that this recent growth in Agile
adoption is driven by larger enterprises. Though Agile popularity
within the ISV's is still there, this latest push in the market it
mostly driven by large enterprises. Forrester research published an
interesting report about Agile adoption in November 2005 ("Corporate
IT Leads The Second Wave Of Agile Adoption"). Based on their
research, at the time the report was published, Agile adoption within
large enterprises was 14% - about 1 in 7. They predict that by the
end of this year, that number will be closer to 1 in 3. Now I grant
you that these numbers don't represent the total volume of Agile
projects within larger enterprises compared to waterfall, but it is a
clear indication that these types of companies are the ones driving
Agile popularity and adoption today.
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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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,