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

The Survey was Re: Agile 2.0

Expand Messages
  • beckfordp
    ... Hi Giora, Whilst I think I understand what you mean, your post left me feeling rather uneasy. The thing is that language is important. The language we use
    Message 1 of 41 , Aug 1, 2006
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "gioramorein" <gmorein@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
      > <ronjeffries@> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > That's fine, except that few organizations have as yet mastered
      > > "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.
      >
      > Let me start by saying that I DO NOT support any rebranding of Agile,
      > 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.
      >
      > Giora Morein
      > gmorein@...
      >


      Hi Giora,

      Whilst I think I understand what you mean, your post left me feeling
      rather uneasy. The thing is that language is important. The language
      we use to a large degree prescribes our thinking. This IMO is how
      things like racial bigotry can gain a foothold, just due to the
      habitual use of stereotypes and inappropriate language.

      A lot to explain, but try reading the book "Language in Thought ad
      Action" by Hayakawa, and you will see my reason for discomfort.

      In summary, the label is not the thing. So just because the label
      "Agile" is gaining in popularity, it doesn't mean that the thing,
      namely a philosophy, values and principles for software development is
      becoming more prominent. In fact I see evidence of the opposite. I am
      working on a project labelled "Agile" at the moment. My blue-chip
      client has bought this Label at considerable expense from a leading
      "Agile" Consultancy. Yet I see little evidence of the "thing"
      (philosophy, values, principles) that the label is meant to symbolise.


      It would not be the first time in the software industry where a label
      has be misappropriated and the thing that it symbolises becomes
      discredited and lost in the resulting malaise. In my previous post I
      mentioned Alan Kay and his disgruntlement as an example of this.
      Object Orientation, the label has done very well, whilst the thing
      (idea and vision) that Alan Kay had in mind when he coined the term as
      been largely misunderstood or forgotten. If we are not careful Agile
      will go the same way.

      Paul.
    • 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@...>
        wrote:

        > 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@...


        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 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.