The Survey was Re: Agile 2.0
- --- In email@example.com, "beckfordp" <beckfordp@...>
> 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 couldn't agree with you more. What many large companies and
practitioners are calling "Agile" is far from the Agile value-system
that you and I believe in. Even at Agile2006 in some of the
interactions I had with folks, it was clear that there was very little
understanding of what the principles and values are. I find that many
times this results when following a slow incremental adoption model
starting with some key technical practices (usually from XP), such as
TDD and CI. Many companies will implement unit testing and CI into
their existing development processes and then slowly add other
individual practices without understanding or examining their purpose
and how they fit into the holistic Agile process.
Many times companies adopting Agile for the first time are receiving
poor guidance or coaching. There are a number of consultancies out
there making a mad dash at this land-grab and in the process putting
in front of clients these so-called Agile "Experts" with little
understanding and knowledge.
One of the key things I learned at Agile2006 is the following:
"The biggest threat to Agile is not the anti-aligist or the
pro-waterfaller, it is in fact the poor agilist"
- --- 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,