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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Agile Balance to Extreme Pressure

Expand Messages
  • Mike Beedle
    ... Steven: Interesting, that makes six different groups since this discussion started that are doing something similar. Just as I thought, this had to be a
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
       
      Steven Gordon wrote:
      > I feel
      just as passionately that although the
      > concept is a very good one that
      I have already
      > been practicing in my own way,
       
      Steven:
       
      Interesting, that makes six different groups since this discussion started that
      are doing something similar. 
       
      Just as I thought, this had to be a *very common thing*.
       
      I bet you there is more, maybe even *many more*.
       
       
      Steven Gordon wrote:
      > it is not
      class=267545817-01032004> intrinsically more balanced than
      > vanilla Scrum,
      class=267545817-01032004> XP, or any other form of agile
      > software development. 
       
      Ah, but I am not saying is *more* balanced, I am saying that it is an *easier
      balance* to achieve, perhaps even a *minimal balance* when you get started.
       
      I also not saying is a "better balance" I am just saying it is easier to achieve.
       
      I think the strong arguments were clouding the space and making the concept
      hard to understand, which in my view is *very simple*:
       
          - do the simplest thing that works first (get to that "easy" balance) and then,
          - add more engineering practices (as you stay in balance)
       
      It is that easy. 
       
      There are no promises of being a "better balance" or that an "overall balance"
      is included.  (No grandiose claims, .... just that it is easier.)
       
       
      Steven Gordon wrote:
      > Balance is a function of the
      entire context
      > (time, project, team,
      organization, customer,
      > market, etc.), not just the
      agility of the
      > methodology (or
      meta-methodology).
      I agree, but I never said that there was an "overall balance" promised in Balanced Agility ;-)
       
       
      Steven Gordon wrote:
      > To call any methodology "balanced" in and of
      > itself makes it harder for people to understand
      > this critical point.
       
       
      Just to clear a few misunderstandings:
       
          * Balance Agility is not a methodology is a minimal "engineering starting (balanced) point"
            using Scrum AND the commitment to stay in balance as you add more engineering
            practices.
           
          * It is not "balanced in and of itself", you have to struggle to keep your
            balance at two levels:
       
                  1) in doing the minimal "right things" to successfully complete the 
                     software development cycles when you start scrumming and
                  2) in making sure that what you ask your development staff is realistic.
       
      Does this make sense?
       
      - Mike
       
       

      LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
       
      uses logic
      detail oriented
      facts rule
      words and language
      present and past
      math and science
      can comprehend
      knowing
      acknowledges
      order/pattern perception
      knows object name
      reality based
      forms strategies
      practical
      safe

      RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
       
      uses feeling
      "big picture" oriented
      imagination rules
      symbols and images
      present and future
      philosophy & religion
      can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
      believing
      appreciates
      spatial perception
      knows object function
      fantasy based
      presents possibilities
      impetuous
      risk taking

    • Mike Beedle
      ... Ron: Well, I could have chosen to stay quiet, or to not publish or elaborate my idea, and to let the world be, without Balanced Agility. But now I am glad
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike Beedle wrote:
        > That is strange isn't it, to be in conflict while arguing
        > for balance.

        Ron Jeffries wrote:
        > Is it ever really strange to be in conflict when choosing
        > to argue?

        Ron:

        Well, I could have chosen to stay quiet,
        or to not publish or elaborate my idea,
        and to let the world be, without Balanced Agility.

        But now I am glad I went through that argument,
        and through the thorough exploration of the idea --
        the world as I see it, will be better with
        Balanced Agility.

        ***

        Yes, I am making this an official announcement, I see
        so much value in this idea, I will be writing a book
        in the next 3 months with the title:

        Balance Agility with Scrum:
        The Easy and Minimal Road to
        Agile Software Development

        Wish me luck.

        I will let you know of drafts available for review
        on this list!

        - Mike
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... I like the name Balance Agility with Scrum . And I hope you understand now why a number of us don t like the name Balanced Agility . Ron Jeffries
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 1:41:49 PM, Mike Beedle wrote:

          > Balance Agility with Scrum:
          > The Easy and Minimal Road to
          > Agile Software Development

          I like the name "Balance Agility with Scrum".

          And I hope you understand now why a number of us don't like the name
          "Balanced Agility".

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          I could be wrong, of course. It's just not the way to bet.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.