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

Why are we still allowing the term "Agile Project Manager"?

Expand Messages
  • David H.
    Hello This is more a philosophical question or maybe a question of principle. I wonder why we are still allowing the coined phrase Agile Project Manager . Is
    Message 1 of 71 , Jun 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello

      This is more a philosophical question or maybe a question of
      principle. I wonder why we are still allowing the coined phrase "Agile
      Project Manager". Is it just me that I have a complete and utter
      aversion to the term "Project Manager" and I feel adding the attribute
      "Agile" does not change the fact that there are bad conotations with
      the title itself?

      Or do we have to learn, as a community, to understand that when we are
      speaking about somone that happens to be an "Agile Project Manager" we
      are not speaking about somone that has had a classical background and
      maybe resorted to doing all those things we advise against in the past
      and now simply has magically changed his approach, becoming "agile".

      Is this a limitation of language? Would it be wrong to push phrases
      such as "Facilitator", "coach" or "ScrumMaster" (in the context of
      this mailing list) and simply work diligently towards ensuring that
      the title (or phrase) "Project manager" dies out?

      Names and words can be a very powerful thing, because we naturaly
      connect expectations and past experiences to them. For me the term
      "Project Manager" without or with "Agile" before it evokes nothing but
      nightmarish feelings.

      Thanks.

      -d

      --
      Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
      Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.

      "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
      benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
    • Ron Jeffries
      Hello, Robert. On Wednesday, July 2, 2008, at 11:19:55 AM, you ... OK. Why do /you/ think Scrum works. ... Interesting. What do you see in the definition of
      Message 71 of 71 , Jul 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello, Robert. On Wednesday, July 2, 2008, at 11:19:55 AM, you
        wrote:

        > Your earlier message said:

        >> Scrum works, in my opinion, because it requires two things:
        >> 1. Produce Done-Done software on a regular basis;
        >> 2. Remove every obstacle to doing item 1.

        > I'm not sure I agree. In particular, it seems to suggest an absolute
        > focus on
        > software, and it seems to suggest seeing other things as obstacles to that.

        OK. Why do /you/ think Scrum works.

        > I think an important advantage of scrum, and other agile
        > processes, is that they involve software development in a wider
        > context, and in that wider context the development of software is
        > unlikely to be the priority.

        Interesting. What do you see in the definition of Scrum that leads
        you to believe it is not focused on software? A reference would be
        nice.

        > So the advantage for software development is that the process is
        > more likely to lead to software that helps in that larger context.
        > This means it is important for everyone to realise that software
        > development is not the ultimate goal, and that things that might
        > seem like obstacles may in fact show aspects of the wider context
        > that need to be better understood and may in fact change the
        > nature of the software development.

        So that whole "Agile Software Development with Scrum" thing was just
        what ... a typo?

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's;
        I will not reason and compare; my business is to create. --William Blake
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.