Why are we still allowing the term "Agile Project Manager"?
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
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
- Hello, Robert. On Wednesday, July 2, 2008, at 11:19:55 AM, you
> Your earlier message said:OK. Why do /you/ think Scrum works.
>> 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.
> I think an important advantage of scrum, and other agileInteresting. What do you see in the definition of Scrum that leads
> 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.
you to believe it is not focused on software? A reference would be
> So the advantage for software development is that the process isSo that whole "Agile Software Development with Scrum" thing was just
> 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.
what ... a typo?
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