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

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

Expand Messages
  • jay_conne
    I agree with Ron too. The challenge is in the choice of concepts and communicating them. I find I am successful by making the distinction between traditional
    Message 1 of 71 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with Ron too. The challenge is in the choice of concepts and
      communicating them.

      I find I am successful by making the distinction between traditional
      approaches to SW Dev, and the Agile approach. Here's the sequence
      that works for me:
      1. Get people laughing about how dysfunctional we have been and how
      obviously more honest and valuable the Agile approach is.
      2. Talk about the specific principles and practices of Scrum and XP
      that deliver success and the reasons they do. Make this practical and
      down-to-earth. I think his satisfies David's (ii) option.
      3. Talk about our traditional terminology and its fit or not to the
      Agile approach.
      4. Express a preference for the bizarre Scrum jargon because it gets
      people to stop and think rather than drag along the baggage of
      traditional terminology.

      It's all about reality and trust from being 'real'.
      No, it's not about common sense.
      But it is definitely about sense.

      Jay

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David Wolfe" <dwolfe66@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I think that Ron's point here goes to the crux of the matter.
      >
      > If we believe that in creating language to help *traditionalists*
      > digest and adopt agile approaches we bastardize the fundamental
      > principles of the approaches themselves, then we have some serious
      > choices to make;
      > (i) Stop searching for language to help make *transition* more
      > palatable for our waterfall embracing brethren. Presumably this
      > approach will support keeping agile *cleaner*
      > (ii) Find better and more effective concepts and language
      > (iii) ?
      >
      > I would vote for (ii) because I think it is the responsibility of
      the agile community to *fight the good fight* and evangelize and
      approach that has, at least, radically transformed my professional
      existence. That being said, there is a fine line. Fact is agile is
      different and as a result not all traditionalist concepts can be
      co-opted for persuasive approaches.
      >
      > Regards,
      > David Wolfe
      > CTO, Napster
      > david.wolfe@...
      >
      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
      > <ronjeffries@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello, Mike. On Monday, June 30, 2008, at 5:53:54 AM, you wrote:
      > >
      > > > My view is that anything new usually has to court the mainstream
      > to be widely adopted, as such you need to create a bridge with
      familiar terms like manager, project manager etc to even the a foot in
      > the door.
      > >
      > > And why do we want this new thing to be widely adopted, and at
      what cost in doing it well?
      > >
      > > Perhaps our purpose should be to describe quite accurately how to
      do this stuff so that people who choose to adopt it do it well.
      Perhaps making it easy to think you're entering isn't quite the right
      approach.
      > >
      > > Ron Jeffries
      > > www.XProgramming.com
      > > To Fly, Flip Away Backhanded -- Master Frisbee
    • 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.