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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Re. Why are we still allowing the term "Agile Project Manager"

Expand Messages
  • Michael Maham
    Also I d say the title of the original message Why are we still allowing the term Agile Project Manager ? has something to do with the tone. And, even
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Also I'd say the title of the original message 'Why are we still allowing the term "Agile Project Manager"? ' has something to do with the tone. And, even agreeing with many of the points, I wonder in the back of mind:
      • who are "we" to determine what terms we "allow"?
      • what is the practical outcome, if we do decide not to "allow" the term?  how do we show our intolerance of the term?  Is anyone who asks on a forum like this given a standard "Go here: www.someagileFAQ.com#AgileProjectManager and come back if you have any confusion after reading that why we don't use the term"?  What about in real life when it comes up in an office?  Do we say "oh, we don't use that term". 
      • Or could we say, "If by Agle Project Manager you mean X, then, yes, that's a good idea and here's some qualities you see in people who are successful in helping teams.  If you mean Y, then that role doesn't provide value in a Scrum setting."?  Then we can have a clear conversation about what X and Y should be...but first we'd have to decide to "allow" the term.

      michael

      On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Mark Jean <blue_f18c@...> wrote:

      David -

      It's true most companies don't have enough disruptions/distractions
      to deal with & are looking for more. Therefore, attempting to dictate
      to companies what terms they can & can't use isn't a great use of
      time. Neither is debating it. (EG, "lexicon happens." It's tough to
      control.)

      Conservatively, "PM" has a fair recognition rate in general business
      today. (Maybe 95%?) People have a sense - perhaps a wrong one -
      of what a "PM" does.

      The term "Agile PM" is actually helpful to bridging Scrum & XP into
      companies. Why? Because many people have heard something about
      this "agile" thing. So, the modification of "PM" to "Agile PM" makes
      inuitive sense. There's a "place" in the mind to put that term.

      I agree with you words have power. Why not leverage "Agile PM" & run
      with it? "Agile" will go a lot faster if its leadership would be o.k.
      with the temporary integration of Scrum into existing processes,
      terminologies & mindsets. This isn't about memes. It's about getting
      work done. Once Scrum's adopted, keep helping Scrum practitioners
      (through the training & certifation program) gently provide course
      corrections to their companies. (EG - be sneaky - and *embrace*
      holding two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time. You can
      function well with both.) This "pure scrum" thing smells
      like "memes" - which brings up "The Dark Side of Man" (great book).

      Regarding my "tone," it's in response to recommendations being made
      here to (often new) Scrum practitioners to "go against the grain."
      Having seen two people fired for attempting to introduce Scrum in
      the "go against the grain" manner, and also seeing Scrum flatly
      rejected by three other groups because it's "too out there" - it's
      clear (at least to me) writers to this list should focus more on the
      needs of new Scrum practitioners (user base) and less their own egos.

      It is unnecessary & somewhat irresponsible to advocate "disruption"
      to (usually struggling) PMs (who are also reading & learning Scrum) -
      or telling them they're "not worthy" of anything "Agile" because
      they're not disruptive enough.

      Disruption is for the financially independent, who don't care about
      working alone.

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@...>
      wrote:


      >
      > >
      > > Hello! This line of thought isn't logical - it's emotional & low-
      > > functioning (caveman / unenlightened).
      > >
      > I am a little bit offended by the tone of this conversation? I
      happen
      > to have a fully developed brain which I think is quite different in
      > physiology from that of a cavemen. But now to the matter at hand.
      >
      > > First off - "Project Managers" are often simply the person given
      the
      > > responsibility to "get something done" - eg, a "project."
      >
      > Good, I already have a term for that, Product Owner.
      >
      > > Often,
      > > these "managers" have little to no organizational power. If
      they're
      > > fortunate & cagey enough to get Scrum or other Agile approach in
      the
      > > door to help them be successful - great!
      > >
      > Scrum Masters, by their very nature do not have any power per se.
      They
      > only hold authority over the "Scrum" way of doing things. They are
      > servant leaders, so I guess that applies to a Project Manager as
      well
      > then in your view?
      >
      > > But for the "Scrum Pure" intelligentsia to look down from up high
      &
      > > decry these feeble "Agile-Posers" is ludicrous & immature. Let go
      of
      > > control!
      > >
      > I wonder to whom you are referring because I do not think that is
      what
      > anyone said or intended to say. This was and still is a discussion
      > about semnatics, the power of words and how to shape expectations.
      >
      > > "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
      > > opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
      > > ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896 - 1940), "The
      Crack-Up"
      > > (1936)
      > >
      > I do not quite undertand the relevance of this quote and I would
      > strongly recommend you adjust the tone of your voice.
      >
      > Thank you
      >
      > -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, Michael. On Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at 4:01:15 PM, you ... We are people who understand or are learning to understand that there are significant
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello, Michael. On Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at 4:01:15 PM, you
        wrote:

        > Also I'd say the title of the original message 'Why are we still allowing
        > the term "Agile Project Manager"? ' has something to do with the tone. And,
        > even agreeing with many of the points, I wonder in the back of mind:

        > - who are "we" to determine what terms we "allow"?

        We are people who understand or are learning to understand that
        there are significant differences between the Agile methods and
        conventional ones. We are people who understand that the words we
        use often carry connotations we do not intend, and who believe it is
        therefore important what words we use and what words we try to
        avoid.

        > - what is the practical outcome, if we do decide not to "allow" the
        > term? how do we show our intolerance of the term? Is anyone who asks on a
        > forum like this given a standard "Go here:
        > www.someagileFAQ.com#AgileProjectManager and come back if you have any
        > confusion after reading that why we don't use the term"? What about in real
        > life when it comes up in an office? Do we say "oh, we don't use that
        > term".

        > - Or could we say, "If by Agle Project Manager you mean X, then, yes,
        > that's a good idea and here's some qualities you see in people who are
        > successful in helping teams. If you mean Y, then that role doesn't provide
        > value in a Scrum setting."? Then we can have a clear conversation about
        > what X and Y should be...but first we'd have to decide to "allow" the term.

        Tyranny of the "or". There are other ways to go that do not sustain
        a term that is potentially harmful to our message but that do not
        show such obviously unproductive behaviors as "intolerance".

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        A lot of preconceptions can be dismissed when you actually
        try something out. -- Bruce Eckel
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.