Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Re. Why are we still allowing the term "Agile Project Manager"
- 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.
michaelOn Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Mark Jean <blue_f18c@...> wrote:
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
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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David H." <dmalloc@...>
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
> > fortunate & cagey enough to get Scrum or other Agile approach in
> > door to help them be successful - great!
> Scrum Masters, by their very nature do not have any power per se.
> only hold authority over the "Scrum" way of doing things. They are
> servant leaders, so I guess that applies to a Project Manager as
> 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
> > control!
> I wonder to whom you are referring because I do not think that is
> 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
> > (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
> Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
> Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail
> "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
> benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
- Hello, Michael. On Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at 4:01:15 PM, you
> Also I'd say the title of the original message 'Why are we still allowingWe are people who understand or are learning to understand that
> 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"?
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
> - what is the practical outcome, if we do decide not to "allow" theTyranny of the "or". There are other ways to go that do not sustain
> 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
> - 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.
a term that is potentially harmful to our message but that do not
show such obviously unproductive behaviors as "intolerance".
A lot of preconceptions can be dismissed when you actually
try something out. -- Bruce Eckel