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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

Expand Messages
  • Garnett, Steve
    Mike, I ve been reading the thread on agile v Agile whilst trying to articulate and sell Agile within my company and to prospective customers. I have
    Message 1 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Mike,

       

      I’ve been reading the thread on agile v Agile whilst trying to articulate and “sell” Agile within my company and to prospective customers. I have recently completed my first project as scrum master.

       

      The way I have begun to see scrum mastering versus traditional project management is similar to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, and similar in consequence between hierarchical/process organizations and flat-structured/cultural organizations.

       

      It is by using “metaphors” such as these that I am finding some traction with the “unconverted hordes”.

       

      The problem I’m having with “selling” Agile is that most of my customers think in a traditional way, the rationalism of Weber… This is leading the marketing team to sell Agile techniques using traditional language.

       

      How can I articulate the difference that self-organization makes to a team versus command and control structures without evidence!

       

      I am swiftly coming to the conclusion that the only way we will “sell” Agile is to do so by example. Until there is clear proof of its value, the dominant logic of the IT industry will be to load the front-end of projects with planning, and play the “cover my back” game with risks and issues logs.

       

      I think the best way forward is to introduce Agile methods covertly, starting with the incremental introduction of XP development practices by the team and then over-laying it with Scrum once you’ve got enough stakeholders on board. There will always be some customers open to an Agile approach from the outset, but particularly in the UK these are few and far between.

       

      The important thing is to maintain groups like this, and particularly the agile alliance to ensure there is a “pure” source somewhere!

       

      Regards,

       

      Steve  

       


      From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
      Sent: 31 August 2004 20:27
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

       


      Ken/Daniel:

      Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:

      "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional
      and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
      and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
      software development figure-heads."
      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution


      " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
      Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
      will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
      products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
      to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
      And no one will know just what it is."
      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking


      ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
      irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
      the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
      "structured programming", "functional programming",
      "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
      "service-oriented architecture".

      Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
      mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
      idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
      the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
      silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
      diseases of our time.

      Agile is dead, Long live Agile!

      - Mike

      (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
      ;-)

      Could Be

      I only sang
      because the lonely road was long;
      and now the road and I are gone
      but not the song.
      I only spoke
      the verse to pay for borrowed time
      and now the clock and I are broken
      but not the rhyme.
      Possibly,
      the self not being fundamental,
      eternity
      breathes only on the incidental.

            -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile


      Ken,

      I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
      they are.  It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
      because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
      might be "buzz buzz buzz".

      Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
      that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
      misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
      value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
      our own individual and team practice.

      This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
      selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
      the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will make
      some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would most
      like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
      "making software projects less soul-destroying".

      You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.

      - Daniel


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701

      There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
      (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the meeting
      in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
      "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
      cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
      goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
      organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."

      I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
      about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when you
      discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
      will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
      referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the Agile
      manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.

      Scrum on,
      Ken




      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT






      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
       
      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...





      _____________________________________________________________________
      This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

      Reg. Heritage House, Church Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884
    • Tim Marston
      Steve, Has this first project been a success, which you are now able to proffer as evidence to the less enthusiastic areas? Tim ... From: Garnett, Steve
      Message 2 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Steve,
         
            Has this first project been a success, which you are now able to proffer as evidence to the less enthusiastic areas?
         
        Tim
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Garnett, Steve [mailto:steve.garnett@...]
        Sent: 01 September 2004 09:45
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

        Mike,

         

        I’ve been reading the thread on agile v Agile whilst trying to articulate and “sell” Agile within my company and to prospective customers. I have recently completed my first project as scrum master.

         

        The way I have begun to see scrum mastering versus traditional project management is similar to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, and similar in consequence between hierarchical/process organizations and flat-structured/cultural organizations.

         

        It is by using “metaphors” such as these that I am finding some traction with the “unconverted hordes”.

         

        The problem I’m having with “selling” Agile is that most of my customers think in a traditional way, the rationalism of Weber… This is leading the marketing team to sell Agile techniques using traditional language.

         

        How can I articulate the difference that self-organization makes to a team versus command and control structures without evidence!

         

        I am swiftly coming to the conclusion that the only way we will “sell” Agile is to do so by example. Until there is clear proof of its value, the dominant logic of the IT industry will be to load the front-end of projects with planning, and play the “cover my back” game with risks and issues logs.

         

        I think the best way forward is to introduce Agile methods covertly, starting with the incremental introduction of XP development practices by the team and then over-laying it with Scrum once you’ve got enough stakeholders on board. There will always be some customers open to an Agile approach from the outset, but particularly in the UK these are few and far between.

         

        The important thing is to maintain groups like this, and particularly the agile alliance to ensure there is a “pure” source somewhere!

         

        Regards,

         

        Steve  

         


        From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
        Sent: 31 August 2004 20:27
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

         


        Ken/Daniel:

        Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:

        "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional
        and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
        and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
        software development figure-heads."
        http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution


        " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
        Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
        will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
        products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
        to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
        And no one will know just what it is."
        http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking


        ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
        irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
        the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
        "structured programming", "functional programming",
        "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
        "service-oriented architecture".

        Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
        mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
        idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
        the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
        silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
        diseases of our time.

        Agile is dead, Long live Agile!

        - Mike

        (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
        ;-)

        Could Be

        I only sang
        because the lonely road was long;
        and now the road and I are gone
        but not the song.
        I only spoke
        the verse to pay for borrowed time
        and now the clock and I are broken
        but not the rhyme.
        Possibly,
        the self not being fundamental,
        eternity
        breathes only on the incidental.

              -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile


        Ken,

        I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
        they are.  It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
        because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
        might be "buzz buzz buzz".

        Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
        that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
        misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
        value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
        our own individual and team practice.

        This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
        selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
        the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will make
        some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would most
        like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
        "making software projects less soul-destroying".

        You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.

        - Daniel


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
        Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701

        There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
        (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the meeting
        in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
        "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
        cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
        goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
        organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."

        I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
        about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when you
        discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
        will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
        referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the Agile
        manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.

        Scrum on,
        Ken




        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT






        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
         
        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
         
        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...





        _____________________________________________________________________
        This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

        Reg. Heritage House, Church Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884


        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



      • Ken Schwaber
        I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and watch it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own. Ken
        Message 3 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and watch it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
          Ken
          >
          > From: "Mike Beedle" <beedlem@...>
          > Date: 2004/08/31 Tue PM 02:27:08 CDT
          > To: <scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile
          >
          >
          > Ken/Daniel:
          >
          > Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:
          >
          > "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional
          > and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
          > and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
          > software development figure-heads."
          > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution
          >
          >
          > " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
          > Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
          > will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
          > products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
          > to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
          > And no one will know just what it is."
          > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking
          >
          >
          > ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
          > irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
          > the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
          > "structured programming", "functional programming",
          > "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
          > "service-oriented architecture".
          >
          > Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
          > mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
          > idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
          > the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
          > silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
          > diseases of our time.
          >
          > Agile is dead, Long live Agile!
          >
          > - Mike
          >
          > (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
          > ;-)
          >
          > Could Be
          >
          > I only sang
          > because the lonely road was long;
          > and now the road and I are gone
          > but not the song.
          > I only spoke
          > the verse to pay for borrowed time
          > and now the clock and I are broken
          > but not the rhyme.
          > Possibly,
          > the self not being fundamental,
          > eternity
          > breathes only on the incidental.
          >
          > -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
          > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
          > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile
          >
          >
          > Ken,
          >
          > I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
          > they are. It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
          > because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
          > might be "buzz buzz buzz".
          >
          > Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
          > that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
          > misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
          > value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
          > our own individual and team practice.
          >
          > This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
          > selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
          > the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will make
          > some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would most
          > like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
          > "making software projects less soul-destroying".
          >
          > You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.
          >
          > - Daniel
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
          > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701
          >
          > There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
          > (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the meeting
          > in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
          > "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
          > cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
          > goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
          > organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."
          >
          > I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
          > about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when you
          > discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
          > will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
          > referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the Agile
          > manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.
          >
          > Scrum on,
          > Ken
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Clarke Ching
          ... Or we could sell the baby to gypsies, take the money and run.
          Message 4 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
            >
            > I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and
            > watch it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
            > Ken

            Or we could sell the baby to gypsies, take the money and run.
          • Hubert Smits
            Clarke! We re not all from Linlithgow. Behave! ... -- Hubert hubert.smits@gmail.com
            Message 5 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Clarke! We're not all from Linlithgow. Behave!

              On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:32:53 +0100, Clarke Ching <lists@...> wrote:
              > > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
              > >
              > > I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and
              > > watch it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
              > > Ken
              >
              > Or we could sell the baby to gypsies, take the money and run.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              --
              Hubert

              hubert.smits@...
            • Garnett, Steve
              Tim, Yes, everyone associated with the project believes it has been brilliant. The business are far more confident and happy with the functionality built, its
              Message 6 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment

                Tim,

                 

                Yes, everyone associated with the project believes it has been brilliant. The business are far more confident and happy with the functionality built, its been built to budget, and we’ve been able to incorporate change by managing the product backlog effectively…

                 

                My company is enthusiastic about using Scrum and XP on future projects, however, I can’t quantify the benefits of using agile over traditional to customers.

                 

                The best we’ll have is an excellent case study, which is useful but it is the clear bottom-line quantification that is needed rather than customer and team testimonies.

                 

                Cheers,

                 

                Steve

                 


                From: Tim Marston [mailto:t.marston@...]
                Sent: 01 September 2004 11:04
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                 

                Steve,

                 

                    Has this first project been a success, which you are now able to proffer as evidence to the less enthusiastic areas?

                 

                Tim

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Garnett, Steve [mailto:steve.garnett@...]
                Sent: 01 September 2004 09:45
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                Mike,

                 

                I’ve been reading the thread on agile v Agile whilst trying to articulate and “sell” Agile within my company and to prospective customers. I have recently completed my first project as scrum master.

                 

                The way I have begun to see scrum mastering versus traditional project management is similar to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, and similar in consequence between hierarchical/process organizations and flat-structured/cultural organizations.

                 

                It is by using “metaphors” such as these that I am finding some traction with the “unconverted hordes”.

                 

                The problem I’m having with “selling” Agile is that most of my customers think in a traditional way, the rationalism of Weber… This is leading the marketing team to sell Agile techniques using traditional language.

                 

                How can I articulate the difference that self-organization makes to a team versus command and control structures without evidence!

                 

                I am swiftly coming to the conclusion that the only way we will “sell” Agile is to do so by example. Until there is clear proof of its value, the dominant logic of the IT industry will be to load the front-end of projects with planning, and play the “cover my back” game with risks and issues logs.

                 

                I think the best way forward is to introduce Agile methods covertly, starting with the incremental introduction of XP development practices by the team and then over-laying it with Scrum once you’ve got enough stakeholders on board. There will always be some customers open to an Agile approach from the outset, but particularly in the UK these are few and far between.

                 

                The important thing is to maintain groups like this, and particularly the agile alliance to ensure there is a “pure” source somewhere!

                 

                Regards,

                 

                Steve  

                 


                From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
                Sent: 31 August 2004 20:27
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                 


                Ken/Daniel:

                Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:

                "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional
                and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
                and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
                software development figure-heads."
                http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution


                " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
                Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
                will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
                products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
                to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
                And no one will know just what it is."
                http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking


                ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
                irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
                the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
                "structured programming", "functional programming",
                "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
                "service-oriented architecture".

                Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
                mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
                idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
                the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
                silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
                diseases of our time.

                Agile is dead, Long live Agile!

                - Mike

                (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
                ;-)

                Could Be

                I only sang
                because the lonely road was long;
                and now the road and I are gone
                but not the song.
                I only spoke
                the verse to pay for borrowed time
                and now the clock and I are broken
                but not the rhyme.
                Possibly,
                the self not being fundamental,
                eternity
                breathes only on the incidental.

                      -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile


                Ken,

                I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
                they are.  It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
                because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
                might be "buzz buzz buzz".

                Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
                that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
                misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
                value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
                our own individual and team practice.

                This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
                selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
                the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will make
                some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would most
                like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
                "making software projects less soul-destroying".

                You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.

                - Daniel


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
                Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701

                There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
                (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the meeting
                in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
                "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
                cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
                goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
                organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."

                I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
                about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when you
                discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
                will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
                referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the Agile
                manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.

                Scrum on,
                Ken




                To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT






                Yahoo! Groups Links

                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
                 
                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                 
                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                _____________________________________________________________________
                This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

                Reg. Heritage House, Church Road , Egham, Surrey , TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884


                To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...





                _____________________________________________________________________
                This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

                Reg. Heritage House, Church Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884
              • Deb
                What! Out there in the big world without us! Shocking. auntie Deb ... it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
                Message 7 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  What! Out there in the big world without us!
                  Shocking.

                  auntie Deb

                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ken Schwaber
                  <ken.schwaber@v...> wrote:
                  > I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and watch
                  it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
                  > Ken
                • Mike Beedle
                  Ken: Well said, *true* Agile and Scrum practitioners will keep the flame burning -- even if the word is abused elsewhere, - Mike ... From: Ken Schwaber
                  Message 8 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ken:

                    Well said, *true* Agile and Scrum practitioners will keep the
                    flame burning -- even if the word is abused elsewhere,

                    - Mike

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:27 AM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile


                    I think our job is to keep the baby alive, help it grow, and
                    watch it mature and have a life, a real life, of its own.
                    Ken

                    >
                    > From: "Mike Beedle" <beedlem@...>
                    > Date: 2004/08/31 Tue PM 02:27:08 CDT
                    > To: <scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile
                    >
                    >
                    > Ken/Daniel:
                    >
                    > Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:
                    >
                    > "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional

                    > and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
                    > and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
                    > software development figure-heads."
                    > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution
                    >
                    >
                    > " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
                    > Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
                    > will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
                    > products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
                    > to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
                    > And no one will know just what it is."
                    > http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking
                    >
                    >
                    > ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
                    > irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
                    > the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
                    > "structured programming", "functional programming",
                    > "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
                    > "service-oriented architecture".
                    >
                    > Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
                    > mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
                    > idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
                    > the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
                    > silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
                    > diseases of our time.
                    >
                    > Agile is dead, Long live Agile!
                    >
                    > - Mike
                    >
                    > (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
                    > ;-)
                    >
                    > Could Be
                    >
                    > I only sang
                    > because the lonely road was long;
                    > and now the road and I are gone
                    > but not the song.
                    > I only spoke
                    > the verse to pay for borrowed time
                    > and now the clock and I are broken
                    > but not the rhyme.
                    > Possibly,
                    > the self not being fundamental,
                    > eternity
                    > breathes only on the incidental.
                    >
                    > -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
                    > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
                    > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile
                    >
                    >
                    > Ken,
                    >
                    > I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
                    > they are. It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
                    > because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
                    > might be "buzz buzz buzz".
                    >
                    > Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
                    > that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
                    > misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
                    > value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
                    > our own individual and team practice.
                    >
                    > This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
                    > selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
                    > the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will
                    make
                    > some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would
                    most
                    > like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
                    > "making software projects less soul-destroying".
                    >
                    > You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.
                    >
                    > - Daniel
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
                    > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701
                    >
                    > There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
                    > (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the
                    meeting
                    > in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
                    > "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
                    > cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
                    > goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
                    > organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."
                    >
                    > I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
                    > about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when
                    you
                    > discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
                    > will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
                    > referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the
                    Agile
                    > manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.
                    >
                    > Scrum on,
                    > Ken
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    ADVERTISEMENT






                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Doug Shimp
                    Hi Tim, ... Has anyone ever done this? Is the quantification for the traditional methods on any better ground as a basis for using in software development than
                    Message 9 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Hi Tim,

                       

                      >>  quantify the benefits of using agile over traditional to customers.

                       

                       Has anyone ever done this? Is the quantification for the traditional methods on any better ground as a basis for using in software development than Scrum or Agile?

                       

                      What has been measured

                      The traditional methods have been marginally (at best) successful in justifying their position quantitatively. They have tried to measure the business value derived from producing a system and mapping it to the methods involved. At best, they have made rough large grained measurements of the benefit but, they have not made a reliable mapping to the individual methods involved.

                       

                      What is interesting is that we can still use their argument…

                      Scrum/Agile practices can be considered as a subset of these traditional methods. Many of these traditional methods could be called the “IT Process of Everything”. We have found that these traditional methods are over complicated, create confusion and we spend far more energy tailoring them than using them. Scrum/Agile can be considered to focus on the minimal set of methods necessary to successfully achieve business objectives.

                       

                      How does Scrum help…

                      Scrum helps us focus on what our product needs. Scrum/Agile is not something new; rather it is a clear minimal set of methods that our industry has found to be useful in getting the job done. Scrum helps us focus on those methods that are needed to produce product within our given environment and helps us eliminate those methods that get in the way. Our industry has found that it is far easier to extend a body of knowledge than it is to reduce it to what is needed. Scrum helps us by starting with a minimal set. That’s what makes it beautiful, enticing and useful.

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      _________________________________

                       

                      Douglas Shimp

                      Senior Consultant

                      doug_shimp@...

                      414.839.2933

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Garnett, Steve [mailto:steve.garnett@...]
                      Sent
                      : Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:58 AM
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                       

                      Tim,

                       

                      Yes, everyone associated with the project believes it has been brilliant. The business are far more confident and happy with the functionality built, its been built to budget, and we’ve been able to incorporate change by managing the product backlog effectively…

                       

                      My company is enthusiastic about using Scrum and XP on future projects, however, I can’t quantify the benefits of using agile over traditional to customers.

                       

                      The best we’ll have is an excellent case study, which is useful but it is the clear bottom-line quantification that is needed rather than customer and team testimonies.

                       

                      Cheers,

                       

                      Steve

                       


                      From: Tim Marston [mailto:t.marston@...]
                      Sent: 01 September 2004 11:04
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                       

                      Steve,

                       

                          Has this first project been a success, which you are now able to proffer as evidence to the less enthusiastic areas?

                       

                      Tim

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Garnett, Steve [mailto:steve.garnett@...]
                      Sent: 01 September 2004 09:45
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                      Mike,

                       

                      I’ve been reading the thread on agile v Agile whilst trying to articulate and “sell” Agile within my company and to prospective customers. I have recently completed my first project as scrum master.

                       

                      The way I have begun to see scrum mastering versus traditional project management is similar to the difference between transactional and transformational leadership, and similar in consequence between hierarchical/process organizations and flat-structured/cultural organizations.

                       

                      It is by using “metaphors” such as these that I am finding some traction with the “unconverted hordes”.

                       

                      The problem I’m having with “selling” Agile is that most of my customers think in a traditional way, the rationalism of Weber… This is leading the marketing team to sell Agile techniques using traditional language.

                       

                      How can I articulate the difference that self-organization makes to a team versus command and control structures without evidence!

                       

                      I am swiftly coming to the conclusion that the only way we will “sell” Agile is to do so by example. Until there is clear proof of its value, the dominant logic of the IT industry will be to load the front-end of projects with planning, and play the “cover my back” game with risks and issues logs.

                       

                      I think the best way forward is to introduce Agile methods covertly, starting with the incremental introduction of XP development practices by the team and then over-laying it with Scrum once you’ve got enough stakeholders on board. There will always be some customers open to an Agile approach from the outset, but particularly in the UK these are few and far between.

                       

                      The important thing is to maintain groups like this, and particularly the agile alliance to ensure there is a “pure” source somewhere!

                       

                      Regards,

                       

                      Steve  

                       


                      From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
                      Sent: 31 August 2004 20:27
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: !RE: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile

                       


                      Ken/Daniel:

                      Your postings reminded me of something I wrote a couple of years ago:

                      "It troubles me that the _fundamental differences_ between traditional
                      and agile processes are not highlighted, either by the creators
                      and supporters of the Agile movement, or by traditional
                      software development figure-heads."
                      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRevolution


                      " ...Agile Software Development will be in the 2000's what
                      Defined-Process Software Development was in the 1980's. Everyone
                      will be in favor of it. Every manufacturer will promote his
                      products as supporting it. Every manager will pay lip service
                      to it. Every programmer will practice it (differently).
                      And no one will know just what it is."
                      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AgileRentschianThinking


                      ..... unfortunately, "agile" is bound to go through that
                      irreversible cycle of commercialization that tends to evaporate
                      the meaning of valuable things as it has done with
                      "structured programming", "functional programming",
                      "object-oriented programming", "agent-technology", and now
                      "service-oriented architecture".

                      Just like everything else that our industry has managed to
                      mangle, obfuscate, obscure, but simultaneously glamorize and
                      idolize, "agile development", like any other wave, will be
                      the prey of commercialization, opportunism, envy,
                      silver-bulleting, .... and the rest of the socio-economic
                      diseases of our time.

                      Agile is dead, Long live Agile!

                      - Mike

                      (For some reason this discussion makes me think of the following poem
                      ;-)

                      Could Be

                      I only sang
                      because the lonely road was long;
                      and now the road and I are gone
                      but not the song.
                      I only spoke
                      the verse to pay for borrowed time
                      and now the clock and I are broken
                      but not the rhyme.
                      Possibly,
                      the self not being fundamental,
                      eternity
                      breathes only on the incidental.

                            -- Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984)

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Daniel Gackle [mailto:gackle@...]
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:10 PM
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: agile vs Agile


                      Ken,

                      I agree. Reading those articles, I was astonished at how contentless
                      they are.  It's impossible to figure out what they mean by "agile"
                      because, IMHO, they don't mean anything by it. A precise translation
                      might be "buzz buzz buzz".

                      Perhaps this is an inevitable stage in the lifecycle of any movement
                      that reaches a certain mass. If so, we can expect this wave of
                      misunderstanding to continue. What matters is that enough of the core
                      value manage to survive it. The key place to preserve this value is in
                      our own individual and team practice.

                      This relates to the conversation about "selling agile". The risk in
                      selling agile is that only the word will be bought and exchanged, not
                      the core. (For this we now have Exhibit A: CIO magazine.) This will make
                      some people some money, but it will not bring what many of us would most
                      like to see from Agile, which someone expressed to me recently as
                      "making software projects less soul-destroying".

                      You can bottle the bathwater, but not the baby.

                      - Daniel


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:34 am
                      Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Digest Number 701

                      There is a whole issue of CIO magazine devoted to "agile"
                      (http://www.cio.com/archive/081504/index.html). When we held the meeting
                      in Snowbird in 2001, Martin Fowler suggested that we name the thing
                      "quackenpoof" rather than "agile" to discourage other people from
                      cheaply using the name, as the have in this issue of CIO. "Oh, yes,
                      goodness sakes, we are doing much better in my "100 Most Agile"
                      organization... we now get the software out the door sometimes."

                      I'd have been so much more pleased if one of these people had a clue
                      about Agile rather than just the word agile. So, remember that when you
                      discuss agile, if you are referring to the commercialization fad that
                      will fade in about two years, use the small "a" agile. When you are
                      referring to something that comforms to the Agile movement and the Agile
                      manifesto, use the capital "A" Agile.

                      Scrum on,
                      Ken




                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT






                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scrumdevelopment/
                       
                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                       
                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                      _____________________________________________________________________
                      This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

                      Reg. Heritage House, Church Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884


                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...




                      _____________________________________________________________________
                      This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you have received this message in error, please notify Conchango plc as soon as possible. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful. The internet cannot guarantee the integrity of this message and therefore Conchango plc will not be liable for the message if modified.

                      Reg. Heritage House, Church Road, Egham, Surrey, TW20 9QD T 44 (0) 1784 222 222 F 44 (0) 1784 222 200 E talktous@... No. 2598884


                      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...





                      ______________________________________________________________________
                      This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
                      For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
                      ______________________________________________________________________

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.