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

Re: Agile 2.0/Scrum 2.0

Expand Messages
  • charles_bradley_scrum_coach
    Mike, Here are some thoughts I have on Agile 2.0. 1. I ve been pretty horrified by the companies that claim to be Agile, as most do NOT follow the principles,
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 4 6:23 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      Here are some thoughts I have on Agile 2.0.

      1. I've been pretty horrified by the companies that claim to be Agile, as most do NOT follow the principles, or at least not all of them. Going against even just a couple of the principles can have really bad consequences. How about we give the principles some closure. Something like: "Teams who deviate significantly from one or more of the values or principles will generally suck, and by calling yourselves "agile", you make us all sound sucky, and we don't appreciate it." Might need some wordsmithing. :-)

      2. I'd like to see the manifesto emphasize a standard of quality, something similar to the "definition of done" in Scrum. I see some teams who are following most/all of the principles, and yet their software quality still sucks, because there is not an established/communicated standard of quality that the customer understands. Maybe even a comment about how shoddy work is not an acceptable consequence of delivering "on-time." Again, wordsmithing.

      3. I'm not in favor of taking the software dev context out of the AM as some have suggested. Many are trying to do the same thing with Scrum, and I don't agree with it there either. The AM signatories are all highly experienced software dev people, and I do not believe that you can expand the scope beyond those of the signatories. Those signatories represent decades of great experience in soft dev, and that is what the AM should reflect. Same goes for Scrum.

      I'd rather see separate movements to represent the generalization of Agile or Scrum beyond software dev, and have signatories that represent folks from other domains who can speak to whether Agile/Scrum principles directly translate to other domains besides software dev.

      Many people think Scrum can apply to anything, and they are sadly mistaken, IMO. Can one take the spirit and principles and re-apply? Probably, but what about situations where customizing, re-applying or generalizing causes an unintended consequence in a different domain? Then what? If they want to generalize it to be non software specific, they need to define the expanded domain well, and get some high powered folks from that domain to sign on the dotted line.

      4. The only things that Agile has been widely successful at, IMO is:
      1) Convincing a lot of soft dev management to let go of waterfall and RUP.
      2) Galvanizing interest and support for the "instances" of Agile such as XP, Scrum, et al.

      If you define success as delivering better, faster or cheaper software, then I remain unconvinced that Agile has been *widely successful.* I think the industry has some work to do yet in this area.

      Charles Bradley

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "MikeBeedle" <mikebeedle@...> wrote:
      > Dear friends,
      > With the upcoming 10 year anniversary of the Agile Manifesto
      > http://www.agilemanifesto.org and the upcoming 10 year anniversary of first
      > Scrum and Agile-on-its-title book ever published (Agile Software Development
      > with Scrum, Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle), I have been asked to give a
      > series of presentations around the world on the "history, status and future
      > of Agile and Scrum".
      > In doing so, I have reached several important conclusions:
      > It is undeniable to argue that Agile and Scrum have been widely successful.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.