RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: example of large scale development + team self organization
What do you do, though, with enterprise-wide implementations? For example, an SAP deployment requires upstream/downstream reviews, CAB meetings, etc. for approval for movement to production. Waterfall with its natural “gates” is the best project model (and definitely not inhuman), but many teams are using agile during the design/development phases. Is this what you mean by hybrid?
Amen!! Exactly my thoughts, less some I might have let slip.
Thanks for the rebuttal.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2013, at 21:36, Michael James <mj4scrum@...> wrote:
> > Lately we've been hearing a lot about prescriptive approaches to large scale development (such as "Scaled Agile Framework") that compromise Agile principles. While waterfall/agile hybrid approaches may be slightly better than what was happening before, are those compromises really necessary?
> Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.
> When I read something like waterfall/agile hybrid as being presented as a valid option my brain turns it into something like a disrespect/respect hybrid, or command & control / servant leadership hybrid, or a fear/courage hybrid.
> It comes down to values and principles, you either believe in them and work according to them, or you don't. And I think there are ways of applying agile values and principles anywhere in the process.
> Now at the very beginning and end of the process we might not be dealing with small batch sizes like stories. Sometimes we are dealing with large, project-sized batches. Perhaps when preparing an initial offer, or opening a web site to the public live once it is finished. Just because you are dealing with a larger batch size at these points in the process doesn't mean we have to abandon our agile values and principles, and switch to a command & control mindset, which is what a waterfall / agile hybrid implies. (Plus you will get a lot of waste and confusion and overhead at the border between the two conflicting cultures).
> Better to keep a good solid agile mindset, even in those parts of the process that use large batch sizes. Reject the waterfall / agile hybrids. Not that "agile" is everything, but waterfall is simply inhuman.
- On Apr 6, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Kurt Häusler <kurt.haeusler@...> wrote:
> Saying that the Scaled Agile Framework compromises Agile principles might be controversial enough to require some supporting argument.Did you want me to make the supporting argument? It's been elaborated on quite a bit on one of these lists, but I could recap if there's really any doubt about the conflict between this and agility.
I'd be curious to read your supporting argument - regarding the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) - and how it compromises Agile principles, etc.
Also would love some pointers to the discussions re this subject on this board. I seemed to have missed those discussions/posts.
FWIW: Recently, a few teams from my organization have started work using the Scaled Agile Framework for a large enterprise. And from what I have seen and heard so far - it seems to be working reasonably well.
I have heard a number of coaches & thought leaders express none too favorable opinion about SAFe in the past - but I did not know enough about it, until recently, to ask them why, etc.
With Best Regards
> Did you want me to make the supporting argument? It's been elaborated on quite a bit on one of these lists, but I could recap if there's really any doubt about the conflict between this and agility.