4 ms·

yep.. this is interesting becase a sprint can always be cancelled -- its just that cancelling it is on management not on the development team. Its totally leg

yep.. this is interesting becase a sprint can always be cancelled -- its just that cancelling it is on management not on the development team. Its totally legitimate to do occasionally if all of a sudden product management realizes that the team is going in the totally wrong direction vis a vis customer needs. What management isn't allowed to do, per agile, is change the scope of whats in the sprint vis a vis new stories, and tasks. because management can cancel a sprint at any time - and its on them, I guess the theory is they'll do it sparingly. If sprints get cancelled over and over it starts to become apparent that there is a misunderstanding of the user and not the engineering effort. EDIT: see comments (with @mindcrime) re "agile" vis a vis the agile manifesto vs implementations such as scrum, XP etc. I'm using agile == scrum which is not technically correct (sorry)

dragonwriter 11y ago
You seem to be confusing "Agile" with "Scrum" and "Management" (which is an amorphous group) with "the Product Owner" (who is expressly a specific individual.) With those replacements, the described divisions of responsibility are accurate descriptions of the rules laid out in The Scrum Guide™. But an Agile organization may or may find the practices in the The Scrum Guide™ suitable; confusion of Agile (which favors free adaptability to the conditions and what works for the actual team involved, with selection and modification of processes and tools around that) with Scrum (which is a very specifically-defined canned methodology with defined organizational roles, even if it has specific designed-in limited areas of adaptability) is itself a symptom of at least incipient cargo-cult Agile of the type to which the article attributes the failure of "Agile".
- andyidsinga 11y ago
  Yep - I'm combining some things for sure. But I didn't cargo cult it -- I came to my current agile through experience over several projects (4 or 5). Somwhere in the middle of those learned about agile via the manifesto and then read a single book about scrum (this one : http://www.amazon.com/Scrum-Breathtakingly-Brief-Agile-Introduction-ebook/dp/B007P5N8D4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442600395&sr=1-1&keywords=agile http://www.amazon.com/Scrum-Breathtakingly-Brief-Agile-Intro... ). We've modified it a little from there.

dragonwriter 11y ago

You seem to be confusing "Agile" with "Scrum" and "Management" (which is an amorphous group) with "the Product Owner" (who is expressly a specific individual.) With those replacements, the described divisions of responsibility are accurate descriptions of the rules laid out in The Scrum Guide™. But an Agile organization may or may find the practices in the The Scrum Guide™ suitable; confusion of Agile (which favors free adaptability to the conditions and what works for the actual team involved, with selection and modification of processes and tools around that) with Scrum (which is a very specifically-defined canned methodology with defined organizational roles, even if it has specific designed-in limited areas of adaptability) is itself a symptom of at least incipient cargo-cult Agile of the type to which the article attributes the failure of "Agile".

andyidsinga 11y ago
Yep - I'm combining some things for sure. But I didn't cargo cult it -- I came to my current agile through experience over several projects (4 or 5). Somwhere in the middle of those learned about agile via the manifesto and then read a single book about scrum (this one : http://www.amazon.com/Scrum-Breathtakingly-Brief-Agile-Introduction-ebook/dp/B007P5N8D4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442600395&sr=1-1&keywords=agile http://www.amazon.com/Scrum-Breathtakingly-Brief-Agile-Intro... ). We've modified it a little from there.