4 ms·

> It's reasonable to assume that the Agile practices are put in context and incorporated into the mainstream now. Not in the slightest. The ceremonies are wid

> It's reasonable to assume that the Agile practices are put in context and incorporated into the mainstream now. Not in the slightest. The ceremonies are widespread, but the principles you need for them to be effective are not. Read the Agile Manifesto[0] and compare that with, say, the horrors of SAFe[1] that "Agile" consultants tend to inflict on organisations. They are essentially the opposite of one another. [0] http://agilemanifesto.org/ http://agilemanifesto.org/ [1] http://www.scaledagileframework.com/ http://www.scaledagileframework.com/

feverdream 9y ago
Can you elaborate on why you don't like SAFe? I'm really curious to hear your thoughts.
- hnrodey 9y ago
  I'm interested as well. 2012/2013ish I was a consultant at Org A that deemed themselves "agile" - in reality a very highly functional agile organization. I've yet to see anything quite like what that org had going for them. Current company, we literally just implemented SAFe and now that I'm learning the ins and outs of that ... Org A was either SAFe before SAFe was cool or even existed or they are the Satoshi for SAFe. The similarities between what I see preached in SAFe versus Org A are scarily similar and when implemented - highly successful.
- JimDabell 9y ago
  It's difficult to explain succinctly. SAFe is the embodiment of the kind of enterprise bureaucracy that agile was rejecting. Take a look at the principles espoused by the Agile Manifesto: * Individuals and interactions over processes and tools * Working software over comprehensive documentation * Customer collaboration over contract negotiation * Responding to change over following a plan Now imagine what the exact opposite of this would look like, and then take a look at SAFe.
petepete 9y ago
I've seen that SAFe for Lean Enterprises image before, honestly thought it was satire.
- 33W 9y ago
  Along with the Afghanistan Strategy image: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/2009/December/091202/091203-engel-big-9a.jpg http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/2009/Dece...
dragonwriter 9y ago
SAFe both directly incorporated process evaluation and improvement and recognizes that the process starting point appropriate to different orgs in different tasks is different, and even in its framework doesn't dictate low-level team process though it describes what process combinations are common, so it seems to, as much as a canned starting-point process can be, be a fairly robust concrete implementation of Agile Manifesto values (it's arguably, though, more Lean than Agile, though I'd argue Lean’s focus on well-defined processes with continuous, team-involved evaluation and improvement is the best operationalization of the Agile Manifesto’s “individual and interactions over processes and tools” (remembering that the Manifesto’s “over” statements are explicitly about priority, not one thing instead of the other.)
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Most of the concepts in that diagram are in direct contradiction of the agile manifesto. For example, a scrum master is supposed to ensure a team follows agreed processes, in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools A scrum master is someone running around dictating that everyone stick to processes. Usually that were "agreed" by management (i.e. dictated)[1]. This is also in direct contradiction to several of the principles. I also love how the customer is shoved in the top right of the diagram, as far, far, far away from the developers as possible. Agile value 3: Customer collaboration over contract negotiation [1] Scrum itself is so far from agile and in direct contradiction of the principles I have no idea how they managed to convince everyone it's an agile methodology.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > For example, a scrum master is supposed to ensure a team follows agreed processes Ok. > in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto: > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools But its not in contradiction. Agreed processes are the outcome of individuals and interactions, not dictates from authority external to the team. The individuals and interactions are superior to, and directing, the processes and tools; that is consistent with the line quoted from the Agile Manifesto, especially when considered with the line everyone forgets that immediately follows the "X over Y" statements: "That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more." The Manifesto is not calling for rejecting clear, well-defined processes in favor of chaos. Its calling for making process serve the team rather than vice versa.

feverdream 9y ago

Can you elaborate on why you don't like SAFe? I'm really curious to hear your thoughts.

hnrodey 9y ago
I'm interested as well. 2012/2013ish I was a consultant at Org A that deemed themselves "agile" - in reality a very highly functional agile organization. I've yet to see anything quite like what that org had going for them. Current company, we literally just implemented SAFe and now that I'm learning the ins and outs of that ... Org A was either SAFe before SAFe was cool or even existed or they are the Satoshi for SAFe. The similarities between what I see preached in SAFe versus Org A are scarily similar and when implemented - highly successful.
JimDabell 9y ago
It's difficult to explain succinctly. SAFe is the embodiment of the kind of enterprise bureaucracy that agile was rejecting. Take a look at the principles espoused by the Agile Manifesto: * Individuals and interactions over processes and tools * Working software over comprehensive documentation * Customer collaboration over contract negotiation * Responding to change over following a plan Now imagine what the exact opposite of this would look like, and then take a look at SAFe.

petepete 9y ago

I've seen that SAFe for Lean Enterprises image before, honestly thought it was satire.

33W 9y ago
Along with the Afghanistan Strategy image: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/2009/December/091202/091203-engel-big-9a.jpg http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/2009/Dece...

dragonwriter 9y ago

SAFe both directly incorporated process evaluation and improvement and recognizes that the process starting point appropriate to different orgs in different tasks is different, and even in its framework doesn't dictate low-level team process though it describes what process combinations are common, so it seems to, as much as a canned starting-point process can be, be a fairly robust concrete implementation of Agile Manifesto values (it's arguably, though, more Lean than Agile, though I'd argue Lean’s focus on well-defined processes with continuous, team-involved evaluation and improvement is the best operationalization of the Agile Manifesto’s “individual and interactions over processes and tools” (remembering that the Manifesto’s “over” statements are explicitly about priority, not one thing instead of the other.)

mattmanser 9y ago
Most of the concepts in that diagram are in direct contradiction of the agile manifesto. For example, a scrum master is supposed to ensure a team follows agreed processes, in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools A scrum master is someone running around dictating that everyone stick to processes. Usually that were "agreed" by management (i.e. dictated)[1]. This is also in direct contradiction to several of the principles. I also love how the customer is shoved in the top right of the diagram, as far, far, far away from the developers as possible. Agile value 3: Customer collaboration over contract negotiation [1] Scrum itself is so far from agile and in direct contradiction of the principles I have no idea how they managed to convince everyone it's an agile methodology.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > For example, a scrum master is supposed to ensure a team follows agreed processes Ok. > in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto: > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools But its not in contradiction. Agreed processes are the outcome of individuals and interactions, not dictates from authority external to the team. The individuals and interactions are superior to, and directing, the processes and tools; that is consistent with the line quoted from the Agile Manifesto, especially when considered with the line everyone forgets that immediately follows the "X over Y" statements: "That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more." The Manifesto is not calling for rejecting clear, well-defined processes in favor of chaos. Its calling for making process serve the team rather than vice versa.