3 ms·

In part one of this series (https://www.lambdacambridge.com/blog/2018-05-how-scrum-destroyed-agile https://www.lambdacambridge.com/blog/2018-05-how-scrum-destr.

In part one of this series (https://www.lambdacambridge.com/blog/2018-05-how-scrum-destroyed-agile https://www.lambdacambridge.com/blog/2018-05-how-scrum-destr...) I explain how technical craft was key in all the agile methodologies, except Scrum. So I think that was part of the thinking in the original manifesto, but not expressed at the time (fish don't perceive water?) I suppose you're right that Scrum is better than waterfall deathmarches, but I hope we can do even better.

pigleg 8y ago
You assert that technical craft was key I think by inferring the bent of the associated methodology of each the people involved? I don't agree, I think the main aim of agile was to solve the extreme dysfunction with the business-side and non-technical people, and there it has succeeded. (This is perhaps also reflected in your observation that XP interest has ebbed while scrum continues to climb in popularity.) Have you had a look at the context inthe history statement in the manifesto: http://agilemanifesto.org/history.html http://agilemanifesto.org/history.html Quotes from that: "At the core, I believe Agile Methodologists are really about "mushy" stuff—about delivering good products to customers by operating in an environment that does more than talk about "people as our most important asset" but actually "acts" as if people were the most important, and lose the word "asset". So in the final analysis, the meteoric rise of interest in—and sometimes tremendous criticism of—Agile Methodologies is about the mushy stuff of values and culture." "For example, I think that ultimately, Extreme Programming has mushroomed in use and interest, not because of pair-programming or refactoring, but because, taken as a whole, the practices define a developer community freed from the baggage of Dilbertesque corporations."
- Robin_Message 8y ago
  Fair enough, I agree that avoiding the baggage of Dilbertesque (great word!) corporations was key. My point was just that all the methods except agile had explicit technical requirements. XP required TDD and pair programming which was incredibly extreme at the time (and still is fairly out there). These were people meeting up at OOPSLA. They were programmers' programmers. I absolutely think craft and technical quality was important to them. I think it was so intrinsically important that they didn't express it clearly in the manifesto. But I could be wrong; I wasn't there!

pigleg 8y ago

You assert that technical craft was key I think by inferring the bent of the associated methodology of each the people involved? I don't agree, I think the main aim of agile was to solve the extreme dysfunction with the business-side and non-technical people, and there it has succeeded. (This is perhaps also reflected in your observation that XP interest has ebbed while scrum continues to climb in popularity.) Have you had a look at the context inthe history statement in the manifesto: http://agilemanifesto.org/history.html http://agilemanifesto.org/history.html Quotes from that: "At the core, I believe Agile Methodologists are really about "mushy" stuff—about delivering good products to customers by operating in an environment that does more than talk about "people as our most important asset" but actually "acts" as if people were the most important, and lose the word "asset". So in the final analysis, the meteoric rise of interest in—and sometimes tremendous criticism of—Agile Methodologies is about the mushy stuff of values and culture." "For example, I think that ultimately, Extreme Programming has mushroomed in use and interest, not because of pair-programming or refactoring, but because, taken as a whole, the practices define a developer community freed from the baggage of Dilbertesque corporations."

Robin_Message 8y ago
Fair enough, I agree that avoiding the baggage of Dilbertesque (great word!) corporations was key. My point was just that all the methods except agile had explicit technical requirements. XP required TDD and pair programming which was incredibly extreme at the time (and still is fairly out there). These were people meeting up at OOPSLA. They were programmers' programmers. I absolutely think craft and technical quality was important to them. I think it was so intrinsically important that they didn't express it clearly in the manifesto. But I could be wrong; I wasn't there!