3 ms·

My Grand Unifying Theory of Explaining Agile Proselytizers™ is "if it's not working, you're doing it wrong". True Agile always works. Oh, and it has more-freq

by Groxx 7y ago

My Grand Unifying Theory of Explaining Agile Proselytizers™ is "if it's not working, you're doing it wrong". True Agile always works. Oh, and it has more-frequent check-ins/iterations than Waterfall (which is the defining aspect of Waterfall: fewer check-ins/iterations than Agile). The actual frequency is undefined, it exists only in comparison to Waterfall. --- The problem is that that kind of stance does nothing but fluff up agile consultant's resumes. It doesn't actually lead to improvements that last, or even discussion that might lead to improvements. Agile is perfect because it's Agile.

collyw 7y ago
This makes me smile so much. As I have commented before no one can actually agree what Agile is. someone always says it doesn't work for them. Someone always replies with "your doing it wrong" with absolutely no indication of how to do it right. Thankfully the agile trend seems to be left out of interview questions these days. "Do you do Agile?" - "What do you define as Agile?" -"Does anyone NOT do agile?" -"Do you think it actually makes a difference?" would be the responses that cam to mind. Apparently I didn't get a job based on a variation of the last one. They thought I would be difficult to work with.
- walshemj 7y ago
  The answer is YES I have, the more interesting Q is what sort of agile does your company do or more to the point "says it does vs reality".
dragonwriter 7y ago
> My Grand Unifying Theory of Explaining Agile Proselytizers™ is "if it's not working, you're doing it wrong". If it's not working, but you keep trying to do it the same way (whether because management tells you to or because a book or consultant does), you are doing it wrong. Because Agile is very little except the team continuously adapting process based on observation of what does and doesn't work for them. (Waterfall can be Agile, but only if it is waterfall adopted because the team views it as the best way to deliver working software in their particular circumstance and is continuously open to reevaluating that conclusion based on evidence. Agile isn't opposed to waterfall but to the way Waterfall was imposed. Which is also the way Scrum and variants are now frequently imposed, producing the same kinds of problems of process/problem fit.)
- Jtsummers 7y ago
  I suspect one of the key things missing in most people's understanding is that agile is part of the "continuous process improvement" camp. It is a set of principles, values, and practices which should be examined, in addition to the work being produced, and improved over time. Sterman's book Business Dynamics has a great diagram that I think is relevant (I saw it there, but it's probably in other books on system dynamics and related fields). I'll attempt to ascii art it here: Mental model -> Strategy/Structure/Decision Rules | v Decisions ^ \ / \ / v Information <----- Real World Feedback That is most people's and organization's view of the world. They have a model, they develop strategies (practices, methods), then they implement them. Feedback from the real world informs their next decision, but they don't go back and reevaluate the initial model and strategy. A learning organization, continuous improvement, agile, whatever you want adds an additional loop. The information feedback gets pushed back into the mental model: Mental model -> Strategy/Structure/Decision Rules ^ | | v | Decisions | ^ \ | / \ | / v Information <------ Real World Feedback The Agile Manifesto, in the twelfth principle, emphasizes this aspect: At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. This is not unique to agile, it is just emphasized in it. This is not a superfluous detail, this is actually critical, and commonly missed.

by Groxx 7y ago

collyw 7y ago

This makes me smile so much. As I have commented before no one can actually agree what Agile is. someone always says it doesn't work for them. Someone always replies with "your doing it wrong" with absolutely no indication of how to do it right. Thankfully the agile trend seems to be left out of interview questions these days. "Do you do Agile?" - "What do you define as Agile?" -"Does anyone NOT do agile?" -"Do you think it actually makes a difference?" would be the responses that cam to mind. Apparently I didn't get a job based on a variation of the last one. They thought I would be difficult to work with.

walshemj 7y ago
The answer is YES I have, the more interesting Q is what sort of agile does your company do or more to the point "says it does vs reality".

dragonwriter 7y ago

> My Grand Unifying Theory of Explaining Agile Proselytizers™ is "if it's not working, you're doing it wrong". If it's not working, but you keep trying to do it the same way (whether because management tells you to or because a book or consultant does), you are doing it wrong. Because Agile is very little except the team continuously adapting process based on observation of what does and doesn't work for them. (Waterfall can be Agile, but only if it is waterfall adopted because the team views it as the best way to deliver working software in their particular circumstance and is continuously open to reevaluating that conclusion based on evidence. Agile isn't opposed to waterfall but to the way Waterfall was imposed. Which is also the way Scrum and variants are now frequently imposed, producing the same kinds of problems of process/problem fit.)

Jtsummers 7y ago
I suspect one of the key things missing in most people's understanding is that agile is part of the "continuous process improvement" camp. It is a set of principles, values, and practices which should be examined, in addition to the work being produced, and improved over time. Sterman's book Business Dynamics has a great diagram that I think is relevant (I saw it there, but it's probably in other books on system dynamics and related fields). I'll attempt to ascii art it here: Mental model -> Strategy/Structure/Decision Rules | v Decisions ^ \ / \ / v Information <----- Real World Feedback That is most people's and organization's view of the world. They have a model, they develop strategies (practices, methods), then they implement them. Feedback from the real world informs their next decision, but they don't go back and reevaluate the initial model and strategy. A learning organization, continuous improvement, agile, whatever you want adds an additional loop. The information feedback gets pushed back into the mental model: Mental model -> Strategy/Structure/Decision Rules ^ | | v | Decisions | ^ \ | / \ | / v Information <------ Real World Feedback The Agile Manifesto, in the twelfth principle, emphasizes this aspect: At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. This is not unique to agile, it is just emphasized in it. This is not a superfluous detail, this is actually critical, and commonly missed.