3 ms·
> The difference is that many people have worked on highly functional "real agile" teams and can tell the tale. Sure, but is it really the "agility" or the peo
by stanferder 7y ago
> The difference is that many people have worked on highly functional "real agile" teams and can tell the tale.
Sure, but is it really the "agility" or the people making the difference?
The highly functional teams I've worked on either ignored or satirized the elements of Agile development (e.g. the "story" format, story points, any sincere effort at estimation poker) to get out of those discussions as quickly as possible. This probably bears some similarity to how the original "Agile" developers dealt with the preceding methodologies.
- meheleventyone 7y agoBoth these things are directly written in the Agile principles. “Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.” “At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.” So based on your description those teams were Agile in the sense meant by the manifesto.
- BurningFrog 7y agoYou know, that is a fair point! The great Agile teams I was on had really good people on them. So, sure, they might have done great work in other environments. Then again, this was the methodology they chose. It also sounds like the teams you describe picked their own way of developing, which, in a Big Picture sense, is all the Agile Manifesto says: Let the team control their own work, and get out of the way. Which, in a lawyerly and annoying, but still kinda true way, makes that team agile too :)