3 ms·

I've been thinking recently about tradeoffs between (agility / resilience / adaptability) and (efficiency). It seems to me that so many orgs' attempts to adopt

I've been thinking recently about tradeoffs between (agility / resilience / adaptability) and (efficiency). It seems to me that so many orgs' attempts to adopt "Agile" practices are motivated by a desire for increased efficiency per se. Which seems paradoxical. I'm not trying to get into a "one true Scotsman" debate about what Agile really means, but what I keep seeing is an overemphasis on process that runs counter to the heart of the manifesto. IMHO that's the crux of a lot of dysfunction. V. interested in others' thoughts here.

qznc 6y ago
In my opinion [0] Agile improves time to market (latency) at the cost of process efficiency (throughput). If you adopt Scrum to improve efficiency (maybe calling it velocity), then you are using the wrong approach. It will certainly not improve efficiency. Worse, by pushing Scrum to improve efficiency, Scrum loses all its advantages. This leads to the common result nothing changes. [0] http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/cost_of_agile.html http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/cost_of_agile.html
- Spearchucker 6y ago
  Why value efficiency and not quality? Remeber Deming (1)? Result of work effort quality = ----------------------- Total cost When focus is on quality, quality rises and costs fall. When focus is cost, costs rise and quality falls. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming