4 ms·

That's just not true. See here: https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html All of these statements are about optimis

That's just not true. See here: https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html All of these statements are about optimising the development feedback loop: > early and continuous delivery of valuable software. > Welcome changing requirements, even late in > Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage. > Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale. > The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation. > At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

pydry 5y ago
Feedback isnt mentioned. Loops arent mentioned. I do appreciate that your interpretation is one possible interpretation of the above but it isnt the only one. You can also interpret it as develop as fast as possible, avoiding any kind of development guardrails, keeping no docs and being ok with 150 page requirements word documents that will become outdated tomorrow. I wish this were me being disingenuous in interpretation but IME it's not all that uncommon.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  rapid responsive change to changing requirements implicitly requires a tight feedback loop.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Sustainably, yes. Ive seen it mean cut corners and a rapid build up in technical debt just as if not more often. The agile principles now stick in my craw as a result. I kind of wish agile DID emphasize feedback loops but it doesnt. A set of principles that waggle their eyes and hints suggestively at feedback loops isnt good enough IMHO.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Yes, that does happen, but the agile manifesto addresses sustainability too: > Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. Agile development is massively misinterpreted, but this is on purpose. Actual agile development promotes bottom-up structure and rejects the types of process that generate metrics that corporate types can use to maintain control. Thus it will never appear in its real form in enterprise companies. Cybernetic organisation is inherently anti-authoritarian, and corporations are inherently authoritarian, so this is an inevitable and largely insurmountable conflict. I'm honestly surprised that Toyota was willing and able to implement lean manufacturing, agile development's predecessor, given it places trust and authority in the hands of factory workers.
      - pydry 5y ago
        >Agile development is massively misinterpreted, but this is on purpose I dont believe it is. It's just a result of its intrinsic vagueness and everybody integrating it into their belief systems. Furthermore, I think it was left deliberately vague enough to allow people from the CEO down to the lowliest programmer project their (potentially conflicting) desires on to it because thats how you drum up consulting business. >Actual agile development promotes bottom-up structure and rejects the types of process that generate metrics that corporate types can use to maintain control. You could argue that people over process means that but as with all agile principles it's not the only valid interpretation. It's also the opposite of what scrum does but...apparently most people agree thats agile? Dont get me wrong i think your view of what agile "should be" and mine are closely aligned I just think it needs its own name "x" to avoid all the baggage (e.g. it should not be possible to consider scrum "x").
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        Changing the name of things will not prevent the process of recuperation, which is what I'm saying happened to the concept of agile. Any idea can be "reinterpreted" to remove its more radical parts. I mean hell, cybernetics itself has been recuperated into management consulting since the 80s, hence all the references to synergy and portmanteau words like imaginnovation or whatever - and cybernetics are at the core of the type of "agile" we both approve of. There is no convincing CEOs with words to hand power over to employees, regardless of whether it improves productivity or not.

pydry 5y ago

Feedback isnt mentioned. Loops arent mentioned. I do appreciate that your interpretation is one possible interpretation of the above but it isnt the only one. You can also interpret it as develop as fast as possible, avoiding any kind of development guardrails, keeping no docs and being ok with 150 page requirements word documents that will become outdated tomorrow. I wish this were me being disingenuous in interpretation but IME it's not all that uncommon.

beaconstudios 5y ago
rapid responsive change to changing requirements implicitly requires a tight feedback loop.
- pydry 5y ago
  Sustainably, yes. Ive seen it mean cut corners and a rapid build up in technical debt just as if not more often. The agile principles now stick in my craw as a result. I kind of wish agile DID emphasize feedback loops but it doesnt. A set of principles that waggle their eyes and hints suggestively at feedback loops isnt good enough IMHO.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Yes, that does happen, but the agile manifesto addresses sustainability too: > Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. Agile development is massively misinterpreted, but this is on purpose. Actual agile development promotes bottom-up structure and rejects the types of process that generate metrics that corporate types can use to maintain control. Thus it will never appear in its real form in enterprise companies. Cybernetic organisation is inherently anti-authoritarian, and corporations are inherently authoritarian, so this is an inevitable and largely insurmountable conflict. I'm honestly surprised that Toyota was willing and able to implement lean manufacturing, agile development's predecessor, given it places trust and authority in the hands of factory workers.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >Agile development is massively misinterpreted, but this is on purpose I dont believe it is. It's just a result of its intrinsic vagueness and everybody integrating it into their belief systems. Furthermore, I think it was left deliberately vague enough to allow people from the CEO down to the lowliest programmer project their (potentially conflicting) desires on to it because thats how you drum up consulting business. >Actual agile development promotes bottom-up structure and rejects the types of process that generate metrics that corporate types can use to maintain control. You could argue that people over process means that but as with all agile principles it's not the only valid interpretation. It's also the opposite of what scrum does but...apparently most people agree thats agile? Dont get me wrong i think your view of what agile "should be" and mine are closely aligned I just think it needs its own name "x" to avoid all the baggage (e.g. it should not be possible to consider scrum "x").
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Changing the name of things will not prevent the process of recuperation, which is what I'm saying happened to the concept of agile. Any idea can be "reinterpreted" to remove its more radical parts. I mean hell, cybernetics itself has been recuperated into management consulting since the 80s, hence all the references to synergy and portmanteau words like imaginnovation or whatever - and cybernetics are at the core of the type of "agile" we both approve of. There is no convincing CEOs with words to hand power over to employees, regardless of whether it improves productivity or not.