3 ms·
>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 integr
by 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 agoChanging 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.