5 ms·

Can't upvote this enough times. Time and time again you see this: people say "I hate agile because of X, Y and Z" where X, Y, and Z - at best - are orthogonal t

Can't upvote this enough times. Time and time again you see this: people say "I hate agile because of X, Y and Z" where X, Y, and Z - at best - are orthogonal to the idea of Agile, and at worst (and perhaps even "ordinarily") are complete anathema to the spirit of Agile. Sorry, but anybody who thinks Agile is about velocity, story points, planning poker, standups, retrospectives, backlog grooming, etc. has been sold a bill of goods. Now that's not to say that those things don't have (some) value. But they aren't "the thing" about Agile. Not even close.

peteradio 4y ago
But if you are joining an Agile shop what do you get on average?
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Fauxgile.
  - roundandround 4y ago
    And every time communism meets the real world we call the required modifications state capitalism.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      I thought it was called the welfare state, or social democracy.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Scrum
    - fijiaarone 4y ago
      Jira
selestify 4y ago
What is actually Agile then, and how does one actually practice it?
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  agilemanifesto.org Constant reflection and drive towards faster feedback. XP or if I squint Scrum can be a starting point, but you gotta adapt to the individuals on the team and the characteristics of the type of problem you are solving.
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  It's a methodology that makes software more resilient to the changing needs of the business. Anything that violates the 12 canonical principles[0] should be thrown out - and this has to be determined by each org. individually. [0] https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
- mindcrime 4y ago
  /u/lr4444lr and /u/ajmurmann nailed it. "Agile" is just what the Agile Manifesto says. Strictly speaking, "Agile" in and of itself isn't even a methodology - it's just a set of principles, to which a number of concrete methodologies claim some association. They differ in the degree to which they faithfully represent the spirit of the manifesto. So really, you're never "doing Agile". You're "doing $X" where $X can be Scrum, XP, Crystal, AgileUP, SAFe, or whatever. At most companies what you get, in my experience, is a bastardized version of Scrum cobbled together by somebody who has never actually developed software, took a couple of Scrum classes (maybe), paid too much money for some "help" from some "Agile coaches", and is hoping some of the resulting shit will stick to the wall. FWIW, I've actually had the pleasure of working at company that did Scrum and really did it well, and it was honestly a great experience. Actual Scrum, as documented in the Scrum Guide, isn't bad. The problem is when people take base Scrum and start tacking on additional shit (see: "agile coaches" and "agile consultants") and wind up with a bureaucratic / kafka-esque tarpit of interminable meetings, ceremonies, and artifacts. In other words, pretty much exactly what the Agile Manifesto stood against in the first place.
  - 4y ago
lelanthran 4y ago
> Sorry, but anybody who thinks Agile is about velocity, story points, planning poker, standups, retrospectives, backlog grooming, etc. has been sold a bill of goods. Now that's not to say that those things don't have (some) value. Spot on. You and parent have hit the two points that matter: 1. Agile is about removing impediments to productivity 2. velocity, story points, planning poker, standups, retrospectives, backlog grooming, etc are all, in some way, impediments to productivity (even if they do have some value). I think the real reason you cannot have real agile is because businesses don't run in a way that is compatible with agile, so over time all processes within a business will evolve to match how the business itself functions.
- garethrowlands 4y ago
  Strong agree. Except it's not even really about productivity, it's about outcomes. The productivity is only important insofar as it achieves the outcomes. The ideal agile process would have the team on the golf course or in the spa but still changing the world (any suggestions on achieving this, gratefully accepted, as always).
- mindcrime 4y ago
  I think the real reason you cannot have real agile is because businesses don't run in a way that is compatible with agile, so over time all processes within a business will evolve to match how the business itself functions. Sadly, I think you are correct. It's very hard, at best, to make "the business" operate in a way that's truly compatible with the agile approach on the tech side. :-( I won't say it's impossible, but it's definitely not easy.
- t43562 4y ago
  Yes, the business leadership almost always put an impossible waterfall approach ontop - they don't adapt to change at all well and are not really leading. For me the value in Agile is what we end up NOT doing - we never get to that shit because in the end it's not that important. So we never waste time doing it.
- jimbomins 4y ago
  "removing impediments" - just sounds like good managers in any process. Bad managers often are an impediment.

peteradio 4y ago

But if you are joining an Agile shop what do you get on average?

mpweiher 4y ago
Fauxgile.
- roundandround 4y ago
  And every time communism meets the real world we call the required modifications state capitalism.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    I thought it was called the welfare state, or social democracy.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Scrum
  - fijiaarone 4y ago
    Jira

selestify 4y ago

What is actually Agile then, and how does one actually practice it?

ajmurmann 4y ago
agilemanifesto.org Constant reflection and drive towards faster feedback. XP or if I squint Scrum can be a starting point, but you gotta adapt to the individuals on the team and the characteristics of the type of problem you are solving.
lr4444lr 4y ago
It's a methodology that makes software more resilient to the changing needs of the business. Anything that violates the 12 canonical principles[0] should be thrown out - and this has to be determined by each org. individually. [0] https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
mindcrime 4y ago
/u/lr4444lr and /u/ajmurmann nailed it. "Agile" is just what the Agile Manifesto says. Strictly speaking, "Agile" in and of itself isn't even a methodology - it's just a set of principles, to which a number of concrete methodologies claim some association. They differ in the degree to which they faithfully represent the spirit of the manifesto. So really, you're never "doing Agile". You're "doing $X" where $X can be Scrum, XP, Crystal, AgileUP, SAFe, or whatever. At most companies what you get, in my experience, is a bastardized version of Scrum cobbled together by somebody who has never actually developed software, took a couple of Scrum classes (maybe), paid too much money for some "help" from some "Agile coaches", and is hoping some of the resulting shit will stick to the wall. FWIW, I've actually had the pleasure of working at company that did Scrum and really did it well, and it was honestly a great experience. Actual Scrum, as documented in the Scrum Guide, isn't bad. The problem is when people take base Scrum and start tacking on additional shit (see: "agile coaches" and "agile consultants") and wind up with a bureaucratic / kafka-esque tarpit of interminable meetings, ceremonies, and artifacts. In other words, pretty much exactly what the Agile Manifesto stood against in the first place.
- 4y ago

lelanthran 4y ago

> Sorry, but anybody who thinks Agile is about velocity, story points, planning poker, standups, retrospectives, backlog grooming, etc. has been sold a bill of goods. Now that's not to say that those things don't have (some) value. Spot on. You and parent have hit the two points that matter: 1. Agile is about removing impediments to productivity 2. velocity, story points, planning poker, standups, retrospectives, backlog grooming, etc are all, in some way, impediments to productivity (even if they do have some value). I think the real reason you cannot have real agile is because businesses don't run in a way that is compatible with agile, so over time all processes within a business will evolve to match how the business itself functions.

garethrowlands 4y ago
Strong agree. Except it's not even really about productivity, it's about outcomes. The productivity is only important insofar as it achieves the outcomes. The ideal agile process would have the team on the golf course or in the spa but still changing the world (any suggestions on achieving this, gratefully accepted, as always).
mindcrime 4y ago
I think the real reason you cannot have real agile is because businesses don't run in a way that is compatible with agile, so over time all processes within a business will evolve to match how the business itself functions. Sadly, I think you are correct. It's very hard, at best, to make "the business" operate in a way that's truly compatible with the agile approach on the tech side. :-( I won't say it's impossible, but it's definitely not easy.
t43562 4y ago
Yes, the business leadership almost always put an impossible waterfall approach ontop - they don't adapt to change at all well and are not really leading. For me the value in Agile is what we end up NOT doing - we never get to that shit because in the end it's not that important. So we never waste time doing it.
jimbomins 4y ago
"removing impediments" - just sounds like good managers in any process. Bad managers often are an impediment.