4 ms·

I’ve recently found myself thinking a lot about the coercibility of ideologies as an intrinsic property of the ideology. Agile software development is certainly

I’ve recently found myself thinking a lot about the coercibility of ideologies as an intrinsic property of the ideology. Agile software development is certainly as much and ideology as it is a methodology, and it seems particularly susceptible to coercion. I know people who love it and who hate it, and they almost all have one thing in common: the all disagree about what it actually is. Personally, I think it’s clear and I am a huge fan of the espoused principles, but I feel like those same principles are constantly misinterpreted by people. Of course, maybe it’s me. Or maybe the Agile Manifesto is simply broad enough and vague enough that everyone interprets it the way they want

Lerc 4y ago
I'm not a fan of Agile for precisely the reason you give. If the principles are constantly misinterpreted, it exists as name without an anchor. I have encountered advocates of Agile who say that other people only say they use Agile but don't really use Agile. They are keen to point at successes an say "look They're using Agile" and failures as people who said they were using Agile but weren't really. You can't point to the foundational document because advocates will claim that Agile has evolved since then. It is unfalsifiable in the sense that no mater what critique you have, it can be avoided by using the shifting definition. The article here talks about Cargo Cult Agile, but the people doing that Agile don't believe it to be a Cargo Cult phenomenon. Who is the Author to claim that their view is the ground truth? Declaring that there are large groups using the name without the principles is the akin saying "My principles are less popular than you might think" It has gotten to the point that I don't believe the name is meaningful unless it as a Tribal identifier. To be frank I would like the name to go away completely. The principles should be able to stand on their own merit, people should be free to take the things that work for them. There is no need to Proper Nounify ideas other than to show you are talking about the same thing. For Agile, that ship has sailed.
- tacitusarc 4y ago
  I think that’s similar to what Dave Thomas talks about here https://youtu.be/a-BOSpxYJ9M https://youtu.be/a-BOSpxYJ9M

Lerc 4y ago

I'm not a fan of Agile for precisely the reason you give. If the principles are constantly misinterpreted, it exists as name without an anchor. I have encountered advocates of Agile who say that other people only say they use Agile but don't really use Agile. They are keen to point at successes an say "look They're using Agile" and failures as people who said they were using Agile but weren't really. You can't point to the foundational document because advocates will claim that Agile has evolved since then. It is unfalsifiable in the sense that no mater what critique you have, it can be avoided by using the shifting definition. The article here talks about Cargo Cult Agile, but the people doing that Agile don't believe it to be a Cargo Cult phenomenon. Who is the Author to claim that their view is the ground truth? Declaring that there are large groups using the name without the principles is the akin saying "My principles are less popular than you might think" It has gotten to the point that I don't believe the name is meaningful unless it as a Tribal identifier. To be frank I would like the name to go away completely. The principles should be able to stand on their own merit, people should be free to take the things that work for them. There is no need to Proper Nounify ideas other than to show you are talking about the same thing. For Agile, that ship has sailed.

tacitusarc 4y ago
I think that’s similar to what Dave Thomas talks about here https://youtu.be/a-BOSpxYJ9M https://youtu.be/a-BOSpxYJ9M