4 ms·

> Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process The Agile manifesto specifically says "Individuals and interactions over

> Scrum/agile is exactly the same thing. The stricter and more documented the process The Agile manifesto specifically says "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools." If teams are forced to work in a certain way (e.g. scrum) then your organization isn't actually doing Agile.

naijaboiler 4y ago
I am tired of "you are doing Agile wrong" arguments. I hear it all the time. What's the point of a manifesto that only works when done perfectly right. A manifesto/process that isn't robust to imperfections has no role in a real world, which is always going to be imperfect
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  There's a difference between "doing something poorly" and "doing the exact opposite of something and claiming that you're doing it" Agile is robust because it ISN'T a strict process.
  - rzzzt 4y ago
    > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - and we have mandatory processes and tools to control how those individuals interact https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/
- Jenk 4y ago
  It's literally not a process yet you keep referring to it as one.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  What's the point of defining something that only works when you follow the definition? Are you really asking that? The problem with most uppercase Agile implementations isn't that they are slightly off from the manifesto, but because they completely ignore what the manifesto is trying to say.
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
I’ll make sure to pull that one out next time someone tells me we have to implement agile in our origination. Ideally we could avoid making any changes at all.
- LambdaComplex 4y ago
  The problem is that most management probably doesn't actually want Agile. The goal of Agile is building the right thing for the customer, which is done by having the people who do the work talk to the customer (frequently!) to see what their needs are and how their needs are being met by what they have already. The problem here is that this turns the organization from top-down to bottom-up. Those at the top of the company are now servant leaders who support those at the bottom, as opposed to people who give orders and tell those at the bottom what to do. The real problem with Agile is that managers are rarely willing to give up that power.
  - mbernstein 4y ago
    Management doesn't care if it's agile or not - they want something that works and delivers economic value for customers and will help them continue to innovate and deliver EVA for them in the future. One huge problem is that a lot of times, what people think is what the customer wants isn't what they want or need. One way that happens is sales brings asks (in the form of solutions often) to product and it goes downhill from there. Obviously, the people doing the work aren't talking with customers in that case, but it's tough to talk to customers in an enterprise environment. If you're doing something for a small external client or an internal team it's fine. In addition, customers aren't a monolith. When you reach sufficient size, you have competing priorities for customer needs and even some asks that work for one customer but break some sort of process for another. They can be mutually exclusive. This is also heavily predicated on the customer even knowing what they want. Everyone knows the famous Ford quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Agile is great but scaling it can be rough dependent on a lot of variables, so reducing it down to management probably doesn't like Agile due to inability to give up power (to me at least) is a bit too simple.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
valenterry 4y ago
Maybe. But "Scrum" and "Agile" are now mostly used exactly for what OP said. So it doesn't really matter what the original intention of the word was, unfortunately the meaning has changed.

naijaboiler 4y ago

I am tired of "you are doing Agile wrong" arguments. I hear it all the time. What's the point of a manifesto that only works when done perfectly right. A manifesto/process that isn't robust to imperfections has no role in a real world, which is always going to be imperfect

LambdaComplex 4y ago
There's a difference between "doing something poorly" and "doing the exact opposite of something and claiming that you're doing it" Agile is robust because it ISN'T a strict process.
- rzzzt 4y ago
  > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools - and we have mandatory processes and tools to control how those individuals interact https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/ https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org/
Jenk 4y ago
It's literally not a process yet you keep referring to it as one.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
What's the point of defining something that only works when you follow the definition? Are you really asking that? The problem with most uppercase Agile implementations isn't that they are slightly off from the manifesto, but because they completely ignore what the manifesto is trying to say.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

I’ll make sure to pull that one out next time someone tells me we have to implement agile in our origination. Ideally we could avoid making any changes at all.

LambdaComplex 4y ago
The problem is that most management probably doesn't actually want Agile. The goal of Agile is building the right thing for the customer, which is done by having the people who do the work talk to the customer (frequently!) to see what their needs are and how their needs are being met by what they have already. The problem here is that this turns the organization from top-down to bottom-up. Those at the top of the company are now servant leaders who support those at the bottom, as opposed to people who give orders and tell those at the bottom what to do. The real problem with Agile is that managers are rarely willing to give up that power.
- mbernstein 4y ago
  Management doesn't care if it's agile or not - they want something that works and delivers economic value for customers and will help them continue to innovate and deliver EVA for them in the future. One huge problem is that a lot of times, what people think is what the customer wants isn't what they want or need. One way that happens is sales brings asks (in the form of solutions often) to product and it goes downhill from there. Obviously, the people doing the work aren't talking with customers in that case, but it's tough to talk to customers in an enterprise environment. If you're doing something for a small external client or an internal team it's fine. In addition, customers aren't a monolith. When you reach sufficient size, you have competing priorities for customer needs and even some asks that work for one customer but break some sort of process for another. They can be mutually exclusive. This is also heavily predicated on the customer even knowing what they want. Everyone knows the famous Ford quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Agile is great but scaling it can be rough dependent on a lot of variables, so reducing it down to management probably doesn't like Agile due to inability to give up power (to me at least) is a bit too simple.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

valenterry 4y ago

Maybe. But "Scrum" and "Agile" are now mostly used exactly for what OP said. So it doesn't really matter what the original intention of the word was, unfortunately the meaning has changed.