4 ms·

> However, while the Agile Manifesto might have its problems, those stem more from its implementation rather than the principles themselves. Is the author an A

> However, while the Agile Manifesto might have its problems, those stem more from its implementation rather than the principles themselves. Is the author an Agile coach? This is the classic response when people observe that Agile has failed to transform their team: you're doing it wrong, the problem is you. When systems seem good in theory but tend to fail in practice, you should just try to learn what you can from them and move on to the next thing.

hk1337 2y ago
Honestly, 99% of the time people are doing it wrong. People are either too strict with it or too "loosey goosey" with it. *EDIT* It doesn't have to be correct, it just has to work for the people on the team. If it works, then use it, if it doesn't then change it. That's agile.
- fook-dang 2y ago
  [flagged]
- crowcroft 2y ago
  If people can only ever get into the goldilocks 'not too strict, not too loose zone' 1% of the time, then it the process is by default not fit for purpose in almost any circumstance. Likely the 1% of the time it works is the rare case that you have a small and exceptional team working together, in which case the project management methodology is unlikely the reason they are working well.
  - hk1337 2y ago
    You don't have to, just find what works for your team and use it. It may not be perfect or exactly how it is supposed to be but if it works then use it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- karaterobot 2y ago
  What would be the Agile approach to a process with a 1% success rate?
  - trickstra 2y ago
    Have the team reflect and come up with a better process, or they will be disbanded. Give them any and all the resources they ask for.
    - karaterobot 2y ago
      So, not tell them that they're doing the process wrong? Weird.
      - trickstra 2y ago
        No, they need to come up with that on their own. What exactly "wrong" means? And why do you think you know it better than them? What if they find some better way that you didn't know about? Agile says that it needs to be sustainable also for the sponsors. Show the team that if the sponsor isn't able to sustain the next sprint, there won't be a next sprint. The process is up to them.
pydry 2y ago
That certainly applies to Scrum but agile is more of a religion than a system. It's a bunch of extremely vague "principles" whose meaning is often anyone's guess. What constitutes agile is basically a matter of opinion.
thaanpaa 2y ago
No, it really is true. Agile is widely misunderstood. The way scrum is implemented in 90+% of the cases is a complete mockery of what it was supposed to be. A lot of coaches completely miss the mark as well. And the fundamental problem is that agile is completely incompatible with the way most enterprises are built. A truly agile team talks to the users of the product, and they have complete control and responsibility over the development process. That just doesn't happen because managers want to manage, and as much as developers would like freedom, they'd often rather not have the responsibility.
- lpapez 2y ago
  > The way scrum is implemented in 90+% of the cases is a complete mockery of what it was supposed to be. Can you really say it is misunderstood if 90+% of people are "doing it wrong"? Is it a useful thinking framework if there is a 90+% chance of "getting it wrong"? I would NEVER buy a tool which advertised only a 10% success chance, so why are we falling for scrum?
  - yobbo 2y ago
    Phrasing it as "doing it wrong" misses the mark. They want the name (scrum, agile ...) without paying for it through the reorganization the would be necessary.
  - projektfu 2y ago
    Electric cars have electric motors. So if you attach an electric motor to an F150 without removing the gas engine, you have an electric car. And it has terrible gas mileage.
  - thaanpaa 2y ago
    Yes, it's misunderstood. A lot of us were doing some form of agile before someone came up with the word agile. I'll give you an example: Imagine the process of creating a retro video game. First, you might write a function that clears the screen. Next, you'll get something simple drawn. Maybe just a simple block. Then you write a function that allows you to move the block with a controller. Then you swap the block with some sort of character animation. Next, you'll write a routine to draw girders. Then you'll implement gravity. Etc., etc. You'll just keep iterating until you have a well-balanced and engaging game. That's agile. You may have had a lot of the game designed beforehand, or none. In fact, you could even create the game design documents with the same method. Make a quick first draft, get feedback, make adjustments, and repeat. And then keep going back to it whenever you notice something doesn't work or some better idea comes along during the course of development. Originally, agile had nothing to do with rigid meeting schedules. Or "adapting to changes," or whichever buzzwords people like to throw around.
Sammi 2y ago
If a process fails most of the time, then the process is wrong. You can't keep blaming the implementors.
- sambazi 2y ago
  at some point ppl have to acknowledge the differences between a screw and a nail and that a hammer is just not suited for both

hk1337 2y ago

Honestly, 99% of the time people are doing it wrong. People are either too strict with it or too "loosey goosey" with it. *EDIT* It doesn't have to be correct, it just has to work for the people on the team. If it works, then use it, if it doesn't then change it. That's agile.

fook-dang 2y ago
[flagged]
crowcroft 2y ago
If people can only ever get into the goldilocks 'not too strict, not too loose zone' 1% of the time, then it the process is by default not fit for purpose in almost any circumstance. Likely the 1% of the time it works is the rare case that you have a small and exceptional team working together, in which case the project management methodology is unlikely the reason they are working well.
- hk1337 2y ago
  You don't have to, just find what works for your team and use it. It may not be perfect or exactly how it is supposed to be but if it works then use it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
karaterobot 2y ago
What would be the Agile approach to a process with a 1% success rate?
- trickstra 2y ago
  Have the team reflect and come up with a better process, or they will be disbanded. Give them any and all the resources they ask for.
  - karaterobot 2y ago
    So, not tell them that they're doing the process wrong? Weird.
    - trickstra 2y ago
      No, they need to come up with that on their own. What exactly "wrong" means? And why do you think you know it better than them? What if they find some better way that you didn't know about? Agile says that it needs to be sustainable also for the sponsors. Show the team that if the sponsor isn't able to sustain the next sprint, there won't be a next sprint. The process is up to them.

pydry 2y ago

That certainly applies to Scrum but agile is more of a religion than a system. It's a bunch of extremely vague "principles" whose meaning is often anyone's guess. What constitutes agile is basically a matter of opinion.

thaanpaa 2y ago

No, it really is true. Agile is widely misunderstood. The way scrum is implemented in 90+% of the cases is a complete mockery of what it was supposed to be. A lot of coaches completely miss the mark as well. And the fundamental problem is that agile is completely incompatible with the way most enterprises are built. A truly agile team talks to the users of the product, and they have complete control and responsibility over the development process. That just doesn't happen because managers want to manage, and as much as developers would like freedom, they'd often rather not have the responsibility.

lpapez 2y ago
> The way scrum is implemented in 90+% of the cases is a complete mockery of what it was supposed to be. Can you really say it is misunderstood if 90+% of people are "doing it wrong"? Is it a useful thinking framework if there is a 90+% chance of "getting it wrong"? I would NEVER buy a tool which advertised only a 10% success chance, so why are we falling for scrum?
- yobbo 2y ago
  Phrasing it as "doing it wrong" misses the mark. They want the name (scrum, agile ...) without paying for it through the reorganization the would be necessary.
- projektfu 2y ago
  Electric cars have electric motors. So if you attach an electric motor to an F150 without removing the gas engine, you have an electric car. And it has terrible gas mileage.
- thaanpaa 2y ago
  Yes, it's misunderstood. A lot of us were doing some form of agile before someone came up with the word agile. I'll give you an example: Imagine the process of creating a retro video game. First, you might write a function that clears the screen. Next, you'll get something simple drawn. Maybe just a simple block. Then you write a function that allows you to move the block with a controller. Then you swap the block with some sort of character animation. Next, you'll write a routine to draw girders. Then you'll implement gravity. Etc., etc. You'll just keep iterating until you have a well-balanced and engaging game. That's agile. You may have had a lot of the game designed beforehand, or none. In fact, you could even create the game design documents with the same method. Make a quick first draft, get feedback, make adjustments, and repeat. And then keep going back to it whenever you notice something doesn't work or some better idea comes along during the course of development. Originally, agile had nothing to do with rigid meeting schedules. Or "adapting to changes," or whichever buzzwords people like to throw around.

Sammi 2y ago

If a process fails most of the time, then the process is wrong. You can't keep blaming the implementors.

sambazi 2y ago
at some point ppl have to acknowledge the differences between a screw and a nail and that a hammer is just not suited for both