5 ms·

My favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”. If a team adopts agile (in any variation) and doesn’t like it, the Agi

My favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”. If a team adopts agile (in any variation) and doesn’t like it, the Agile defenders will appear and argue that the team wasn’t actually doing agile. Agile is defined as the process that works, so if it didn’t work it couldn’t have been agile. If only you read The Agile Manifesto you would understand!

locknitpicker 7mo ago
> My favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”. What compels you to believe it isn't? I mean, read the Agile Manifesto. All it does is basically define a set of values and principles. Things like "customer comes first" or "we welcome changes in requirements" or "software must be delivered frequently". What leads you to believe Agile implies a fixed set of precise, rigid rules?
- strangegecko 7mo ago
  The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build. My thoughts when PE forced Agile on my employer were dismissed as "you're the technical expert, we're the process experts". As someone without decision power, you read words of empowerment but your reality is a different one, and you're left resolving that dissonance on your own (quietly, otherwise you get pushed aside).
  - madeofpalk 7mo ago
    This is the problem with 'Agile', and why people refer to it as "Capital-A Agile". As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. They want to stay in business, so they need to make sure they have something to sell. That's the dysfunction - a company that is forcing this laborious process on you, rather than giving teams the autonomy to figure out how they best work. Agile works best as a toolbox of practices you can adopt, mix, and match to solve whatever problems you have. Do you need to work to a fixed schedule, or provide delivery estimates? You should probably have a way to regularly estimate your work. Are you struggling to actually ship and do things? Maybe it would be useful to plan things on a smaller, more frequent cadence.
    - locknitpicker 7mo ago
      > As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. I would go as far as to claim the problem is middle management types, who feel pressured to adopt buzzwords and want to micromanage things to cultivate an image of control and progress to justify their role. It's the same type that brags about scrum but don't even bother to show in standup meetings.
  - locknitpicker 7mo ago
    > The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build. That would clearly be a problem that falls well inside the domain "you are not doing enough Agile". A key principle of Agile is literally "Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project." If a team suffers from that disconnect, it's failing Agile. More to the point, whatever they are doing is not working, and Agile would fix it.
- beAbU 7mo ago
  The fact that you spell agile with a capital "A" says all I need to know.
- pydry 7mo ago
  It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite. I actually think OP's criticisms apply mostly to Scrum. Scrum is well defined but its adherents' wont hear a critical word said about it. "You just werent doing it right" even when you were doing it precisely as described.
  - locknitpicker 7mo ago
    > It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite. I don't really agree. The set of principles are quite straight forward. It's things like delivering software frequently, accommodating new requirements, continuously looking into improving processes, business types and developers working together, etc. Then you have concrete executions like scrum vs kanban. Agile doesn't specify one or the other. Retrospective meetings are popular, but aren't specified by Agile per se.
- apple4ever 7mo ago
  > What leads you to believe Agile implies a fixed set of precise, rigid rules? How it's been implemented at every company. They are always a fixed set of precise, rigid rules.
SCdF 7mo ago
Another way of phrasing this though, is that it's in the team's power to determine process (or the lack thereof). Regardless of success or failure you can say to what degree this is true, and to me this is really that only part of "agile" that is worth locking in.
- bulbar 7mo ago
  In the team's power to determine a working process but in the scrum master's responsibility.
  - SCdF 7mo ago
    If you use scrum, and if you have a scrum master. You categorically don't need to do either of those things though.
- apple4ever 7mo ago
  > Another way of phrasing this though, is that it's in the team's power to determine process (or the lack thereof). Which they almost never have.
koonsolo 7mo ago
> Agile is defined as the process that works Can you show a reference of where it is defined like this?
- sanbor 7mo ago
  At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
My definition of agile is that process is a knob that you can turn. You don't like how the process is working out for your team? Adjust the process. Find the sweet spot for your team. As your team changes size and/or members, keep adjusting. "We're going to do agile by following this rigid process" is an oxymoron.
- datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
  Wow I guess we were actually agile all along, by virtue of being a team that defines our own processes. Yet I don’t think we’ve ever used the word agile once in any of our meetings.
- bulbar 7mo ago
  The problem is that "just do what works" doesn't justify a whole agile industry and not even two days of training. The real claim of the agile industry is that they know what can work and that you can find it using agile. That also has real value - if true.
- apple4ever 7mo ago
  That's true, but most people / teams can't actually adjust the process.

locknitpicker 7mo ago

> My favorite Agile-ism is when Agile is defined as “the process that works for the team”. What compels you to believe it isn't? I mean, read the Agile Manifesto. All it does is basically define a set of values and principles. Things like "customer comes first" or "we welcome changes in requirements" or "software must be delivered frequently". What leads you to believe Agile implies a fixed set of precise, rigid rules?

strangegecko 7mo ago
The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build. My thoughts when PE forced Agile on my employer were dismissed as "you're the technical expert, we're the process experts". As someone without decision power, you read words of empowerment but your reality is a different one, and you're left resolving that dissonance on your own (quietly, otherwise you get pushed aside).
- madeofpalk 7mo ago
  This is the problem with 'Agile', and why people refer to it as "Capital-A Agile". As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. They want to stay in business, so they need to make sure they have something to sell. That's the dysfunction - a company that is forcing this laborious process on you, rather than giving teams the autonomy to figure out how they best work. Agile works best as a toolbox of practices you can adopt, mix, and match to solve whatever problems you have. Do you need to work to a fixed schedule, or provide delivery estimates? You should probably have a way to regularly estimate your work. Are you struggling to actually ship and do things? Maybe it would be useful to plan things on a smaller, more frequent cadence.
  - locknitpicker 7mo ago
    > As always, the problem isn't the process, the problem is the people. There's whole industries out there set up to sell A Process, so they come in and try to force something like this on you. I would go as far as to claim the problem is middle management types, who feel pressured to adopt buzzwords and want to micromanage things to cultivate an image of control and progress to justify their role. It's the same type that brags about scrum but don't even bother to show in standup meetings.
- locknitpicker 7mo ago
  > The problem is a disconnect between management and those who build. That would clearly be a problem that falls well inside the domain "you are not doing enough Agile". A key principle of Agile is literally "Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project." If a team suffers from that disconnect, it's failing Agile. More to the point, whatever they are doing is not working, and Agile would fix it.
beAbU 7mo ago
The fact that you spell agile with a capital "A" says all I need to know.
pydry 7mo ago
It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite. I actually think OP's criticisms apply mostly to Scrum. Scrum is well defined but its adherents' wont hear a critical word said about it. "You just werent doing it right" even when you were doing it precisely as described.
- locknitpicker 7mo ago
  > It isnt but the fact it ultra vague and hand wavey means anybody can claim anything they do is agile including things that the exact opposite. I don't really agree. The set of principles are quite straight forward. It's things like delivering software frequently, accommodating new requirements, continuously looking into improving processes, business types and developers working together, etc. Then you have concrete executions like scrum vs kanban. Agile doesn't specify one or the other. Retrospective meetings are popular, but aren't specified by Agile per se.
apple4ever 7mo ago
> What leads you to believe Agile implies a fixed set of precise, rigid rules? How it's been implemented at every company. They are always a fixed set of precise, rigid rules.

SCdF 7mo ago

Another way of phrasing this though, is that it's in the team's power to determine process (or the lack thereof). Regardless of success or failure you can say to what degree this is true, and to me this is really that only part of "agile" that is worth locking in.

bulbar 7mo ago
In the team's power to determine a working process but in the scrum master's responsibility.
- SCdF 7mo ago
  If you use scrum, and if you have a scrum master. You categorically don't need to do either of those things though.
apple4ever 7mo ago
> Another way of phrasing this though, is that it's in the team's power to determine process (or the lack thereof). Which they almost never have.

koonsolo 7mo ago

> Agile is defined as the process that works Can you show a reference of where it is defined like this?

sanbor 7mo ago
At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

AnimalMuppet 7mo ago

My definition of agile is that process is a knob that you can turn. You don't like how the process is working out for your team? Adjust the process. Find the sweet spot for your team. As your team changes size and/or members, keep adjusting. "We're going to do agile by following this rigid process" is an oxymoron.

datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
Wow I guess we were actually agile all along, by virtue of being a team that defines our own processes. Yet I don’t think we’ve ever used the word agile once in any of our meetings.
bulbar 7mo ago
The problem is that "just do what works" doesn't justify a whole agile industry and not even two days of training. The real claim of the agile industry is that they know what can work and that you can find it using agile. That also has real value - if true.
apple4ever 7mo ago
That's true, but most people / teams can't actually adjust the process.