Live data from Hacker News

Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

pragdave.me

31–40 of 117 posts

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#31
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I disagree. The large part (possibly not the intent) was about building a consulting empire around something utterly vague with multiple religious opinions about the best way to perform these manifesto actions. A vehicle for rats.

In much nicer terms as he worked with them, that's the gist of what the article is about. Did you read it?

Yes. It doesn't deserve nicer terms. I've seen companies destroyed, careers destroyed and armies of consultants make off with people's livelihoods on a false promise.

For ref, I've migrated to the side of thing where I get pulled in (Harry Tuttle style) to sort companies out after they've been pillaged by these asshats.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#32
post #3

Personally I find that this line "Responding to Change over Following a Plan" does much more harm than good. It should read "You should have a plan but should rather be prepared to change it constantly than stick with it dogmatically". I would say that when you are within a project team it should emphasize the agile values but once you are on an organizational level where several project teams need to co-operate to d…

> It should read "You should have a plan but should rather be prepared to change it constantly than stick with it dogmatically". I'm going to steal this. Spot on.

I believe Eisenhower said it best:

"Plans are worthless, but planning is everything"

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#33
post #16
post #3

Personally I find that this line "Responding to Change over Following a Plan" does much more harm than good. It should read "You should have a plan but should rather be prepared to change it constantly than stick with it dogmatically". I would say that when you are within a project team it should emphasize the agile values but once you are on an organizational level where several project teams need to co-operate to d…

I think they worded it correctly. Notice it doesn't say, "Responding to Change over Making a Plan." Your version is horribly ugly. Theirs is succinct and poetic.

I agree that my version is horribly ugly :).

However, if you are not going to Follow a Plan, and while you're at it, you are attempting to Eliminate Waste as per the lean thinking movement, one may quickly follow with the conclusion that plans that are not followed are wasteful, and therefore unnecessary.

My experience has shown me that this is the interpretation people very often make. YMMV as always, though.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#34

I never really understood this whole rage about agile and some people preaching it like a religion. You can't fit everyone in one frame, people are different. As the matter of fact the better the engineer the more quirks he will have. Some people like to jog, some like to sprint and rest, but if they cover the same distance and reach the finish in the same time, who cares what methodology they use? Even though I prob…

Good comment, neverminder!

I always understood agile development as a way to organize your team and yourself in a way that works best for everyone. So don't follow a scheme, even if it's called agile, but think yourself.

Probably this is, how I WANT to understand it, because I don't like to follow rules that make me unproductive, even if others may become more productive by following the same rules.

Who does?

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#35
post #17

The agile principles are fairly solid, as far as principles go. They're people-first and they downplay process and planning. You can't blindly follow a plan, process, or ideal. Think. Communicate. The right thing to do changes in every situation. You can't follow dogma. But the idea that we should switch to a new word because the old one has been abused makes no sense. Why rally behind a word? Brands and labels only…

You can't blindly follow a plan, process, or ideal

You can. The question that you might ask is whether the plan is good or not.

You can't follow dogma

As above. Dogma actually has its uses. The trick is knowing how, where and when to use it, or someone who is dogmatic. Machiavellian, but its a tool nonetheless.

Saying we don't need a plan is to thumb our nose at thousands of years of wisdom. Sun Tzu was not stupid when he suggested choosing a path only once the objective and environment are understood. Stephen Covey puts the same concept into modern terms when he suggests beginning with the end in mind.

And that brings us to the disconnect we live in. Developing something using agile practices does not require a plan. A plan is however required at a level above the developer to steer development. As you go, you'll find yourself becoming interested in that plan more and more. It's a natural shift because the plan reflects the strategy, development is purely tactical. Understanding the strategy is motivational - it answers the why. Development is all about the how.

Real value as a developer only comes from experience. An experienced developer is successful in spite of any methodology, approach or framework, not because of it. Something else we're really good at blinding ourselves to.

Experience has no price. It amuses me to no end that we as an industry place higher value on the 20-something hacker than we do on the 50-something veteran. We're unintentionally letting culture hobble our chances of success.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#36
Disagree.

Language is not an immutable thing and is always evolving in its use to reflect the concepts of the people using it. I think capitalizing Agile as a noun makes it a "thing" that we can refer to collectively and ultimately helps us communicate about the concepts that it entails. The unfortunate down-side is when a popular term is misused due to ignorance and misunderstanding by a large group of people - which will happen more prevalently as a word becomes popular.

As someone who has had the pleasure of receiving Scrum coaching from Jeff Sutherland, I can say that there is a HUGE difference in understanding between people who spend time to learn it (from a book or coach) and those who muddle their way through - never taking the time to learn about it more deeply and put it to practical use (the only way to truly learn is through doing).

I work at a small company and teach an internal course on the principles of Scrum to our project managers, so I have first-hand exposure here. It's amazing how really smart people who have heard the terms used for several years and even claim to have been involved in Scrum teams at past jobs still have many misconceptions about the core principles and how to practically apply them when the situation arises. There is definitely a shallow understanding amongst a good majority of developers and it's exacerbated by companies that claim to use "Agile" practices yet have only really scratched the surface. It's immediately clear that many have used "Scrum-but" and really only do standup meetings as if that will be all that is needed. Actually many people think Scrum is "that process where you hold standup meetings".

I like Scrum because it brings together not only a way to manage a project, but more importantly a way to lead a team of people! I think being a servant leader to the team and providing them the necessary resources to be at their peak effectiveness is a trait of a good leader. It's actually kind of amazing all the different ways even very smart people can get "stuck" - distracted by a less important task that is shiny and interesting, slog through hours of debugging to resolve an issue that someone else on the team could have helped them with, not communicating with other team members that they can't get their part done unless another has provided them something first. From experience, just helping people identify these blockers and get the team unstuck has been a big win.

I think tools absolutely are a big help too. I've used sticky notes on whiteboards and it's good for small teams that are co-located. It breaks down for distributed teams. We just started using JIRA and it is surprisingly good at helping us managing all of our work which would grow unwieldy using more primitive methods.

I'm not sure how I feel about the agile manifesto. I guess it has its historic place as a reaction against the poor waterfall practices of the past and paved the way for new methods to emerge. Besides that, it seems a bit dated and hasn't served a useful practical purpose for me.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#38
post #7

I found that no methodology works as well as getting the right people in and let them organise themselves. If you have the wrong people, it doesn't matter what methodology or process you bring in, you're screwed. On that basis, methodology isn't that relevant. I just watched a company apply SCRUM to apparently solve process problems and it just made things worse because the staff aren't disciplined or interested in w…

The point of that article is that you need to be self reflective and open to change.

I'll post it here again, without any of the other distracting things he said about verbs and so on. Just take a moment to think about what these steps actually mean:

    - Find out where you are
    - Take a small step towards your goal
    - Adjust your understanding based on what you learned
    - Repeat
If you want to work as effectively as you can, you should actively change your process constantly based on reflecting on past performance against your goals.

...if you don't care, or can't be bothered, well, that's fine too (self reflection isn't easy); just realize that your own set of pedantic dogmatic rules is no better than any other Agile process set.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#39
post #17

The agile principles are fairly solid, as far as principles go. They're people-first and they downplay process and planning. You can't blindly follow a plan, process, or ideal. Think. Communicate. The right thing to do changes in every situation. You can't follow dogma. But the idea that we should switch to a new word because the old one has been abused makes no sense. Why rally behind a word? Brands and labels only…

You can't blindly follow a plan, process, or ideal You can. The question that you might ask is whether the plan is good or not. You can't follow dogma As above. Dogma actually has its uses. The trick is knowing how, where and when to use it, or someone who is dogmatic. Machiavellian, but its a tool nonetheless. Saying we don't need a plan is to thumb our nose at thousands of years of wisdom. Sun Tzu was not stupid wh…

You are right on all counts. I should be more considerate with my thoughts and words. I appreciate your nuance. Thank you.

I would not eschew a plan, but I would alter or abandon it when it's favorable to do so. I meant only to advocate pragmatism, not anarchy.

Re: Agile Is Dead (Long Live Agility)

#40
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In much nicer terms as he worked with them, that's the gist of what the article is about. Did you read it?

Yes. It doesn't deserve nicer terms. I've seen companies destroyed, careers destroyed and armies of consultants make off with people's livelihoods on a false promise. For ref, I've migrated to the side of thing where I get pulled in (Harry Tuttle style) to sort companies out after they've been pillaged by these asshats.

But a good question is who and why brought those asshats?
Post reply on HN