21–30 of 49 posts
If IBM didn't use Agile, what did they use? The non-greedy benefit of Agile is that work and how work happens becomes more understandable in a consistent and reasonably-well studied manner.
I worked at IBM for 5 years, and some of the teams I was on used "agile" development methods. In that they used the names, but our "scrums" were an hour long, in a meeting room, with everyone bringing their laptop. Management more than 1 level up expected waterfall-like development, so it all just meshed badly. I really don't hold out much hope that this is going to work out that well without a whole bunch of trainin…
Alternate headline: "Agile Development Ski-Jumps Over Shark!" Alternate alternate headline: "Final Nail in Agile Development Coffin is Big and Blue." Agile is dead. Long live the new development process buzzwords. It is now time again to rename everything, come up with new jargon and trademarks to describe the patterns and anti-patterns of the development processes that actually work for us, and set those words free.…
So, just to be clear, the fact that it's being used by a big company, and/or referred to in the WSJ means it's useless?
But the term and phraseology have been co-opted by the PMI wonks to mean waterfall 2.0 -- The writing was on the wall as soon as "Certified Scrummaster" became a job requirement.
Enterprise companies are all going agile this year, I bet someone from Gartner is suggesting this shift... and the result is clearly not that effective.
We were doing this at big blue seven years ago IIRC, and while it's a large company to transition like this, I don't think it's exactly new.
It's not quite agile as the writers of the agile manifesto would have it, but then most 'agile' seems beset by consultants and process, and IBM probably do it better than a bunch of other places I've worked.
RTC is a bit of a heavyweight and quite unwieldy though. Give me git and a text editor any day of the week....
That seems unlikely. Big companies like big ships have a lot of inertia. They may adapt "Agile", but almost certainly in name only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, just to be clear, the fact that it's being used by a big company, and/or referred to in the WSJ means it's useless?
I didn't say the process is useless. That remains to be seen. My point was that the events described in the article have stretched the meaning of Agile so far that it can now be used to describe any software development process at all, regardless of whether it actually conforms to the principles that originally inspired Agile. Agile can now mean anything. Therefore it means nothing. The new IBM process won't be entir…
That seems unlikely. Big companies like big ships have a lot of inertia. They may adapt "Agile", but almost certainly in name only.
Given I was a part of IBM's drive to go agile in (I'm pretty sure) '08, and this announcement is taking place in 2015... you're probably right!
Agile in a big company: http://dilbert.com/strip/2005-11-16 http://dilbert.com/strip/2007-11-26
We weren't at a big company...