Is this why Agile often fails?
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
I don't know why Agile fails, because for over 20 years I've been doing it and it has worked great. Not perfectly, but great. But it has never failed me.
I really, really like Agile. I use it in my own development. However, the point of what Martin is saying is that many company and corporate environments have far too rigid rules for it to work there. That is very unfortunate. Have you read the book, Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time[^] It is one of the two original implementers of Agile and it is a great book. It details the _heart_ of Agile and I like the actual working process (no matter what you call that).
raddevus wrote:
is saying is that many company and corporate environments have far too rigid rules for it to work there.
That is true. I mentioned in a different reply that everyone has to be on board and then it works great.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
I'm reading the rough cuts of a pre-release edition of a new book (Clean Agile: Back to Basics (Robert C. Martin Series) amazon - not yet released [^]) soon to release and I stumbled upon the following:
Robert C. Martin said :
Transformation The transition from non-Agile to Agile is a transition in values. The values of Agile development include risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. They also focus on moving in straight and direct lines rather than mapping out and negotiating the landscape. These values are diametrically opposed to the values of large organizations who have invested heavily in middle-management structures that value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution. Is it possible to transform such an organization to Agile? Frankly, this is not something I have had a lot of success with, nor have I seen much success from others. I have seen plenty of effort and money expended, but I have not seen many organizations that truly make the transition. The value structures are just too different for the middle-management layer to accept.
The very ideas and values that Agile proposes are often quashed immediately -- but silently. Thus, Agile never actually exists in those organizations, but only some false facsimile. This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
Never been a fan of Mr. Martin. After all, the reason for: > value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution is specifically to counter the chaos of: > risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. Granted, middle-management structures are not the solution but tend to become necessary as the product develops from a two person garage shop (or dorm room) implementation into a company that employs thousands of people, many of which have nothing directly to do with software development (legal team, help desk, sales and marketing, etc) but are very necessary. And it is those groups that start driving the requirements that get fed to the actual developers, not the other way around. IMHO, the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
Latest Articles:
Microservices: Myth, Madness, or Magic I Take Exception -
Never been a fan of Mr. Martin. After all, the reason for: > value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution is specifically to counter the chaos of: > risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. Granted, middle-management structures are not the solution but tend to become necessary as the product develops from a two person garage shop (or dorm room) implementation into a company that employs thousands of people, many of which have nothing directly to do with software development (legal team, help desk, sales and marketing, etc) but are very necessary. And it is those groups that start driving the requirements that get fed to the actual developers, not the other way around. IMHO, the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
Latest Articles:
Microservices: Myth, Madness, or Magic I Take ExceptionThose are all very good points. It also reminds me of the Two Distinct Parts of Business 1. building 2. selling Its also the two distinct types of workers 1. builders (Wozniak) 2. sellers (Jobs) You can't have one with the other. Agile tends to be focused on The Builders. It's a great method for getting Builders to drive the thing. The Sellers really should drive the product to where it is supposed to be and _SHOULD_ own the product.
Marc Clifton wrote:
the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
Product Owner This should be the part of the Product Owner. The Product Owner simply "contracts" devs to get the shtuff done. The developers shouldn't own the product. The Product Owner should be a person who is as motivated as Jobs to "Get it right!!!" and "Don't build crap!" But the Seller must also KNOW EXACTLY what the product MUST be. But, have you ever seen that in a company? Very rare! So, the devs end up making the lion's share of final decisions. They are way down the pipe and only seeing one part of the elephant and thinking it is one thing or the other: no overall vision. And, as you said, it all falls apart.
-
#realJSOP wrote:
The reason Agile will never work - stake holders are never available to discuss the progress until it's too late to change anything before deployment.
I've been doing Agile for 20+ years and it works great. It works beautifully as long as people understand it.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
"As long as people understand it". You probably should have written "ALL people". You only need a few people believing it doesn't apply to them to ruin the idea. Those people are usually having key positions.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I'm reading the rough cuts of a pre-release edition of a new book (Clean Agile: Back to Basics (Robert C. Martin Series) amazon - not yet released [^]) soon to release and I stumbled upon the following:
Robert C. Martin said :
Transformation The transition from non-Agile to Agile is a transition in values. The values of Agile development include risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. They also focus on moving in straight and direct lines rather than mapping out and negotiating the landscape. These values are diametrically opposed to the values of large organizations who have invested heavily in middle-management structures that value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution. Is it possible to transform such an organization to Agile? Frankly, this is not something I have had a lot of success with, nor have I seen much success from others. I have seen plenty of effort and money expended, but I have not seen many organizations that truly make the transition. The value structures are just too different for the middle-management layer to accept.
The very ideas and values that Agile proposes are often quashed immediately -- but silently. Thus, Agile never actually exists in those organizations, but only some false facsimile. This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates. Clearly, I'm in the minority. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates. Clearly, I'm in the minority. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates.
That must be a very solid company that is running well. It's a 1 in a million to find a company with a strong process in place. :thumbsup:
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
I work in an agile organization of 400 devs. At my company, agile isn't a bolt-on thrust onto the R&D team - it's how the entire company operates.
That must be a very solid company that is running well. It's a 1 in a million to find a company with a strong process in place. :thumbsup:
raddevus wrote:
That must be a very solid company that is running well.
Yes, it is (IMHO). We started as a 25 person shop ten years ago and IPO'd last year on both the NYSE and TSX (we were the largest tech IPO in Canadian history). Although we now have 400 devs, we still think and execute (in many respects) like an early-stage company. I believe we are who we are because of our company culture. Almost all our dev managers and several C-level folk started out as devs and have an innate understanding of what it takes to build a software product. Our CEO values the people who make up the company and it shows. I'm grateful to work with bright people, and learn from them every single day. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
raddevus wrote:
That must be a very solid company that is running well.
Yes, it is (IMHO). We started as a 25 person shop ten years ago and IPO'd last year on both the NYSE and TSX (we were the largest tech IPO in Canadian history). Although we now have 400 devs, we still think and execute (in many respects) like an early-stage company. I believe we are who we are because of our company culture. Almost all our dev managers and several C-level folk started out as devs and have an innate understanding of what it takes to build a software product. Our CEO values the people who make up the company and it shows. I'm grateful to work with bright people, and learn from them every single day. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I'm reading the rough cuts of a pre-release edition of a new book (Clean Agile: Back to Basics (Robert C. Martin Series) amazon - not yet released [^]) soon to release and I stumbled upon the following:
Robert C. Martin said :
Transformation The transition from non-Agile to Agile is a transition in values. The values of Agile development include risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. They also focus on moving in straight and direct lines rather than mapping out and negotiating the landscape. These values are diametrically opposed to the values of large organizations who have invested heavily in middle-management structures that value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution. Is it possible to transform such an organization to Agile? Frankly, this is not something I have had a lot of success with, nor have I seen much success from others. I have seen plenty of effort and money expended, but I have not seen many organizations that truly make the transition. The value structures are just too different for the middle-management layer to accept.
The very ideas and values that Agile proposes are often quashed immediately -- but silently. Thus, Agile never actually exists in those organizations, but only some false facsimile. This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
Aside from corporate values, structure and culture, I think Agile works better in some types of projects more than others and in some phases of a product than other. For example, a project with a lot of customer engagement is easier to acquire valuable feedback. A project with a single client is much easier to direct than a commercial product with many unknown users. As for phases, the early phases of development involve a lot of infrastructure and architecture that benefits from planning for a longer view than just looking at the immediate requirements. Later phases involving mainly adding new features fit more naturally with an Agile process. Web products, with their ability to immediately deploy, are better candidates for Agile than client applications or embedded systems that must be installed by its users.
-
I'm reading the rough cuts of a pre-release edition of a new book (Clean Agile: Back to Basics (Robert C. Martin Series) amazon - not yet released [^]) soon to release and I stumbled upon the following:
Robert C. Martin said :
Transformation The transition from non-Agile to Agile is a transition in values. The values of Agile development include risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. They also focus on moving in straight and direct lines rather than mapping out and negotiating the landscape. These values are diametrically opposed to the values of large organizations who have invested heavily in middle-management structures that value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution. Is it possible to transform such an organization to Agile? Frankly, this is not something I have had a lot of success with, nor have I seen much success from others. I have seen plenty of effort and money expended, but I have not seen many organizations that truly make the transition. The value structures are just too different for the middle-management layer to accept.
The very ideas and values that Agile proposes are often quashed immediately -- but silently. Thus, Agile never actually exists in those organizations, but only some false facsimile. This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
Agile is failing? Ohh no. We're going to miss our Bollywood Story Tellers, JIRA Board assistance. So sad! :(
-
Great and inspiring story about your company. :thumbsup: Mine is very similar due to our CTO who has that same kind of vision.
Awesome! :thumbsup: /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I don't know why Agile fails, because for over 20 years I've been doing it and it has worked great. Not perfectly, but great. But it has never failed me.
raddevus wrote:
pre-release edition
Looks like this will be the last time you get asked to review pre-release books. :-D
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
I suspect you're work alone and your own Scrum Master playing with your board. :-D
-
I suspect you're work alone and your own Scrum Master playing with your board. :-D
Perhaps I have just been lucky to work with competent people my whole career. Or at least semi-competent.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Perhaps I have just been lucky to work with competent people my whole career. Or at least semi-competent.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Perhaps I have just been lucky to work with competent people my whole career. Or at least semi-competent.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
Ahh, the competent, those who are: 0. Spenting their time holding coffee mug and roaming around in the office. 1. False process story tellers wasting corporate money. 2. Sprint secrectories...
-
Never been a fan of Mr. Martin. After all, the reason for: > value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution is specifically to counter the chaos of: > risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. Granted, middle-management structures are not the solution but tend to become necessary as the product develops from a two person garage shop (or dorm room) implementation into a company that employs thousands of people, many of which have nothing directly to do with software development (legal team, help desk, sales and marketing, etc) but are very necessary. And it is those groups that start driving the requirements that get fed to the actual developers, not the other way around. IMHO, the problem with Agile (well, one of many) is that it's a concept intended to maintain the illusion that the developers are in control of the product, when in reality they are not.
Latest Articles:
Microservices: Myth, Madness, or Magic I Take ExceptionMarc Clifton wrote:
Never been a fan of Mr. Martin.
...and just what have I done to p1ss you off this time?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
#realJSOP wrote:
The reason Agile will never work - stake holders are never available to discuss the progress until it's too late to change anything before deployment.
You are so right. It is interesting that the people who are going to take delivery of the software are so disinterested in discussing what it will actually do and how they actually want it to do it. Are we devs that boring? :sigh: Yes! :rolleyes: And, oh yes, I should've also said: They are disinterested because they will never use the thing -- or at least don't think they'll have to use it. If you were going to be forced to actually use the thing you'd get involved and have heavy opinions about how it would look and work. However, when they are finally forced to use the software (because there is no alternative) they will finally use it and complain about the way every feature works. :laugh:
raddevus wrote:
They are disinterested because they will never use the thing -- or at least don't think they'll have to use it. If you were going to be forced to actually use the thing you'd get involved and have heavy opinions about how it would look and work.
How are they going to use it? Most of the times the ones "approving" don't even have a clue about what is going to be approved.
raddevus wrote:
Are we devs that boring? :sigh: Yes! :rolleyes:
No... we only speak a language that most decision makers or money responsible just don't understand
raddevus wrote:
However, when they are finally forced to use the software (because there is no alternative) they will finally use it and complain about the way every feature works. :laugh:
And don't forget about the icons / colors of the GUI :doh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
raddevus wrote:
That must be a very solid company that is running well.
Yes, it is (IMHO). We started as a 25 person shop ten years ago and IPO'd last year on both the NYSE and TSX (we were the largest tech IPO in Canadian history). Although we now have 400 devs, we still think and execute (in many respects) like an early-stage company. I believe we are who we are because of our company culture. Almost all our dev managers and several C-level folk started out as devs and have an innate understanding of what it takes to build a software product. Our CEO values the people who make up the company and it shows. I'm grateful to work with bright people, and learn from them every single day. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
You are definitively an exception (and I am officially jealous)
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
The reason Agile will never work - stake holders are never available to discuss the progress until it's too late to change anything before deployment.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013This is all well and true. But waterfall is worse. So Agile fails... less...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
I'm reading the rough cuts of a pre-release edition of a new book (Clean Agile: Back to Basics (Robert C. Martin Series) amazon - not yet released [^]) soon to release and I stumbled upon the following:
Robert C. Martin said :
Transformation The transition from non-Agile to Agile is a transition in values. The values of Agile development include risk-taking, rapid-feedback, intense, high-bandwidth communication between people that ignores barriers and command structures. They also focus on moving in straight and direct lines rather than mapping out and negotiating the landscape. These values are diametrically opposed to the values of large organizations who have invested heavily in middle-management structures that value safety, consistency, command-and-control, and plan execution. Is it possible to transform such an organization to Agile? Frankly, this is not something I have had a lot of success with, nor have I seen much success from others. I have seen plenty of effort and money expended, but I have not seen many organizations that truly make the transition. The value structures are just too different for the middle-management layer to accept.
The very ideas and values that Agile proposes are often quashed immediately -- but silently. Thus, Agile never actually exists in those organizations, but only some false facsimile. This creates the immediate formation of another group of people known as the I_TOLD_YOU_SOs.
This is all well and true. But waterfall is worse. So Agile fails... less...
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
