Is this why Agile often fails?
-
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!
-
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 experienced this exact thing decribed by Robert C. Martin in one of my last companies (1000+ employees). The SCRUM masters always had to defend SCRUM's integrity against the managers and their traditional hierarchical superstructure. The SCRUM masters did a good job fighting this war, yet they had to make a couple of concessions, which were so essential that SCRUM turned into something not-actually-SCRUM-any-more. These concessions were: - effort estimations in hours/Euros instead of Poker points - SCRUM team members have to stay disposable for their non-SCRUM legacy projects It didn't work out.
-
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 have actually seen this transformation happening in my previous workplace. And it happened just what most organizations struggle with, which is getting rid of middle management. Many people left anticipating the movement, others were fired and others relocated to more agile positions like product owners and scrum masters. What I also realized was that it takes certain very specific profiles and characteristics to make a successful agile team. Scrum masters need to be very dynamic, pro-active and communicative, or else they won't fit the new mindset. To me, getting the right people as SM's (or related) and PO's is the real challenge. The team also needs to respect and believe in them for this to function correctly, which is no easy feat by itself. The SM and PO also need to have the right mindset. Having a SM that feels like a manager also makes thing go wrong, because in agile role is more important than hierarchy.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
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.
In my experience, the main problem with agile software development, the whole ordeal with fast feedback/iteration-cycles is that software simply doesn't work that way. I've been doing a fair share of refactoring in my time simply because it's bloody hard to integrate features added by the customer ad-hoc later if the foundation of the whole thing doesn't support the required data flows. Creating a foundation that supports everything under the sun however quickly leads to the inner-platform-effect where it can easily take a couple years to get a somewhat-working prototype.
-
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
Which company is that? A humble Googler would like to know
-
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.
The recent CP news article (2019-08-06) 'why-agile-often-fails-no-agreed-metrics' [^] has a similar sentiment but claims that at least some do manage (or maybe that's that they started out right and held the course). It also shows that getting the right metrics is hard if they are to reflect the organisation's goals rather than the technical folk's ideas of 'goals'.
-
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.
FWIW, this article I wrote some months ago reflects my subjective view on Agile and my experience at actually making it work. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/agile-principles-from-traditional-american-view-jeff-jones/[^]
-
Which company is that? A humble Googler would like to know
Quote:
Which company is that?
Bollywood :)
-
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.
-
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!
-
I experienced this exact thing decribed by Robert C. Martin in one of my last companies (1000+ employees). The SCRUM masters always had to defend SCRUM's integrity against the managers and their traditional hierarchical superstructure. The SCRUM masters did a good job fighting this war, yet they had to make a couple of concessions, which were so essential that SCRUM turned into something not-actually-SCRUM-any-more. These concessions were: - effort estimations in hours/Euros instead of Poker points - SCRUM team members have to stay disposable for their non-SCRUM legacy projects It didn't work out.
-
I have actually seen this transformation happening in my previous workplace. And it happened just what most organizations struggle with, which is getting rid of middle management. Many people left anticipating the movement, others were fired and others relocated to more agile positions like product owners and scrum masters. What I also realized was that it takes certain very specific profiles and characteristics to make a successful agile team. Scrum masters need to be very dynamic, pro-active and communicative, or else they won't fit the new mindset. To me, getting the right people as SM's (or related) and PO's is the real challenge. The team also needs to respect and believe in them for this to function correctly, which is no easy feat by itself. The SM and PO also need to have the right mindset. Having a SM that feels like a manager also makes thing go wrong, because in agile role is more important than hierarchy.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Fabio Franco wrote:
...which is getting rid of middle management. ...Many people left anticipating the movement, others were fired
Yes, it looks as if the best thing for transformation happened in your company. It is said, "It is easier to give birth than raise the dead." And in your company's case there was a new birth because the right people left and the new people were added which created a new thing. However, many companies fail and try to build a group by using the same people who are against change and the new process in the first place. It's quite a challenge.
