It would be, until management sees the way that they're categorized and start faking votes / reviews. Then it would be an arms race on who can be the most Agile. Scrum -> Agile -> Agiler -> SUPER KANAGILEBAN MEGA!!!
"But so far, based on surveys and retrospectives, the scaling model seems to be working quite well!". Statements like that remind me of a North Korean election - "SUPREME LEADER ELECTED JOYOUSLY AND UNANIMOUSLY!". Grunts that don't like the newest management fad / reorg aren't looked upon kindly
A great test for "could I work at this company?" is to ask "do they have full time Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc.". If yes, then I'm moving on
In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall. Goodness and Agile are inherently linked, so the presence of badness must mean that it is not Agile, or at least not properly practiced Agile.
Agile as it's practiced by 99% of practitioners is more like "processes and tools over individuals and interactions". Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira
> In the end it's impossible to criticize Agile because the way supporters frame it is that all good things are Agile, all bad things are not Agile and / or Waterfall.
Agile-as-defined is a fairly abstract set of priorities, it doesn't specify practices, so criticizing particular practices isn't criticizing it. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of it, still, particularly that its too ill-defined to concretely implement.
Criticism of "Agile"-as-practices are generally misplaced, because there is no coherent unity in the practices people implement and apply that label too. Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile".
At least, if one is interested in usefully sharing experience in a way that informs and advances quality practices. If one is merely interested in emotional venting, then "Agile" is a fine target.
> Criticism of "Agile"-as-practices are generally misplaced, because there is no coherent unity in the practices people implement and apply that label too
72% of Agile practitioners use some form of Scrum. 80% do standups, 71% do "planning", 69% do retrospectives. That's a pretty coherent majority that engage in practices labeled Agile.[1]
Around 70% of Agile practitioners do these - does it have to be 100% before these practices are Agile? There ABSOLUTELY is a coherent set of implemented practices that are Agile
> Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile".
I did: "Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira".
You're proving my point that it's impossible to criticize Agile... But I will admit that (paraphrasing) 'All your criticisms are invalid because Agile is abstract!' is a twist! That's much more interesting than just screaming "WATERFALL!!"
If you had questions or criticisms of my criticisms, ask for clarification or make counter arguments - I want a good debate! It's intellectually light-weight to call someone emotional, while one is obfuscating and acting obtuse.
12 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 38.8 ms ] threadA great test for "could I work at this company?" is to ask "do they have full time Agile Coaches / Scrum Masters / etc.". If yes, then I'm moving on
...then you aren't whatever you call it, its not Agile, which has, as its first value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Agile as it's practiced by 99% of practitioners is more like "processes and tools over individuals and interactions". Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira
Agile-as-defined is a fairly abstract set of priorities, it doesn't specify practices, so criticizing particular practices isn't criticizing it. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of it, still, particularly that its too ill-defined to concretely implement.
Criticism of "Agile"-as-practices are generally misplaced, because there is no coherent unity in the practices people implement and apply that label too. Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile".
At least, if one is interested in usefully sharing experience in a way that informs and advances quality practices. If one is merely interested in emotional venting, then "Agile" is a fine target.
72% of Agile practitioners use some form of Scrum. 80% do standups, 71% do "planning", 69% do retrospectives. That's a pretty coherent majority that engage in practices labeled Agile.[1]
Around 70% of Agile practitioners do these - does it have to be 100% before these practices are Agile? There ABSOLUTELY is a coherent set of implemented practices that are Agile
> Criticizing the various practices that people call "Agile" is better done by focussing on the actual practices that are being criticized than on "Agile".
I did: "Infantile retrospectives, constant stand up status meetings, status meetings dressed up as "grooming" and "planning" where the only real (non)decision that's being made is how many "story points" should be assigned. You can barely go to the bathroom without filing a Jira".
You're proving my point that it's impossible to criticize Agile... But I will admit that (paraphrasing) 'All your criticisms are invalid because Agile is abstract!' is a twist! That's much more interesting than just screaming "WATERFALL!!"
If you had questions or criticisms of my criticisms, ask for clarification or make counter arguments - I want a good debate! It's intellectually light-weight to call someone emotional, while one is obfuscating and acting obtuse.
[1]https://www.versionone.com/pdf/state-of-agile-development-su...