What is it with the recent rash of manifesto’s?
Since the signing of the Agile Manifesto a plethora of other Manifesto’s have arrived on the scene. Software Craftmanship, Project Management to name but a few.
They add NO value to development, in fact it seems their sole purpose is so that the signatories can make more money.
To me, this feels like the rash of CMM’s that arrived in the 90’s. The original CMM was a useful tool for measuring the maturity of an organization. We needed one and only one. The CMM was diluted by a number of new flavours; for Hardware; for Testing; for Software resulting in a lack of clarity of objectives & direction. Finally this was consolidated into CMMI and now it has become about implementing maturity (which even sounds ridiculous).
How long will it be before the various manifestos are consolidated into another chocolate teapot? See http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/about+as+useful+as+a+chocolate+teapot.html
Much of Agile is simply about common sense. Do what is needed when it is needed!
Most of the real value of Agile methods is in how it enables us to knock the rust off old ways of working. The revelation that software development needs “people centric” is, in fact, no revelation at all.
The really big news is that developers need to engage in with the business. Oddly, this is the message that the vast majority of agilista’s fail to deliver to, failing to properly engage the business in the agile development process!
Tom Wujec’s TED Talk entitled “build a tower, build a team” is certainly worth six minutes of your time, it is fun to watch too.
I particularly like the statement that “Design is a Contact Sport!”
Take a look here http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower.html
CIO magazines article on the importance of BAs to IT and CIOs is an interesting read. In particular it reinforces the difference between BAs who slavishly “flog the dead template horse” and those who are communicators and analytical thinkers. Take a look at the article here. Which type of BA are you (really)?
Markus and Pete will present Stars To Road at GOTO Zürich in April 2013
I regularly hear the “Agile is good, process is bad” mantra from various Agile communities. In a recent meeting on development methods one contributor even declared “process doesn’t contribute to the product so we should not put any effort into processes”.
I find this mindset rather entertaining. It really does not need a genius to realize that the heart of any Agile method IS a rigid process definition. A lean, development centric process but a process all the same. For example Scrum defines ways of working (backlog, prioritization, even the frequency, duration and form of “stand up” team meetings). Deliverable’s, Roles and Responsibilities are defined too.
Daniel Amyot presented a very interesting paper describing how they used goal modeling techniques to produce outcome based regulations within an regulatory body (aviation). They observed an improvement in performance of both regulated parties and the regulator. (They used i* to model actors, goals, contributions and indicators).
This morning’s RE12 keynote was excellent. Steve Fickas described his use of a gaming engine and other resources to create a virtual environment for testing / requirement elicitation for mobile devices.
Fickas went on to describe how he interfaced mobile devices under development to the virtual environment and use this for testing in early stage development iterations (it is more controlled / manageable than the real world)
Ken Blanchard coined the term The Seagull Manager in his 1985 book Leadership and the One Minute Manager. Blanchard described Seagull Managers who fly in, make a lot of noise, dump on everyone, then fly out. Do agile methods help or hinder this problem?