Agile Journal - Letters to the Editor

Home

Forums

	AgileForums	Forum Show latest posts Rules Help

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

AgileForums

Administration

Letters to the Editor (1 viewing) (1) Guests

Post a new message in "Letters to the Editor"

Name:

Subject:

topic icon:

Boardcode:

Colour: Size: Close all tags

Message:

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Tim Snyder wrote:[/b]
[quote]This thread discusses the Content article: [url=http://www.agilejournal.com/content/view/3/1/]�Agile� Versus �agile� Development[/url]

I very much agree with the general idea that Liz expresses in this article. The way I interpret the thesis of the article is as follows: "Agile" development is that which follows a recognized agile methodology (e.g. Scrum, XP, etc), while "agile" development represents any other development method that comprises engineering or management practices that decidedly avoid ceremony and ancillary work - i.e. those that are light weight and responsive to change.

If that interpretation hits the mark, then yes, I very much agree with the thesis and that it is worthwhile to distinguish between the two. However, I would recommend broadening the desription around the motivation and results attributed to "agile" development.

To describe "agile" development, Liz wrote:
Companies that are not ready or are unable to undertake this level of change [per that of "Agile" - tim] can still become more responsive and flexible in the ways that they build software. Then they'll become more agile and will begin to reap the benefits that Agile practices can deliver. This incremental approach can ultimately lead to a truly Agile shop, but at some point the organization will have to step back and acknowledge that it's not a direct path.

How would you (Liz or others) describe development teams that apply a mix of practices from XP, Scrum, and a few of their own practices? Can I assume this fits in the "agile" camp? If so, then I think the profile of those that use "agile" methods is beyond simply "unable to undertake this level of change". And finally, it would also suggest that it may indeed be a direct path to the goals that the adopter seeks.

Perhaps a little too acedemic, but its an important point for me. I've helped several organizations drastically improve their product development capabilities, and in most cases we've achieved the results using a mix of "agile" techniques (including both a selection of XP and Scrum practices, as well as simply making a few pre-existing practices more lean with less ancillary work).

Overall, a great topic and excellent article. I work for a service firm that has this discussion with all of our new clients. So I hope everyone in my organization reads the article. It articulates an important point very well.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: �Agile� Versus �agile� Development
Max. showing the last posts - (Last post first)

Author

Message

Tim Snyder

This thread discusses the Content article: �Agile� Versus �agile� Development

I very much agree with the general idea that Liz expresses in this article. The way I interpret the thesis of the article is as follows: "Agile" development is that which follows a recognized agile methodology (e.g. Scrum, XP, etc), while "agile" development represents any other development method that comprises engineering or management practices that decidedly avoid ceremony and ancillary work - i.e. those that are light weight and responsive to change.

If that interpretation hits the mark, then yes, I very much agree with the thesis and that it is worthwhile to distinguish between the two. However, I would recommend broadening the desription around the motivation and results attributed to "agile" development.

To describe "agile" development, Liz wrote:

Companies that are not ready or are unable to undertake this level of change [per that of "Agile" - tim] can still become more responsive and flexible in the ways that they build software. Then they'll become more agile and will begin to reap the benefits that Agile practices can deliver. This incremental approach can ultimately lead to a truly Agile shop, but at some point the organization will have to step back and acknowledge that it's not a direct path.

How would you (Liz or others) describe development teams that apply a mix of practices from XP, Scrum, and a few of their own practices? Can I assume this fits in the "agile" camp? If so, then I think the profile of those that use "agile" methods is beyond simply "unable to undertake this level of change". And finally, it would also suggest that it may indeed be a direct path to the goals that the adopter seeks.

Perhaps a little too acedemic, but its an important point for me. I've helped several organizations drastically improve their product development capabilities, and in most cases we've achieved the results using a mix of "agile" techniques (including both a selection of XP and Scrum practices, as well as simply making a few pre-existing practices more lean with less ancillary work).

Overall, a great topic and excellent article. I work for a service firm that has this discussion with all of our new clients. So I hope everyone in my organization reads the article. It articulates an important point very well.