Today I have removed Agile Coach from both my Twitter bio and my LinkedIn profile. I am no longer going to take on any Agile coaching or training assignments.
Why?
Because we are done.
This might come as a bit of a surprise for some in the Agile community, but we have won. We set out to conquer waterfall software development and we have all but rooted it out.
But if we have won I hear you ask, why doesn’t it feel like it?
Because almost all companies are doing agile instead of being agile. During the agile-waterfall wars we have learned a lot, most importantly that the process we used was only a tiny piece of the puzzle. That culture, trust, transparency and self-organization were much more important.
Most of us in the agile community have felt what it is like working in a truly self-organizing team with plenty of trust and transparency. And lately we have tried very hard to get those values out of IT, into management and the rest of the organization. Unfortunately without much success.
That is why we have top-down agile implementations, mandatory weekly status updates on team agility and my favorite from @benjaminm, secret scoring by agile coaches on team member transparency.
All of that is because in the eyes of managers agile is an IT process thing. Words mean things.
So what’s next?
I still have not given up on the new ideals we discovered. We need self-organizing within organizations based on trust and transparency now more than ever. But we can not call it Agile anymore.
Luckily earlier this year a few thought leaders from both the agile community and outside came together in Stoos, trying to kickstart just such a movement. After two days they came up with the first version of their vision:
“Reflecting on leadership in organizations today, we find ourselves in a bit of a mess. We see reliance on linear, mechanistic thinking, companies focusing more on stock price than delighting customers, and knowledge workers whose voices are ignored by the bosses who direct them. All these factors are reflected in the current economic crisis, increased inequity, bankruptcies and widespread disillusionment.
There has to be a better way.
We believe that we uncovered some of the common characteristics of that better way. For example, that organizations can become learning networks of individuals creating value and that the role of leaders should include the stewardship of the living rather than the management of the machine.”
Stoos is nothing more than a vision. A very high level vision at what an organisation might look and feel like. Without anything concrete, Stoos is a very hard sell, but it is also the only reason it stands any chance of working. Because there is not one solution to this problem. We are going to need a lot of them. By keeping Stoos a vision it will force us to look at all the options we have. And that gives us the chance to also work with a lot of other really neat ideas that can help us, such as Rightshifting, Lean, Beyond Budgeting and Tribal Leadership.
Tags: agile, beyond budgeting, tribal leadership, waterfall
Pingback: Farewell Agile, Hello Stoos (erronis.nl) « AppDev Reading
I’m with you. Recently I’ve been feeling the pain of “agile-off-the-rails” as a contract developer on a huge software product in a large, top-down organization. It’s true that in the eyes of many managers, agile is an IT process thing. It’s sad. And it can be abusive, particularly when simple metrics are used as a blunt instrument to flog the people doing the work. I’d rather get poked in the eye than be witness to another counter-productive ass clown snarking about burn down. All the best with Stoos.
Bob,
I am afraid I know all too well what you are talking about. This is exactly what I am trying to do. Get people to adopt the mindset of agile, instead of just the process.
Best of luck with your future jobs!
Hi Erwin,
Nice try, but “we” are far from done
. I can give a long explanation but Martin Fowler does a much better job in it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Qj75nJPEs (start at 54:00 or so).
I am curious what you think after watching watching the video.
Lars
Thanks for the link Lars. And I completely agree.
But even Martin says Agile has lived up to and exceeded its original purpose. To be a valid alternative to the systems engineering (ie Waterfall method). Agile has all but wiped out waterfall development.
And I agree there still is a huge amount of work to be done. I am only saying that trying to do all that work under the banner of Agile is going to be an uphill battle. Agile is an IT process thing. It’s even in the manifesto: “Working software over comprehensive documentation”. We have fixed that.
The problems we are left with are command and control management, functional silos, annual budgets, focus on shareholder value, quarterly earning targets, bureaucracy and a general lack of trust to name just a few. Trying to fix those non-IT non-process problems with what others see as an IT process solution is at the very least going to be confusing.
And yes, changing that is going to take decades. And I am all-in in making that change happen. I am just not going to call it Agile.
Hi Erwin,
Indeed we agree on the work that needs to be done. No discussion there.
Just to be sure: the context I am using is companies delivering services and goods through IT. For example: product companies, banks etc.
What is on my mind is this: By dismissing Agile as it was only an IT process thing you are setting us back 10 years in time. It is not about process and not only about IT and you know it.
Like Fowler said, we have to be patient when Symantic Diffusion steps in. When managers see Agile as an IT thing we shouldn’t call it something else but have to explain it again. Like you said: Words mean things.
You know it’s more than a process, I know it’s about more than a process, but the rest of the world sees it as just a process. Companies ask you to implement Scrum for example.
Now I am not suggesting we give up on Agile completely. If we see a flawed Agile implementation we need to step in and prevent as much Symantic Diffusion as we can.
But the big push to take our values to management and the rest of the organisation will only be burdened by the IT and process associations that people have with Agile IMO.
I’ve been an advocate for Scrum since the early 90′s and have pitched the benefits various agile approaches for many years. I think the core problem we face is simply that the concepts around agile development were defined by software developers, not business people.
The only way any software development approach can be successful is by engaging all the major functional groups within an enterprise. We talk about collaborating with the business and the end users but we haven’t done an adequate job of reaching out to them for help in defining how the development process should work.
So, I agree. We need a ‘new agile’. One that draws support and energy from everyone with a vested interest in the product or service being developed. In the end, software is just another tool. It’s a means to an end.
Vin,
Great points. Even in Agile there is still a lot of work to be done.
I disagree. Agile has momentum we should nurture, not rename. Many companies want agility. How many annual reports talk about enabling agility to meet their strategic goals? Authors like Steve Denning’s and Jergen Appelo are taking the conversation to new heights and new places and they are rebranding, too. So we end up fractured, diluted and under valuing the genius behind the Agile Manifesto. This is an opportunity to expand the reach and influence of Agile. It’s not the time to retract or rebrand.
The problem is obviously not the name. The problem is the term, Agile, is not aligned with the larger context in which we want to apply it. The agile manifesto was written for a specific vertical, namely software. So your inclination to rename is natural. What you are saying is: Let’s call a spade a spade! The Agile Manifesto really should be renamed Agile Software Manifesto or the Agile IT Manifesto. That might actually be a good step in opening up the possibility for the Agile Manifesto to adapt to the new, new Agile context we need to define.
Agile has a branding problem – and I would like to hear what the brand experts would say about how we can solve that problem. I doubt they would say rename it.
The key thing the agile manifesto did was provide a universal set of ‘shared’ values. That is where we need to start. We want business to change their culture to ‘be’ agile but we are not willing to change the Agile brand to ‘be’ more inclusive. Understandably, neither of these are easy tasks but I think both are worth pursuing.
Let’s find a way to expand the Agile brand without diminishing the value of it’s history. Can we continue to create industry specific manifestos, like agilemarketingmanifesto.org has done? Over time we might be able to say Agile, big A, to mean all of the “values and principles” shared across the verticals and domains, inclusively. This opens up the possibility that Agile can (and I bet will) evolve with the times, rather than become a snapshot in history. The Agile story is just getting started.
Doug,
Thanks for the great response. I this indeed as a branding problem. Should really have some branding experts look into this.. I am hardly an expert.
I agree that agile has quite a bit of momentum. But without the proper branding it is going very quickly in the wrong direction.
We are not making it easier for the non-initiated to ‘be’ agile. Not when ‘working software over extensive documentation’ is still in the Agile Manifesto and we are still debating Scrum vs. Kanban.
But we certainly have interesting times ahead
Agreed, the agile manifesto needs to iterate, possibly change the name or change the content or maybe both. Thank you for the great blog post!
Off course we’re not done, we’re just getting started. I agree there are too many organisation claiming they are agile, which have little notion about the Lean Principles and just going through the motions. Reading the replies of the comments, you see this as well, but that is no reason to stop using terms like agile.
I have nothing against the Stoos initiative, and I think it’s great to take the lessons learned from the Software industry to other industries as well, but this doesn’t mean we are done changing the world of software development, we just created a larger playing field.
Agile is dead, long live Agile!
Niels,
Thanks for the reply. Indeed, not even the world of software development is done. And if clients are asking for agile we should by all means help them get ‘properly’ agile.
I am getting more and more sceptical that management reform is going to work under the banner of Agile.
And it’s not just about taking the ideas from Agile to other parts of the business. It’s also about including a bunch of other ideas. From Beyond Budgeting to Holocracy to whoever else has an idea.
It is indeed all about increasing the playing field
Pingback: Agile Slovenia 2012 | ReStreaming