Agile Business Coach

InfoQ and the Agile Conversation

A few years ago I used to do a fair bit of Blogging. I'd opine on anything and everything, but mainly about Agile. I stopped. There are a number of reasons. One of the main reasons was that I left ThoughtWorks and joined a company that would not have appreciated my venomous quips. The other reason was that I never got much feedback. Over the couple of years I got about 10 or 20 comments on my posts. They were gold dust to me. I got the impression that I had a readership of three... My Mum, my Boss and my Doctor, the second was checking up on what I was saying about the company, and the third was checking up on "how I was saying it"? Of course, it is a fantasy that my doctor would be checking up on me. I know he doesn't really care as long as I pay the bills.

So anyway. I gave up Blogging. Last year I thought about starting again and announced to my Mum and doctor that I would be Blogging again soon. Then I didn't. I just couldn't be bothered.

Without feedback, there was no conversation. If it wasn't a conversation, then it was simply a rant. Yawn...

Then along came InfoQ. I read a few interesting articles and read the comments that followed. The comments are often more interesting than the article. Agilists would argue with non-Agilists (who are really Agilists but call themselves "Pragmatic" or "Common Sense" types).

I met Deborah a few weeks ago when she was in London for InfoQ conference. I am trying to sell her on the idea of a "Real Option and Agile" article for InfoQ

And then a few days ago I joined in the Conversation. It was like Blogging but with feedback. It wasn't ranting. It was having a conversation.

This morning it struck me that InfoQ is an on-line Agile conference. Someone presents on a subject and then the delegates talk about it on-line. The comments are a form of goldfish bowl. A place to have a conversation. A place to start a conversation. It offers a nice level of structure that the e:mail lists do not provide. It is difficult to reread all the thousands of posts on a list. As a result, the same questions appear again and again. InfoQ also offers a nice historical record. You do not need to be there to here and then join in on the conversation. You can get an overview of the subject from the article and then read the discussion to see the different points of view.

Some things I would like InfoQ to provide... At the moment, the conversation is Public. I would like the opportunity to have a private conversation ( for example with Joe on the Post Agilism thread, with whom I suspect I share a number of values and anti-agile views ). The ability to offer him the option to e:mail me to make contact but without me publicly showing my e:mail. Its easy to find me but thankfully most people do not have google. A lot of what I write is inflamatory and if you do not know me, you are likely to be offended. When you get to know me, well, then I'll make sure you'lll be offended. I would like to point out that InfoQ probably already provide this service but I'm a bit, no make that a lot rubbish and haven't found it yet.

I would also like the option for an RSS feed or e:mail update alert on threads that I am interested in. Personally, I would want the e:mail alert as I do not have a Blog aggregator. After all, thats the problem with Blogs, too much ranting, not enough conversation.

I for one am standing in the InfoQ auditorium clapping Deborah and the team. Anyone care to join me, then nip out for a chat in an on-line coffee bar?

Ooo. And a note saying how long the interviews run for so I can set aside the time.

Refactoring the Agile Manifeston (Posted to InfoQ)

http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/05/refactoring_the_agile_manifesto At the first ADC conference in Salt Lake City I put to Allistair Cockburn the idea that the Agile Manifesto should be "refactored" ( "rewritten" to non techy, non agile types ). It was obvious that "Business Value" was more important than "Working Software" which was more important than "Extensive Documentation". It was obvious that "Good relationships" were more important than "effective communication". ( You may speak the same language as someone but if you have a bad relationship, well it ain't gonna work ).

Point is, I had him on the ropes... So I thought.

Alistair's response was that the Manifesto was a historical document. It had taken the days at Snowbird to agree the four principles, and then it several weeks of e:mail to agree the rest. This was with a small group of people, less than twenty.

He was right. By the time of ADC v1, the Agile community had grown to a thousand or so people. How do we get them all in a room to agree the new Agile Manifesto. Was it possible?

The Agile Manifesto is a historical document. The community has a choice. We either leave it as it is. An imperfect call to arms for a new generation of developer who believe in Winston Royce's original dream, or do we update it?

Leaving it is easy.

Updating it is hard. We have to find a PROCESS for coming up with Manifesto amendments (think constitutional amendments). We can leave it as a play thing of the Agile Alliance board, letting the 10 or so elected official decide, or we have a referendum. Chose your poison.

I vote for leaving it alone. I don't need a written set of rules to tell me what Agile is. I'll make it up myself. I would rather do something useful... Like invent cool new tools and methodologies.

Good night. I'm off to bed.

Agile is a name (Posted to www.infoq.com )

Agile is a name. Simply that. You see a bit of land and call it "New Amsterdam", someone else comes along and calls it "New York", yet another person calls it "Mine". The name chosen says more about the person chosing the name, and their relationship with the named thing, than the named thing itself. When Agilistas call something "Agile", they are saying that they think it is a good (software) thing. Its a compliment. You may chose to call it common sense, they call it Agile.

Funnilly enough, the Agile community understands the value of labels and recently opined that any "certification" (label) gained from a five day training course that has a 99% pass rate probably isn't worth that much. True skills are earned over time through practice. This goes against standard practice in the quick fix/silver bullet software industry. As such, the Agile community is paying tribute to successful communities such as the doctor's, lawyers and accountants. I am a BA by training. I interview many ex-accountants who are now BAs. They would be horrified if an unqualified person were to prepare the statement of accounts for a company but they feel there is no problem that someone with a "Five day training course" specify the general ledger system. Its not them, the problem is that its the accepted norm in software. The Agile Alliance has recently spoken out about this practice. Mainly because we believe in "People over Process". You can learn a process in 5 days, but you can't learn years of practice in 5 days.

Before anyone gets upset by the whole 1, 2, 3 thing because I've not explained it properly. Alistair explains it very succintly but it takes a chapter or two. I'll try in a line or two, and get it wrong. No one in Agile is labeled 1, 2, or 3 individually. They are self selecting demographic groups. "Level 1 do not know and want to know the one best way to do something.", "Level 2 wants to know/knows many ways.", "level 3 knows there is a way". It is taken from the martial arts (Shu-Ha-Ri) and the way you learn them.

Post-Agilism (Posted to InfoQ)

I have heard about "Post-Agilism" from a number of sources. Just like Agile, each person has a different meaning and understanding. This is MY observation ( I own it in the sense I do not want to project it onto other people ).

Agile started as a niche. Some people have developed their careers around agile, some just liked the ideas, tools, late night chats and beers. Most are a mixture of the two. As agile became more successful and new people joined the community, some aspects of Agile have become more focused and dogmatic.... "Do it this way!", or rather, "this is the best way to do it when you start". Mainly, its because thats what a lot of newbies want. "Don't tell me "there is a way", just tell me which book and software to buy." i.e. The community is addressing the level 1 new entrants. The parts of the community pushing Agile are often doing this because it provides them a revenue stream. As a result, the stream of cool new tools, ideas, chats and beers has slowed a lot as we focus on making hay.

Try explaining XP to a person. Then a second, and a third.... After a few years of this. You might cut a few corners. Be less tolerant. A bit more direct. Sound a bit evangelical. However, if you want to see an Agile bigot on their home turf, go to an Agile conference (Church). When you find a bigot, well done, because there aren't many to be found. Most people in Agile mainly listen. You learn more when you listen than when you talk... And Agile is a learning community. A community that learns and develops/evolves tools.

Lets be clear, most early adoptors of Agile went straight in at level 2 or 3. A number of these guys, those people in the community for the cool new tools, ideas, chats and beers(the early adopters) are harking back to the good old days. They want the fun back rather than spend all their time "working" on bringing newbies up to speed. I know a number of people who have moved on from Agile. Hence Post-Agilism. We (I am one of them as well as an agilist, and a father, and a middle aged fat guy) want to turn up the volume on the new stuff as well as teach to the newbies.

The Post-Agilists are "_T_he People's front of Judea", or is it "the people's front of Judea" or rather "The Judean People's front."

I have my own definition of Agile to add to the other several thousand I'm aware of.

"Having fun whilst learning new tools to do my job better."