Lately, there has been too much negative competition in the field of agile practices.
Anybody remember “individuals and interactions over processes and tools”? Too much negative competition in #agile methodologies #justsaying
@davidjcmorris, Twitter, 21-Aug-2013
It’s like that scene ‘The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem‘ in the Monty Python film ‘Life of Brian’; when the crowd following Brian falls out over how they should follow him. They argue over whether the sandal or the gourd is the most significant symbol; they argue over what each means; and then they argue about whether the footwear is a sandal or a shoe. Ridiculous and distracting, leaving them little time to focus on what was important.
In the beginning, there were people just getting on with their job, striving to be the best at it they could, including how to deliver quality solutions in better ways.
These ways evolved into what we know today as agile practices, with the agreement in 2001 of some leading practitioners of ‘lightweight’ methodologies to work together.
Then money and marketing got involved; it was no longer enough to show how effective agile practices were, they wanted to show how agile practices were good because waterfall practices were bad. And so began the language of the ‘agilistas’, those who seemed bent on some form of jihad against the supposed evils of waterfall.
That was much was understandable, to a certain extent, because they were proclaiming agile practices as the new way, as if it were a revolution away from waterfall rather than an evolution.
However, mature practitioners acknowledge that Scrum is on a continuum of iterative and incremental approaches like Rapid Application Development (RAD) and Unified Processes (like RUP); likewise the Extreme Programming (XP) has similarities to Joint Application Development (JAD).
Then the infighting between agile practitioners started; like when Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland fell out over Scrum and formed their own separate organisations Scrum.org and ScrumAlliance.org.
Many of the early agile practices focused on the software development stage of a project, and of course there is much that happens before a project is started, and much that happens after. So we now seen the evolution of enterprise agile practices – with Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) and Enterprise Scrum.
This is a hotly competitive arena, as the large corporates and government bodies have deeper pockets than smaller organisations; and out of this had developed a particularly nasty trend of negative publicity.
The people from SAFe are at the Agile Confernce this week. They had no where else to go, since RUP and waterfall don’t exist. Be polite.
Ken Schwaber, @kschwaber, 7-Aug-2013
Ken Schwaber has recently said some negative things about those behind SAFe. Many Scrum advocates, especially those with a vested interest, have joined Ken and it has gathered momentum and grown more negative.
Edit: It’s not just Scrum advocates either (not picking on Ken, that’s just the first I saw); over at Agile Ramblings, Dave White has covered many more from a much wider group too.
I have to call the signatories of the Agile Manifesto on this bad behaviour. Of the four values expressed in the manifesto, the first was “individuals and interactions over processes and tools“, i.e. the power of what we can achieve by working together is far greater than we get by focusing on the process or the tools we use. This value is not being demonstrated by your behaviour.
It doesn’t matter whether you call yourself the People’s Front of Judea or the Judean Popular Peoples Front, falling out over alternative approaches doesn’t advance our cause in the slightest.
To quote the movie from an earlier scene … “Splitters”.
Please, get a grip, or lose the respect of all agile practitioners.