Agile Surveys via Dr. Dobb’s Journal: Raw Data, AUP, MSF Agile & “Agile 2.0″
[rant]
Please tell me it’s a joke. Scott W. Ambler has published some interesting data related to a surveys done via Dr. Dobb’s Journal. Questions, raw data and summary can be found at http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/
In the last slide of the summary presentation (ppt) I read: “There was a statistical correlation between adoption of “Agile 2.0″ methods such as Agile Unified Process (AUP) or MSF Agile and adoption of Agile Model Driven Development (AMDD)”.
Please please please can we try to avoid such a thing as Agile 2.0? And who says that AUP and MSF Agile are Agile 2.0? what do we/you/they mean by Agile 2.0? I still am not sure AUP and MSF Agile are “Agile 1.0″…
[/rant]
Kerry Buckley said,
July 29, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
A lot of traditonal, model-driven process people seem to be trying to jump on the agile bandwagon and sell their methodology as “agile++”. Ivar Jacobson, for example, now has his “Essential Unified Process”, which to me looks like a compromise between agile and RUP, but is being marketed as then next step in the agile direction.
I guess this sort of thing is probably easier to sell to big companies’ IT managers than something like XP (which no doubt explains Mr Jacobson’s pre-launch presentation on EssUP to the large telco where I work), and they’re probably also a better fit for people who are interested in obtaining some of the benefits of agile, but can’t quite bring themselves to let go of their belief in up-front design, outsourced coding and so on.
Thought Leadership said,
July 31, 2006 @ 11:27 am
Do members of the Agile Alliance really believe in…
In a recent survey, 97% of all respondents indicated that the agile alliance needs to introduce new speakers at their conference instead of having the same s ……
Randy Miller said,
August 9, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
Agile 2.0 - what the heck is that? I think that you mean second generation agile software development methods. Take this as fact! The agile community is evolving and “Enterprise Scrum” is clear evidence of it. To see my feelings about this check out http://blogs.msdn.com/randymiller/archive/2006/03/23/559229.aspx.
Randy
Randy Miller said,
August 9, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
http://blogs.msdn.com/randymiller/archive/2006/03/23/559229.aspx
Marco Abis said,
August 9, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
Randy: your post has nothing wrong per se (and I agree that it is all about delivery) BUT Agile is not all about techniques, it is all about values and principles. This is the fundamental error you guys are doing: branding & rebranding groups of techniques as Agile 2.0 or second generation agile.
Every single Agile approach is supposed to change and adapt based on the unique team/project reality and yes, I have business analysts and testers on my Agile project since before these “new” second generation agile methods told me to do so. Simply they were needed, the team during their retrospectives identified the need and we included them.
Nothing bad about MSF Agile and all the others methods but please don’t call them Agile if their core are techniques and tools because this is not the reason why Agile is a paradigm shift.
Thanks for you comment
P.S.: too bad the link you post has comments disabled…
Randy Miller said,
August 9, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
So I see a different problem and it has nothing to do with branding. I see folks adopting agile software development processes and excluding the testers because “They are not part of the process”. You and I know this isn’t what was intended by the folks who created these processes but it is also true that most of the early agile processes did not include these roles. To quote Kent:
“My bias in writing XP originally was towards the programmers. That’s my background. That’s who I identified with on teams. However, the past five years have taught me that software development can’t be ‘the programmers and a bunch of other people’ if the goal is excellence. Without balance between the concerns of everyone involved, some people will be unable to contribute to development, and their views are important to the team’s success.”
I talk to a lot of folks out there that need to know that it is OK to include these folks and by the way, they need to know how. I have been a part of the agile community for a really long time and I recall a time when writing a model on the board was considered a crime. Now, I’m throwing done the gauntlet. If you guys want these folks included, evolve and discuss how you would include them. Don’t make people guess.
Randy
Marco Abis said,
August 9, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Randy: all true but that quote from the second edition of the white book comes, as it says, after 5 years and in those five years EVERYWHERE (conferences, articles, books, mailing lists, user groups and so forth) these topics have been discussed and a lot of experiences, successes and failures have been shared.
Do we need second generation agile revelations with new (fancy) names and commercial tools connected to them? no, we don’t
Do we need more prescriptive methods? no, we don’t or better: we don’t in the Agile space where what is important first of all are values and principles.
Whoever tried to apply an Agile process by the book hasn’t understood the book and the way to explain this, IMHO, is not coining new names, new processes and new tools.
Thanks again for your reply
pierg said,
August 23, 2006 @ 9:38 am
I do agree with Marco, it’s FIRST OF ALL a matter of values and principles. AND, without some (GOOD) tools, there is no way to apply these values and principles. Values and principles are a THE ‘value’ (pardon) by themselves and without (among other things) tools are just users stories without code.
Randy (http://blogs.msdn.com/randymiller/archive/2006/03/23/559229.aspx), what you and other companies are doing is amazing: great ideas + great tools.
My question is: is there ‘value’ enough in this moment to have a second release of agile? Or are we just running an ‘iteration’ + some spikes?
PierG
http://pierg.wordpress.com
Lean + Six Sigma = Lean Six Sigma « PierG said,
August 28, 2006 @ 7:33 am
[...] I’m not excited in giving everything a name. Especially I’m not excited to give names talking about different dialects inside the agile space … especially after all the mess related the Agile2.0 stuff (have a look at Marco Abis post). [...]
Randy Miller said,
October 19, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
Hi PierG,
Actually, I used the term second generation to give credit to all the folks that got this whole thing started. I suppose that I could have just started MSF with the XP base that it has and said this is it.
The idea is that second generation agile methods are derived from the first generation methods. Without the work that the XP (the white book) and Scrum (and others) community did, we would have no Green book XP and no Industrial XP. I do not claim that second generation methods are better, just different. You can also generate your own second generation agile process by taking base XP and adapting it according to XP values. It I have violated the values and principles of XP, I believe that this is a valid argument to have. I am less interested in the name ‘Agile 2.0′ or ’second generation’.
Randy
Peter Hundermark said,
October 26, 2006 @ 7:16 am
agile processes are empirical, not defined, and are predicated upon “inspect and adapt”. Therefore it is not the process (framework) that needs to change, but the application of common sense/experience/wisdom in each and every case. The “rules” are very simple (and need to remain so), but their application is hard and demands the ongoing application of our energy, courage, respect, etc.