Giles Lindsay (FIAP FBCS FCMI)的动态

Part 2 of this conversation can be found here: https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7122131411431485440/

A well summarized article. One of my current phrases is “we don’t have a methodology problem, we have a behavior problem, and that starts with leaders”. Culture is a product of our behaviors.

I am unsure if it is a post Agile world. An Agile that was never really focused or set to deliver agility was never here or there. It wasn't a world, it was an illusion. It was a half hearted effort (despite millions being spent) which had no meaning, just different labels for things. I think that many organisations are waking up from this post-Agile-farce and many with a hangover of how much was spent on big consultancy and how little outcome really materialised. The needs for Flow and Agility, and to that matter Effectiveness and Innovation, is still strongly here. Complexity in business is only going to increase as well with supply chain challenges, disrupted geopolitics, social responsibility, environmental responsibility, etc. None of it you can really predict or outsource, you need to integrate into the core of businesses so they can adapt. Digital and tech will continue to be a major force in supporting all this and digital "transformations" are a long way from done, and only touching the heart of businesses. The question is whether they will question their approach to get ownership through the business or go to the next Consultancy and blame the last one instead?

I think... Agile is not a methodology. It is indeed an organizational change philosoply. When someone implements Agile correctly, the organization sees change differently. The fundamental issue is the definition of Agile. It is not simply "Scrum, Kanban, SAFe is not a methodology nor is Disciplined Agile. They are fundamental change agents. We have started to see orgainzations look at the projects individually, you know, with agility, and try to identify the best way forward with the goals of the project in the center of the discussion. We should find this incredibly encouraging. Agile is not about any single methodology, it is about getting the organizations actually involved in the projects that will change the organization. So now instead of a leaderless scrum meeting, we have an agile meeting of leaders who can actually make business decisions. Our agile community is uniquely placed to assist these leaders to be more agile in their change management, and who knows, finally get a seat at the table?

Agile was a rebellion against the prevailing management practices in the software industry in the late 90s / early 2000s. In the intervening 20 years, it has been "recuperated" (as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)). The discourse on Agile these days is mostly confused, as so many people talk about it as if it was the source of certain first principles.. rather than just a social phenomenon in a particular time and place.

Has anyone seen "true" waterfall?

I like the challenge of this well expressed article. The answer is of course - of course not. 'What Agile' are people talking about. Alas many think there is only one agile. I happily accept that the Agile Manifesto - and there is only one of those - remains the best most coherent expression of what constitutes agility. Whether there are fewer agile software (or product - whatever the term today is) development roles out there now I have no idea. What I do know is that agility - the Agile Manifesto - has been adapted way beyond its software development origins. Sometimes superbly, often horrendously (e.g. agile project management having to have an iterative life-cycle ONLY - pure nonsense). Good and successful adaptations reflect ALL 4 Values and ALL 12 Principles of the Agile Manifesto because as a whole it is the test of agility. Not 1 or 2 Values or a few of the Principles. Neither are the adaptations the same. I have seen awful examples of Scrum dropped wholesale into a completely different work area than software development with expensively disastrous consequences. Agile alas often got the blame not the misguided persons who advised. Agility is like fruit....oranges and apples are both fruit but taste and look different.

IN the 'waterfall world' there are many and varied rituals and processes which contribute to the whole, largely the domain of project managers, not the engineers doing the tasks. I had typed that there were certain givens that had to be present, but after typing them I realised these weren't givens at all. In Agile have we now reached the stage where we no longer need the equivalent rituals (you have to have a morning stand-up, you have to organize in Sprints, you have to have a Scrum Master) when in fact now it has become ingrained in the project managers and product managers that this is the way we do it in the 21stC, and as before, as above, we still need the engineers doing the tasks.

Phenomenal post. I find this whole idea of Agile incredibly fascinating. Im new to learning about much of this topic, but I have a question. What happens when/if these roles become ingrained in the company behavior so well that the roles are no longer needed, standards slide back to the norm or are not enacted the way they began, individuals and holders of institutional knowledge retire or move on and the system finds itself in need of specialized individuals once again? Is the idea that the behaviors are so ingrained that they outpace change and knowledge transfer? Constant iteration and knowledge transfer become ways to stave off entropy?

"The future belongs to those who can adapt, innovate, and execute Agile principles, irrespective of their job title." I wholeheartedly concur, Giles Lindsay (FIAP FBCS FCMI)! ?? In my experience, what business leaders want most is Delivery of the commercial outcomes they seek. They are not interested in Agile per se, it simply boils down to the WIIFM (what's in it for me) question. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Nigel Thurlow's comment: "Agile has been oversold and underdone", sums up where we are generally. ? Agile promises made in the Boardroom, broken on the Production floor. ? As Nigel has pointed out, "organisations have largely failed to implement true Agile methods, often settling for what he terms "disciplined waterfall", are we really post-Agile? Will this be misinterpreted as Agile itself has been? Will business leaders believe they can go from white belt to 1st Dan without putting in the effort? ? Either way, Evan Leybourn's remarks "the surging demand for Agile proficiency rather than traditional roles ring true.? ? Agile Proficiency or Competency is what business leaders have always wanted. Demand for this will surely increase. Great article, lots to digest and discuss here, Giles!???