The agile great divide
When you hear the word agile, what do you hear?
In my twelve years as a coach, I see this great divide.
Some hear: Autonomy, Reactivity, Team-work, Collaboration, Connectivity, Experiments, Adaptive Network.
While others hear: Efficiency, Delivery, Quality, Time-to-market, Clear Order, Less Waste, Better Hierarchy.
Some hear Evolution, others - Revolution.
Same word, different meanings...
And yes, of course, they can co-exist, but only when:
- Each half understands the other's needs.
- Each half respects the other and feels respected.
I guess some of you may say they are on both sides, but for the sake of argument...
Which side are you on?
Note, I wrote this as a ricochet of this post, it seems that writing about SAFe can get a lot of emotions from both sides :)
And for reference, here is the Merriam-Webster definition:
Head of Product & Service
5 年What I mean is more the misconception of being agile. In the sense that traditional approaches (e.g. waterfall) can be rigid because you stick to a plan that is more difficult to change once started. With agility, the expectation for some people becomes you can do A today, B tomorrow and A again the day after because you are agile.
Head of Product & Service
5 年Relevant article Dov. I would add one more category which is "Agile means being a contortionist". This would address the case where it is assumed that people can shift direction instantly and multiple times during a project without consequences on what will be produced, the impact on the team / organisation or the coherence with the company's strategy.
I remove internal friction between tech & business, improving collaboration so you can ship better products. | Consultant & Coach | I write @ mazur.ai
5 年For me one definition is pointless without the other. Separately neither creates any value but together they stand strong. I think this becomes evident when you read the agile manifesto - it always baffled me how many people practice agile without having read the manifesto in full - some people know the values, but very few are even aware there are principals. SAFe or anything else you can conjure up needs to be seen through the value “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools” with the added sub text “That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.” Furthermore “Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.” So while the first list represents why I like working with agile the second list tells you why I work with agile.
To add to the ambiguity I actually hear - quick and flexible literally! And this is also what I mean when I say it!
Head of Product Management at Sonar
5 年I certainly identify more with the first description, and I've experienced this dichotomy too. For me, the second is a list (apart from better hierarchy?) of some of the outcomes that result in working in the way described in the first.