The ‘Crazy Things’ Series: Part 3 - Gurus
In the article ‘Some of the Craziest Things in Working with Methods and Frameworks’ (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/some-craziest-things-working-methods-frameworks-ivar-jacobson/) I?wrote:??
“A guru is usually just an expert on one or a few practices, while the other practices are “borrowed” from other gurus or experts. The original creator of a practice, the expert, may get a pat on the back from the guru borrowing it, but that is usually all. And it is not fair, because the creator has not just created the practice, but also invested both time and money to make it practical and popular. We need experts, but not gurus; it is unworthy of the industry.”??
Among people interested in software development methods, the term guru has been used for someone being the creator of a method or a framework that is or has been successful. A guru is according to Oxford Languages “an influential teacher or popular expert”. I learnt the term from people calling me a guru because I was a co-creator of RUP.
Historically and even today, a successful method comes into existence by an expert (sometimes a few experts), who has come up with some new popular ideas, formulated them as practices and composed them with a good selection of other, existing, popular practices. Being successful means that the composition is received very positively by individuals and organizations in need of a method. The expert is of course very knowledgeable on her own practices and has a good understanding of the other selected practices.
However, that is not enough...
She has been able to make it highly believable that her method is great. Since working with methods is not a science, it means that she has been a great marketing and salesperson. Thus, to be successful, it is not enough to have some great technical or business ideas, but what in my experience is even more important is marketing and sales skills. As a side effect the expert becomes a guru. A guru is a salesperson!
领英推荐
In other, older engineering disciplines, we rely more on experts than on gurus. Software engineering is younger, immature discipline, but that is what we all want to change, one way or the other. The SEMAT community was founded upon the idea that the building blocks for methods are practices, and that you create a method by selecting the practices you need from an eco-system of practices.
Practices should be first-class citizens because typically methods are just compositions of some practices. Practices are created by experts, and methods would be created by great people understanding the needs of the client, i.e. the needs of a team, a team of teams or an organization. The idea of selling a particular method (framework) – the one and only way of doing things – would be replaced by being knowledgeable on what practices are available and what needs the client has. Instead of a few gurus, we would have many method experts. They could be internal or external resources to an organization. The need for gurus would reduce significantly and the existing gurus would get more important, more human roles. Human, because the current expectation on a guru is not realistic. I know, I was there, I was many times flabbergasted of what people expected from me and the trust they put on my suggestions. Though a fun situation to be in, it showed every sign of immaturity of the discipline.
So,?there you have it, an introduction to the problems of having gurus in software development. As for how we can solve this problem? Having a common ground like Essence for all practices and methods would significantly reduce the value of gurus.
If you are interested in?discussing gurus and the other ‘crazy things’ further, please join our LinkedIn community -?The Craziest Things in Working with Methods and Frameworks | Groups | LinkedIn.?
Let us know what you think about having gurus as a “crazy thing”. As an aside, do you agree that Practices are first-class citizens and Methods are just compositions of Practices?
Keep?an?eye?out?for Part 4 in the ‘crazy?things’ series,?where?I?will?introduce?and?discuss?the challenges of not having a common ground when working with methods and practices.
Passionate about agile, DevOps, learning & knowledge sharing, serious games | Owner at SimuLearn
3 年I really like that sentence: "Practices should be first-class citizens and methods are just compositions of some practices". When I was working as an agile coach, we as agile coaches kept challenging each other, bringing in new practices we picked up, to see if we could apply them in our day to day coaching activities, to make teams work better. We would have never introduced things like impact mapping, story mapping, example mapping, to name just a few, if we would simply stick to the textbook of a method. That's the creative part of being an agile coach: try things out, make them part of your coaching backpack.
Digital Program Director and Ways of Working expert
3 年I have encountered a number of famous gurus on Linkedin who responded in a very hostile and personal way to any criticism of their methods and frameworks. It's shocking how dogmatic, unthinking and nasty some of these people can be in defence of their frameworks.
Principal Software Architect / Engineer
3 年Agreed! However at the same time I was shocked and saddened just the other day as I discovered a younger colleague had never even heard of the 3 Amigos, let alone any of the amazing and groundbreaking work you, Grady Booch and Jim Rumbaugh put forth. In my book, if there are any gurus, you guys are certainly deserving of the honor! I really dig your current stuff as well, so keep up the good work. There are a handful of us who are still paying attention :)