Skip to main content

Agile: organization, movement, or philosophy?

I referred to Agile today as a philosophy in a conversation with other Agile coaches.  I got a little push back.  So it made me think - is that the right word for the thing that has resulted from the Agile Manifesto?

No.  I may want it to be a philosophy, and it may be my personal philosophy.  But it is not a philosophy that is recognized by the general population.  Nor even a philosophy as recognized by the IT industry nor software developers.

It is a movement.  Or is it a method of working?  I'm not sure - what's the difference? I believe that Scrum is a method of working, while I believe that Agile is greater than just being Scrum-y, or turning all the dials to 11 (XP).

However, if Agile were to marry Lean, then I think the union would have a great shot at becoming a philosophy.

So in my philosophy I try to marry the two movements and I think it makes for a philosophy.  One that has the capability to evolve via Double Loop Learning.  A philosophy should be capable of challenging it's own truth and modifying the goal to know the truth.  So in the manifesto the goal is to develop working software, along with all the necessary stuff like teams, and server farms required to deliver the software.  But is that the truth?  Is that the value stream result?  No.

The ultimate goal of working software is to delight customers.  It is delighted customers that purchase the software.  Software has no real value until a customer chooses to purchase it or the device the software is embedded within.  Like the DVD player that really needs a better UX (no delighted customer here - no recommendation for that DVD player to my twitter friends).  A case in point is the eco-system that Apple has created with the iOS devices and the App Store.  Billions of dollars have not changed hands because of lists of acceptance criteria that have been met for thousands of feature sets.  Oh-no, it is because delighted customers have raved at the local watering hole that this app is awesome.

So if your company is looking to Agile to increase speed to market, or to double revenue in 5 years, or to increase quality while decreasing cost - then you are missing the movement.  And you will not make your transformation to Agile stick.

To make that Agile Transformation stick into the DNA
of your organization you will have to promote the movement to a philosophy within your organization.  Then and only then will the movement (transformation) become capable of surviving the inevitable change of leadership and staff that will snuff out a movement.

My quest is to find the techniques that transform a movement into a philosophy.  But I need help.
Panarchic Cycle

Organization vs. movement vs. philosophy

An organization uses structure and resources and power to make things happen. Organizations hire people, issue policies, buy things, erect buildings, earn market share and get things done. Your company is probably an organization.
A movement has an emotional heart. A movement might use an organization, but it can replace systems and people if they disappear. Movements are more likely to cause widespread change, and they require leaders, not managers. The internet, it turns out, is a movement, and every time someone tries to own it, they fail.
A philosophy can survive things that might wipe out a movement and that would decimate an organization. A philosophy can skip a generation or two. It is often interpreted, and is more likely to break into autonomous groups, to morph and split and then reunite. Industrialism was a philosophy.
The trouble kicks in when you think you have one and you actually have the other.

1 comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.

In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.

Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    To Do
    Work In P…

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

What belongs on the Task Board?

I wonder about these questions a lot - what types of task belong on the task board?  Does every task have to belong to a Story?  Are some tasks just too small?  Are some tasks too obvious?  Obviously some task are too larger, but when should it be decomposed?  How will we know a task is too large?

I answer these questions with a question.  What about a task board motivates us to get work done?  The answer is: T.A.S.K.S. to DONE!

Inherent in the acronym TASKS is the point of all tasks, to get to done.  That is the measure of if the task is the right size.  Does it motivate us to get the work done?  (see notes on Dan Pink's book: Drive - The surprising Truth about what motivates us) If we are forgetting to do some class of task then putting it on the board will help us remember.  If we think some small task is being done by someone else, then putting it on the board will validate that someone else is actually doing it.  If a task is obvious, then putting it on the board will take vi…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.

I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.


Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…