Skip to main content

Be or Be Not; there is no Do in Agile

Why do we practice this thing we call Agile?  Is it for the results it provides? 

I've been working with companies and people that use the "A" word in many different ways.  Sometime the word is used as if it were a method of working.
"We are doing Agile on this project, but the team has 34% story carry over each iteration."
Sometimes it is used as a bludgeon to beat someone not behaving as one would like them to behave.
Sales:  "I'd like you to work on this severity one bug, it just came in and the customer while not really blocked is considering a purchase of our SuperWidget and if you just sneak this in today they will be really happy."  
Team Member:  "Sorry, talk to the PO we have sprint commitments." 
Sales:  "Well, that's not very Agile!"  
While at other times it is a promised land, a utopia of project management where we all live in harmony.  Many times it is used as a technique to achieve some other purpose, a differentiator that will achieve some other objective.  Objectives such as speed to market, doubling revenue in five years, raising quality while lowering cost, there are many other business objectives for "installing the agile".

I am not surprise when department managers say their groups are doing Agile.  I typically bit my tongue and run through this test in my head.

  • Show me your teams interacting with each other, the customers, and product owner more than they are working with the tools, process, etc.  
  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
  • Great you must have working software, show me your last iteration demo on the staging server, now.  
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Which one of these people is the customer?  
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
  • What feed back did the customer give in the last month or two that cause you to deliver higher value than initially planned?  
  • Responding to change over following a plan

Is there just one process way to do these things?  No.  There are thousands of ways to do these things.

Those things are the definition of Agile.  Agile is not a method, it is a way of being.  It is a synergy of many things we do, and many things we do not do.  It is in the decision we make and it is mostly in the underlying reasons - why - we make those decisions.

One could do Scrum or XP, those are processes (or frameworks or techniques) - but one cannot do Agile.  However, one could be Agile.  Agility is a path, either you are on it, or off it - there is no Agile destination.


Yoda teaching young Skywalker "Do or do not, there is no try."

But why should one attempt to be Agile?  Answering this question is getting to the core purpose.  It is not about all the outcomes that might result in a group or organization being Agile.  If being Agile is the goal, then we are surely going to disappoint someone.  Perhaps ourselves, perhaps our customers. Customers don't want us to responded to their change request - they want products that met their discovered needs (true needs) with the ability to sustain the continual deliver of meeting their needs in the future.

Simon Sinek TED Talk: How great leaders inspire action

I think we must be Agile for our selves.  Then align our values of being Agile within the context of the purpose of the organization we choose to work with.  If this alignment is too difficult, the friction too high, options exist.  Explore those options.

An agile enterprise is one that has achieved a level of operational excellence that enables it to make changes at the same pace that it discovers a need for them. -- Tim Snyder

Tim explains with great clarity why Agile is a proper goal for an organization (not all companies - but some).  Agile is a slightly unique type of goal - a system-optimizing goal.



2 comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

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: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. 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, …

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
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.


14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).




The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

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…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?



An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."

I&#…