marick
Brian Marick
Member
Posts: 68
Registered: 20 Apr 07
Member Is Offline
|
![[*]](./images/grass/default_icon.gif) posted on 26 May 07 at 02:36 PM |
|
|
Front-line organization: PRO
See http://forum.agilesoftwaredevelopment.org/viewthread.php?tid=220&page=1
PRO arguments:
Except for running a successful conference and a couple of smaller things, the Agile Alliance is not succeeding as an organization.
As I tell teams about process, it's always easier to add on than take away. Were we a successful organization in one domain, we'd have
credibility to move into another.
Were we focused on one constituency, we'd be more likely to succeed.
A unity of purpose leads increased volunteer energy.
There are teams that need help.
For a good chunk of teams that need help, the business they're in is the problem. Organizational change is the first choice, but:
It's slow and the teams have trouble right now. How can we help?
Sometimes the problems are because individuals in the organization have interests contrary to both the organization and our teams. In a
situation where sweet reason and truth-telling are ineffectual, our teams have no institutional strength to back them up. I'd like the Agile Alliance
to provide that. We should look out for each other.
Sometimes the world is hostile.
The APLN is focused on organizational change, so it's not like we'd be abandoning the idea. Maybe we should pay them when our members need
someone to come in and talk sweet reason to the business.
|
|
|
LaurentB
Laurent Bossavit
Member
Posts: 22
Registered: 21 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 29 May 07 at 04:27 AM |
|
|
(Cross-posted from the CON thread.)
It seems to me that the AA's area of concern is this: "how does a software development effort create value ?"
For a software development effort to create value, the "software development" part has to meet with *some* success (the software must perform its
functions well enough, has to be delivered in a timely fashion, must stay flexible enough to allow later change, and so on).
Right off the bat this involves several constituencies: developers, testers, product owners. I like the definition "everyone who is likely to attend
a stand-up".
And for a software development to create value, *more* has to be done than just hammering out good code that works. The software development effort,
and thus the various constituencies therein, have to engage and align with the business.
I'd be happy with an AA focused on the "front-line" folks. And, whenever the AA is concerned with how things are working out between the "front
line" folks and the rest of the business, I would want the AA's mission should be "to help the software development people engage and align with
the business".
I'm not too happy with saying "the business is the problem". From the software people's point of view the business is the problem; from the
business' point of view the software folks are the problem. Neither problem will be solved until each side stops thinking of the other as "the
problem".
|
|
|
LaurentB
Laurent Bossavit
Member
Posts: 22
Registered: 21 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 29 May 07 at 04:32 AM |
|
|
Here is a case to consider. Sometimes the reason for a project is to simplify the job currently being done by a number of people. The business reason
for doing that is so we can function with fewer of those people. Often they are the same people who will be using the system.
So, the software people are working to eliminate their "customers'" jobs. I've seen that used as an argument against "on site customer" in some
projects. It's certainly a case where we might find someone outside the team working to prevent the team from creating value.
What is the AA's concern in such a case ?
|
|
|
Joe
Joe Gee
Member
Posts: 16
Registered: 05 Sep 06
Location: Denver, CO
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moodless
|
| posted on 31 May 07 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
Aside from being comfortable with focusing on front line folks, or agreeing with Laurent's comment of "anyone likely to attend a stand up," I have
a question.
The statement was:
| Quote: | | Except for running a successful conference and a couple of smaller things, the Agile Alliance is not succeeding as an
organization. |
What are the success criteria by which the organization is being measured to produce this conclusion?
|
|
|
marick
Brian Marick
Member
Posts: 68
Registered: 20 Apr 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 01 Jun 07 at 07:13 AM |
|
|
Good question. My success criteria were in the list of whereases. Briefly:
Team members remain weak in basic skills, and that's not changing fast enough.
State of the practice is at least semi-stalled.
The percentage of joyful projects is declining.
|
|
|
RSS Feed
