dmalloc
DavidH
Member
Posts: 28
Registered: 04 Sep 06
Location: London, UK
Member Is Offline
|
![[*]](./images/grass/default_icon.gif) posted on 01 Jun 07 at 05:59 AM |
|
|
Proposal: Remove the term "software" from the context
Just like Apple recently had "Computers" deleted from its company name I suggest that we delete the focus on software.
If a statement such as "how does a software development effort create value ?" is true, then the AA should focus (in my mind) on a statement such as
"how does development effort create value ?"
Simplye because we can develop Products more agile (see lean) or even develop whole companies using more agile approaches such as promise based
management. As the high level organisation who is derived from the Agile Manifesto (which should be updated imho) we should focus on the overall
support of agile ideas and those go far beyonf software now a days.
|
|
|
LaurentB
Laurent Bossavit
Member
Posts: 22
Registered: 21 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 01 Jun 07 at 07:00 AM |
|
|
I would be concerned about overreaching, and a difuse focus.
We are credible where we have expertise.
What do I know about software development ? Plenty, though I keep learning more. That gives me some credibility in looking at ways that businesses
which rely on software obtain value from software (or fail to).
Expertise means focusing on one thing. I know little about dairy products, electronics, forging steel, fisheries, making movies, dental hygiene,
private equity... you get the point. Let people who are experts in those domains give expert advice on how to develop products for each of those
domains specifically. It's also a matter of humility.
|
|
|
kerry-buckley
Kerry Buckley
Member
Posts: 2
Registered: 04 Jan 07
Location: Ipswich, UK
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 01 Jun 07 at 07:07 AM |
|
|
My biggest worry is that large organisations which are just beginning to embrace Agile already have a tendency to focus away from the software
development aspects (development's just something we offshore, right?).
I've encountered the attitude that as long as you do stand-ups, user stories and retrospectives you're doing pretty well at this agile stuff, even
if your product at the end of an iteration is a design document that's handed over to another team.
By dropping the focus on software, we risk losing sight of the many unique properties of software development that make practices like those from XP
possible and valuable.
On a semi-related note, I've also seen the manifesto quoted as "We are uncovering better ways of delivering projects by doing it and helping others
do it...", and tried to stop it happening -- should I have made less fuss?
|
|
|
LaurentB
Laurent Bossavit
Member
Posts: 22
Registered: 21 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 01 Jun 07 at 10:09 AM |
|
|
Irrespective of opinion on the proposal, do y'all think it correlates with the "Front-line organization" question now being voted upon ?
It seems to me that AA as a "front-line organization" (one dedicated to support people who are likely to attend a stand-up) should keep its focus on
a specific type of activity - software development; while an AA moving out into the larger organization might, indeed, want to diversify away from
"software development" as well.
Based on this thinking, my position has crystallized quite a bit, as follows:
I favor keeping a focus on software development; in line with that I would support a more explicit focus on people with hands-on involved in software
development efforts; and as the next strength to develop, I would want the AA to do more about supporting these people in their professional
development.
|
|
|
dmalloc
DavidH
Member
Posts: 28
Registered: 04 Sep 06
Location: London, UK
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 03 Jun 07 at 01:47 PM |
|
|
Well, one of the reasons why I proposed this, is that my work often involves organisational change which is introduced due to changes brought forward
by Agile Software Development. There are many things which inevitably happen in a large organisation when you start doing Scrum or XP or DSDM or
Crystal "right". I would like to have _one_ body who takes care of _all_ the aspects which are part f "Agile" and I think the AA lends itself very
well to that.
|
|
|
kevinrutherford
Kevin Rutherford
Member
Posts: 2
Registered: 05 Sep 06
Location: Macclesfield, UK
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 03 Jun 07 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
I agree strongly that the focus should remain on software development - ie. we should keep the "software" tag.
But I also feel that doing "development" well (whatever that means) involves the whole value stream (for want of a better term). I think it is hard
for a software development team / group to be thoroughly agile when their upstream business feed or downstream delivery mechanism and user feedback
loops are not part of the picture.
I don't think we should claim to be organisational change experts in the widest sense, but I do feel that we have something to say about the whole
UserRequest to UserSatisfaction cycle.
|
|
|
ChrisMatts
Chris Matts
Member
Posts: 20
Registered: 23 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 03 Jun 07 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
I agree. Lets focus on optimising the software bit and ignore the rest of the organisation.
Just like Toyota where they realised they had problem upstream with their suppliers and buried their heads in the sand. Cant be done they said...
Sorry, that was Ford and GMAC. Toyota did work to optimise the entire value stream.
Lets not make these choices. Those people who want to focus on software can. Those who want to focus on other stuff can.
Strategy is about what you do NOT do. It tells you what to focus on, but really it is telling you what not to do. The assumption is limited resources.
What is the limitation in "Agile". Why should "Agile" focus on software just when it is attracting lots more people, especially non-software
types, who might want to focus on something else.
|
|
|
marick
Brian Marick
Member
Posts: 68
Registered: 20 Apr 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 04 Jun 07 at 10:20 AM |
|
|
| Quote: |
What is the limitation in "Agile". Why should "Agile" focus on software just when it is attracting lots more people, especially non-software
types, who might want to focus on something else.
|
"The Agile Alliance non-profit corporation" is not the same thing as "Agile." I'm not talking about what the universe of people interested in the
word "Agile" should do. I'm talking about one particular organization. In the spirit of your "the assumption is limited resources," I've
explained at some length what the limited resource is: volunteer energy and attention.
I'm somewhat miffed at your implicit characterization of what I'm trying to do. I've not gone around comparing people who disagree with me to
neoconservatives who want to transform the entire Middle East while being airily unwilling to concern their beautiful minds with the nuts and bolts of
competent post-conflict civil administration, so I'd appreciate not being compared to GM.
|
|
|
ScottL
Scott Lilly
Member
Posts: 4
Registered: 29 May 07
Location: Houston, TX
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 05 Jun 07 at 09:17 AM |
|
|
I agree with Laurent's comment on credibility.
As a "software guy", I know that people will listen to me about process changes in development. If I have an idea in the hardware area, I still
have a certain amount of credibility. However, if I go to the Marketing Department (for example) and try to introduce Lean processes for them, I
expect that my input would largely be ignored.
This may be because I'm working in a large, 100+ year-old company with thousands of employees. If I was working in a smaller company, or one with
less of a heirarchy, it would probably be a different story.
However, it might be nice to go from the term of "software development" to "system solutions" (or some other slightly more generic term). We do
need to make people aware that in order to gain the greatest benefits of agile development, the company needs to change its mindset in more that just
the programming department.
|
|
|
ChrisMatts
Chris Matts
Member
Posts: 20
Registered: 23 May 07
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 12 Jun 07 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
Brian, I am sorry if you are miffed. It was not the intention.
As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a software development project. There are only business projects that include a significant
proportion of software development.
Agile has addressed a number of the software development issues, and has promoted better tools and practices. We still have a long way to go with the
rest of the business project.
I believe you see the priority should be focus on proper skills for new entrant. This is right and proper.
I see another issue that needs to be addressed. One company based in London built up an entire Agile IT department. Unfortunately the rest of the
organisation struggled. Agile exposed where the real problems were and the people affected were not impressed. Suffice to say, the company does not
have an Agile IT department anymore. Unless we continue to push out, we will remain in conflict with the rest of the organisation.
My particular interest is Agile Investment Strategies. This will probably mean changing the accounting processes. Just like Lean. I would like to
think that I could come to the Agile Alliance and secure some sponsorship if necessary. If we purely focus on software development, I'm not sure if
that would be appropriate.
To respond to Scott's comment. We have a little we can teach other departments. We have a lot more to learn. After all, Theory of Constraints, Lean,
Retrospectives and Real Options all came from outside of IT. I have had a number of discussions about TDI. Test Driven Investment. Specify the test
conditions for the business project... So it can go the other way too.
|
|
|
dmalloc
DavidH
Member
Posts: 28
Registered: 04 Sep 06
Location: London, UK
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 12 Jun 07 at 10:48 AM |
|
|
Hello Chris, I would be interested in something like that. For us it is Procurement. We would like to see "agile procurement" but that probably
would mean the game has to be changed.
|
|
|
erik
Erik Petersen
Member
Posts: 5
Registered: 26 Jun 07
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: curiously inert
|
| posted on 21 Jul 07 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
I believe the focus needs to stay on software, When the Agile Alliance began, many of the ideas and approaches could be seen as being related to
Lean ideas, and not unique to software development. The core idea in agile of highly visible delivery of working software relates to the risks that
typically haunt a project, misunderstood or undocumented reqs that can change rapidly, time based delivery forcing quality shortcuts, overengineering
perfection, etc, etc. Most of the lean ideas came from manufacturing, where once you build the production line, things continue working if you
continue maintenance, and keeping minimal inventory, empowered work groups, etc. While these lean ideas are now being seen as valuable across
organisations, we should stick to our strengths.
There is however a subplot, by explaining to executives the benefit of using some lean approaches in non-IT work, it strengthens the case for using
agile methods in their software delivery. This is something I want to followup in my executive outreach program. See http://www.testingspot.net/aastt.htm for details.
A while ago, there was a push called Business Process Engineering, using IT approaches to "fix" business processes, and this has since faded away.
The AA needs to stay true to original goals, but that would not stop special interest groups starting within it (like the chapters in IEEE or simliar
organisations).
cheers,
Erik
|
|
|
janebush08
Member
Posts: 2
Registered: 07 Aug 08
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 07 Aug 08 at 05:39 AM |
|
|
hi
| Quote: | Originally posted by erik
I believe the focus needs to stay on software, When the Agile Alliance began, many of the ideas and approaches could be seen as being related to
Lean ideas, and not unique to software development. The core idea in agile of highly visible delivery of working software relates to the risks that
typically haunt a project, misunderstood or undocumented reqs that can change rapidly, time based delivery forcing quality shortcuts, overengineering
perfection, etc, etc. Most of the lean ideas came from manufacturing, where once you build the production line, things continue working if you
continue maintenance, and keeping minimal inventory, empowered work groups, etc. While these lean ideas are now being seen as valuable across
organisations, we should stick to our strengths.
There is however a subplot, by explaining to executives the benefit of using some lean approaches in non-IT work, it strengthens the case for using
agile methods in their software delivery. This is something I want to followup in my executive outreach program. See http://www.testingspot.net/aastt.htm for details.
A while ago, there was a push called Business Process Engineering, using IT approaches to "fix" business processes, and this has since faded away.
The AA needs to stay true to original goals, but that would not stop special interest groups starting within it (like the chapters in IEEE or simliar
organisations).
cheers,
Erik |
It has to be there....
|
|
|
RSS Feed
