Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

Rigid Agility?

By

The only thing that bothers me more than companies saying they’re in the Web 2.0 space is teams saying they are doing Agile – both bandwagons are getting pretty crowded these days… 

Don’t get me wrong – I think that the latest Web technologies are way cool, and there is a lot of merit in the Agile approaches – both have their place. That stated, the rolling of my eyes is becoming involuntary – despite all the admonitions, neither of these movements is going to eliminate world hunger or cure cancer, or even completely supersede their predecessors - far from it. The newest approach is not necessarily the most appropriate for all situations. 

The Agile approaches have been getting strong press for 5 or so years now, enough time for the major tool vendors to catch up and suggest that their suites fully support this game. What Rational did several years ago with the RUP, Microsoft is now suggesting they can do with their latest version of Visual Studio Team System. They provide a process tailoring environment that is admittedly version 1.0, and a process enforcement mechanism that can drive your artifacts through specific states and gates. First out of the gate are CMMI and Agile – I almost wonder if these were selected using a del.icio.us tag cloud to pick the approaches that generated the most buzz? 

Problem is, building a generic CMMI process model for enforcing the development of software is like talking by building a sentence model around Webster’s Dictionary. Trying to run an Agile project around a state driven enforcement mechanism is simply an oxymoron – the whole point is to be able to adapt to the situation, and the last thing you want to do when the situation changes abruptly is to dive back in to change the defined process model. It seems that in our zeal to jump on the bandwagon, some of us seem to be missing the real point. 

There appears to be a growing arrogance among the advocates in these camps, that the early demonstrated successes are proof positive that we are witnessing a new world order. Anyone can put together a mashup of public washrooms in San Francisco, and some companies are even starting to solve real business problems with new technologies. There is a wildly popular Waterfall 2006 conference website (including its own incomplete sections and bad links – nice touch, Mike…) that spoofs the early attempts at defining a standardized process, but after a few quick chuckles it all seems shallow (at least waterfall would be easy to model and enforce with Visual Studio Team System…). It’s a pretty safe bet that something will replace Web 2.0 in the future, and someday more people will begin to realize (maybe they’ll even teach it in schools, Oh My!) that a single branded Agile approach won’t solve all your problems. 

It’s all got a deeply carnival feel about it – everyone is proudly displaying their affinity du jour, tool vendors are flogging their latest features and consultants are branding themselves accordingly. No doubt as soon as the luster wears off, people will flock to the Next Big Thing that comes along. I’m reminded of Monty Python’s spoof of religion in the Life of Brian: 

Brian: You've got to think for yourself! You are all individuals!
Crowd: Yes, we are all individuals!
Brian: You are all different!
Crowd: Yes, we are all different!
Single voice from within the crowd: I'm not.
Crowd: SHHHHH! 

The technologies and the approaches we use are simply a means to an end, not the end in itself. Rather than saying “we’re Agile”, or “we’re Web 2.0”, wouldn’t it make more sense to brand yourself by saying “we deliver great products, and we do it in a way that is most effective”? While it is nice to have focused expertise, it is dangerous to pigeonhole yourself – be appropriately flexible. 

Me, I’m content to watch this wild parade pass by – I’m sure there will be plenty of new floats on the way to keep me entertained.

-Jim Brosseau of Clarrus Consulting Group


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home