November 5, 2020, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT | November 6, 2020 – February 7, 2021, On-Demand | Online Conference
Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
When I see "agile purists" I read it as "people who missed the point". Agile is a set of principles not procedures. Nevertheless, I see some self-proclaimed agile experts, or people who just came back wide eyed from a multi-day seminar who declare that everything must be done a certain way for success.
I call that "Rigid Agile". Trainers and consultants have a vested interest in selling their methods as The Best Way, as that branding is their selling point. People who come back from a seminar and immediately declare that we must knock down all the walls and reorganize the entire business, missed the underlying principles of agile and are preaching dogma.
Principle #12: Regular Reflection and Adjustment
Inherent in that principle is that there is no one right way, or if their is for our current projects, we must continuously rethink our way of working to seek that lofty goal.
Thank You Keith Novak for your views. I fully agree with your views. The root cause is none of the agile enthusiasts have taken pains to understand predictive project management frameworks and vice-versa. Projects are unique, and they must succeed, that is the top priority.
Good reply, Keith. I feel the same.
There is no benefit in having another belief system, which a manifesto would be ('I believe ..'). It would create another sect, the priests trying to divide the community by looking at non-believers as enemies and the pamphlets stating deductions from beliefs rather from facts.
Beliefs divide, values unite (and no, it is not enough to relabel beliefs as values).
While I may not be adding anything new to the discussion, I agree, so far. I don't think we need to codify every exception to the core principles in the agile manifesto, or we risk ending up with as many manifestos as frameworks/methodologies (and certifications). Why add to the confusion, unless there is something specific and huge that the agile manifesto misses.
There is no 'Hybrid'. There numerous tools to assist with delivery of a project for you to choose from to suit the project and the culture of those delivering the project.
The ultimate project management methodology is Risk Driven Project Management. One does what one needs to do to identify and manage threats (T) and opportunity. (O)
Identify the events and take action to mitigate threats (risks) and enhance opportunity including assigning a PM and setting up a PMO, selecting a best process - or not - as the T and O analysis dictates.
Keep in mind the only reason we manage a project (or anything for that matter) is to deal with risk and opportunity.
If you are spending effort other than dealing with T and O you are wasting time and money. (note: before someone falls off their chair, administration including reporting is a component of T and O management)
PMI has it wrong - risk management is not a component of project management, its clearly the other way around.
Just saying ;-)
members of all sects are happy and think there is a positive impact on them. All sects are divisive (vs other sects), without maybe the members noticing. We would not see so many pamphlets on waterfall vs agile otherwise.
I like your insight 'do whatever is required'. We all have our biases and experience, but we only can be successful in life if we can switch perspectives and mental models.
I like Peter's headline 'there is no hybrid'.
Working on an article titled 'If agile is predictive, and waterfall is flexible, is hybrid a hoax?'.
Who benefits from a mental model putting agile and waterfall as opposites? Not the world. All models are wrong, some are helpful. For whom?
Good discussion, thank you for starting it.
Please login or join to reply