Re:Agile at 20: The Failed Rebellion
by dragonwriter on Sunday July 25, 2021 @07:29AM
(#27948372)
I think the way the Manifesto and early community around it lent itself to this inversion is this:
(1) The Manifesto is written in non-actionable terms.
(2) Many of the same people that initially attached themselves to the manifesto were already pitching canned processes, that may have been the outcome of agile process where they originated but did not put the critical feedback mechanisms more prominently than the low-level processes. So, those became the actionable versions of “Agile”.
It would be so much better if instead of the “X over Y” language, the Manifesto has spent a few words talking about how the less important things were subordinated to the more important ones.
The weird thing is that continuous, bottom-up, empirically-based process improvement wasn't an unknown concept at the time the Manifesto was written. It wouldn't have been hard for it to reference more concrete, actionable, concepts and practices.
(1) The Manifesto is written in non-actionable terms.
(2) Many of the same people that initially attached themselves to the manifesto were already pitching canned processes, that may have been the outcome of agile process where they originated but did not put the critical feedback mechanisms more prominently than the low-level processes. So, those became the actionable versions of “Agile”.
It would be so much better if instead of the “X over Y” language, the Manifesto has spent a few words talking about how the less important things were subordinated to the more important ones.
The weird thing is that continuous, bottom-up, empirically-based process improvement wasn't an unknown concept at the time the Manifesto was written. It wouldn't have been hard for it to reference more concrete, actionable, concepts and practices.