On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jacky Li <veryfaint@...> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Anyone read this article -
>> http://www.noop.nl/2009/02/the-decline-and-fall-of-agilists.html ?
>>
>> The author said:
>>
>> Today *all *our project managers agreed that *the introduction of Scrum has
>> increased the success of our projects*. I've heard our software developers
>> confirm that (because of Scrum) they now *finally *have at least a *chance
>> *to
>> keep technical debt away. A chance they didn't have before. Our customers
>> tell us that our projects are now of higher quality. And last week our CEO
>> complimented everyone in the organization on the measurable progress we've
>> made. (Actually, I'm still doubtful about those hard figures, but who am I
>> to complain when the gold medals are handed out?)
>>
>> *And all that without XP. How?*
>> Why is it that *every agilist and their uncle are warning people not to
>> adopt Scrum without XP practices*, while our organization seems to be *quite
>> successful doing exactly that*?
>>
>
> That's a nice summary of the first half of the article, but I would
> advise folks to read the rest before responding. I don't find any
> specific flaws in the author's reasoning, but I also don't find
> anything specifically useful to the *actual practice* of improving the
> process of organizations who are struggling. It's all just theory.
>
> 1) It is true that almost any set of practices can be successful. That
> isn't particularly interesting, though.
>
> 2) It is also true that almost any set of practices can fail. That is
> slightly more interesting, but not helpful.
>
> 3) I reject, in it's entirety, the assertion that one needs to
> understand chaos and game theory to make recommendations about how
> people approach software projects in the field. That's like saying I
> need an advanced understanding of thermodynamics in order to start the
> engine of my car.
>
> However, it is an interesting post and I find the theory quite
> interesting. I may have to go dust off some of those math books...
>

I just re-read it a second time. It's worth noting that he ends with
these statements, "There's still plenty of stuff to do. Like, for
example, figuring out how to introduce those bloody XP practices in
our organization. Because I believe that /some/ of them /could/
actually be quite useful for us as well." [author's emphasis]

What I take away is this: think for yourself, don't accept the advice
that you *must* do some practice or you're doing it wrong, and Scrum
is popular because it helps organizations who are chaotic become less
so without going too far the other direction (i.e. rigidly ordered).

I always find myself going back to the words of Bruce Lee, who wasn't
talking about software, but nonetheless, "Accept what is useful;
reject what is useless; add what is specifically your own." And, the
less often quoted caveat, "Before you reject /anything/ make sure you
understand why it doesn't work /for you/" [emphasis added].