Slashdot Mirror
You Call This Agile?
JoelonSoftware's most recent piece is about some of the fallacies in "Agile" software and some of the issues within it. We use Agile in some parts of the company, and have had success with that -- that said, there's always the peril that happens when development and other parts of the company have...miscommunication, which sounds like the problem described in Joel's piece.
He has capacity to speak his mind, as he took intensive courses on writing and expression in university, but that doesn't detract that his ideas are his and to each idea there is the opposite side that has just as many positives, if presented correclty.
Aglie development works, but only if people can be trained. Training is something that is omitted when it is decided on whatever model you want to adhere to. Remember we are all just animals and the more training we get, the better we are at it.
Agile process is based on feedback, and therefore programmer must be trained to appreciate and nuruture feedback from his practices too. Programmers need candy too, for rewards, and that candy is a feedback from wroking code. Given, if you are writing a disk driver, feedback is limited, compared to game developer, writing graphics or sound enegines. What Agile brings, is that rewards come at a steady pace, therefore propping up motivation of developer from development side of things. Disk driver developer must find his way to recieve rewards from developing driver code, perhaps thats why compensation is higher for the driver developers, because work has no immediately accessible of stimuli and chances to get negative stimuli, like corrupt disk of the user, are quite high.
If you code not for the sake of itself, I pitiy those people. But then they aren't on the slashdot.
I can write any program you want within any time limit you want provided ...
a. I don't have to support it.
b. It doesn't have to work.
Yes, that's funny, but it is not a joke. Processes are supposed to be about functionality and maintenance. A one-off app for a critical issue today doesn't need a process (except how to delete it tomorrow so it doesn't become part of they real system).
And that is where marketing and development differ. Marketing sees the opportunities in selling "support contracts" for code that was rushed out, filled with bugs and features that don't work.
Development only sees problems that they're going to have to fix. And fix today. And fix in the quickest possible way because the customers are complaining about a critical issue. And so forth.
So the various processes (and project managers) are supposed to translate/support both views. Get it out in time to make the sales, with a stated minimum level of functionality and no more than X bugs of various levels.
But, as you noted, it is easy to follow the process as the religion instead of recognizing that it is just a means of getting product ready for shipment so it satisfies marketing, the developers and the customers.
In the hypothetical scenario the customer introduces a critical story in the middle of an iteration. This can and does happen in Agile projects. The only problem is that the team may not be able to deliver something that it thought it would because it will be spending effort on the new story. That is ok. The primary goal of Agile is to give the customer the ability to prioritize work and manage the creation of business value.
Also this aversion toward "context switching" isn't particularly Agile. The idea behind TDD, evolutionary design, and small time-boxed tasks is to work in small chunks. I would argue that the ability to "context switch" developers while still developing value incrementally is the whole point of the Agile approach.