Slashdot Mirror
IBM CIO Thinks Agile Development Might Save Company
Nerval's Lobster writes: A new Wall Street Journal article details how IBM CIO Jeff Smith is trying to make Big Blue, which is going through some turbulent times as it attempts to transition from a hardware-dependent business to one that more fully embraces the cloud and services, operate more like a startup instead of a century-old colossus. His solution centers on having developers work in smaller teams, each of which embraces Agile methodology, as opposed to working in huge divisions on multi-year projects. In order to unite employees who might be geographically dispersed, IBM also has its groups leave open a Skype channel throughout the workday. Smith hopes, of course, that his plan will accelerate IBM's internal development, and make it more competitive against not only its tech-giant competition, but also the host of startups working in common fields such as artificial intelligence.
There is no silver bullet with Agile. Plus, the fact that Agile doesn't scale well at all would make it unsuitable for many IBM projects I should suspect.
That said, many Agile-like practices could really help in some situations.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Then fund a startup. Seriously, their problem is them trying to turn an existing IBM group or team into a "startup". That isn't going to happen. You need to hire a new staff, new management, and simply hand them the money, and let them work outside the box, including not having to use IBM products by default, even deeply discounted IBM products. Perhaps *especially not* discounted IBM products.
Yes, Agile (if done correctly) is one methodology that may help them with certain problems, but you need full buy-in from the executives and product owners. If IBM management still expects the same sort of planning and budgeting and milestones they got with waterfall, then Agile is never going to deliver on what it does best. Then it will be a bunch of people working out their waterfall plan in a "standup" where everyone sits around a table. There are certain things an Agile development cycle isn't going to give a executive, and if they can't handle that, then it's going to fail.
A lot of the people who work for an IBM or a big company like that are institutionalized, much like prison inmates become. They speak a certain language, they think a certain way. That doesn't preclude individuals from breaking that conditioning, but if they are surrounded by people who think the same way, then the group will return to old ways of thinking, perhaps with a new buzzword.
IBM needs to step back and actually change their culture. They have a lot to offer simply by insisting on profitability and having decent accounting structure that many startups dearly need. But they can't just turn their existing development teams into Agile teams by fiat. I think the best way to assure that is perhaps for IBM to almost become a venture fund or an overall holding organization for these teams where they provide adult supervision, but they don't tell you how to build your sand castles.
I actually experienced quite the opposite when the start-up I was working for got acquired by IBM in 2009. We were using Rational Unified Process prior to acquisition and ironically immediately transitioned to Agile afterwards. It wasn't a wish-wash of waterfall/RUP and Agile either.
They kept the entire core technical team of the start-up in tact and augmented it by maybe 10%-20% more developers including some specialists in our area to enhance some key capabilities. I left on good terms in 2011 when I received an excellent offer with some colleagues I had worked with during the dot com boom, although I would've been happy to stay.
Perhaps my experience is not representative of the norm but I found IBM's atmosphere pretty good for a large company. One factor could have been that the start-up was essentially one key product and IBM did not try to duct tape it to another product (yes, there was some integration, but most changes over the two years I was there would've been likely had the acquisition not occurred).
I've worked at or with companies closer to 1,000-10,000 employees that seemed much more archaic.
I haven't paid much attention lately to IBM.
That out of the way, this: historically IBM produced low-defect software. The UIs were often clunky or even bizarre, but the stuff was stable and did as advertised. Meanwhile most newcomers (MS, for example) produced horribly buggy stuff. Not saying revising how they do things wouldn't help, but adopting what everyone else is doing is going to result in... what everyone else is producing. Not a worthwhile goal.
No, no it doesn't. First off- why are you closing your IDEs, profilers, etc? Just leave them up. CHek out your source? Why would yours not be checked out already? Grabbing the latest updates takes about 2 minutes and can be done while doing other things. Getting mentally prepared for work may take a bit longer, but that should still be minutes, not 30.
At the end of the day? 0. There's nothing to do. You walk away and pick it up in the morning. And if you have a daily status email you have to write- tell your boss to fuck off.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Agile doesn't solve your problems mate, it just exposes them sooner.
That is the best explanation of Agile I've ever heard.