Slashdot Mirror
Survey Finds 'Agile' Competency Is Rare In Organizations (sdtimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
The 12th annual "State of Agile" report has just been released by CollabNet VersionOne, which calls it "the largest and longest-running Agile survey in the world." After surveying more than 1,400 software professionals in various roles and industries over the last four months of 2017, "Only 12% percent responded that their organizations have a high level of competency with agile practices across the organization, and only 4% report that agile practices are enabling greater adaptability to market conditions... The three most significant challenges to agile adoption and scaling are reported as organizational culture at odds with agile values (53%), general organizational resistance to change (46%), and Inadequate management support and sponsorship (42%)...
"The encouraging news is that 59% recognize that they are still maturing, indicating that they do not intend to plateau where they are." And agile adoption does appear to be growing. "25% of the respondents say that all or almost all of their teams are agile, whereas only 8% reported that in 2016."
The researchers also note "the recognized necessity of accelerating the speed of delivery of high-quality software, and the emphasis on customer satisfaction," with 71% of the survey respondents reporting that a DevOps initiative is underway or planned for the next 12 months.
"The encouraging news is that 59% recognize that they are still maturing, indicating that they do not intend to plateau where they are." And agile adoption does appear to be growing. "25% of the respondents say that all or almost all of their teams are agile, whereas only 8% reported that in 2016."
The researchers also note "the recognized necessity of accelerating the speed of delivery of high-quality software, and the emphasis on customer satisfaction," with 71% of the survey respondents reporting that a DevOps initiative is underway or planned for the next 12 months.
Management and leadership styles need to depend on your team, if you use agile/scrum/kanban/etc it means you are trying to make up for shitty management skills, and in turn are making everyone else waste 10-30% (50%-75% in extreme cases) of their time to make up for it. There is no one management or leadership style (two VERY different things, mind you) to bind them all.
Managers are glorified communal secretaries, they exist to arrange meetings, sit between upper management/clients and developers, and ensure the developers have the appropriate resources while having out extraordinarily high-level orders (e.g. "we have a new project, figure it out,") they don't make decisions but ask for input from all parties involved and arrange the information such that people who make decisions can make them quickly and accurately.
Leaders are just the most applicable guy for a given project the others will listen to, they're in the trenches do the work and can (often should) change from project to project both due to differing skillsets and to prevent burnout of the leader.
Nearly every shit place has the same problem, and it has nothing to do with Agile/Scrum/etc - the shit problem is when you have a person who thinks they are capable of both leading and managing at the same time - nobody is.
Agile is amazing. All of our competitors should adopt it.
If you think about it, back in the 90's, do you remember TQM? It spread like a frickin' religion across Corporate America. Every company from GE down to your local strip-mall-based franchise retail outlet preached the Gospel of Deming. The justification boiled down to pretty much the same thing: "This is why Japan kicked our asses back in the 80s! We need to implement this!"
Here's how TQM actually turned out: Some orgs implemented it beautifully. Some gave it lip service then ignored it. The rest picked out what they wanted and shit-canned the rest. Eventually most of it got ignored while a few good bits got absorbed or were mutated to meet the C-level's expectations of it (basically they neutered it except for the bits where they could take good ideas from the proles and claim them as their own.)
Pretty much like how Agile (and its bastard spawn, such as Kanban, etc) is turning out.
The more things change...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Agile, or more specifically Scrum is pointless. When you have a daily stand-up meeting that can take six hours while the Scrum master chastises, badgers, yells, and excoriates people, one by one, for not making deliverables. During this everyone else is pointing at someone else and saying, "I'm blocked... he did it!". This isn't productivity; it is a game of kangaroo court.
Then the Scrum master tosses more crap on people's swim lanes at random (because marketing wants them done, and because they make the sales, they get what they want, without challenge), without really knowing or caring how difficult the task is. Finally the Scrum master closes the meeting with how everyone has been in a sprint for the past year, and says the sprint will continue until marketing is happy.
I do not see Agile adding any productivity whatsoever. It turns a dev team against everyone else, which may be great for management, but it creates a workplace that is at best hostile, and at worst toxic, because every day you have to go in and defend yourself against everyone in a multi-hour blamestorm. Eventually the good people leave for greener pastures.
The problem with implementing Agile the right way is simple: it's too hard.
Management absolutely hates facts like:
1) Each team must do their own estimates, and estimate numbers are not comparable between teams.
2) Early estimates cannot be treated as commitments, especially since they are wildly inaccurate (due to lack of key requirements).
3) Changing requirements comes with the consequence of changing the costs and delivery dates.
4) Velocity cannot be used to measure productivity.
Their hatred of these facts is so deep that they will always reach in to any well-formed agile process and break it in a misguided effort at escaping these facts.
Business Analysts fall into similar traps, either treating agile as an excuse to go hog-wild with requirements changes, or sticking with waterfall planning processes and not understanding why that doesn't just work with an agile process.
Developers fall into traps too, sometimes thinking that Agile means they will never have to push to hit a deadline again, or that they need to have a higher velocity than other teams to look good, etc.
So, in sum, Agile actually can be done right....just not by humans.
In the Agile/Scrum environments I worked at, it wasn't handled by E-mail. Calendar appointments would magically appear, because the Scrum master, PM, manager, team lead, and backup team lead all had delegation authority to add meetings without approval, and these were "The Apprentice" like boardroom confrontations that lasted for hours.
I'm glad I'm away from that. My current place uses a modified waterfall model, and it works quite well, with projects getting done on time.
Agile's biggest problem is that it tends to turn out systems that are dirty snowballs. Gluing bits and bobs onto a system using Scrums and Sprints as a filtering device only encourages the bits and bobs becoming unglued later as the system wavers on its rickety foundations. And even the term "sprint" is a term to keep the entire "team" working as if it were always running the last few yards of the last leg in a relay race. Micromanagers using it are telling their people in precise terms they think the people are lazy dolts who require constant needling and pushing to produce. The people get that message loud and clear, and will find ways to push back.
And Scrums are a godsend for micromanagers who think ordering their flocks daily activities is somehow managing. The point scoring is also tailor made for micromanagers to show their bosses how "much" progress is being made..."Lookee here, see this magic number". Those numbers are pink unicorns and pixie dust to micromanagers.
But that's the problem. You can say, "Well, that's not Agile", but so many attempts to do Agile wind up like this. If the method seems to create problems in implementing it, it's not a good method.
What I see are a ton of Agile shops turning out crap, and Agile Evangelists handwaving it away with the excuse that "it's not being done right."
Well if 90% of the places can't do it right, then it's not really a useful system, and all those Scrum Master Certificates are worthless.
The primary purpose of Agile seems to be selling Scrum Certs, loudly defending the model in order to sell more training, and getting Scrum Masters to loudly defend their decision to dump a pile of money on a Cert which is effectively useless.
According to Scrum.org, a big part of Agile competence is understanding what the entire point of Agile is, and it's NOT supposed to make development faster or cheaper.
The point of Agile and Scrum, according to an article on Scrum.org, is to provide a way to deal with situations where you can't go sit with users to understand what the actual requirements are, and you can't look at some legacy system you're replacing, so you have no way of defining the requirements except "try something and ask users if it's getting closer to what they want." Scrum is a system to quick iterate through different things, presenting each possible deliverable until you get close to what users need.
If you CAN go sit with users and take notes as you watch them work, if you CAN look carefully at the system you're replacing, if you have any way of defining requirements before you start coding, Agile iterations will take LONGER than just defining the requirements and then building something that meets the requirements (while being conscious of boxing yourself in, because next year requirements may change a bit).